(Al-Fateh 1453) film

Critics: Who give up the historical truth.. shall stay naked

A long list of historical Turkish films may omit the historical truth by either not mentioning it or giving the priority to the value of art direction and mentioning the truth slightly. This is what might be called “political fiction” Cinema like “science fiction” cinema. This cinema draws a Turkish politician approach to use art as a soft power in order to pass Istanbul government’s different ideas. To achieve such objective, they tend to ascribe trophies and titles to the Ottoman sultans and polish their personalities, as well as improve the political image which is stained by more than seven centuries of murder, oppression, racism and discrimination. Therefore, the political meals have become part of cinema tickets.
There was an early apprehension among many art critics and historians related to the production of Turkish drama industry. For example, (Al-Fateh 1453) film is a narcissistic show. It is the last famous Turkish film, who spoke on behalf of the Justice and Development Party about the invasion of Sultan Muhammed Al-Fateh to Constantinople. It is introduced for the first time in its country on February 16, 2012. Before that, Recap Tayyip Erdogan saw it at his home when he was working as prime minister, and he said to the film team: “I liked it a lot, Good work.” The film costed $ (18.2 million) dollars, which had been paid by the Secretariat of the Grand Istanbul ruled by Erdogan’s party itself. This confirms the political will of Turkey to create a politicized and prepaid cinema. It seeks to promote the ambition to recreate the Ottoman Empire within the fantasy system, experienced by current dreamy Turkey. Yet, this dream came after hundreds of years passed on the failure of Ottoman’s sons to join Europe and the European Union, because of their criminal atrocities committed to the Arab and European peoples, most notably; the massacre of Armenians, racial tyranny, financial plunder and cultural theft. This failure makes the ruling political party turn to the peoples of the defunct Ottoman Empire by arousing religious instinct using cinema and television drama, especially in the presence of artificial groans of the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world to return to the Political Islam.

Erdogan launched it from his house .. His party paid more than (18) million dollars.

Dr. Fathi Abdul-Aziz Muhammed

Dr. Fathi Abdul-Aziz Muhammed, a researcher at the historical cinema, indicates that this film and other Turkish works of art include enormous risks to the Arab mentality as it may lead to what he called: “Historical illiteracy”. These artistic products, with their stunning production, may make some recipients to be satisfied with the information and scenes displayed in the screen, believing it is the Historical truth. However, such products shall Call the Arab recipient to revive the positive side of the works of visual art, which is searching historical sources in order to find the truth related to the film subject in the great books, whatever the theme was. 

Accordingly, based on the risk referred to by the Egyptian critic Dr. Fathi Muhammed, he also calls for what he called the similar cinematic respond to the output of the Turkish cinematic machine with their same high costs and highly modern technical capabilities, avoiding low costs.


The film is more Islamic than its real heroes are.

Yilmaz Kurt:

It sacrificed with historical reality for commercial purposes.

The art critic Klaus Kraiser has commented on the film as it is the second film talking about Sultan Muhammed El-Fateh: “It is noted that the Ottomans, who opened Constantinople in this film of 2012 AD., have Islamic ideology more than their Islamic ancestors who conquered it in 1453 AD.” This is highly indicated after his talk about the film director, Farouk Aksoa, saying: “The director has placed the scene of the political situation deliberations in the bathroom with the Roman Emperor, Constantine atheist ten, swimming with three girls wearing swimwear; does he want to show the curse of “byzantine bitch”? Or does he want to make fun of paintings of Orientalist artists who painted the Ottoman rulers immersed in such pleasures?” In this context, the critic commented that the film ignores the immersion of Ottoman sultans in the pleasures which are documented in fine arts. Then, he said: “In the end, the film does not even hint to the acts of looting and pillaging Constantinople had been subjected to by the Ottoman army. These acts had lasted for three days.” Thus, Yilmaz Kurt -a director of the Faculty of History at the Ankara University- commented on the neglected Historical truth in the film from an academic point of view and said: “The film is of a high quality and technology, but the historical reality has been sacrificed for the benefit of commercial considerations.” he commented on the film scene in which the Byzantine emperor appeared ordering his army to go out of the city to fight the Ottomans, saying: “getting the army out of the city is ridiculous as the city was on a defensive position and Constantinople has no power to do so.” 

The film, which lasts about 165 minutes, combines the ingenuity of modern technologies with the imperfect realities, so they are destroying each other and the result is a film for political consumption. The film is a means of new Ottomanization in the purpose of affecting the passion of the new generation with cinematic effects in the hope that this Arab generation might abandon the memory of their ancestors who realize the magnitude of the great Ottoman crime on their lives. According to film critics, These efforts will not be more than polishing and hinting at Erdogan’s ambitions to get out of the bottle where his people have fallen into and will not be a “cinematic empire”, and those who left the truth, the truth will leave them even after a while.

1- Rober El-Fares, the Ottoman occupation crimes, (Al-Helal Magazine, September 2020 AD.).

2- Al-QanTarah E-Magazine, 2020 AD.

3- Ishtar satellite channel.