----------Warning: This article may contain spoilers!

Undoubtedly one of the cult films of 90s world cinema, La Haine is a 1995 French socio-thriller written as well as directed by Mathieu Kassovitz, who also played a minor role, was actively involved in its editing, and won the Best Director Award at the Cannes Film Festival. He wrote the screenplay in 1993, inspired by the cases of 17-year-old Zairian Makomé M'Bowolé, who was shot in the head while in police custody, and 22-year-old Algerian-French Malik Oussekine, who was beaten to death by police during student protests in 1986. Dedicated to those who died during its production, the film vividly portrays the unrest, police violence, and racial tensions in French suburbs. It questions the consequences of economic marginalization and social justice, making it a fitting subject for this article by reminding viewers of uncomfortable truths.

Starring Vincent Cassel, Hubert Koundé, and Saïd Taghmaoui, “La Haine” tells the story of Vinz, Hubert, and Saïd, three young men living in the impoverished immigrant suburbs of Paris. The film follows their 24-hour journey following the urban riots in which their friend Abdel fights for his life in the hospital after falling into a coma due to police violence. Vinz has taken a gun lost by a police officer during the chaos and plans to kill a cop with it if Abdel dies. Hubert's boxing gym in the neighborhood has been burned and looted during the riots, but instead of focusing on this loss, he dreams of starting a new life. Saïd remains generally distant from the events, though he engages in passive protests by writing graffiti, showing some awareness of the issues, but he is more preoccupied with girls, money, and light-hearted banter.

Although Hubert, at least in the film's first part, takes a more moderate stance and opposes Vinz's intentions, Vinz still secretly carries the gun everywhere. When they visit Abdel in the hospital, they are turned away by the police, and Saïd is arrested for refusing to leave aggressively, only to be released with the help of a familiar police officer. Shortly after, Abdel's brother attempts to avenge him by trying to kill a police officer, leading to a new confrontation. There our protagonists also encounter the police, with Vinz drawing the gun on an officer, but Hubert intervenes by first pushing Vinz and then punching the officer. They escape by jumping on a train to Paris, fleeing from the suburbs to the city.

The Paris adventure begins with the protagonists in a public restroom, listening to and trying to understand the story of a man who survived the Gulag. He tells of a friend who, while relieving himself far from the train, missed the moving train while trying to keep his pants from falling and running after the train at the same time, and died from the cold. After this, they visit a cocaine addict named Astérix to retrieve Saïd's money, leading to a violent confrontation. Upon leaving, Saïd and Hubert are arrested by the undercover cops, while Vinz manages to escape. At the police station, Saïd and Hubert suffer physical and verbal abuse but are released at night, missing the last train. Vinz reunites with them, and they wait for the morning train.

While waiting for the next train’s time, they first find offered free food at an art gallery, get into a confrontation with the people there, and are kicked out. They take refuge in a shopping mall, where they learn from the news that Abdel has died. Later, they encounter skinheads, and this time Vinz points his gun at one of them. Hubert, who earlier argued that hatred breeds hatred, now encourages Vinz to shoot, but Vinz doesn't. In the morning, back in their neighborhood, Vinz hands the gun to Hubert. Seconds after, in another confrontation with police officers, Vinz is shot in the cheek and killed. Hubert and the officer, the one who shot Vinz, point their guns at each other, and a gunshot is heard, but it is unclear who fired as the camera only focuses on Saïd, who is in shock.

The story of the film can be summarized as follows, moving on to the main elements in its background:

• Vinz, a young man of Eastern European Jewish descent, represents anger and frustration. He comes from the streets, hasn't been able to study, and while he dreams of dancing, he spends almost the entire film on edge, carrying a gun at his waist waiting to be used.

• Hubert, of Afro-French descent, is a former boxer who now symbolizes hope and the search for escape, represented by his boxing gym. By the end of the film, it's possible to say he undergoes a transformation (particularly seen in the gallery scene and after).

• Saïd, a young man of North African descent, represents those trying to escape the harsh realities of daily life. While he is not disconnected from events and does react, he nevertheless remains the most hedonistic character among them.

• The film's story takes place in the mid-1990s in the suburbs of Paris, during a time of significant social unrest. These areas are known for being economically and socially disadvantaged, predominantly inhabited by minorities. The film meticulously details the daily lives of the youth in these regions, the challenges they face, and their conflicts with society. The filming was appropriately conducted largely in a suburb called Chanteloup-les-Vignes.

The film's hallmark is its strong and impactful portrayal of the difficulties of life in the suburbs and the social injustices faced by their inhabitants, from a perspective of social realism. Given the serious nature of the topics it addresses, the film showcases the discrimination and violence minorities face as a result of the state's harsh security policies, through its characters. Additionally, it highlights the problems these characters encounter daily and the issues they inflict on each other or their surroundings. It exposes unemployment, poverty, and social exclusion, along with the anger and despair that drive these young people to clash with the system. The film not only shows the victimization but also the attitudes, feelings, and negative reactions developed by these characters in response to their experiences.

The film draws stark attention to the living conditions in the suburbs by shooting in real locations and highlighting the incongruity with contrasting environments. The inadequate infrastructure, significant neglect in terms of landscape maintenance, and high unemployment rates in the suburbs are clearly depicted. Moreover, the Paris scenes in the second half of the film emphasize the contrast through the settings, the characters' interactions with these spaces, and their discord with city dwellers. The primary subjects of the story, particularly the youth, are prone to crime due to limited opportunities for education, employment, and a decent living. This tendency is both a means of survival and a consequence of critical know-how (!) they've acquired under these conditions. The street culture they live in is prominently showcased both in the foreground and background, supported visually and aurally by elements such as graffiti, hip-hop music and dance, substance use, and everyday violence (both physical and verbal). The casting features many local non-professionals fitting minority profiles, presenting viewers with a realistic and comprehensive portrait of suburban life. The professional actors in the film are also friends or acquaintances of the director or each other (the director even casts his father), which enhances the authenticity and realism of the performances and aids in creating the desired portrayal through effective actor management.

As highlighted repeatedly while describing the film, and its critical origin story, a crucial factor is the polarization and conflict with the police forces, the main representatives of the establishment in the film's universe. The film presents the tense relationship between the police and suburban youth, following the severe injury and subsequent intensive care of Abdel, who was wounded by the police and then kept under their surveillance at hospital. This tension leaves a lasting impact on the viewer throughout the film. There are, of course, exceptional profiles, such as a police officer from a minority background trying to help the neighborhood youth, or officers simply doing their jobs. We even witness a policeman in the streets of Paris surprising the main character with his politeness. However, the most common profile is that of officers who are either recklessly empowered or whose authority has spun out of control. They are unconditionally dedicated to protecting the establishment and do not hesitate to use their power physically, psychologically, and verbally against those perceived as threats. Even young people gathered on a terrace during the day are seen as threats and are directly intervened upon, with the youth themselves, for sure, far from behaving like compliant house cats at this point. The tension among suburban youth is an absolute reality of the story, with no possibility of reconciliation in sight. A symbol prominently featured as a central element in this tense environment is the gun—a symbol of violence, order, rebellion, dominance, existence, and most importantly, power.

One of these guns, used by the system to maintain order through the police, is taken by Vinz and is poised to be used for revenge if Abdel dies, serving as a key element of suspense and intrigue in the narrative. The gun also shifts the balance during the protagonists' fight with skinheads and when Vinz decides not to use it and hands it over to Hubert at the end of the story - as he loses his advantage and, stripped of that power, is rendered defenseless, ultimately getting shot by a police officer. Thus, Kassovitz illustrates the endless vicious cycle of violence and the abuse of power that triggers discrimination, through never-ending conflicts among those who wield it and through the gun, the most potent symbol of violence. He particularly emphasizes how young minorities are trapped in this cycle. The film does not end* on a happy or tranquil note, as such an outcome does not exist in the reality of that life. By remaining silent about the situation, the film underscores that social division, injustice, and overlooked unrest will persist. It conveys that violence cannot hide or silence social injustice and discrimination, nor can it establish balance and justice; rather, it deepens these issues.

* Kassovitz himself said, "I knew the ending before I knew the storyline. Everything is about the end, the last few seconds."

Of course, while the reality depicted in the film is quite universal, it is also essential to consider the historical developments that set this stage. France's colonial and imperialist past (like many others), and the subsequent waves of immigration -due to causing poverty overseas- as a direct consequence, led to a diversification of the country's ethnic and cultural fabric. Particularly after World War II, workers from former colonies were additionally brought in to boost the French economy and were often relegated to living in the suburbs. This process resulted in the social and economic marginalization of ethnic minorities. When considering and evaluating this context in the film, it becomes more feasible to place the characters' social discord on a reasonable foundation. After all, the characters are not in an isolated environment; rather, they are within reach of the most affluent areas of the capital, Paris. They travel to Paris with the viewer, and we see them in both luxurious neighborhoods and occasionally underground locations, but generally in outlaw circumstances. 

A clear example is when the protagonists are asked to leave the gallery due to a dispute, and Hubert remarks to the crowd, "No one died. Then there's no problem. Everything's fine," which, although seen as a moment of soft comedy, beautifully underscores the difference in class reality through the perception of danger. Additionally, their dialogues with the elite exhibition crowd highlight how the existing class divide cannot be bridged even momentarily through conversation, showing the magnitude of anger and hatred, as the oppressed group's experiences are deeply ingrained with these sentiments. Thus, understanding the living conditions in the suburbs compared to the most livable areas of the country, the mismatch between the youth in these areas and the broader society, and how this situation is both fueled and compounded by the violence they face, becomes easier, and at times, it even becomes possible to empathize.

The phrase medium is the message is not said in vain, so it's important to evaluate such an impactful film through equally impactful techniques, especially from a cinematographic perspective, without getting too lost in technical details. The decision to shoot the film in black and white adds depth to its atmosphere and narrative while also reinforcing a sense of timelessness and universality. That format eliminates the distracting effect of colors, allowing the audience to focus on the characters, events, moments, emotions, and specifically, the messages. Additionally, this choice contributes to the palpable sense of harsh living conditions and social tensions in the Parisian suburbs. Well, the decision to present the film in black and white was initially financial, but Kassovitz notes that it brings a stronger expression, inspired by the work of photographers, which is hard to disagree with. He successfully emphasizes the film's harsh and socially realistic tone, even imparting a documentary feel to it. Such that, the film begins with actual protest and conflict footage presented in black and white, with reggae** music playing in the background, effectively setting the atmosphere for the audience. There is no score in the film, only a soundtrack, with background sounds coming from homes and car radios, significantly contributing to the film's naturalism.

The cameras, shooting angles, and editing techniques used in the film significantly contribute to its realism too. Dynamic camera movements, close-up shots, and wide-angle scenes convey the tense atmosphere where needed, the inner worlds of the characters where necessary, and their momentary positions in the chaos they inhabit. For instance, narrow-angle shots and handheld camera use visually express the characters' general feeling of confinement and sometimes their agitation, while fast-paced and impactful transitions in editing and montage maintain the film's rhythm and tension at a high level. The Paris scenes were largely shot guerrilla-style, with as much crew and equipment as could fit in a van, which enhanced the sense of discord the characters experienced with Paris, representing the system's heart and mind. Techniques such as the dolly zoom (a.k.a. Vertigo effect) and the framing choices for characters in various scenes also contribute immensely from a technical perspective. When combined with the persistent conflict with the police and the concept of Chekhov's gun (or Hitchcock's bomb underneath the table), these techniques flawlessly convey the continuous sense of threat and uncertainty experienced by the characters. Additionally, a specific point worth emphasizing is the scene where DJ Cut Killer performs "La Haine" to the entire neighborhood through loudspeakers. The use of a Flying-Cam in this scene effectively immerses the audience in the character's world. The track itself, which became a phenomenon with the film, features a hip-hop piece that powerfully announces the theme of discord by including Edith Piaf***: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL-gB7HuJjs

** Bob Marley's family was shown the opening credits and riot footage to obtain permission to use his music in the film, for which they charged a very symbolic fee.

*** The decision to include this hip-hop track featuring Edith Piaf was intended to show bourgeois viewers that this community doesn’t fundamentally hate France but has respect and affection for it. This choice was not about pandering but rather a calculated choice.

Finally, it's worth discussing the social and political controversies the film sparked. The film, with its title and poster choices, was intended to give viewers a clear idea of what to expect. Even before its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, it was already known as an anti-establishment and anti-police film. In fact, the security police at the red carpet turned their backs on Kassovitz and his three stars, Cassel, Koundé, and Taghmaoui, as they walked the red carpet. On the political scene, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of France's far-right National Front party at the time, referred to the young characters in the film as thugs and suggested they should be jailed if they were filled with hatred. However, President Jacques Chirac sent a letter of appreciation and congratulations to Kassovitz, and Prime Minister Alain Juppé wanted government officials to watch the film. Years later, in an interview, the most critical comment on the film's impact came from its creator himself: "If we hadn't made this film, the hunting season would have continued. We opened people's eyes. Now, when they see police resorting to violence in the streets, they can say, 'You can't do that.'" At the same time, in the film, with the moments showing the time and the tense sound that makes the audience feel like a bomb is about to explode, Kassovitz emphasized, "This is the last call for our society. If we can't fix it, I give us no more than 50 years. 50 terrible years." He also highlights that today, the film's characters would be "either dead or in prison."

----------Warning: This article may contain spoilers!

In this article, I discussed the Proletariat Trilogy by Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki, who is known for his humanist worldview, commitment to social justice, and advocacy for the working class. Artistically, Kaurismäki favors a minimalist, aesthetic approach with a touch of light humor. The films that form this trilogy are unpretentious yet profound, socially realistic, and notably short, each running under 90 minutes. He is an internationally recognized, award-winning director with a reputation for being a protest figure, especially considering his history of boycotting various American awards and nominations due to his views. Despite his acclaim, he remains deeply connected to society which is purely evident in his art. 

The trilogy subjected in this article reflects the social and economic challenges faced by Finland during the transition to neoliberalism from the late 1980s to the 1990s. This period saw an increase in crimes related to theft, property, and violence, fueled by economic struggles and urbanization. While Finland remained relatively safe by global standards, these issues created a sense of trauma, or at least a huge challenge, that manifested in its art. The trilogy poignantly portrays the vulnerabilities of the working class, a group particularly susceptible to the societal and economic shifts of the time. Kaurismäki sets most of his films in Helsinki, identifying the city as the epicenter of the country's social issues and problems. Through this trilogy, he vividly illustrates the impact of these changes on the working class, providing a powerful commentary on their struggles and resilience. So let’s start and display the situation in each movie:

Shadows in Paradise (Varjoja paratiisissa), released in 1986, is the first film in the trilogy. It tells the story of Nikander, a solitary garbage collector living in Helsinki. Nikander is a quiet, introverted man who leads a monotonous life, clinging to the dream of his coworker to start a garbage collection company. However, when his coworker suddenly dies, Nikander plunges into deep loneliness and disappointment. During this time, he meets Ilona, a cashier at a supermarket who is unhappy with her job, struggling with life's difficulties, and seeking change. Initially, their relationship is distant, but over time, the mutual attraction and need for each other bring them closer. After Ilona loses her job, Nikander supports her through this difficult period, strengthening their bond. Despite a series of failed meetings and ups and downs, they eventually realize the significance they hold in each other's lives and come together. The film tenderly portrays the small but meaningful moments in Nikander and Ilona's lives, their daily struggles, and the support they provide each other. Two key scenes particularly underscore the depth of the film's themes through its details. One is the dialogue where Ilona is fired and has two weeks left to work there, ending with the revelation that the manager’s daughter will finish school and have to find a job in two weeks. The other is when Nikander introduces himself to Ilona, saying, "I'm Nikander... ex-butcher, now a garbage man. Bad teeth and stomach, liver barely hanging on, which is more than I can say for my head."

The leads, Matti Pellonpää and Kati Outinen, are phenomenal, and seeing the director's two favorite actors together as a couple is a unique pleasure. The film excellently conveys the bitterness of poverty, maintaining a sense of humility in the characters throughout. Nikander, the male lead, is particularly impressive. Despite (quite naturally) lacking career ambition, he regularly attends English classes, spends time on the mundane activity of bingo, and occasionally drinks with his coworker. It's impossible not to sympathize with him, understanding that he is a lonely, naive man with a noble spirit and heart. He is undoubtedly the most impactful character in the trilogy. Nikander’s relationship with his best friend also highlights the importance of solidarity, making a significant and beautiful impact on both the story and the couple in critical moments. Ilona’s convergence towards a life that is emotionally more miserable but financially more secure also illustrates the fragility of human relationships. Even the happy ending is debatable in its level of welfare, yet the film still conveys messages about the importance of hope and love without romanticizing them. In my opinion, it is the best film of the series, maintaining a perfect balance throughout.

The second film in the trilogy, Ariel (1988), tells the story of Taisto Kasurinen, a miner who loses his job and searches for a fresh start. The mine where Taisto works closes, and his father commits suicide. In the aftermath, Taisto decides to take his father's car and all the money he left behind to him to start a new life in the city. However, upon arrival, he is robbed and left jobless and penniless. Taisto later meets Irmeli, a divorced woman struggling to pay off her house and support her son Riku through various jobs. Taisto grows close to Irmeli, and they promise to be together. Despite Taisto's efforts to find work, he fails and eventually has to sell his car. Taisto tracks down the man who robbed him and subdues him before the police arrive, but Taisto ends up being arrested and imprisoned. In prison, Taisto befriends a fellow inmate named Mikkonen who becomes his biggest helper. Regardless of the fragility of Taisto’s future, Irmeli visits him during his time in prison, and he proposes to her. Irmeli helps Taisto escape, and they, along with Mikkonen, rob a bank to finance their escape. Unfortunately, Mikkonen is injured and dies after arguing with the fake passport gang. In the end, Taisto, Irmeli, and Riku survive the tumultuous events and set sail for a new beginning in Mexico aboard a ship named Ariel.

The film starts with social realism similar to the first, but its second half ramps up the pace significantly, leaving viewers with the impression of watching an adventure film by the end. It is remarkably engaging and fast-paced, with constant action and even touches of absurdity, yet it remains accessible, moving at a brisk pace. Our main character, Taisto, is left unemployed by the closing of the mine and is forced to migrate to the city. Trapped between capitalist collaborators, laws, and criminals, he undergoes a necessary transformation. In the films I have seen so far, no character has reacted as decisively, and in the end, he is compelled to play by their rules. Thus, the character embarks on a journey not just physically but also developmentally, and while we cannot see if he reaches his physical destination by the film's end, his personal journey can be deemed successful. His constant oscillation between absolute destitution and the possibility of escaping it highlights the director's heavy influence, yet the film's ultimately happy ending is gratifying, particularly as it, like the first film, concludes with a sea voyage.

The Match Factory Girl (Tulitikkutehtaan tyttö), the final film of the trilogy released in 1990, tells the sorrowful story of Iris, a young woman working in a match factory in Helsinki. Iris lives with her mother and stepfather, giving them her entire paycheck and doing all the household chores. Treated as a second-class citizen within her own home and subjected to their abuse, Iris leads a monotonous life, failing to find a dance partner even when she goes out. One day, Iris meets a man named Aarne at a nightclub and spends the night with him, only for Aarne to leave her money and abandon her the next morning. When Iris later discovers she is pregnant, she writes to Aarne, asking him to raise the child with her. In response, Aarne sends back a brief note saying "Get rid of it," along with a check. Devastated, Iris gets into a car accident while pregnant. Upon her release from the hospital, she is thrown out of her home by her mother and stepfather, who have learned of her situation. Desperate and determined to exact revenge, Iris buys rat poison from a pharmacy and proceeds to poison Aarne, a man she meets in a bar, and finally her mother and stepfather. The film concludes with Iris being taken away by the police from her workplace.

The film opens with detailed shots of the production line, seamlessly transitioning to Iris's role in it, suggesting the dehumanizing nature of automated systems. The inclusion of television footage depicting events such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and Ayatollah Khomeini's death, which Iris and her family watch with indifference, underscores a theme of learned and accepted helplessness, even as Iris later rebels against it. The movie generally has the trilogy's simplest and most minimalistic narrative, and by far the darkest in terms of atmosphere and progression. Unlike the first two films, "The Match Factory Girl" addresses the theme of struggle and revenge, concluding with a defiant and somehow honorable defeat. Objectively, the main character ends the film as a criminal, but viewers may sympathize with her, seeing her vengeance as a response to oppression, transcending the screen to represent the plight of the downtrodden against their oppressors. Also unlike the other films, this one highlights how Iris is primarily oppressed by her own family, offering a critique of despotism and societal norms at the micro level. It emphasizes that the inability to change one's social class is not solely due to systemic structures but also the pervasive acceptance within the class itself.

----------Warning: This article may contain spoilers!

Italian Neorealism was a national film movement focusing mostly on the stories of the poor and working class, in general everyday people back that time. These films, often shot on location with non-professional actors, vividly portrayed the harsh economic and moral conditions of post-World War II Italy and Europe. They reflected the changes in social psychology and the daily struggles of life, highlighting poverty, oppression, injustice, and despair. One of the most influential figures of this movement was Roberto Rossellini, whose anti-fascist outcome shaped his powerful post-war cinema. Rossellini is often credited as a founding force of Neorealism, alongside other notable directors such as Vittorio De Sica, whose most famous film "Ladri di Biciclette (Bicycle Thieves)” is considered a masterpiece of the genre. His works were so influential that it even inspired the French New Wave, cementing his place as a cinematic pioneer.

Rossellini, who lived from 1906 to 1977, was also known for his personal life. He was married to the legendary actress Ingrid Bergman, with whom he had a daughter, Isabella Rossellini. Together with Bergman, Rossellini made three films that many consider to have initiated modern cinema, contrasting sharply with the themes of Neorealism and rejecting its popularity at the time. More interestingly, early in his career, Rossellini made films for the fascist Italian regime, showcasing his pragmatic nature without detracting from his talent. As of the first decades of the 21st century, numerous films about World War II have been made so far, but Roberto Rossellini's War Trilogy holds a special place as a pioneering work. The trilogy, which is currently available as restored for modern audiences, also includes significant contributions from Federico Fellini as a screenwriter for the first two films. This collaboration not only brought Fellini to the forefront of world cinema but also enriched the Neorealist movement. Let's take a closer look at the films that make up this influential trilogy, which remain accessible and relevant even today.

The first film in the trilogy, Rome, Open City (Roma città aperta), released in 1945, is a spiritual exploration of the Italian Resistance during World War II. The story centers around the resistance leader Giorgio Manfredi (an alias for Luigi Ferraris, his actual name) and his close companions, as well as the German and Italian soldiers pursuing him on the fascist Italian side. The film generally distributes its protagonism across several characters, creating a rich, multi-faceted narrative: Giorgio, a symbol of hope for many, is hiding in Rome, evading capture by the soldiers. His primary supporters include fellow resistance member Francesco, Francesco’s fiancée Pina, and one of the most unforgettable characters of this very cinema: the Catholic priest Don Pietro. The film primarily focuses on these characters, depicting their efforts to change the course of events behind the scenes of the resistance. Despite Rome being declared an open city, the film portrays it as being under occupation, highlighting the contrast between daily life and the clandestine activities of the resistance.

Giorgio’s personal life plays a crucial role in the story. His lover Marina, who is initially among those he seeks support from, ultimately betrays him. Marina, manipulated by the Nazis into becoming a drug addict and drawn to luxury items, finds herself on a fragile line between love and hate. Her dependency and the lack of a strong foundation in her relationship with Giorgio lead her to betray him with unsettling ease, resulting in his capture. Midway through the film, also Francesco loses his pregnant fiancée Pina to a soldier’s bullet and during the ambush that captures Giorgio, Francesco narrowly escapes. Another key character, Don Pietro, is arrested and later executed for his unwavering support of the resistance. "Rome, Open City" captures the harrowing reality of resistance efforts and the personal sacrifices involved. It weaves together the destinies of its characters against the backdrop of a city struggling under the weight of occupation and war.

"Rome, Open City" received numerous awards and nominations, including the Grand Prize (Grand Prix du Festival International du Film, which later became the Palme d’Or) at the Cannes Film Festival. It was also nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar at the Academy Awards. This film brought international recognition to director Roberto Rossellini, screenwriter Federico Fellini, and actress Anna Magnani. It marked a breakthrough for both Rossellini and Italian cinema, establishing a global presence. Set during the German occupation in Italy, the film is also notable for its portrayal of the common people's struggles. These elements contribute to the film's raw, realistic spirit and emotional impact, making it a revolutionary work and a landmark of the Neorealist movement.

The casting is, in general, remarkable, particularly Aldo Fabrizi as Don Pietro, one of the few professional actors in the film. His execution scene, accompanied by the whistling of children, is one of the most moving in cinema history, leaving audiences in tears. Another iconic moment is when the pregnant Pina, portrayed by Anna Magnani, is killed while running after her fiancé Francesco, who is being taken away by soldiers. Magnani's performance is second only to Fabrizi's. Another memorable scene involves a conversation between Nazi officers, where a superior officer, while drinking, tells a subordinate that they built their country on death and that everyone hates them. This candid depiction of the Nazis was quite daring for its time. The interrogation scenes leave a lasting impression as well, featuring detailed, though not overly graphic, depictions of torture. Overall, "Rome, Open City" stands as a stimulating film that not only captures the harsh realities of its time but also leaves an indelible mark on cinema history through its powerful performances and bold storytelling.

The second film in the trilogy, Paisan (Paisà), released in 1946, unfolds through six episodes, each depicting stories and memories spread across the nation during the period of occupation and liberation of Italy. It is a poignant anthology that captures the diverse and complex experiences of individuals during Italy's turbulent times, showcasing the profound effects of war on both soldiers and civilians:

• In the first episode, a group of American soldiers collaborate with a local girl to navigate their way through enemy lines in the Sicilian countryside, only to face a tragic end. 

• The second episode portrays an American soldier who befriends a street child in Naples and discovers the harsh living conditions the child endures while tracking down a theft. 

• The third episode focuses on an American soldier and an Italian prostitute who spend a night together in post-war Rome. It is revealed that they share a romantic yet heartbreaking past, though the awareness of this history emerges one-sidedly due to the war's impacts. 

• The fourth episode is set in Florence, where American nurse Harriet, with the help of a partisan, attempts to cross from the safe side of the partially liberated city to the embattled side to see "Lupo," a partisan leader she knew before the war. 

• In the fifth episode, three American military chaplains are hosted at a monastery west of Rimini. The monks fast in hopes of converting two of the chaplains to Catholicism, while the Catholic one among those three finds peace after the war's hardships. 

• The sixth and final episode takes place just before the war ends, focusing on members of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), collaborating with Italian partisans, and rescuing two British paratroopers in the Po Delta. However, they also face capture later by the Germans.

Each episode of "Paisan" begins with footage that imparts a documentary feel, making the viewing experience both fragmented and quite easily digestible. This structure presents simple yet emotionally and intellectually rich stories, grounded in reality and imbued with historical significance. Unlike the first film in the trilogy, "Paisan" prominently features contrasts and tendencies to unite among different nationalities and even religions. This gives the film a distinct character within the series. Although set on Italian soil, the American liberators often serve as the main protagonists, highlighting the international dimension of the story. One of the most moving episodes is the third, where the war’s trauma makes individuals who once connected deeply become unrecognizable to each other in a matter of months. This poignant depiction of war’s dehumanizing effects stands out as particularly moving. An impressive aspect of the film is its multilingual approach. Actors playing soldiers from various nations speak their native languages, a feat that adds to the film’s authenticity. Even today, films that tell multinational stories often find multilingualism challenging. Achieving this in the 1940s, seamlessly integrating it into the narrative, is a testament to the film’s exceptional attention to detail and realism. This effort deserves special recognition and enhances the film’s historical and cultural value.

The third and final film of the trilogy, Germany, Year Zero (Germania anno zero), released in 1948, tells the harrowing story of 12-year-old Edmund Köhler and stark portrayal of post-war Germany, combined with the raw performance of its young protagonist, makes it a powerful and heartbreaking conclusion to Rossellini's trilogy.  Living in the ruins of post-war Berlin with his family, Edmund faces dire conditions. His father is seriously ill and unable to work, while his brother Karl-Heinz, a former Nazi soldier, must stay hidden to avoid persecution and therefore cannot work or even leave the house, and his sister Eva is on the brink of resorting to prostitution at night to make ends meet. While searching for work on the streets, Edmund encounters his former teacher, Mr. Henning, who still adheres to Nazi ideology and convinces Edmund that he should kill his father to relieve the family's burden, arguing that the weak must be sacrificed for the strong to survive. Influenced by these ideas, Edmund poisons his father, leading to his death after he has shown some improvement in health following regular meals at the hospital and coming back to home recently. Following his father's death, Edmund is overwhelmed by guilt and trauma. Unable to cope with the weight of his actions and the emotional turmoil that ensues, he spirals into a deep depression and ultimately takes his own life.

"Germany, Year Zero" presents a seemingly minimal plot, but its storytelling and the use of post-war Berlin's ruins aim to convey a harsh reality. By shooting amidst the rubble of a devastated Berlin, the film provides a powerful backdrop that underscores the destruction of Germany in the year following its near-total collapse in World War II. Like Rossellini's other works, this film predominantly features non-professional actors, enhancing its raw and realistic feel. This film's unique characteristic lies not only in its German setting but also in its stark portrayal of urban devastation and human misery through both narrative and technical choices. As the trilogy focuses on the impact of the war on Axis country citizens, this finale movie extends beyond Italy to illustrate the broader geographical suffering.

The story delves into deeper tragedy when young Edmund, after following his teacher's grim advice, is crushed under the weight of his actions. Up until this point, the film maintains a tragic yet narrative-driven tone, but it shifts to a secondary, more profound tragedy as Edmund’s psychological descent intensifies. His lifeless body at the end symbolizes the collapse of values, order, and imbalance brought by Nazism. Although the film features a pseudo coming-of-age story with Edmund at its center, the harsh conditions prematurely age and wear down everyone. The stark poverty and the contrast of Hitler's voice extolling the "great German race" playing on a record emphasize the film's bleak reality in another particular scene. Edmund's eventual realization and confrontation with his actions highlight a powerful thematic choice, showing the tragic acceptance of the belief that the weak must perish for the strong to thrive. The father's line, "Our generation brought about these days; we did nothing," acknowledges the public's role in Hitler's rise, while Karl-Heinz, the brother who cannot face society, serves as another reflection of post-war guilt and the consequences of Nazism. In summary, "Germany, Year Zero" is a stark and emotionally intense film that uses its minimalist narrative and realistic depiction of post-war Berlin to convey the devastating impact of war on individuals and society. It serves as a poignant reminder of the consequences of fascism and the deep scars left by conflict.

---------- This review may contain spoilers!

Undoubtedly, the name that made Scandinavian Cinema most popular is the Swedish legend Ingmar Bergman. However, following him came Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki, Danish filmmakers Thomas Vinterberg and Lars Von Trier -with the movies both as a part and outside of the Dogme 95 movement- and more recently Swedish director Ruben Östlund. These directors, along with many others from this region, not only made the cinema of this geography popular among cinephiles looking for alternatives to box office monsters but also secured their places in cinema history with their original narratives. Another name that is on the verge of entering among these names with the works that this article will focus on is the Norwegian-Danish filmmaker Joachim Trier. Collaborating seamlessly with his compatriot Eskil Vogt (who has directed successful films such as “Blind”, which he also wrote and directed in 2014), he created the works forming the Oslo Trilogy: "Reprise," "Oslo, August 31st," and "The Worst Person in the World." These films reveal extraordinary harmony in their scripts, where intelligence and existentialism merge, connected by overlapping themes and also set in the Norwegian capital. 

The common point of these films is the struggle of modern individuals with life and harmony with the universe, portraying those who weren’t able to grasp happiness, that are also unsure about the perseverance to chase after it, hence unable to lead an organized life but not hiding their efforts, whether small or large, for it. Their portraits depict souls in perpetual existential crisis and ongoing search, revealing the stories of these souls in a narrative that, despite its somewhat stagnant structure, manages to arouse interest and curiosity with an atmosphere and art direction that doesn't drown one in melancholy despite the natural coldness brought by their geography. After this brief introduction, which I believe has sparked enough excitement, let's take a closer look at the stories of this trilogy.

The trilogy's first film, shot in 2006 and also the director's first feature-length film, Reprise, narrates the story of Erik and Philip, who have been best friends since childhood and dream of becoming writers. After they simultaneously submit their manuscripts to publishers, Erik is rejected due to a lack of talent, while Philip quickly becomes a rising star in Norwegian literature. Subsequently, Philip experiences psychosis, is hospitalized, and loses his interest in both writing and life after being discharged a few months later. Meanwhile, Erik continues to chase his dream but hasn’t reached the desired point yet. Furthermore, for both of them, their love lives deeply impact their motivation towards life and the writing process. In light of all these factors, the film draws the audience into the suspense of whether the happy and hopeful days shown in the first few minutes of the movie will return, or if Philip will put an end to everything.  

This work, which provides important clues about the director's cinema, is not the best film of the trilogy, but it is the youngest, most dreamy, and hopeful film. However, it is a very good first film and a precursor to even better ones. By delicately drawing the lines between “spiritual” mourning and healing, clinging to life and giving up, obsession and indifference through two existentialist main characters, it tries to keep the audience engaged with a narrative that occasionally oscillates between imagination and reality or pretends to be so, and it has a language that goes beyond being defined solely as gloomy. The dynamic presentation and narrative style that involve visual and verbal narration contribute to its engaging nature (not only in this movie but also in The Worst Person in the World). However, due to the intertwined nature of its storytelling and rapid transitions, some may find it difficult to follow and enjoy, which can be seen as a commendable risk taken by the director. Another risk lies in its ending; because the film gradually prepares for Philip's suicide and completes this preparation when he is rejected by the woman he loves. However, we see in a future scene that Philip is happy and reunited with the woman he loves, so the film can be criticized for having a seemingly happy ending. The director actually brings the ending here in a poetic way, parallel to the criticism brought in Erik's novel by the writer Sten Egil Dahl, whom the two main characters idolize, much like choosing a hermit life. Therefore, the seemingly happy ending here may not be real, but there are not strong signals suggesting the opposite either. Moreover, the ending leaves room for interpretation and preference by the audience, making it not easy to say definitively. Perhaps this situation stayed with the director, as he compensates for it abundantly in the next film.

The film Oslo, August 31st (Oslo, 31. august) from 2011 focuses on Anders, who comes to Oslo to apply for a job as part of his rehabilitation process, and his struggle to reconnect with friends and family while facing the burden of his past and confronting life itself. The work, as its name suggests, narrates in the compactness of one man’s one day in one city, portraying an existential battle that exhibits the weakest resistance compared to other films and is generally the most pessimistic work of the trilogy. Throughout the day, Anders faces the visible and hidden realities of his seemingly happy friends, encounters the remaining traces of past romantic relationships, confronts the sacrifices made for his family's rehabilitation, and perhaps as a result, faces the barriers set by his sister, ultimately embracing his demons from the past with a decision that can vary in appreciation from viewer to viewer and bidding farewell to his known life forever in his childhood bedroom. He tries, albeit briefly, but cannot fit into the world, believes he cannot find joy even in the most beautiful things, has accepted that there is no reason to live, and avoids even the possibility of happiness because he fears being vulnerable and maybe even perceived foolish. During a job interview, he abruptly leaves when he believes that despite being appreciated for his honesty in admitting that the gap in his CV is due to heroin use, he would still be automatically rejected because of that, which can be seen as a clear example. In short, he lacks the youth, energy, and responsibility to start over, and his motivation, like a straw fire, quickly fades away.

If it would be necessary to summarize the film in one sentence, it could be said that the depiction of depression and being on the edge of life, along with sharp and nuanced dialogues that immerse the audience, coupled with dynamic yet non-intrusive camera usage, could only be told so simply and realistically. As a result, the film, which has gained recognition in Europe with awards, has made a significant contribution to the director's reputation. It is not a single-actor/actress film, of course, but in addition to the praised Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt, it's important to highlight Anders Danielsen Lie's one-man show in the leading role of this film. Comparing it to the other films in the trilogy, the most straightforward questioning of existence is found in this film, as the director continues his trilogy that began with the imposition of hope and excitement possibilities in his first film, perhaps fulfilling the lingering thought within him. Both the storytelling and the script deserve appreciation together because the film's trajectory (though not directly downward, it has a certain direction that is not so indifferent) progresses towards a feared yet somehow anticipated ending, while also incorporating moments of hope that absolutely may or may not prevent it, thereby successfully creating, structuring, and conveying points of empathy where the audience would try to save the protagonist.

The final film of the trilogy, The Worst Person in the World (Verdens verste menneske), is a 2021 production that received recognition through nominations and awards at prestigious events like the Cannes Film Festival, where also Renate Reinsve, who portrayed the lead role Julie with a successful acting performance, won the Best Actress Award. The story revolves around Julie, struggling with existential uncertainty and search, starting as a medical student and then delving into the fields of psychology, and then, photography. She begins a relationship with comic artist Aksel, who is older than her from the previous generation, and starts exploring writing while with him. When Aksel expresses a desire to start a family, their differences become apparent, and Julie connects with the barista Eivind after crashing at a wedding reception one evening. Both unsatisfied and unfulfilled in their respective relationships, they develop an intimacy (despite not engaging in a physical one), but this doesn't immediately turn into a relationship. After feeling overshadowed as Aksel's career gains momentum and recognition, Julie ends her relationship with him and becomes a couple with Eivind, who also felt constrained in the relationship that he was a part of at the time they first met each other. But later, Julie learns that Aksel has been diagnosed with incurable cancer. While dealing with this news, she also discovers she is pregnant but can't immediately share it with Eivind due to tension arising from a short story she wrote about him. After finally sharing the news, she also expresses the need for time to "keep the child." Meanwhile, upon learning that Aksel's disease has reached a critical stage unlikely for him to survive the night, Julie experiences a miscarriage while taking a shower. In the epilogue, as quite some time has passed, we see Julie working as an on-set photographer and also witnessing Eivind, the actress at a film shoot and the baby of those two. Julie returns home and takes on the task of editing the photos of that actress that she shot.

There's a line from the protagonist that summarizes her and what the film wants to convey: "I feel like the spectator of my own life. Like I'm just a supporting actor in my own life." The character presented represents those who keep leaving the journeys in life halfway, those who live synthetically, and those who often become guests in others' lives instead of writing their own story, struggling with existence due to the lack of a grounded life purpose, putting in relatively high effort but yielding very little output. Mr. Trier and Mr. Vogt's meticulous screenplay and storytelling enable the audience to accompany the protagonist on her journey, to put themselves in her shoes, to be her, and to question themselves, witnessing the reflection of the modern era on the screen! Additionally, the narrative at times reflects Julie's fantasies, even including Oslo in them, but this approach neither feels absurd nor unreal. As a different and additional detail, there is also the clash of political incorrectness and correctness through the mindsets of Aksel, and Eivind's first partner in the film, Sunniva. The aforementioned clash isn't overly dominant but still is included without harming the story, which I appreciate. Overall, while the film's narrative language is quite soft, its subject matter is harshly realistic, its ending is neither overly pessimistic nor too optimistic, it flows naturally with ups and downs, thus, making it the most lifelike and professionally crafted film in the trilogy. Therefore, it's arguably the best film discussed in this article, deserving to be considered a modern classic from its release according to many!