When I was young, I learned that the word quisling meant traitor. Interested in its origins because the suffix “ling” is a diminutive (duckling, earthling), I looked it up. I then learned the word eponymous. I haven’t encountered the word quisling in recent years, so I searched it on Google N-grams to discover that its use in English peaked in the mid-forties and it has now essentially disappeared from the language.

Quisling – The Final Days/The King’s Choice

Norwegian director Erik Poppe’s film about the imprisonment, trial, and execution of Vidkun Quisling, President of the World War II Norwegian Government that collaborated with the Nazis, just had its international premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Quisling – The Final Days is the obverse of The King’s Choice, Poppe’s 2016 docudrama about the enormously consequential decision by King Haakon VII in 1940 to go into exile in England, rather than serve as a figurehead for a Nazi puppet government led by Quisling. This film treats the three pivotal days with modesty, precision, and historical fidelity. It is both enlightening and inspiring. Beth Herst and I discuss it at length in the book we are writing. It is available for streaming on Apple, Amazon Prime, and Google. I strongly recommend it.

Competing Narratives

The new film presents two competing narratives, both of which are located in the same quadrant of my fourfold classification of political fables: the sacrificial and the retributive. In both cases the narrative arc involves decline for the protagonist and enhancement for the polity, but the interpretations are very different. In the sacrificial fable, the protagonist suffers but the well-being of the polity is enhanced. In the retributive, the polity exacts retribution from an individual who has harmed it, an act that restores its well-being. In his trial, Quisling testifies that his wartime government saved Norway from the scourge of Bolshevism and protected Norwegians from the horrors of war, so that conviction and punishment would be of an innocent man. The prosecution’s argument is that Quisling’s regime harmed many Norwegians, especially resistors and Jews, and that his punishment allows the nation to recover from an ignominious episode in its history.

The narrative unfolds primarily in two places, the courtroom and Quisling’s prison cell. Quisling’s self-justification as the protector of Norwegians is contradicted by the prosecution’s evidence. Quisling claims that he “helped more Jews than anyone in Norway.” We then hear evidence from one of the handful of Norwegian Jews sent to Auschwitz who survived while one thousand of his brethren who were murdered. This testimony, given in July 1945, is the first official confirmation in Norway of the nature of Hitler’s final solution – which Quisling zealously implemented.

The Lutheran bishop of Norway appoints Peder Olsen, a hospital chaplain, to serve as Quisling’s spiritual adviser. (One of the major sources of the story material is Olsen’s personal diary.) Olsen’s conversations with Quisling encompass both Quisling’s self-justification and his growing self-doubt and Olsen’s own exploration of his faith, his motives, and his behaviour.

Quisling’s and Olsen’s wives both serve as subplots. Quisling’s wife, completely supportive of his twisted self-justification, writes to every political leader she can think of, including Stalin, asking for mercy. Olsen initially keeps his assignment confidential, but when his wife discovers he has been counselling Quisling, they begin an examination of their own actions during the war.

The film ends with Quisling’s execution. Quisling asks not to be blindfolded, because he wants to look death – the firing squad – in the eyes. Though that request is refused, his last words are “I’m convicted unfairly! I die innocent!” Quisling’s path to that last act of defiance, in particular his dialogue with Olsen, is not direct and unequivocal. Because I usually write film reviews or analyses long after they have been released, I include spoilers. As this film has not yet had its commercial release, in this case I will not.

See it When you Can

This is an eloquent and thought-provoking film of argument, dialogue, self-exploration, and reflection. The actors who portray Quisling (Gard Eidsvold), Peder Olsen (Anders Lie), and spouses Maria Quisling (Lisa Carlehed) and Heidi Olsen (Lisa Kongsli) are all excellent. I’m sure this film will resonate deeply with Norwegians because it explores a critical period in their history and perhaps touches on their personal experiences or those of their family members. But the issues it deals with, resistance or collaboration, are universal.

If it is well-received by the TIFF audience – which it seemed to be the night I attended – it might have a limited theatrical run in Canada and the US. Sooner or later, it will be available through streaming. I strongly recommend it.