Author(s): Bahset KARSLI
Cinema is just a cinema or cinema isn't just a cinema. If these provisions seem adverseness for eachother, both of them has a meaning in their own context and they complete eachother. The structural, linguistic and speculative reality of the cinema make cinema force to identify with its own internal dynamic and counsel that it needs to give the meaning to cinema from instrumentalisation. On the other hand, relation of the cinema with daily reality, structure of it that makes reality turn into narration, being in a production again for a directed towards target shows it is not only a cinema. The ontological base of the cinema shows that both of these two approaches are possible. Since the cinema was invented, it identified with daily reality and it found its own individuality with an act intellection about this subject.This article which tries modernization can be read on the cinema, aims to analyse habitus examples that it is being want to seem in society about life style on the films of turkish cinema between 1896 and 1950. It will reveal the role of P. Bourdieu about habitus and space concept, Turkish modernization and making a life style for the cinema. In this context, analysis of the using religion with habituses in area of the cinema and struggle in large area will be tried to do. First of all, ?t is going to analyse relation between cinema and reality to prepare a substructure, later '' the points which make a relationship between cinema and the concepts of habitus and area '' that was developed by P. Bourdieu and last, personal and social pratics which is being developed on habitus examples in which local Turkish cinema between 1896 and 1950.
The Journal of International Social Research received 7760 citations as per Google Scholar report
