Table of Contents
The film Prosecution (original German title Staatsschutz) reframes courtroom procedure as a tense, near-noir search for accountability. Directed by Faraz Shariat and written with contributions from Claudia Schaefer, Jee-Un Kim and Sun-Ju Choi, the film follows a young state attorney who confronts institutional inertia while investigating a violent attack directed at her. What begins as a procedural drama gradually becomes a pointed critique of systemic complacency.
Grounded in detailed research into contemporary incidents of organized far-right hostility in Germany, the film anchors its stakes in concrete legal realities while seeking wider resonance. At its center is an inquiry into what occurs when institutions that should deliver justice prioritize procedural neutrality over protection, and how one determined prosecutor tests those limits.
Plot and principal performances
Plot and principal performances
The film centers on prosecutor Seyo Kim, portrayed by Chen Emilie Yan, who confronts systemic failures in handling hate crimes. After a racially motivated assault targets her, she rejects passive acceptance and pursues a personal investigation. Her inquiry increasingly clashes with office hierarchies and official procedures.
Yan’s performance balances measured professionalism with a restrained, accumulating anger. She charts Seyo’s shift from adherence to procedure toward tactical use of the legal system to expose and corner violent perpetrators. The turn is gradual and convincing rather than melodramatic.
Supporting roles frame the institutional pressures Seyo faces. Alev Irmak’s colleague provides sympathetic counsel, while Arnd Klawitter’s senior prosecutor embodies cautious institutional priorities. Ensemble interactions illuminate tensions between public appearance, procedural neutrality, and the urge to act.
The film uses these character dynamics to probe how justice systems can deprioritize protection when procedural concerns dominate. Scenes that contrast office protocol with the realities of victims’ lives underline the stakes of Seyo’s moral and professional choices.
Style, tone and cinematic choices
Scenes that contrast office protocol with the realities of victims’ lives underline the stakes of Seyo’s moral and professional choices. Faraz Shariat adopts a restrained visual grammar that intensifies those stakes. Tight framing in courtrooms and compressed interiors keeps focus on procedural detail and personal strain. Sound design amplifies psychological pressure with silences and close, unsettling ambient noise. The film treats routine legal work — poring through files, subpoenaing reluctant witnesses, filing motions — with the propulsive energy of an investigative thriller.
The screenplay sharpens confrontations by translating legal maneuvers into charged turning points. Costume and production design register Seyo’s internal shift from cautious prosecutor to a figure prepared to test ethical limits. The result blends legal drama with a subdued vigilante register, where moral ambiguity supplies suspense more than physical action.
Investigation as character development
Investigation sequences function as sustained character study. Each interview, document sift, and courtroom exchange reveals incremental changes in Seyo’s priorities and tactics. The meticulous accumulation of evidence maps onto a visible hardening in posture and decision-making. Rather than offering cathartic spectacle, the film makes investigation the engine of transformation.
The editing strategy underscores that shift. Extended takes and deliberate cutting slow the narrative when Seyo reflects, and speed increases during procedural breakthroughs. These choices convert bureaucratic work into narrative momentum while preserving the film’s sober tonal register. The investigative arc therefore serves both plot and psychology, charting a prosecutor’s evolving response to institutional failure.
Ethical friction and narrative payoff
The investigative arc therefore serves both plot and psychology, charting a prosecutor’s evolving response to institutional failure. Much of the film’s momentum comes from Seyo’s methodical sleuthing. She sneaks into archives, cross-references old case files and coaxes frightened witnesses into the public record. Those sequences are filmed with palpable urgency. They underscore the film’s thesis that procedural knowledge can be weaponized against systemic blind spots.
The decision to let Seyo act as her own advocate in court crystallizes this approach. Courtroom rhetoric becomes an instrument of exposure rather than merely a site of procedure. As Seyo presses forward, the line between institutional duty and personal retribution blurs. The film interrogates whether a single actor may ethically subvert rules to reveal a broader conspiracy. It also asks whether such acts deliver meaningful justice or only satisfy personal vendettas.
The resolution may strike some viewers as tidy. The movie’s real achievement lies elsewhere: it stages the moral quandary with dramatic punch and emotional honesty. That staging keeps the focus on accountability, not spectacle.
Context, reception and significance
That staging keeps the focus on accountability, not spectacle. Prosecution premiered to a strong audience response in festival circles and secured recognition in Berlin’s Panorama strand, where public viewers awarded it a top prize.
The reception underscores the film’s ability to translate immediate political concerns into a clear narrative. It foregrounds the rise of far-right crimes and institutional responses while maintaining accessible dramatic stakes.
Critics and audiences have highlighted the film’s translation of specific German legal practices into universally understandable issues. These include the challenges of proving organized hate networks, institutional reluctance to acknowledge bias, and the human cost for those who pursue change.
New Europe Film Sales is handling international distribution, positioning the film for wider discussion beyond Germany. The distributor’s involvement increases the likelihood that the film’s themes will enter broader cultural and legal debates.
The distributor’s involvement increases the likelihood that the film’s themes will enter broader cultural and legal debates. Prosecution does not invent a new morality tale. Instead, it uses disciplined cinematic technique to make a procedural fight feel immediate and consequential. The film functions both as a portrait of institutional failure and as a restrained, sometimes ambivalent, representation of accountability. Its impact will depend on how widely the film is seen and how public conversations translate into institutional scrutiny and policy debate.