Scomparsa a Lørenskog

I don't know how this could be made unless it is explicitly sanctioned by both the authority that investigates and charges crime AND the people that make up the persons of interest. I can't imagine why anyone would agree to it.

Not what I would call a documentary.

Anyway, aside from that I did enjoy it as an entertainment, which I think is problematic as a "true" story.

Now my problem with the presentation in one crucial aspect of "evidence" as presented. The language as we know is Norwegian. I watched it dubbed in English with English captions. As is often the case, the spoken dialogue does not match the captions. Normally this is not a problem, but: Tom Hagen is about 70 and has been married for 49 years to his disappeared wife.

The film has the prenuptial agreement signed in 1993 I believe, which would have put their wedding at around 1973.

1993 is 29 years ago, not 49. Giving more weight to this observation, the dialogue says prenup, the caption says marital agreement. Ordinarily one would not make a fuss over this language discrepancy, except, you cannot have a prenuptial agreement when you've already been married for 20 years.

So, this was not a prenup but an agreement made after 20 years of marriage. It casts an entirely different light on the story, because although it was clear an error was made, what the error was was not clear. Was the year of the agreement 1973 and therefore a prenup (no, I don't think so) or was it not a prenup but a marital agreement made after 20 years of marriage (yes, I think) Although I figured it out I was not 100 percent sure and thought about it the whole time I was watching which was a distraction I could have done without.

It is not evidence of a crime, however, but changes the idea of motive.

If one were not paying close attention to do the math, and not having captions on they saw a different film from me.

I am very disappointed.

This is my first IMDb review, and I feel compelled to write after looking at the less positive reviews here. The Scandanavian dramas on Netflix have been among my favorite of all of their programs, and this one is near the top. The performances are consistently compelling, natural and believable, the directing taut, and, in the best sense, drama-free. The viewer really feels like s/he is in the middle of this complex drama. The story holds a mirror up to issues of class, sexism, police and journalistic bias without providing any easy answers. I was a bit taken aback at the end of Episode 5 that there was no Episode 6, but after some reflection, thought the ambiguous ending suited the series; however, seeing a note from other reviewer about it being missing, I"m sure that if it exists, it will do justice to what preceded it. If you're looking for something fast-paced, easy and prone to putting its thumb on the scale for the topics it covers, this show isn't for you, but if you want something superbly made and thought-provoking, I think you'll find this series well worth your time, whether 5 episodes or 6.

Summary

The novelty of this cold and intelligent Norwegian series based on a real case is that each chapter focuses on one of the sectors involved in the case and as the investigation progresses.

Review

This Norwegian mini-series based on a true case recounts the investigation of the disappearance of the wife of a Norwegian billionaire, in what appears to be a kidnapping.

The novelty of this series lies in the fact that each chapter focuses on one of the groups involved in the case and as the investigation progresses, for example: the first focuses on the police and prosecutors, the next on the journalists who investigate the case, and so on. The change of point of view then does not imply flashbacks that return to certain events, in general, nor the absence of the other protagonists, who circumstantially pass into the background. I must add that there would be some important stratum missing as the protagonist of some chapter...

The tone of the series is cold but its notes on how these groups are related and how prejudices and personal stories work in their working hypotheses are very interesting (particularly in the case of the press) as well as on the role of cryptocurrencies in kidnapping for ransom.

Needless to say, the ending is disappointing, and for more than one reason (which I can't reveal).

A police procedural/investigative journalism series set in 2018 and following in Lørenskog, Norway. It's based on an actual case concerning a wealthy entrepreneur and the mysterious disappearance of his wife.

Each 50-minute episode looks at a different facet of the investigation, though the flow is chronological. Anne-Elisabeth Hagen is kidnapped at the beginning of the first episode. Her husband, Tom (Terje Strømdahl), is a wealthy billionaire. The kidnappers make ransom demands.

Jorunn Lakke (Yngvild Støen Grotmol) leads the police investigation along with her partner, Micael Delvir (Kidane Gjølme Dalva). Erlend Moe Riise (Christian Rubeck) is the lead journalist for the local paper; he appears to have informants within the police department that give him tips to influence the coverage. Aleks Zaretski (Victoria Ose) is another journalist who thinks the newspaper should pursue more theories.

The investigation stretches over two years as police and journalists encounter deadends, unconfirmed circumstantial evidence, questionable procedures, and unreliable sources. In addition, they encounter many potential villains, including Tom Hagen. Nevertheless, the story's final resolution is realistic.

This movie was fascinating to watch in the context of the "She said" film I recently watched that touted the necessity and doggedness of good investigative journalism. "The Lørenskog Disappearance" is more ambiguous, raising questions about the relationship between the press and the police and the possibility of tunnel vision hindering both investigations. I thought it was well done, though several storylines were left undeveloped, and a relatively large array of bad guys made following things difficult.

Fascinating, detailed, intriguing examination of a real-life missing person case. Each episode follows one of the parties involved, ie the police, the journalists, the lawyers, and the story emerges from this fractured looking glass. All good and original and engaging so far. However, when it comes to the 5th and final episode, this series simply just pulls up the drawbridge on the story and gives nothing to the viewer by way of theory, explanation, new perspective. OK it's a 'true' story, more or less, and as such the jury is still out and no one has been convicted. But ending the series with little more than a shrug just confirms this as s a TV experience this is just a distraction for a few hours and with nothing to contribute to the subject it asks us to consider. To be avoided.