CINEMABSOLUTE

---------- 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!