Tweet
PANEL DISCUSSION ON J. MICHAEL HAGOPIAN'S 'THE RIVER RAN RED'
By Andy Turpin
www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/04/08/panel-d iscussion-on-j-michael-hagopians-the-river-ran-red /?ec3_listing=posts
April 8, 2009
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)-On March 22, the National Association for
Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) organized the East Coast premiere
of Dr. J. Michael Hagopian's newest Armenian Genocide documentary, "The
River Ran Red," whch was followed by a panel discussion. The screening
and panel were held at the Arsenal Center for the Arts in Watertown.
Panelists included Dr. J. Michael Hagopian; Dr. Bedross Der Matossian,
lecturer in Middle Eastern History at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT); and Dr. Taner Akcam, chair in Armenian Genocide
Studies at Clark University. NAASR director of academic affairs Marc
A. Mamigonian was the moderator.
NAASR board chairperson Nancy R. Kolligian and Mamigonian introduced
the event, with the latter saying of Hagopian's 60-year documentary
film career, "What he's done in his career is truly extraordinary."
Following the screening of the film, Hagopian said, "My journey
actually began in 1923 at the age of 9 when we arrived in Boston. The
first words in English I ever learned were 'cornflakes' and 'ice cream'
and I've been eating them ever since." He added, "I return here very
happily, because Boston is very close to my heart."
Asked how he came to make "The River Ran Red" as part of his three-part
"Witnesses" trilogy of documentaries on the Armenian Genocide, Hagopian
responded, "There's a saying in Hollywood that you haven't made a good
film till you've had to throw away all the good parts [in editing]
to the point that you could make another film with them. With my
first genocide film, I realized that the Kharpert parts [about his
own personal and family region's genocide experience] deserved to be
another film, and that's how it became a trilogy eventually."
Speaking about his early film career, he said, "In 1965 I made the
first film on the Armenian Genocide, titled, 'Where Are My People?' It
was done in six weeks and Professor [Richard] Hovannisian still
considers it my best film. It also had more history in it than any
of the others. So in that way I got into making films on Armenians
through the backdoor, I was making movies on other subjects."
Hagopian said that later, "In 1976, members of both Armenian political
parties, the Tashnags and the Ramgavars, approached me as they were
forming the Armenian Assembly [of America] and asked me to make a
film about the Armenian Genocide; that was 'The Forgotten Genocide.'"
Der Matossian spoke next, prefacing his remarks on the film by saying,
"We're dealing here with oral history, which usually goes unremarked
upon by historians because of issues dealing with subjectivity." He
added, "If approached the right way, oral history and oral sources
can be vital in history; and that's what Dr. Hagopian has done by
combining both oral histories and primary documents to reconstruct
faces of the Armenian genocide."
Der Matossian noted, "It's interesting that most of the survivors
did not talk for years about the genocide until the 1960s, 70s and
80s. The other thing I noticed was the dichotomy of imagery, with the
desert of Der Zor representing the place where life and hope doesn't
exist and the river representing life-but during the genocide, both
were used as a means of annihilation."
He concluded, "The march itself is a tool to annihilate. We know
from survivors that caravans were taken on circular marches through
the desert for days and days, not to certain destinations, but to
exhaust and kill naturally the Armenian deportees. The modern [modes
of killing] did not exist in Turkey so they used nature to kill."
Akcam spoke next, beginning with the recollection that Hagopian had
interviewed him more than fifteen years ago, and joking that "When
Michael heard a Turk was talking about the Armenian Genocide he said,
'I have to meet this Turk before something happens to him.'"
He said candidly, "When I watch such movies, I'm always speechless. I
don't know what to say to that. We here try to comprehend, something
that is incomprehensible. The question is always the same: 'why?'"
Akcam noted, "The first reason we have to deal with all these genocidal
mass crimes in the past is we have to acknowledge the dignity of
these speakers. We have to respect their life and their legacy."
He said, "Armenia, in order to be safe in the region, they have to
have good relations with Turkey. For that reason, Turkey and Armenia
must heal the past to deal with peace and prosperity as neighboring
states." Akcam has called on President Obama to break the stalemate
and to acknowledge the genocide. (See "Akcam: Obama Should Recognize
Genocide and Liberate Turks and Armenians," Armenian Weekly, March
24, 2009.)
Akcam emphasized the need to explore and make known more of the basic
archival sources on the genocide, such as the papers of Aram Andonian
that were discussed in the film. "Can you imagine, we are fighting
for acknowledging a historic injustice and the most valuable sources
of this material are not known...we really have to make the sources
known for everybody," he said.
It is important to continue with the research that is being done,
Akcam stated, because although the "general picture" of the genocide is
understood, "we don't know how the genocide really developed without
starting from one village and ending in Der Zor or afterwards." He
noted the irony that Turkish is becoming "the leading language in
genocide research," since so many important Turkish and Ottoman
sources are only recently being explored by serious scholars.
During the question-and-answer period, Hagopian explained that
he has some 400 interviews with survivors including, incredibly,
interviews with survivors of the 1890s massacres and the 1909 Adana
massacres and that he plans to make one more film that uses this
precious footage. He also expressed his pessimism on the prospects
of a major shift in policy regarding genocide recognition under Obama.
In response to a question about the possibility of genocide
reparations, Der Matossian suggested that there is important
research to be done in this area. "At the end of the day," he said,
"the genocide was not only about annihilation, it was also about
appropriation and confiscation of Armenian properties," a process
that continued in the early years of the Turkish Republic.
Following the discussion, many of the nearly 300 people in attendance
enjoyed a reception and continued their conversations about the film.
By Andy Turpin
www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/04/08/panel-d iscussion-on-j-michael-hagopians-the-river-ran-red /?ec3_listing=posts
April 8, 2009
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)-On March 22, the National Association for
Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) organized the East Coast premiere
of Dr. J. Michael Hagopian's newest Armenian Genocide documentary, "The
River Ran Red," whch was followed by a panel discussion. The screening
and panel were held at the Arsenal Center for the Arts in Watertown.
Panelists included Dr. J. Michael Hagopian; Dr. Bedross Der Matossian,
lecturer in Middle Eastern History at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT); and Dr. Taner Akcam, chair in Armenian Genocide
Studies at Clark University. NAASR director of academic affairs Marc
A. Mamigonian was the moderator.
NAASR board chairperson Nancy R. Kolligian and Mamigonian introduced
the event, with the latter saying of Hagopian's 60-year documentary
film career, "What he's done in his career is truly extraordinary."
Following the screening of the film, Hagopian said, "My journey
actually began in 1923 at the age of 9 when we arrived in Boston. The
first words in English I ever learned were 'cornflakes' and 'ice cream'
and I've been eating them ever since." He added, "I return here very
happily, because Boston is very close to my heart."
Asked how he came to make "The River Ran Red" as part of his three-part
"Witnesses" trilogy of documentaries on the Armenian Genocide, Hagopian
responded, "There's a saying in Hollywood that you haven't made a good
film till you've had to throw away all the good parts [in editing]
to the point that you could make another film with them. With my
first genocide film, I realized that the Kharpert parts [about his
own personal and family region's genocide experience] deserved to be
another film, and that's how it became a trilogy eventually."
Speaking about his early film career, he said, "In 1965 I made the
first film on the Armenian Genocide, titled, 'Where Are My People?' It
was done in six weeks and Professor [Richard] Hovannisian still
considers it my best film. It also had more history in it than any
of the others. So in that way I got into making films on Armenians
through the backdoor, I was making movies on other subjects."
Hagopian said that later, "In 1976, members of both Armenian political
parties, the Tashnags and the Ramgavars, approached me as they were
forming the Armenian Assembly [of America] and asked me to make a
film about the Armenian Genocide; that was 'The Forgotten Genocide.'"
Der Matossian spoke next, prefacing his remarks on the film by saying,
"We're dealing here with oral history, which usually goes unremarked
upon by historians because of issues dealing with subjectivity." He
added, "If approached the right way, oral history and oral sources
can be vital in history; and that's what Dr. Hagopian has done by
combining both oral histories and primary documents to reconstruct
faces of the Armenian genocide."
Der Matossian noted, "It's interesting that most of the survivors
did not talk for years about the genocide until the 1960s, 70s and
80s. The other thing I noticed was the dichotomy of imagery, with the
desert of Der Zor representing the place where life and hope doesn't
exist and the river representing life-but during the genocide, both
were used as a means of annihilation."
He concluded, "The march itself is a tool to annihilate. We know
from survivors that caravans were taken on circular marches through
the desert for days and days, not to certain destinations, but to
exhaust and kill naturally the Armenian deportees. The modern [modes
of killing] did not exist in Turkey so they used nature to kill."
Akcam spoke next, beginning with the recollection that Hagopian had
interviewed him more than fifteen years ago, and joking that "When
Michael heard a Turk was talking about the Armenian Genocide he said,
'I have to meet this Turk before something happens to him.'"
He said candidly, "When I watch such movies, I'm always speechless. I
don't know what to say to that. We here try to comprehend, something
that is incomprehensible. The question is always the same: 'why?'"
Akcam noted, "The first reason we have to deal with all these genocidal
mass crimes in the past is we have to acknowledge the dignity of
these speakers. We have to respect their life and their legacy."
He said, "Armenia, in order to be safe in the region, they have to
have good relations with Turkey. For that reason, Turkey and Armenia
must heal the past to deal with peace and prosperity as neighboring
states." Akcam has called on President Obama to break the stalemate
and to acknowledge the genocide. (See "Akcam: Obama Should Recognize
Genocide and Liberate Turks and Armenians," Armenian Weekly, March
24, 2009.)
Akcam emphasized the need to explore and make known more of the basic
archival sources on the genocide, such as the papers of Aram Andonian
that were discussed in the film. "Can you imagine, we are fighting
for acknowledging a historic injustice and the most valuable sources
of this material are not known...we really have to make the sources
known for everybody," he said.
It is important to continue with the research that is being done,
Akcam stated, because although the "general picture" of the genocide is
understood, "we don't know how the genocide really developed without
starting from one village and ending in Der Zor or afterwards." He
noted the irony that Turkish is becoming "the leading language in
genocide research," since so many important Turkish and Ottoman
sources are only recently being explored by serious scholars.
During the question-and-answer period, Hagopian explained that
he has some 400 interviews with survivors including, incredibly,
interviews with survivors of the 1890s massacres and the 1909 Adana
massacres and that he plans to make one more film that uses this
precious footage. He also expressed his pessimism on the prospects
of a major shift in policy regarding genocide recognition under Obama.
In response to a question about the possibility of genocide
reparations, Der Matossian suggested that there is important
research to be done in this area. "At the end of the day," he said,
"the genocide was not only about annihilation, it was also about
appropriation and confiscation of Armenian properties," a process
that continued in the early years of the Turkish Republic.
Following the discussion, many of the nearly 300 people in attendance
enjoyed a reception and continued their conversations about the film.