Mecanismos de coordinación en situaciones

It is important to note some of the inherent complications of the C.C.A.C. as an organisation in relation to funding state cinema, which indicate why the present study can isolate and analyse the cinematic production from within the Greek-Cypriot community. Whilst the C.C.A.C. does not set out to exclusively fund and support the development of Greek-Cypriot filmmakers within the Greek-Cypriot community, the post-war divide of the island has left the Turkish-Cypriot

community outside of the legitimate terms of the state of Cyprus as set out in the 1960 constitution. The Greek-Cypriot community in the south of the island operates within the legal structures of the state but since 1974 the forced re-location of the Turkish-Cypriot population to the north has excluded them from this framework of government, as they are governed directly by Turkey.

During its first ten years the C.C.A.C. financially supported 70 films, and all of these were by filmmakers within the Greek-Cypriot community.²⁵ It has not been possible to find evidence of applications by Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers to the C.C.A.C. and therefore to identify whether these were rejected. It is reasonable to assume that the question of funding for Turkish-Cypriots by the Cyprus state via the C.C.A.C.is topical in the light of the political realities. It is an anomaly in the

structure of the system which Greek-Cypriot filmmakers are aware of. In his email communication in December 2008 Florides informed me that ‘new regulations are being prepared which will have provisions for films made by Turkish- Cypriots and/or in the Turkish language, since it is one of the official languages of the Republic of Cyprus.’ Florides’s observation is significant to our understanding of national cinema. On the one hand, Turkish-Cypriots are physically and legislatively outside of the C.C.A.C.’s remit, but on the other, they remain citizens of Cyprus.

Also, the constitution of 1960 granting the island its independence made Greek and Turkish its official language. This aspect of language fuels the complexity of delineating clear theoretical boundaries to an analysis of national cinema in Cyprus.

My recent attempts in the spring of 2014 to ascertain whether these changes have materialised indicate that they have not been rolled out.

Also, the observations of contemporary Greek-Cypriot filmmaker Simon Farmakas on this theme of Turkish-Cypriot participation sheds further light on this

83 theme. In 2012 when I emailed him to be up-dated on developments in filmmaking in the Greek-Cypriot community, he suggested I:

‘[…] get in touch with Elena Christodoulidou to try and get a detailed explanation of what is regarded by the Ministry of Education and Culture as a CYPRIOT film. And how Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers are included, or, maybe, excluded from the selection process [sic].²⁶

Farmakas’s emphasis on the word ‘Cypriot’ is a reference to the ambivalent and inconsistent use of this concept in reference to national cinema. Elena

Christodoulidou was the President of the C.C.A.C. at the time, and remains so in June 2014. Farmakas points to an important aspect relating to Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers. His comment suggests that inclusion or exclusion is ultimately down to the readiness of the Ministry of Education and Culture (where the C.C.A.C. is housed) to permit Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers to go through the whole application process. In this way, Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers can apply for creative support in the form of script development workshops or financial support for new productions.

Another facet to the question of participation and inclusion arose during a meeting in the Greek-Cypriot community of the Directors’ Guild.This is a professional organisation for filmmakers to join, the benefits of which are master-classes, seminars and workshops on aspects such as raising funds, forms of crowdfunding and script writing. Farmakas writes:

As a member of the board of the Director’s [sic] guild in Cyprus, a question came up in one of our recent meetings on whether to accept applications for membership from directors living on the occupied side. Needless to say that we couldn’t come up with the right answer.²⁷

As this chapter attempts to focus on the rise of Greek-Cypriot Cinema, the question of how this differs from a ‘Cypriot’ cinema becomes more urgent. For example, in his address to the audience on the opening night of the ‘5^th Cyprus Short Film &

Documentary Festival’ held in Limassol in May 2009 and supported by the C.C.AC. the Minister for Education and Culture at the time Mr. Andreas

Demetriou refers to ‘the young people who are the future of Cyprus Cinema [sic]’.

In his original address in Greek, the term ‘Cyprus’ as used in the citation above is in fact ‘Cypriot’.²⁸ Therefore, Demetriou is referring to ‘Cypriot Cinema’. We might question how ‘Cypriot Cinema’ is imagined in this context. Given the absence of funding for Turkish-Cypriot films and filmmakers, the term is not a reference to

84 their inclusion. Entries to the ‘5^th Cyprus Short Film & Documentary Festival’

were predominantly from the Greek-Cypriot community.

However, it is noteworthy that this festival did include entries by Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers. This might be viewed as an attempt to demonstrate that the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus recognises all Cypriots who wish to participate according to the terms of the recognised state of Cyprus, although there is no official document to outline what form such participation might take.

The film festival entries included the short film Peace at War by young Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers Omer Yetkinel and Talat Gokdemri and Happy End by Safak Guzoglu, Filiz Bilen and Bugra Gulsoy.²⁹ Of further interest to debates about the wider inclusion of filmmakers and films within the remit of what was formally established as a Greek-Cypriot national cinema in 1994, is the programme accompanying the ‘5^th Cyprus Short Film & Documentary Festival’, which is published in three languages: English, Modern Greek and also Turkish.

Analysing these various trends, I believe the contradictions which often surface around notions of national identity andTurkish-Cypriot inclusion within the Greek-Cypriot community, might be contained within two factors. The first relates to the important distinction between the official government of the Republic of Cyprus, which is in the south where the Greek-Cypriot community is located, and on the other hand, the expressions of national identity which are not necessarily consistent with notions of state governance. This means that a filmmaker who is by origins Greek and who resides in the south of the island can legitimately apply for film funding to the C.C.A.C. but at the same time, she/he may express their national identity as ‘Cypriot’. Conversely, this brings complications for a filmmaker who is compelled to reside in the north of the island because they are Turkish-Cypriot. If they regard themselves as ‘Cypriot’ why can they not also apply to the C.C.A.C.?

This gap or inconsistency has been debated as indicated above, both from the view of Turkish-Cypriot participation to professional organisations and also with regard to support and funding.The second factor to examine is the collaboration between Greek and Turkish-Cypriot filmmakers and how far such creative practices have a wider impact on changing perceptions of national identity and cinema, as well as official policies and funding structures.

Diomedes Koufteros who is Greek-Cypriot, entered his documentary short film entitled Shushu (Cyprus, 2009) in the 2009 short film and documentary film

85 festival in Limassol. This portrays the life of Ozkan, a Turkish-Cypriot man who works as a drag queen. Koufteros’s film project might be seen as part of a new willingness amongst a younger generation of filmmakers to go beyond themes of political identity. Shushu represents an attempt to examine how identity might be shaped outside of explicit nationalist parameters. I have cited this work because I also want to argue that it indicates Koutftero’s disposition to pursue a film project which involves trust and collaboration between him and his subject, in this case Ozkan the Turkish-Cypriot. Such a venture might also be seen to represent the readiness of a younger generation of filmmakers to look outside of the Greek-Cypriot community for an understanding of the ‘Cyprus problem’.³⁰

Furthermore, the continued efforts of some Greek-Cypriot filmmakers to co-produce and co-direct with Turkish-Cypriots has been a distinct trend since 2003 where the term ‘Cypriot’ is used to indicate the absence of hostility, based on nationalist Greek and Turkish ideologies. Notable collaborations include Panicos Chrysanthou from within the Greek-Cypriot community with Dervis Zaim who is Turkish-Cypriot.³¹ Also the documentary Sharing an Island (2011) by Danae Stylianou constitutes an important contribution to ways in which film and cinema are actively shaping and redefining the politics of division.³² Here the

actors/participants are Greek and Turkish-Cypriots, coming together for the purpose of making the documentary. This project is centred on examining what it means to be a ‘Cypriot’ in contemporary Cyprus, as the actors/participants set out to learn about each other’s history, culture and religion. I will come back to a reading of Sharing an Island in Chapter Seven.

It is useful to further explore the term ‘Cypriot’ because it is used in

contradictory ways. In the publication by the Cyprus Media Desk the term ‘Cypriot cinema’ is used without ethnic specification, yet it is evident that all developments and films which are noted in this publication refer to the Greek-Cypriot community.

Another contradiction within the context of Greek-Cypriot state cinema exists in the organisational structure of the C.C.A.C. From the outset it was made up of

government officials, representatives from the private sector including film

producers, directors and other individuals from the cinema sector all of whom were appointed by the Council of Ministers from within the Greek-Cypriot community.

The C.C.A.C.’s remit is to recommend film projects which are ‘submitted by Cypriot Producers/Directors for funding to a Ministerial Committee; in the

86 categories of short film, feature film and documentary for its approval’ (my

emphasis).³³

How independent is the C.C.A.C. in making film funding decisions?

During its first eight years, between 1994-2002 its proceedings were chaired by the Director of the Press and Information Office (P.I.O.) of the Ministry of the Interior.

In the post-war years, the P.I.O. was actively involved in producing official

government literature on aspects of the war including the cultural plundering in the north of Cyprus, investigations into the missing persons and reports on the inter-communal dialogues. It is certainly an area for further inquiry as to how far the decisions to fund or not to fund particular film projects during this eight year period were influenced by the P.I.O.’s Director and the Ministry of the Interior’s broader cultural, ideological and political remit.