Özcan Alper's debut, Sonbahar has been one of the most lauded Turkish dramas. Sonbahar tells the story of Yusuf (Onur Saylak) who has been released from a f-type prison in Istanbul on health grounds. Yusuf, whose lungs are ruined in prison, goes back to his village, which is located in Artvin, a Black Sea city on the Georgian border. It turns out that most of the people Yusuf knows have grown older, his childhood friends except Mikail (Serkan Keskin)have left for the city, his father passed away and his only sibling got married. As autumn goes by to let the winter set in, Yusuf hangs around the village with Mikail. Yusuf's Laz mother who speaks only in The Laz language with his son, wants his so to get out of the house more and take some fresh air.(The Laz are an ethnic group who live primarily on the Black Sea coastal regions of Turkey and Georgia.)Yusuf and Mikail goes into town every now and then. At one time Mikail hooks up with two Georgian hookers, Maria (Nino Lejava)and Eka(Megi Kobaladze). Coincidentally,Eka turns out to be the woman whom Yusuf helped to find a Russian novel in the bookshop. The more Yusuf and Eka see each other the more attached they become.For Eka "It's like Yusuf has walked off the pages of a Russian novel." and she wishes she could leave everything behind and set off on a long journey with him. In spite of her efforts to hold on to life and evade her bowery loneliness, Eka is also aware of the impossibility of this love.
The story of the movie sounds startlingly original while Onur Saylak and Nino Lejava's performances as disillusioned individuals embittered with life are highly convincing. On the other hand, the subtext of the movie, the politics of 90s which is called " slice of recent history, exposing the irony, ruthlessness and reality of the period" by the official site of the movie is not clear to a layman. From the flashbacks presented in real-life newsreel footages we understand that Yusuf served his sentence in a prison that is called "f-type" in Turkey but what about the rest? A foreigner layman who knows nothing about these prisons would assume Yusuf did a ten year stint in prison though he had innocent ideals and did nothing wrong.Before F-type prisons were built,prisoners in Turkey would be held in dormitory-like wards with up to 50 or more prisoners. When a new anti-terror code was enacted,it was decided that special penal institutions should be built on a system of cells designed for one to three people. The hunger strike which was briefly mentioned in the movie is directly connected with that decision. As a reaction against the plans to be transferred to these new type of prisons some of the prisoners went on hunger strike back then. In the movie it sounds like Yusuf has wanted nothing more than "socialism" but these prisons are high security prisons built to accommodate members of armed organization and people engaged in drug offenses or organized crimes. What is called "political prisoner" in the movie is not exactly someone who has taken a counter-side against the state with his pencil. Moreover, middle class Anatolian people scrimp and save just to be able to send their sons and daughters to the university. To study in a good department is not as always easy for an Anatolian as it sounds like,say for a European.Most of these parents warn their kids not to involve in anything political. This has been the case since the coup d'etat in 80s. When a youngster is involved in anything political against the state that has always been frowned upon. It does not matter whether to be in 90s or 2000s. In Yusuf's case, ostensibly he may be heartily welcomed only by his mother but no villager takes an open side against him. It seems like everybody welcomes him somehow and this does not look convincing at all. All in all, the movie looks like a tranche de vie of 1990s while it does not say the whole truth and it may be confusing for a layman. Besides, for the first time an internationally known Turkish movie tells the plight of Russian hookers albeit briefly. For a debut, the movie deserves absolutely to be watched but we need movies to be presented in historical accuracy because you can't do much of a justice if you are going to disregard details when you are supposed to "document and criticize a slice of recent history, exposing the irony, ruthlessness and reality of the period."