20/11/2024 - The Swedish director breaks down his process of turning a 1981 Cold War story into a wacky satirical comedy

(© Bingo Rimér)

Björn Stein, a seasoned director of crime stories and thrillers like Storm [+see also:
trailer
film profile], Shelter and Midnight Sun (often with co-director Måns Mårlind, with whom he has now amicably parted ways), has ventured into the comedy genre. The miniseries Whiskey on the Rocks [+see also:
series review
trailer
interview: Björn Stein
series profile], a satirical take on the 1981 incident that saw a Soviet submarine turn up in Swedish waters, has just had its Swedish premiere at the 35th Stockholm International Film Festival.

Cineuropa: Do you yourself remember 27 October 1981?
Björn Stein: I was 11, but I remember the pictures of a “foreign” – in every sense of the word – object in these very familiar surroundings. This was, of course, before Photoshop, but it looked pretty exactly like that: unreal, a trick photo. We hadn’t even been close to anything like it in Sweden, so very naïve, protected and neutral were we. It was all very peculiar.

And quite hilarious, to be blunt, which can be seen in your adaptation of the events. How did this project come about?
There’d been an idea for some time to do a film with two producers, Henrik Jansson-Schweizer and Patrick Nebout, as the driving forces. For years, they tried to turn it into a thriller, but although it does have some thriller elements, it also lacks some things in order to make it work as a thriller. Henrik started to think of it as a satire and got in touch with Jonas Jonasson, the author of The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared [+see also:
trailer
film profile]. Jonas came up with the original storyline and added his own very special tone. I’d worked with Henrik before, on Midnight Sun, and now he approached me again. “Are you interested in humour?” he asked. I read five pages and was good to go.

What’s your own taste in humour, and how did that play into this particular story?
I’m very partial to the British sense of humour – dry, witty, underplayed. There’s a lot of Armando Iannucci here – in particular, The Death of Stalin [+see also:
film review
trailer
film profile] has been a guiding star when it comes to a satirical recreation of a historical event. There was a rule, of sorts, in that the actors were asked to play it straight and not be “funny”. This wasn’t always adhered to, perhaps luckily, but that was the initial approach, the “deadpan style”.

How freely have you approached the historical material?
Very freely, and yet not. I’d say that about 80% of all of the events actually occurred, though not in the exact way that we depict them, or in that order. As our opening disclaimer reads: “Due to national security concerns, some names and places have been changed. Quite a few, to be honest.”

The ensemble cast seems to have a good time. How did you cast the Russians, Americans and, not least, the Swedes?
The original intention was to use Russian actors, but the global situation changed all of that. The Hollywood strike was also going on. The Russians are now played by Lithuanian actors, who were just phenomenal, and Reagan is played by a Brit, Mark Noble, with very little make-up. Then, of course, there’s Rolf Lassgård as Swedish PM Thorbjörn Fälldin, with his natural authority and his warmth as a human being. We have a very good, handpicked cast. Niklas Engdahl is tremendous as a very fictitious version of the commander-in-chief. And I have to tell you about a man who came up to me after the premiere. He turned out to be Lars Erik de Geer, the nuclear forensic expert who took measurements on the submarine. “Oops,” I thought, “he’s certainly been given a wacky portrayal, and I’m going to get a good flogging.” But he’d had such a blast! His wife as well.

Lastly, and more seriously, concerning the state of the world then and now – what thoughts have gone through your head in this regard?
It’s absurd. When we began, there was no war in Ukraine, and Sweden was not a member of NATO. So much has changed since then, in ways we could never have expected. As for our little film, you can bet that we’ve talked about whether it would be in bad taste to release it. And while that risk exists, we have to remember that our story goes back over 40 years, and we make fun of an incident where no one died. I even think that the world might need a film like this right now, implying that, look, we survived back then, and we’ll make it this time around as well.