Reviews of Scandinavian Films and TV Series

Leave a comment

Those Who Kill and Katrine’s Emotional Responses

I’ve been watching Those Who Kill (Den Som Draeber). It’s clear that the protagonist Katrine at certain parts of the movie feels shame. The actress does an excellent job of displaying it in her facial expressions. She sort of hesitates and almost winces in a particular way when the character is becoming intimate with a man. I was able to see it before but I didn’t know what I was noticing. She looks like she’s feeling shame, “Like do I really deserve to be with a good partner? Do I really deserve to get a good man ? I’m not the kind of person that deserves to have good in this way. Do I really get to have good in this way ?”

Katrine is an interesting and complex character. She is the detective who fights the “bad guys.” But the bad guys are always attacking her and going straight for her as if drawn to her. Katrine is again and again “revictimized.” She is and isn’t a victim though. She’s not a helpless victim and she is a helpless victim. One one occasion she is kidnapped by a serial killer that she is hunting (who she triggered) and he attempts to break her down, violate her and kill her. She fights him off and get the gun out of his hands and cornered in a room alone with him she is ready to shoot him in self defence. Her colleagues arrive to rescue her just as she is about to pull the trigger and so they end up rescuing the serial killer. She is and she isn’t a victim. At another time in the series unknowingly she is dating the very serial killer that she is hunting for. She realizes that he is the serial killer she is hunting just as he attempts to kill her and fights him off. The police she works with arrive just in time to stop her from punching him to death. She always fights off the predators both personally as a woman and also professionally as a detective and police officer.

Another area that the series focuses on is Katrine’s anger and the sequelae of her abuse at the hands of her stepfather as a child. You could call this Katrine’s “PTSD” which is partly what drives her to catch the serial killers and make the world a safer place. Katrine is readily told to get her emotions under control and manage her anger but in the end you can see that this is what makes her such an effective detective and police officer. It motivates her to do the right thing and make the world a better place. She is not over what happened to her in a good way, she has allowed it to change her into the kind of person that changes the world and protects other would be victims. The series shows us what pathological rage looks like and then contrasts this with Katrine’s emotions. Katrine is an extremely well developed character over the course of the series and her development as a character is interwoven skillfully with the plot. I highly recommend this sometimes deep, dark and always deeply uplifting series.


Leave a comment

Recently Watched

Mammon: It’s touching to watch the fathers give their lives for their sons. It has got an interesting and stylish colour scheme.

Those That Kill: Dem Som Draeber: Everyone in this show is amazingly good looking, including the criminals! It’s almost hard to not be attracted to the criminals. I wonder if this was done intentionally to really imitate real life where criminals can be attractive and to provoke audience feelings and then self reflection on those feelings. Catherine the detective has an interesting life story and scars. She finds meaning in life in spite of her scars by helping others. The killers always seem to go for her and she ends up fighting for her life. She always seems to fight them off and be just at the point of killing them before the rest of the police force arrives to “chivalrously” save the killers from her self defence.
Everyone is always telling Catherine she needs to get her anger under control because the way that she deals with the criminals is very passionate and involves some amount of anger and passion for justice. This show gives a good discussion and contrast between good emotional scars and rage and bad emotional scars and rage. The show also touches on the question of whether people can abdicate responsibility for changing the world.
I found this show incredibly touching and deep, even though it had a very short lifespan as a TV series in Denmark. This show pulled me in from the start and got under my skin and made me feel things. I can’t remember the last time a TV show has affected me this deeply.

Sorrow and Joy: Sorg og Glaede: Jakob Cedergren does an incredible job of portraying a grieving father. He looks so incredibly believably sad. I found the part of the plot where the husband talks about how he got his wife to stop taking her medicine, which triggered her psychotic episode quite sad. It was also interesting that her mother was in such denial about her daughter’s illness that she thought her stopping medicine was a good idea. This made me wonder what causes parents to prefer to be in denial about children’s mental illness. The fact that this film is based on the true story of the director’s life added a lot to the impact it had on me and made it significantly more real. I couldn’t stop thinking that this had happened to the director of the film, the very storyteller.

Leave a comment

DAG: Season 3

I finished watching Season 3 of DAG. Here are a couple of the highlights:

Dag finally musters up the courage to try and find his son and connect with him. He goes over to the “mother’s” house and finds out that he doesn’t really have a child, the woman he was sleeping with who told him he had a child was mentally ill. She had just borrowed a baby from someone and was pretending.

Dag’s girlfriend Eva asks to take a break from him after he proposes to her.

I’ll discuss the second highlight in detail since this was the part of the second season that struck me the most.

The episode where Dag proposes and his girlfriend asks to take a break from each other is interesting. It’s interesting how it is framed. He and his girlfriend are having a double dinner date with his sister and her short Trinidadian boyfriend. Dag impulsively proposes and then Eva rushes from the table crying, to the bathroom where she locks herself in and won’t respond to him. It’s clear that Dag’s marriage proposal hasn’t gone well.


Dag comes back to the dinner table and his sister has now gone to another room. His sister’s boyfriend proceeds to very unempathetically tell him in lurid detail about the sex that he and Dag’s sister are having. I won’t go into the detail on here but essentially twisting a knife in Dag’s wound, he describes their sexual relationship as if he has completely violated Dag’s sister. (This is in much the same vein of , “Hey do you know what I did to your mother). He describes conquering his sister sexually. He tells Dag he has permanently physically changed his sister, and she will never relate to life or another man the same way again. You can see the expression on Dag’s face and it’s clear that he feels himself violated and very upset listening. Later he walks in on his sister and her boyfriend having sex in his dining room. What I found especially interesting about this scene is the way that it is presented as just the icing on the cake, the last straw and the salt in the wound of Eva rejecting Dag. This is the last thing he needs to hear on this night.

What is also extremely interesting is the fact Dag feels violated in exactly the same way by Eva. He feels that she has made her way in and almost physically changed him and made a hole in him that will now be there forever. He never connected with anyone on this deep an emotional level before, and he opened up to her and connected with her and now he is different, there is that longing for connection in him. Dag feels essentially deflowered and then abandoned. It’s fascinating because the idea of being sexually and emotionally violated via a romantic and sexual relationship is something we normally only apply to women. No one talks about men’s feelings of violation, and their feeling permanently changed by a relationship, and permanently physically changed them and like a woman has now carved a hole in their heart. There is only a conception of a women having these feelings of being sexually violated. To talk about a man being violated is taboo. Men are not allowed to voice these feelings. This TV series depends on a description of Eva being violated to voice Dag’s own feelings of violation because presumably if he were to try to explain them himself, the audience wouldn’t as easily understand and feel them. I can’t help but think that this is a feeling many men must experience and society’s unwillingness to acknowledge these men’s feelings of violation and allow men this sadness, must lead to a lot of men struggling with their feelings.

Eventually Dag does get back together with Eva in Season 3 and then later she proposes marriage to him and he says yes. There we have our happy ending.

Leave a comment

DAG: Norwegian TV Series

I’ve been watching the Norwegian TV series DAG recently. It’s quite interesting if nothing less! The protagonist DAG is an oddball, dysfunctional, ornery therapist who doesn’t have much sensitivity to his patients or faith in relationships in general. He is addicted to valium, and is shown regularly advising marital therapy couples to divorce. A few of his patients end up worse off. It’s presented as a bit of a comedy.

I’m currently watching the third season. The second season ended with relationship-phobic, recently dried out Dag being told that he has a son from a woman he was dating. Dag is terrified, he is afraid of closeness with anyone but now he has a son and apparently will have to be close or risk damaging the child the way his father did to him.

I was touched watching girlfriend Eva going to visit her elderly father and introducing her son to him and seeing her sadness and disappointment when she encounters the fact that he just doesn’t care for her. It’s hard to watch her sob. I guess it hurts anyone who finds out that a parent doesn’t care.

It’s interesting to watch Dag relate to single mother Eva and her son. Though he wonders if they have room for him in their life or he is intruding, he doesn’t treat Eva as if her child is extra baggage or she is not relationship material because she has a child. It’s interesting to watch him naturally pick the baby up and carry him around.

Benedikt, Dag’s dysfunctional “playboy” best friend, who cannot say no to sex. He is also potentially too good looking. He seems to have a never ending supply of beautiful women willing to sleep with him. Every man’s dream right ? He ends up being beaten up (often deservedly so for he breaks the hearts of so many women) in practically every episode of the show because he gets himself into bad situations because he just cannot refuse sex. It’s interesting to see this portrayal of the virile and sexually insatiable “masculinity” taken to the often comedic though sad extreme here. It challenges the idea of a man always being ready to have sex at every opportunity and shows that this is not always a good thing and can be harmful. DAG shows how a man can hurt himself by having too much sex and calls on the viewer to empathize with him in the way that he is hurting himself. It’s also an interesting exploration of the rarely explored angle of men protecting their well being by setting boundaries about sex and refusing unhealthy sex. He is an interesting contrast to DAG who cannot seem to sleep with any woman, just as much as Benedikt has no boundaries with respect to sex, DAG has his walls firmly up and cannot take them down. I also found this to be an interesting exploration. It is refreshing to see the portrayal of a man who does not want sex all the time and has a problem saying “yes” to sex, a characteristic that is usually ascribed to women and would be seen as feminine.

I was struck by the unconditional love, acceptance and loyalty Dag has to his best friend Benedikt. Dag is always there for him no matter what trouble he gets into. Dag sees what his friend does as harmful but he doesn’t judge him, shame him or guilt him.

Leave a comment

Breaking the Waves: Female Sexual Objectification

I admire the way that Lars Von Trier provokes an emotional reaction in the audience and makes the audience feel in this movie. He makes his point by showing us rather than telling us. I enjoyed this film although it is a difficult film to watch because it ends in the death of the protagonist. Lars Von Trier mentioned that he chose the muted visual style that the film was shot in to avoid the film being too intense because it is already dark subject matter. Another aspect is that Lars Von Trier has been criticized for being anti-feminist because many of his films involve women protagonist’s slow destruction. I won’t comment on that. I’ll leave that open to interpretation.

Breaking the waves follows Bess, a Scottish girlish woman from a joyless religious fundamentalist sect, who meets and marries Jan, a man outside of her sect. Bess is a bit “emotionally fragile.” She is mentioned to have had psychiatric treatment before for depression following the death of her brother. After they have been married in the film Jan tells Bess that he doesn’t know how she possibly managed to not have sex up until that point. Bess tells him emotionally she  “saved herself” as a virgin for him. It seems that this is a point that Trier wants us to look back on and flinch.

Later on in the film Jan becomes paralyzed in an oil rig accident. He is unable to have sex with his wife and so asks her to sleep with other men and tell him about it. Not knowing this request, her religious family and friends pressure her that she is not doing enough to help her sick husband and to put her own needs aside in order to focus on him and not add to his stress. This is the beginning of Bess’s unravelling. Bess does as Jan asks her and begins having risky sex with random men and recounting the details to Jan. Of course when her religious community members and family find out what she is doing they do not approve though for more religious reasons rather than care for her well-being.

The central aspect of this film that struck me was the fact that the protagonist, Bess, believes that her sexuality does not belong to her. She sees herself as a sexual object with her sexuality as existing for not her own but someone else’s benefit. She believes that her sexuality belongs to and is for her husband. She saved her sexuality believing that it was for her future husband before marriage and after marriage she continues to see her sexuality as existing for her husband’s benefit rather that her own benefit. It’s painful to watch her relate to herself as a sexual object. She “saves” herself and her sexuality as a virgin before marriage for her husband. She feels that her sexuality is the property of her husband and sees herself as a sexual object with her sexuality as something for her husband (rather than her) to feel, take pleasure in and act upon.

Von Trier draws this idea to an extreme and harrowing conclusion in the movie. He makes viewers feel something about these ideas. He makes viewers work mentally to see where things go wrong and what the cause of this tragedy is. I think that he wants viewers to reflect not just on the characters in the film, and what goes wrong in the film, but also inspire viewers to self-reflection on their own and larger society’s attitudes towards women’s sexuality.

I was struck by the fact that Bess essentially never had any of her own boundaries around her sexuality and seems thoroughly disconnected from her sexuality and feelings about sex. Before marriage she didn’t have sex because the church told her not to. After marriage in a heartbreaking manner, she somewhat blindly follows Jan’s instructions to her to sleep with other men. She is unable to set a boundary and refuse Jan’s request that have sex with other men because she doesn’t feel that she has a right to feelings about her sexuality. Her sexuality is never her own and she is never able to say either “yes” to sex or “no” to sex essentially. What primarily underlines Bess’s insanity to viewers is painfully watching her having risky sex with so many strange men. We are watching a person essentially self injure and of course the questions we all ask are, “Why is she voluntarily hurting herself?” and “Why would anyone not see the insanity in hurting themselves this way?” However Bess is unable to be in touch with her feelings about sex, and act on what feels good to her and what doesn’t feel good to her at any point during the movie. Bess’s disconnection from her sexuality and lack of ownership of it doesn’t seem a problem before marriage, and perhaps not even after marriage, but when Jan makes his strange request of her we suddenly see the a big problem with Bess not having ownership of her sexuality. Suddenly what Bess is doing, considering her sexuality as something that is not for her benefit, seems very immoral and challenging to our values.

Watching this film I felt as if Von Trier had been slowly constructing a mathematical proof by contradiction to prove that our first assumption is flawed.  It is as if at this point he presents the contradiction. This is clearly shockingly immoral and wrong. This isn’t morality. Other reviewers have said that this film is about female martyrdom and self-sacrifice. Bess’s problem is that she follows the rules of being a sexual object perfectly. Near the end of the movie, the psychiatrist who treated Bess is asked to describe her. He describes her as, “Good.”

Leave a comment

The Secret to Sex is Love: Lars Von Trier’s Nymphomanic

I have a lot to say about Lars Von Trier’s Nymphomaniac. Firstly I loved it! There is a lot that masquerades as sex positivity towards women’s sexuality that isn’t but this is the most genuinely sex positive movie I have seen in a while. Since this film is around five hours long and was divided into two volumes I will write this review in two parts.

Where should I start ? I enjoyed so much about this film and I am sure that that was only from the angles that I looked at it from.

This film was a little bit odd to watch in the cinema because of all the sex scenes in it. I normally watch my Scandinavian films with their nudity and explicit sex scenes at home. It’s a bit odd to be watching almost porn level explicit sexual content in a theatre. You feel a little turned on and there are strangers sitting next to you and potentially feeling the same. Oh the horror! It is a bit uncomfortable. In this way I finally understood what the Copenhagen Post meant when they reported last year that critics were “coming” over Nymphomaniac, with the attendant poster!

There were some points during my viewing experience where other movie goers would laugh somewhat salaciously and leeringly towards Joe. So I noticed that other movie goers did come in acting like this was a film made to cater to male sexual desire, even though this is an art film and is very much about exploring female sexual desire in its own right and not merely as an extension of male ego or male sexual need. I’m sure that Von Trier knew that many movie goers were starting from that conception.

Von Trier sets his film up cleverly. Joe the protagonist narrates her sexual life story to an excessively logical asexual stranger. As soon as Joe finishes each anecdote from her sex life, Seligman presents a somewhat calming influence ensuring that the audience doesn’t get turned out and putting out the sexual fires by evaluating what she says in a purely logical standpoint. If you have ever tried to flirt with a logical person who didn’t want to flirt back and watched them reply with a calm and uninterested logical response you know how brilliant a technique this is for making a film about sex while not making it too titillating. Having Joe narrate her story to an asexual man also allows the story to remain about Joe’s sexuality and her sexual desires and feelings instead of her story getting lost or overshadowed by the listener’s sexual desires or the listener feeling attracted to her from her “salacious” stories and feeling the need to also express his own sexual needs. Joe’s sexual needs remain at the centre of the story as they should be. This was a brilliant choice on Von Trier’s part.

A central point that Von Trier tries to illuminate in this movie is that sex without love is absurd. He has one of Joe’s friends as a teenager tell her, “The secret to sex is love.” Later after she has been sleeping with up to eight men a day to fulfill her obsession she meets the man that she loves and they get married but when she tries to sleep with him she can’t connect to him. The first volume of Nymphomaniac ends with Joe panicking in bed, “I can’t feel anything.” When she is finally with the person she loves she can’t turn on her feelings again. Evidently like a professor giving the last comment to a student who makes a point she wants the class to think about, Lars Von Trier wants to leave his audience to ponder that point.