Clair obscur

The director is walking a thin line here and hardly avoids falling into the orientalism trap. Difficult to master this balance though, because this is not Tanna. Both female leads really good, male actors are a couple steps behind.

This part of the country is similar to Northern Europe, rain and storm and dark clouds, giant waves hammering the beach. If there was any intention of symbolism here, it wasn't well placed though.

Both leading characters were developed well, but we are so used to TV series these days one wishes we should have learnt more about them. Would they have had different lives if they had kids?

Y hiI am writing this as a psychiatrist. This is the story of abuse of two women from vastly different backgrounds, one of poverty and cognitive limitations (Elmus) and a highly, educated, psychiatrist. Chenaz. They interact when the psychiatrist deals with Elmus a mute underage teen who has come to the Emergency room mute, being found locked outside her home, hypothermic from the cold, with her middle age husband and his mother both of whom are overpowering in size , dead inside.

Though the medium of psychodrama which is devastatingly played out, Elmus, playing herself talking with her mother, reveals being sent away from her sister and her family at age 13, under false documents that showed her to be 18, to be married to this man who sexually assaulted her and his mother who abused her like Cinderella, for real. In the psychodrama Elmus alternates between desperation and anger and fear and tears repeating, Why did you send me away? Can I come back and play with my sister.

Chenaz experiences her own abuse from her more educated husband who binges on pornography and uses her to satisfy his sexual desires without involvement in loving her.

Psychodrama with Elmus is enhanced because she reveals herself to be in such great pain despite being cognitively limited in was to express it verbally or to defend herself. I have witnessed many sessions of psychodrama and the depiction of it in this film is the most intense and powerful use of it that i have even experienced. It is worth seeing the film just for the psychodrama scenes. The movie leaves me with an in your face understanding of abuse in all its forms and consequences.

Many holes exist in the film compared to what the director intended.

The director (Yesim Ustaoglu) is unable to apply her thoughts into the film.

Story is not convincing and or believable enough such as: - sex scenes handled in an amateur way. - We see the Senaz's knicker to be removed by her husband, but the husband is not in the frame at all as if he is not as naked as she is, which makes the scene too artificial.

• Elmas's Psychiatry Session is exaggerated and not believable. They needed more consultation with a Psychiatry professional.

What a waste of money and effort

The sea is both placid and violent. It is a sanctuary for those who wish to feel alive, and a tomb. Even when the sea is calm there are dangerous undertows beneath the surface. So too with women's souls.

Chenaz and Elmas move in vastly different currents. Chenaz, a psychiatrist, enjoys a life of privilege and luxury. She likes to think of herself as cosmopolitan, modern and successful. However, Chenaz is not sure if her partner, Cem, is in love with her or himself. She is indifferent too, not only in her relationship with Cem, but in her work – where she is clinical rather than friendly or loving - and even in how she views herself. Young Elmas is a hard worker, gentle and kind, yet she was abandoned by her parents and sold to a demented and abusive mother and son who have nearly driven all the kindness out of her. Elmas breaks down in the face of this abuse and before long she appears in Chenaz's office as both patient and prisoner, accused of murder.

Chenaz has a dream where the sea comes flooding into her home. With the appearance of Elmas in her office, long suppressed emotions come flooding back for both women. Despite their differences, both have much in common. Each faces alienation and abuse, only for Elmas it is forced and for Chenaz it is chosen.

Clair Obscur explores a range of abuse; mental, emotional, physical and self-inflicted, and also possibilities and limitations for Turkish women in the face of such abuse. Film imagery mirrors the emotions; the calm sea represents potential, for example, and close- ups depict confinement. The acting is wonderful, especially considering the heavy demands in portraying Elmas. The director capably allows the audience to feel what is going on, and not just see. In the question and answer session after the film someone asked her what Turkish men thought about the film, and she replied that not everything is about Turkish men (also, this is the world premiere after all). I only wish the imagery of the sea and the dreams were further developed. I couldn't get enough of this imagery (as you can tell from this review). World premiere seen at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival.

The cast is fine; the lead actresses are wonderful, but the narrative is a garbled mess that never clears up, including a disturbingly violent scene, followed by an ending poorly shot in glaring sun, that leaves us staring at. . . . Nothing. It was as if they all just quit. The blame for the failure of this film with so much potential belongs completely on both writer and director. They had the chance to tell parallel stories of marital rape and psychiatric treatment-with both women working together toward healing-and they blew it. The alleged psychiatric therapy is ridiculous, there are multiple filler scenes going nowhere, and nothing is ever fully clear or resolved. The title, it turns out, is totally apt, but not for the reason the makers intended. This could have been a superb and important film; instead it limped to a flat closure and became a disappointing time waster. Still, if the viewer can handle that, the lead actresses are both deeply moving. I am glad I saw their performances, but they deserved a better film.