"Malm Has Fallen Victim to Digital Critics"

In a column, Expressen's culture editor Victor Malm criticized the decision to stop Stina Oscarson's dramatization of "Tills alla dör". Now, Olof Hanson, artistic director at Kulturhuset Stadsteatern Vällingby/Husby, responds to the criticism. Malm responds directly.

CULTURAL DEBATE. It always fills me with joy when theater is discussed, both theater in general and the theaters I am the artistic director of in particular.

First, a few words about Stina Oscarson. An important voice in Swedish culture has passed away. It is a personal sorrow that she is no longer with us; we worked together many times over the years. Meeting in conversation with Stina Oscarson was a privilege, a display of honest testing and careful scrutiny. For her, the conversation was central, the dialogue.

Victor Malm writes about a dramatization Oscarson made of Diamant Salihu's brilliant journalistic work "Tills alla dör" (Expressen 8/6). His conspiracy theory suggests that there is an educational conformity in the performing arts world, a "social regulation" that supposedly compelled me not to stage the text. However, Malm does not quite dare to claim that this is the case, "I cannot prove this, only invoke my experience as support." He has also not contacted me to ask about the matter.

Something tells me that Malm himself may have fallen victim to social regulation from digital critics, but of course, I have no evidence at all; I invoke my artistic sensitivity as support.

We who live and work in suburban areas often experience this; there is talk about our activities, but actually participating in the place and the art seems almost impossible.

Malm's text is a tentative attempt at reasoning about the age-old question: how do works and creators relate to each other? And how are recipients influenced in their interpretation of the work, depending on prevailing perceptions of the creator?

I believe Malm wants to say that he thinks works should be seen as separate from their creators, and that I would not share that perspective. Now I want to be clear: my artistic decision is entirely based on the dramatization and is not colored by the rumors and conflicts surrounding Oscarson. If another theater, or Oscarson herself, had shown interest in staging the dramatization after my decision not to produce it in Husby, I would have welcomed it and done everything to facilitate it.

It is exciting that Malm has opinions about the repertoire—especially exciting considering that he, as far as I know, has never seen a single production, whether dance, theater, or art exhibition, on any of the stages in Vällingby and Husby. We who live and work in suburban areas often experience this; there is talk about our activities, but actually participating in the place and the art seems almost impossible.

Furthermore, Malm tells that Oscarson's exposure to the "social power" intensified in 2018, when she, according to Malm, "fell out of favor with the influential." As part of my influential work, I allowed Oscarson's dramatization of Fatemeh Khavari's book "Jag stannar till slutet" to be staged in 2020. Since Malm seems to have had some problem with his local search engine, I would also like to add that Oscarson's play "Under almarna" was performed at Kulturhuset Stadsteatern in 2021, then at our most public unit—Parkteatern.

As an artistic director, one often finds oneself in a situation where I need to choose between different plays. This time we chose to stage "random" by Debbie Tucker Green, which dealt with gang violence from a family perspective. Unfortunately, this was a reality relevant to the people who live and work in Järva. Stina Oscarson's adaptation was based on telling Järva's reality to an inner-city audience. Thus, it becomes highly relevant for 30-somethings with offices on Kungsholmen.

Malm suspects that I am a "public optimizer" for the theater. It is precisely the opposite. The easy part is counting. The hard part is thinking.

By Olof Hanson

Olof Hanson is the artistic director at Kulturhuset Stadsteatern Vällingby/Husby

DIRECT RESPONSE. A sad sign of the times is that artistic directors do not argue aesthetically and do not seem to have particularly strong faith in the universal qualities of art. Olof Hanson retreats—unfortunately—once again to target audience-adapted identity arguments.

It goes something like this: Järva residents want to see gang violence depicted from a family perspective. The inner-city audience wants to see it from an inner-city perspective. Tall people want to see it depicted from a bird's-eye view and short people from a frog's-eye view. Kind people from a kind perspective and mean people from a mean perspective.

A bit arrogant, to think one can define relevance for people at a group level, a bit authoritarian, but it is also the model available if one refuses to talk about artistic quality. I have read Stina Oscarson's dramatization of "Tills alla dör". It is good and essential, and since I believe that art, literature, and theater deserve a place in the center of society, I also believe that good art is just as relevant for all people, everywhere, always. Hanson's attitude seems to me some kind of well-meaning but meaningless paternalism.

He seems to mean that Oscarson's dramatization is wrong rather than bad, and then there may be no reason for us to discuss the matter. The opinion has nothing to do with art. The cultural world's aversion to Oscarson is not a conspiracy theory. It still lives, and Hanson, like everyone, can of course be influenced by opinions he does not share. She was wrong, her play was wrong. It is sad.

Victor Malm is the culture editor at Expressen.