David Welky is a professor of 20^th Century United States history at the University of Central Arkansas and specializes in film, sports and mass media. Currently, he is expanding his repertoire by working on publishing a book that focuses on Depression-era middle class culture and a study of Hollywood in relation to the coming of World War II (http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/faculty_info/welky.htm). 

The article, “Global Hollywood versus National Pride: The Battle to Film ‘The Forty Days of Musa Dagh,’” discusses the dangers and struggles involved with attempting to mass publicize and feature a disputed historical event through the motion picture medium. In attempts to do so, the Hollywood studios engage in politically charged discussions and obstacles in order to express their artistic interpretation of the event. What’s more, the event that is discussed in the article, the Armenian genocide, has been and is currently a highly controversial and volatile topic in all arenas (www.armenian-genocide.org). The main issue with producing the novel into a motion picture, was that Turkey was trying to secure its image as a Westernized, democratized nation.

In order to set up his argument, the author, David Welky, takes a moment to introduce the historical context of the struggle to publicize and immortalize the events of the Armenian genocide. As a truly unbiased journalist, he does not dwell on the facts of the genocide and even diplomatically refers to the event as “the 1914 massacres” and “the alleged Armenian genocide.” He analyzes the movie’s role in society from a Turk’s perspective at first, rationalizing the Turkish government’s distaste and disfavor of including certain elements in the film. Welky also refers to a more recent motion picture exposing the horrifying fate of Armenians at the hands of Turks, Ararat, by Atom Egoyan which was also looked down upon by the Turkish government and people (http://www.ararat-the-movie.com).

The author frames the article in a sociological perspective in how one society perceives their own and other societies in the media. After a brief introduction of the effects and critiques of Ararat, Welky introduces the 48-year struggle of releasing The Forty Days of Musa Dagh by Franz Werfel (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/fwerfel.htm; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138989). The book, released in 1933, is about an Armenian man (Gabriel) who moves to Paris, marries and bears a child with his French wife, and later returns to his native Musa Dagh to become a lieutenant in the Ottoman army. The story tells of the 50 some days that Armenians stood off against the Ottoman army, one of whom was Gabriel.

Welky details unnecessary personal facts about Werfel, including his upbringing, demeanor and past published works. However, an interesting fact is that Werfel, a German Jew, was inspired to pen the novel after meeting a crippled Armenian orphan in Damascus, who told the author details about the standoff.

After much ado, Welky explains the struggle of producing the film adaptation of Werfel’s novel. Unfortunately, as the novel was gaining momentum among Hollywood’s top producers, there was an increase in nationalism in Europe during the 1930s and 40s. Regardless, MGM, the studio that purchased the rights to the movie for $15,000, after much review of the potential ramifications of production, agreed to produce the movie. For context, Hollywood movies were banned in Germany during Hitler’s reign. Frederick Herrin, New York-based foreign manager of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America’s (MPPDA), realized the dangers of producing such a powerful film, and modified the content in order to neutralize the general message. What Herrin did was assure the political heads and higher-ups at MGM that the focus would be on the main character and would not refer to the Armenian massacre at all, which satisfied the Turkish government. Over the years, there was much back-and-forth between MGM and the Turkish government, who, progressively, disapproved of the film’s script. Ultimately, the rights to the film were sold to John Kurkjian, a California real estate developer. The film was scrapped together on a $1Million budget and failed to impress critics.

The reading does not hold much historical value and fails to analyze the salient aspects of the struggle to produce the film. The article reads as a play-by-play of the discussions held between MGM and Turkey. The findings clarified that the article’s main point was to explain Hollywood’s struggle to satisfy political desires. Analyzing the conclusion, it is clear that the author attempted to introduce the machinations of media politics and how corporations must satisfy the desires of their interest which they must protect at all costs. The article provides a good example of the beginnings of this trend in the media.