Interview

it’s already obvious, and then the question is solely about what exactly you write, and not about whether there is a fashion for it.

Well, okay, do you feel some kind of responsibility as one of the few Norwegians who represents the culture of your country in the world? For example, judging by your books, Oslo is a rather uncomfortable place: full of corruption, drugs and unsolved murders.

Oslo is the backdrop against which my stories unfold. Naturally, this Oslo is a twisted, dark version of the real thing; It's about the same story as with Gotham and New York, for example. If I lived in Madrid, I would write the same about Madrid. I haven't heard anyone criticize me for portraying Norway incorrectly; I guess people understand that this is fiction, and Oslo is just a geographical setting for a story about people and the choices they make.

I also ask because it’s not for nothing that you mentioned Gotham: your books are very interesting, it’s as if you immediately keep the frame in mind when you write. Are you really holding it? It would make sense, considering how often your novels are turned into films.

I hope not after all. In any case, I try not to do this. It seems to me that the point here is not that I rely on adaptations, but that for me cinema has always been an important source of influence. I always wrote this way, even before they started buying rights from me.

But now for the first time you have written a script - not about anything, but about how Russia occupies Norway. Moreover, I heard that you came up with this already in 2007, when the conflict in Georgia had not even happened yet, not to mention Crimea.

Let's start with the fact that I didn't write the script for "Okkupert", I was the author of the idea. And the idea was to transfer the experience of our parents, who went through the Second World War, to today: what happens if power in your country passes to some force that is many times superior to you? Moreover, everything happens in a fairly calm manner, so you can choose: resist the occupiers, cooperate with them, or - as most Norwegians did seventy years ago - just sit quietly and continue to live as if nothing had happened.

Well, still - probably, when Russia annexed Crimea, you said to yourself: “Bingo!”

Not really. In general, the fact that Russia is the occupier is not so important to me. In one of the versions, I even suggested that this should be some kind of fictional country: then the viewer would not be distracted by who exactly occupied Norway and the concepts associated with it; That's not the point. But the producers said that although we have an alternative history, it is in the real world - and I eventually agreed with them. Nevertheless, approximately the same mechanism works here as with Oslo in my books: just as there the city serves as a backdrop for a story about people, so here it serves as a fictional political situation in Europe.

Nevertheless, Russian diplomats began to criticize your idea a couple of years before the first episode was released: they say that these are all Cold War stereotypes and have no relation to reality. Did they not understand anything either?

Let me explain again: my idea is about a rich country that becomes a victim of occupation, but at the same time retains all the privileges of a rich country. People can still go to London or Barcelona for the weekend, afford to rent spacious summer houses, and consume seemingly free media. What are they willing to risk for the sake of such abstract concepts as independence, freedom and democracy, if everything concrete is still with them?

If Norway bordered not on Russia, but on China or the USA, I would choose one of them, it doesn’t matter at all. The only criterion here was that the occupation must be carried out by a country that had enough military strength to do it overnight and without much resistance - exactly the same as what happened with Norway in 1940. At the same time, I can understand that Russians are nervous about being portrayed as aggressors. Yes, you generally have a reputation as bad guys in world pop culture; and yes, specifically in the case of Norway this can be especially unpleasant, since the Soviet Union liberated the backend of the country from the Nazis in 1945 and then withdrew its troops. On the other hand, you know what's interesting? In Sweden, no one seems concerned about being portrayed as collaborators who approve of the occupation of their neighboring country. Maybe because this is such an incredible scenario for them that they simply don’t try it on themselves and don’t consider it a criticism of the Swedish people? I don't have an answer - but one thing I can say for sure: all these discussions died down when the series finally began to be shown. Perhaps people have finally realized that this is not about heroic Norwegians and evil Russians.

on. This is not a telephone conversation." She doesn’t understand what he means, because they agreed that he would take the child himself, and now she needs to return to the hall.

Berg at a cabinet meeting. He says that he spoke with representatives of Russia and the European Union. Norway must submit, military resistance is futile. The ministers object: we need to show the Russians that we are ready to give them a fight.

The action goes back one hour. Berg in a helicopter with the kidnappers. They talk to each other in Russian. The helicopter landed at the edge of the forest. Berg speaks via video link with a senior EU official (the Commissioner). “Oil and gas production will be resumed - with or without you. Russia kindly agreed to assist in this,” says the commissioner. Berg protests and demands that the head of state speak to him. Then the Prime Minister of Sweden appears next to the commissioner and tells him that Sweden supported the EU's actions: “I'm very sorry, but we warned you many times.”

The kidnappers, in poor English, inform Berg that if he does not agree to their terms, he will be taken out of the country, and Norway will face a full-scale invasion. Berg resists. An old man comes out to the edge of the forest and walks his dog. Berg calls him for help, but the Russians kill the old man with a shot - the first victim of the conflict. The shocked prime minister immediately agrees to the conditions put forward. The corpse is dragged into the helicopter (a bloody trail remains in the snow), and Berg is dropped off.

Continuation of the cabinet meeting. Berg explains that Norway is not able to withstand superior military force alone for long, and there is no need to expect help from its allies: the EU is in cahoots with Russia, and the United States has long since left NATO.

The PST chief speaks to Djupvik and reprimands him for hanging up on him while reporting to the ministers. At this time, Berg passes by: “There is no need to start an investigation into the kidnapping. There was no kidnapping." Arnesen lets Djupvik go home for the rest of the day.

Russian ambassador in Berg's office. “I am glad that now we will work closely together. I came to you to discuss the terms of the agreement."

Berg goes down the stairs and on the way to the television studio meets Eriksen, who has arrived at the government house. The journalist tells him that he saw the kidnapping. Berg: “It was an exercise and nothing more.” The prime minister recommends that the journalist not write anything about what he saw; in return, he is ready to give him an exclusive interview “about the new situation, which I will now announce to the nation.”

Djupvik is in a cafe with his daughter, watching the prime minister's speech on television. Norway does not want to force a new energy mindset on Europe and is ready to resume oil and gas production indefinitely until Europe prepares for a full transition to alternative energy. “We agreed to accept the help of the Russian government in resuming oil and gas production on the Norwegian shelf. The only tangible effect for the population will be economic growth. In addition, the Russian presence will be increased in certain areas.” Djupvik’s wife comes to the same cafe after work: “You see, there is no war. You're always assuming the worst."