Thursday, October 18, 2012

Forbrydelsen's Sofie Gråbøl


Yesterday I watched this great interview with Forbrydelsen’s (The Killing) Sofie Gråbøl: 


While the interview focused mostly on how she assumes different roles (and I’ve never been as interested in acting as in narrative), two feminist things stuck out in particular:

1)  Women sometimes have a hard time being present

Two times Gråbøl mentions that too often in party settings, women busy themselves as hostesses: preparing aperitifs, checking on guests, making sure glasses are filled. Men, however, tend to be more still. She believes the difference lies in the fact that women put others above themselves, while men are more able to let people come to them. It’s the divide between moving and being, and perhaps I can learn from this. 

I’m not suggesting a gender-role overhaul, but rather a bit of deeper awareness for my own life, at least. When I’m attending to guests and bouncing from conversation to conversation, I only punctuate the surface of the relationships with people at the party, whereas people who sit and talk can dig deeper. In my continual desire for excitement, maybe it’s actually better to really talk to someone at a party instead of hop-hop-hopping to feel like I’ve fulfilled my hostess duties and gained the instant high of talking to a lot of people.

2) Sarah Lund needed to be conceptualized as a man before she could be acted as a woman

Gråbøl tends to play characters who give everything, emotionally.  They cry, they scream, they run, they laugh to the full extent of their being. With Sarah Lund, it’s the opposite. She gives nothing, and instead viewers come crawling to her, wanting to peer inside her and unearth those emotions.

When it came to Sarah Lund, Gråbøl apparently had a hard time digesting the character at the beginning, even though the role was created mostly for her. She seemed impenetrable – the bridge from character in the written screenplay to the physically acted personnage was too vast. It wasn’t until she started observing some of the physical movements of some of the men on set that she could envision Sarah Lund realistically. The jerky arm movements, the angled walking, the clenched hands – these were all things Gråbøl needed to absorb before Sarah Lund could become a complete character. However, the character, in Gråbøl’s mind, is definitely not a man. The acting process, though, required her to move through a masculine mode in order to arrive at the complexity of playing a female detective whose dedication to her job, familial fuck-ups, and accepted loneliness resemble masculine characters.

This gender-bending deep character is what’s important to me in Forbrydelsen, because Sarah Lund is so problematic, both as a woman and as a detective. She’s incredibly unconventional in both regards, which makes her fascinating to watch. Søren Sveistrup writes the plot points especially to draw attention to the battle between personal and professional life. For example, how many times do we see Lund answer her cell phone when she’s trying to connect with her son, and thus ruins the moment?

Such is the modern woman’s plight in a man’s world (and the police force, with its hyper-masculinity, is one of the worst of these places), and I’m thankful that female characters like Lund are accurately portraying that never-ending paradox: when women try to have it all, we give something up. I think we ultimately have faith in Lund, however, because she’s unconventional; this is what causes her to take the risks needed to catch the criminals, even at the expense of her family or romantic life.

I hope other women can be similarly inspired by Lund to test out the waters of unconventionality.

Note: much of the inspiration for these thoughts comes from Gunhild Agger’s article “Emotion, Gender and Genre: Investigating The Killing.” 

5 comments:

  1. I had that exact thought when I first saw Forbrydelsen (full disclosure, I've only watched the first season, and some of the second); that Sarah Lund essentially has to essentially become in order to fully inhabit the role of a believable crime fighting detective. From the uni-sex Icelandic sweater, to her neglect of family, more commonly associated with males, she really embodies masculine roles much more than she does feminine. This gender-bending would actually be great if only there was some sense that Sarah Lund ALSO was seen as a woman, but as far as I know (and given my somewhat limited knowledge of the show I easily could be wrong), there is no emphasis on how she keeps her femininity while functioning in this hyper-masculine arena of law enforcement. It would be nice if she had some success as a woman, also, such as for example her partner in the first season, who got killed, who, if I remember correctly, had family and stuff. So the man, apparently, can have it all, while the woman cannot. I like the show though, and think that Sofie Gråbøl is one of the finest Danish actors there is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Morten! Yes, you're right that Lund is sometimes seen as a "failure" as a woman, and her home life only becomes more and more disrupted in the 3rd season. I think the show, however, for all the characters, puts family second. For example, we have no idea whether Brix has a family, and Lund's partner Meyer may try to balance his home life but then he dies! So he can't have it all, either.

      In her article, Agger argues also that when Lund assumes the masculine role, Meyer scoops up the feminine pieces by being more of a family man but he therefore loses power in their partner dynamic. So there's a gender-role reversal. I think this is true, and it underlines the fact that again, for the police in Forbrydelsen, power and aggression come at the expense of personal lives, for better or for worse.

      Delete
  2. Have you watched "Bron" (The Bridge) or "Engrenages" (Spiral)? It would be interesting to read one of your notes comparing Sarah Lund, Saga, and Laure Berthaud. They're all what you'd call "headstrong women" and because of their position in the force (they are chief detective or inspector), as well as the way they behave, they are perceived as masculine. Saga's manly behavior is clearly explained by her social inaptitudes (she seems to be borderline "autistic"- quoting the actress)while I think Sarah doesn't even try or want to be seen as a woman (only started watching series 3 and she appears to regret some of her choices on that). Laure's case, on the other hand, is more complex: while being tough on her squad (a character refers to her as a "tyrant"), she inspires them loyalty precisely because she retains her feminity and they see her as a woman they want to protect...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen Bron (loved it!) but not Engrenages. Bron is a really interesting show precisely because of Saga's "borderline autism," in that Martin Rohde, her partner, is therefore somehow responsible for socializing her by getting her in touch with her emotions. Like Sarah Lund, Saga seems to bequeath certain gender roles to her male partner (although the difference here is that Saga may not realize what she's missing, while Lund may have consciously chosen this path). But perhaps that's simply what makes them good at their jobs - they eliminate emotion from the picture so they can think like the sociopaths they chase.

      I'll have to check out Engrenages!

      Delete
  3. Loved "Broen", but mainly because the storyline seemed to be heavily inspired by both "Seven" and my 1971 b-movie Vincent Price classic "The abominable Dr. Phibes". After episode 4 or 5 of Broen i knew how episode 9 and 10 would turn out.

    ReplyDelete