“Political reactions in Turkey are like a bad actor on stage: No matter how much they shout, they fail to impress the audience. Because, as Stanislavski said, instead of living the role, they merely perform it. (…) The reactions of politicians and others in Turkish society are like special effects in Hollywood movies: Eye-catching but not lasting. There is an illusion of reality, but no authenticity.”
M. NEDİM HAZAR | COMMENTARY
These days, it’s almost impossible not to come across news headlines like this in Turkey: “Such and such party or person reacts to this or that event!”
Turkey has turned into a country where people do whatever they please, those affected by it do nothing but react, and yet these reactions have no real impact.
Political parties react, businesspeople react, and politicians react. But how much of this truly resonates with society? More importantly, how much impact do these reactions actually create? That remains a mystery.
The fact that these daily reactions hold little significance is evident from how quickly we forget the very incidents that once caused outrage.
For instance, barely anyone remembers the recent hotel fire in Turkey. Yet, wasn’t there an enormous outcry when it happened?
One of the defining characteristics of modern societies is that reactionary behavior is increasingly becoming the focal point of daily life. The instant communication opportunities provided by the digital age have accelerated the formation and spread of societal reactions like never before. However, paradoxically, this acceleration has also rendered these reactions ineffective and short-lived. While we witness new waves of social outrage almost every hour, the ability of these reactions to drive lasting societal change is rapidly diminishing.
Today, I want to explore why these reactions fail to make an impact—why they remain ineffective and why they don’t evolve into a collective social response.
But first…
Let’s take a brief theoretical detour into the world of drama.
The Art of Drama and the Illusion of Reality
In drama, the primary emotional experience intended to be evoked in the audience is empathy—the ability of the viewer to feel what the character feels, to put themselves in their shoes, and to identify with them.
Italian-American director Frank Capra (best known for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) learned this truth at nearly 80 years old and said:
“For years, I thought drama happened when an actor cried. Turns out, drama happens when the audience cries!”
For empathy to develop, the audience must believe in what they are watching.
To create this sense of credibility and make the audience believe in what they see, an illusion of reality must be produced—whether on paper, on screen, or on stage.
This is where a corporate development expert named Dan Meyer (not to be confused with others of the same name) comes in. Meyer and his team, known for their studies on perception and habits, discovered something fascinating while working to change corporate cultures.
Meyer found that when he simply communicated a company’s new values in written form, it took 10 to 15 years for these values to become fully ingrained.
However, when these values were conveyed through a heroic figure—a leader embodying these principles—the adoption process shortened to just 3 years.
Although Meyer had no direct connection to film or theater, he was the first to use the term “Hollywood Effect.”
Many of those who have attended our film literacy seminars will remember our discussions on the various layers of this concept.
What is the Hollywood Effect?
When people encounter advertisements, their minds instinctively block what they see. The same happens with newspaper and TV news: The audience is skeptical, placing a mental barrier between them and the information. “What if this is a lie?” they think.
That’s why storytelling techniques are used in written and broadcast journalism. This approach originates from fairy tales—which, no matter how absurd, can be listened to over and over again. They captivate us. As the saying goes:
“Fairy tales are not real, but they are not lies either!”
So why is a fairy tale more effective than news in influencing a person?
This is precisely where art comes into play—and this is what we call the Hollywood Effect.
When a society or an organization encounters a new value or idea, their mental barriers prevent them from internalizing it. However, art has the power to break down these barriers.
If you want to change a public opinion, it’s an extremely long and difficult process. But if you do it through drama, you can significantly shorten that process. Because when people engage with art, their mental defenses are minimized.
Back to our theoretical discussion:
Creating an illusion of reality makes the audience believe that the fiction is real. And the only way to create this illusion is through authentic performance.
About 150 years ago, the great Russian theater artist, director, and theorist Konstantin Sergeyevich Alekseyev Stanislavski discovered the most effective way to achieve this.
His Stanislavski System transformed modern acting by emphasizing the psychological depth and authenticity of a character rather than superficial gestures and memorized lines. His approach later became the foundation of Method Acting—a technique used by actors like Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, and Al Pacino.
Stanislavski’s core principle was simple:
“The actor should not pretend to be the character; the actor must become the character.”
This is why authenticity in realistic drama is key to evoking empathy in the audience. If the performer fails to convey lived experience, the audience won’t believe it.
This brings us back to the question of political reactions.
Political Reactions and the Illusion of Authenticity
The intersection of society and political reactions has been a major topic in social science for years.
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explained in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste that social reactions are not just expressions of collective consciousness but also a reflection of habitus—the ingrained habits, behaviors, and norms shaped by social upbringing.
Similarly, Jürgen Habermas, in his Theory of Communicative Action, highlighted the widening gap between the life-world (everyday lived experiences) and the system-world (institutional and political structures). This gap has only deepened in the digital age, changing how political messages are conveyed and perceived.
Meanwhile, political scientist Robert D. Putnam, in Bowling Alone, emphasized the role of trust in shaping public reactions. According to Putnam, trust is the foundation of a political system’s legitimacy.
The lack of genuine credibility in political actors weakens public reactions. Instead of engaging, society passively observes—as if watching special effects in a Hollywood film.
To summarize:
Political reactions in Turkey (and globally) suffer from an authenticity crisis. Without credibility, social outrage fades quickly, and reactions fail to translate into meaningful change.
And just like a poorly acted scene in a play, no matter how much a politician shouts, the audience remains unmoved.
