Norway, defeated (again) at Cannes. Fjord. A lesson for Hässleholm, Sweden

The Bodnariu family’s drama made headlines around the world in late 2015, with Barnevernet—Norway’s controversial child welfare system — as the antagonist. Eleven years later, at Cannes, Romanian filmmaker Cristian Mungiu’s film Fjord, inspired by the Bodnariu case, once again shines a spotlight on Norway’s abuses. But it also highlights the abusive actions of the Jugendamt against the Furdui family, a case recently closed in Germany.

But beyond these parallels, the spotlight now turns to Sweden and focuses directly on the Socialförvaltningen Hässleholm agency and its abuses against the Samson family—a striking echo of the Norwegian scenario.

Mister Cristian Mungiu won the Palme d’Or for Best Film at the Cannes Film Festival for his complex drama Fjord, starring Sebastian Stan and Renate Reinsve. Thus, the Romanian screenwriter and director becomes the tenth filmmaker to win the coveted award twice—19 years after his first victory, which he earned with the film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days.

In Cannes, justice was once again served for the Bodnariu family, as well as for the hundreds of thousands of Romanians — and others — who protested against Norway and in support of the family: from Auckland and Sydney, to Bucharest, Cluj, Timișoara, Oradea, Suceava, and dozens of other cities in Romania, all the way to Oslo, Vienna, Brussels, London, Dublin, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago, and Hawaii.

Conservatives, Romanian Christians — conservative Christians in general — are constantly subjected to abuse by state systems that claim to be inclusive, yet distort even the rules and definitions created by their own structures: inclusion, political correctness, the far right, transphobia, hate speech, LGBTQ+, etc. An entire Netflix series could be made just about the United Kingdom, for example.

The film Fjord tells a story inspired by the Bodnariu family case: a Romanian-Norwegian couple living within Norwegian law and society, raising their children with a conservative upbringing — one grounded in the values and principles that have built the foundation of the modern society we enjoy today. That is, until the state, through its oppressive apparatus, Barnevernet, brutally intervened and tore the five children from their family, the youngest being only two months old.

What was the official reason? Corporal punishment — unfounded allegations, with no criminal or medical evidence. The real reason? The family’s religious beliefs and conservative upbringing. “Inclusion with an asterisk,” as Norway put it.

While the Fjord has not yet been released to the general public, the jury’s reactions — coupled with the opinions of critics and mainstream publications such as The New York Times and Vogue — once again paint a picture of failure for Norway and highlight the lack of common ground in such societies. The case of Samson Family in Sweden follows a similar pattern.

In fact, the Romanian filmmaker himself chooses to question progressive values and the way a modern society treats those with different value systems:

“I talked to journalists and NGOs, I read about other cases, I went to Norway, I asked to attend court hearings […] and I realized there was a pattern to these cases. … The law in Norway began to change between the time I started researching the story and the time I began filming. Even they noticed that something wasn’t working very well and changed the law.

Fjord is about exploring the limits of your privacy and freedom and what happens when your personal values don’t align with the values of the society in which you want to live in this globalized world. It’s also about what rights you have over your own children, where those rights end, and where society steps in. We always expect a very modern and progressive society to defend its minorities.”

Speaking with a Polish journalist, the Romanian filmmaker addressed the Barnevernet’s practice of abusively separating children from their families, citing Poland as an example:

“… as you know, there have been many cases involving Polish citizens as well. There was even a diplomatic incident between Norway and Poland because the Polish ambassador left with a child in the trunk of his car.

What happens is that it’s very difficult when the values differ so greatly between the society you come from and the one you’re in. The point is that people take for granted the freedom to follow your own values even if you move abroad and live in a different society. But the situation isn’t that simple.”

Is it dangerous to be different in countries like that?

Well, it makes your life difficult. It’s better to be a nice white sheep in a flock of sheep — no one will notice you. But if you happen to have a black spot, you have to be strong. And this happens in all societies where people have different opinions; they have to be stronger, because they’ll be noticed, and I think in the case of such families, you realize how powerless you are, because, of course, society is stronger than you — you’re not in your own country — and I think they’ll do everything they can.”

In another interview, this time with RFI, journalist Vasile Damian asks Cristian Mungiu about what motivated him to make the film:

“I’ve read some very flattering reviews of the film. But I also came across a rather harsh one in Les Inrockuptibles, which accuses you of making a reactionary film.”

“Cristian Mungiu: It’s their right to see it that way, and you realize that I took a risk. Ultimately, what I’m trying to do here is make a statement—namely, to assert that we still have the freedom to question certain values that are so deeply ingrained in our society today that even expressing doubts about them has become completely politically incorrect. I don’t believe that in art, in cinema, there should be things we’re not allowed to talk about, and I’m willing to take the risk of being seen as a defender of traditional values. That’s not the case at all if you watch the film, but I know this risk exists, and I know that in a country like the one we come from, the film can be interpreted ideologically by each side, as always happens. But this is something we cannot prevent—this ideological manipulation and this twisting of the truth in every direction to serve electoral and propaganda purposes. It’s something we can’t fight against. What’s important is that for those citizens who still possess a critical spirit, the film triggers a kind of internal process in which they ask themselves, ‘What is our position, and how can we ensure we don’t lose this freedom to hold opinions and express them?’”

Mister Mungiu is absolutely right, and the fact that he so clearly articulates the natural right to hold different opinions and to criticize things — especially when they are imposed on you — is encouraging.

Naturally, this film will be exploited for ideological and propaganda purposes, but the happy ending to the Bodnariu case — the family’s reunion — and the global movement behind it prove that they were always right: Norway has been defeated, and its abuses have been condemned worldwide. Over the past 10 years, Norway has lost 21 cases at the ECHR due to repeated abuses by Barnevernet.

Global reactions

Reuters reports on the reaction of the jury president, Park Chan-wook, who spoke about the film’s artistic depth and its message of tolerance. From this perspective, Fjord is seen as a film about the practical difficulties of coexistence between very different value systems.

Park Chan-wook praised the film for its contribution to a better understanding of different perspectives, “in a magnificently artistic way,” Reuters reports.

Associated Press: Political Polarization and “Left-Wing Fundamentalism”

The Associated Press describes Fjord as a drama about political polarization. The AP notes that the film centers on the conflict between a family of Romanian evangelicals and Norway’s child welfare services.

The news agency also notes that the film touches on the theme of “left-wing fundamentalism,” a phrase that highlights one of the most sensitive aspects of the debate sparked by Mungiu: how a progressive society can, in turn, become rigid or intolerant toward those who do not share its cultural norms.

France 24: “Few critics had bet on him. And yet, Mungiu won the Palme d’Or with a film about the sensitive issue of religion. The film’s structure is masterful. It pits religious freedom practiced in a strict manner against child protection enforced by a state devoid of humanity. Fjord paints a portrait of a progressive society sliding toward authoritarianism.”

Le Monde: The contradictions of societies that claim to be tolerant

The French publication sees the film primarily through the lens of the internal contradictions within Western societies. Le Monde describes Fjord as a film about the fractures and tensions within societies that present themselves as tolerant and open.

The publication describes the “Kafkaesque” journey of a Romanian family in a small Norwegian town, suggesting that the film’s central theme is not only the conflict between East and West, but also the way in which institutions can turn cultural differences into extreme cases.

Variety regards Mungiu’s film as a continuation of his exploration of characters caught up in rigid social structures, where personal decisions end up being judged, regulated, or crushed by institutions.

The New York Times: “From the podium, switching effortlessly between English and French, Mungiu stated that, in his view, it is important for cinema to address ‘relevant’ themes, emphasizing that today’s society ‘is fragmented, divided, and radicalized.’” In ‘Fjord,’ once child protective services open an investigation, a seemingly private family matter makes the front page of the newspapers and, in turn, turns into a proxy war between religious conservatism and social liberalism.”

Unfortunately, the Bodnariu family’s tragedy has been reenacted for over three years by the Hässleholm Social Services against the Samson family in Sweden, whose daughters — Sara and Tiana — are being abusively separated from their parents and from each other and thrown by officials in Hässleholm into the ugly and violent world of Sweden’s child protection system.

What kind of child protection system — one that claims to act in the child’s best interest — forcibly commits children to psychiatric facilities simply because they want to return to their parents?

This question should be answered by Ms. Lena Nilsson, Chair of the Social Committee in Hässleholm and a member of Sweden’s Social Democratic Party (S), as well as dozens of other council members and officials from the municipality of Hässleholm.

That is, until they become, as in the case of Norway, the subject of a film that gains international attention.

Foto: AI / Tribuna.US