The documentary, which highlights the human face of the nation’s founder rather than his skills as a statesman or soldier, sparked much debate after its premiere. Some circles have accused the documentary of undermining Atatürk’s image, drawing criticism from others who criticized them for defying Atatürk’s spirit. Discussing the difficulties of shooting a documentary on Atatürk in Turkey, Bugün’s Ahmet Tatgetiren complains that for some, bringing the human features of Atatürk to the fore means harming Atatürk’s image in society because he is almost deified in the country. Tatgetiren mentions a headline that appeared in the Vatan daily on Republic Day that said, “We are grateful to Atatürk, we are debating Mustafa.” “This dual expression reveals the level of rejection,” he says. Talking about certain facts from Atatürk’s life, as revealed by the documentary, such as his drinking a big bottle of rakı and 15 cups of coffee and smoking three packs of cigarette within a single day, he says some circles have been disturbed by these facts’ coming to light. “Is it possible for this to damage Atatürk’s image? A certain segment has concerns about this. Moreover, Dündar said in an interview that he had omitted some parts about Atatürk’s life, fearing that it could lead to negative impressions of him,” Tatgetiren writes. In light of the criticism of the documentary, he says Atatürk was actually a person who lived his life with the knowledge that it would be brought to light some day. “His deification may have resulted from the need of his successors to have a ‘legendary Atatürk.’ As a result of this, facing the human side of Atatürk leads to concerns,” he explains. Tatgetiren argues that further studies on Atatürk may lead some to start to disagree with Atatürk on some issues. “It is necessary to see this as natural,” he adds.
Sabah’s Mehmet Barlas complains that there are what he calls “Atatürk engineers” in Turkey who present the country’s founder as a supra-human being far beyond questioning. These engineers, says Barlas, do not avoid distorting historical facts to meet this goal. “Dündar has shown the mistakenness of such engineering in a very effective way. We should celebrate Dündar. Everyone watching Mustafa will finds something of themselves in this portrait,” he says.
Star’s Nasuhi Güngör dwells on the debates surrounding the sponsorship of the film. It has been suggested that Turkey’s leading GSM operator, Turkcell, stopped sponsoring the documentary on the grounds that some of its customers would be unhappy with such a film. Güngör finds these allegations despicable, saying that some circles are attempting to say that Turkcell was afraid of drawing the ire of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Referring to a statement from Turkcell about the issue, which stated that it had given up sponsoring the documentary because it did not meet its expectations and did not highlight Atatürk’s heroism, leadership and genius, but rather focused on his private life, Güngör says: “The issue is very clear. Turkcell foresaw what kind of debates the documentary would spark and chose to stay away from it, paving the way for some to take every opportunity to turn it into a political debate and a tool of blackmail,” writes Güngör.
Benzer Haberler 
