Until today, I didn't know who Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was. The more I learn about him, the more he sounds like somebody I really should've already known about.
I want to learn more, so I began looking for a movie or documentary I could watch that would give me a good introduction. Unfortunately, it seems that finding a historically accurate introduction will be tricky because of how national pride might be influencing his study and portrayal.
Here's a snippit from a review of the biographical movie Veda in Today's Zaman, found via the movie's Wikipedia entry (boldness mine):
“Veda” will surely make an explosion at the local box office; it's the kind of massive epic drama that audiences anticipate when it comes to national history. Those who were enraged by Can Dündar's overtly personal and humanizing take on Atatürk last year with his feature length docu-drama “Mustafa” will be highly satisfied by writer-musician-film director Zülfü Livaneli's epic historic drama “Veda,” which aims to stroke our pride in Turkey's founding leader by preferring to pass over any erring human ways that Mustafa Kemal might have harbored. However, an Atatürk movie of deeper context ingrained with a fresh approach is yet to be produced.
What I take from this is people have strong opinions about what should and shouldn't be brought up when covering Atatürk. But is it that he's uncontroversially viewed in a positive light with some people more willing than others to talk about negative things (like George Washington)? Or is it more like he's an upstanding hero to some but a monster to others (like Napoleon Bonaparte)?
P.S. Bonus points if you can recommend a historically accurate movie or documentary to introduce me to Atatürk!
In many ways, I would say, he is to Turkey what George Washington is to the US. Founding fathers with some controversial aspects. Their personalities and historical significance are of such degree that many different political movements trace their roots to them, despite their differences. In any relevant subject, "What he would have thought of this?" remains an influential question. In this aspect, he is certainly not Napoleon (fun fact: Atatürk also personally disliked Napoleon and thought he was an adventurer who risked his nation for the sake of conquering other countries.) I imagine it is difficult to imagine people in France to have stickers of Napoleon's signature on the back of their cars, but that is a very common sight in Turkey.
Who dislikes him? Kurdish nationalists (not Kurds as a whole!) tend to dislike him, even though some find his work itself to be excellent and only wish it to be replicated for the Kurds by a Kurdish Ataturk, as it were. Radical Islamists hate him for obvious reasons. Some liberals (not the Liberal Democratic Party, but left-liberal intellectuals) and socialists too, because Turkey under Ataturk was ruled by the strong man. His ultimate aim was establishing democracy in Turkey, he always thought highly of parliamentary regimes and cared about legality and voting, but he surely was not a leader one could take down with an election. The rest of the Turks adore him. Even the most anti-Atatürk person, however, would feel obliged to say something like "Well, I like what he did for the independence of Turkey, but afterwards..."
You are right that understanding Atatürk is difficult because of his importance. Not just national pride but critics tend to have their own agendas too. Historians agree about most of the facts about him and Turkey under him though. Not many historians would say that his Turkey was a liberal democracy, and not many (not the sane ones anyway) think he was the Hitler of Turkey or something. Beyond this, when it comes to evaluating his legacy and/or deriving normative lessons from his actions, of course, the differences widen. The situation in Turkey is so odd that you can find people who think Atatürk was first and foremost an anti-imperialist warrior, or a liberal nationalist, or a pan-Turkist, or having Islamic tendencies, or being a socialist at least in some aspect, or being fascist... He is everything and nothing at the same time due to his popularity and the greatness of his name. Frankly, of course, he was none of those above, he was just a Turkish nationalist (not a pan-Turkist though) who was also an uncompromising secularist and Westerniser.
I cannot, unfortunately, offer any documentaries in English as of now. I may update this if I remember anything relevant. In the meantime, I can suggest some books on Atatürk and Turkey under him from an older comment of mine. You really should read more about him and Turkey under him. I can't help thinking that if Turkey is still very different from its neighbours (without any normative meanings attached), Atatürk and his revolutions played an indispensable role in making this so.
I should also warn you about your source, Zaman. The outlet was known for its links to the Gulenist movement and will cause most Turks to raise an eyebrow if mentioned. Not very relevant to the subject but just wanted to give you heads up in case you discuss this with someone else and receive negative or more passionate feedback.