Astoundingly dishonest documentary about the Swedish Academy

Astoundingly dishonest ”documentary” about the Swedish Academy

SVT looking for cheap points of Horace and Stig Larsson "

This is a kulturartikel which is a part of Aftonbladet's opinionsjournalistik.

I thought I knew everything about the Swedish Academy, but apparently not, astounds Ebba Witt-Brattström in the P1-Morning (5 dec). It is the color coding she is angry about, which is revealed in the SVT documentary " The closed society.

When Stig Larsson and Jean-Claude Arnault hung at the pub in the eighties, they put with each other different colors on the women in the room; blue meant something, and purple otherwise. It is not clear whether Her former husband Horace Engdahl was in this, but the pressing question is another:

it Is surprising and disturbing that men talk about women when they are at the pub? It is the meaning that women never rate the men in the same way? Paxar, a dude who stands at the bar, take aim and get him home for a lie? Is there such a thing that only happens in Sex and the City and at the city Hotel in Härnösand?

Ebba Witt-Brattström appear in the radio as the man of independent mind of the Swedish Academy. I thought we decided in the spring for that it is not possible, but the Swedish Radio think differently. Not a word about her eyes can be garbled to her years ago is located in an embittered feud with his exman, Horace Engdahl. On the question of what she herself bears the responsibility, she replies that she was busy with her yearling.

Constantly, this reduction of women with a child on the arm; they can't think, they can't be expected to have a time with morality.

It is Her oldest son who specious enough, got an apartment by the Swedish Academy, but in the SVT documentary, you only talk about Engdahls stepson. Witt-Brattström does not need to answer a few questions about the contract. And how is it with the other accommodation in the Academy? It is only Horace Engdahl as nallat of the Academy's key ring?

It is the ”Witness B”, who tells of the mighty men now forty years old color system. The voice is garbled, like deep throat in the watergate scandal, he dare not appear with this information, for he is afraid to be punished. Antydningsdramaturgin is enhanced with the fateful stråkmusik.

With the same burkigt pixlade voice says, ”Witness A,” a night in the Swedish Academy, the apartment in Paris. She asks to sleep in the small room, Arnault wants to have sex, she defuses. Foolish – and, apparently, the typical – done of him, and well acted by her. But I would still like to know the context, all ports not in the Swedish Academy, the apartment in Paris.

the Doorman tells her that she has not seen Arnault in a long time, but the last he had with a woman who porter describes as ”timid”. Oh well? It is a proof that she is abused and defiled?

In an old arkivklipp get Horace Engdahl, the question if he is a feminist. Implicitly, it must be in order to not be suspected to belong to the misogynas crowd. He says that it is good that Ebba is there but he himself is cool in the face of all ideologies. The reasoning is cut in the middle of, and are not carried out. After that, Stig Larsson refer to a call from 1994, when Horace explained to him Judith Butler's theory of gender as a social construction. Stig Larsson says that he finds the whole idea insane.

Okay. Stig Larsson and Horace Engdahl did not vote in favour of Fi 1994. It is thought probably none of us. But what gears can you pull on it?

It is just Engdahl and Larsson (and Brattström) set up for the interview. They would probably not have done if they knew how the program would be cut. As soon as Horace Engdahl is on the way to say something interesting, the cutter forward. I do not doubt that he says things that are unheard of in the gender equality in Sweden, but not a single time get the viewer to follow a whole tanketråd.

There is no reason to detract from the Horace Engdahls of responsibility, but all the silly and bad that are attributed to the Academy, he is not alone guilty, although all are now washing their hands so it frolicking. The documents are common. All of the awards and scholarships have been taken in the plenary – and it is clear that Stig Larsson's important authorship should be rewarded. The ignorance of those who blew the whistle on Arnault is documented collective. This applies to all the members of the two warring camps.

Knut Keinz Rognerud and Christian Catomeris claim that their film depicts ”the Swedish academy, the men and the abuse”. They succeed neither with the one nor the other, and, above all, they find nothing new under the sun – if they do not seriously believe that the color coding in the eighties is a scoop. What they do is something else.

the Classic sounds to the incredibly low threshold for how to get be as a human being. Just as traditionally, they have unilaterally chosen a perspective, but pretend to stand for common sense.

The closed society is probably the most biased documentary about the cultural sector that SVT sent since 2001, when Folke Rydén allowed karaktärsmörda Lars Norén. As a journalist I am offended by that when colleagues do something so biased and call it a documentary. This is not a documentary. It is an infam and astounding taffligt edited degree of self-government in an ongoing maktstrid.

The maktstriden should the media portray, but hardly in this way. Once again we see how the good cause may impose on the factually challenging journalism.

Sweden Is certainly not a greater country than that this just may last. All the cringe of fear, yes that's right, retaliation.