Cry wolf : Holly and Lars, two protagonists in the destruction of a family

With that story about a “borderline 14-year-old teenager” named Holly (Flora Ofelia Hofmann Lindahl) one will find it a pity that the scriptwriter did not manage to question why a teenager decides consciously to destroy her own and only family (1).

Is the scriptwriter unable to understand it herself ?

That incapacity of hers, is certainly the weakest part of her work. No surprise though : no doubt, that answering to the questioning is what make the difference between a scriptwriter and an author.

Difference between the film industry and literature ?

It is to be noticed that from the scriptwriter there is no point of view on that teenager Holly who is certainly likely to become a sociopath grown-up. For that reason, the teenager appears "gratuitous" as a fictional character.

As for the social worker named Lars (Bjarne Henriksen)... who is, in a way, a "borderline character" too, there again, the scriptwriter has no point of view on him ; point of view which could be… for instance, that “he is not (or rather “is no longer”) fit for the job”.

Perhaps, the main concern of the scriptwriter was to expose how Danish children’s social services function. There again... the scriptwriter has no point of view on that subject even though, we, as viewers, are highly tempted to evaluate their functioning negatively even if, in the real world, it is very unlikely that this institution should reach such level of incompetence… as for instance, the decision taken to allow the return of the teenager into the family circle without having been able to answer the only question that is to be urgently addressed : why is Holly what ( and not who) she is ? And that one also, that come as a consequence : how dangerous is Holly’s capacity to create major crisis situations ?

Are we then to conclude that Maja Jul Larsen is a "no point of view scriptwriter" through and through ?

Lack of courage ? Incapacity of assuming her own work ?

The teenager Holly has probably understood very early that her father-in-law could be easily driven to become what he is not yet but could well potentially turn out to be if encouraged to : a wife-and-children bully and abuser.

As for the social-worker, Lars, he unconsciously (contrary to Holly who is conscious of what she is aiming at and why) seems also determined to provoke a major crisis by as far as he is concerned… as a means, there again unconscious, of reviving vicariously ( through the father-in-law as a sort of a “go-between”) the violence he experienced as a child ; violence from which he never departed : indeed, the social-worker has no family, no friend, no partner, no life of his own… except his work and the cases he deals with - cases of family violence, child abuse ; his work is his only family as it were… locked-up, prisoner, as he is, of that environment ; he never made “a life for himself” contrary to his advice to Holly in the last episode.

Lars, a character “absent to himself” we should say ; the only unconscious character of the series by the way ; a series that ends with a shot of Holly’s visage… Holly facing the sea, standing on top of a cliff ; the scriptwriter would have been well inspired to add a smile of triumph, at least… a smile of satisfaction for the accomplished deed, on the character’s face which could then have been interpreted as thus : “Now, I’m the one who is in control”… since this is what it certainly is about on the part of Holly, the “borderline teenager” : control and power.

The last question is : what is she going to do with that newly acquired power within the family… at least… of what is left of it ?

We have been given no reason to be optimistic in our answer. The worst is yet to come.

1 - As for the question whether one should always believe a child’s accusation ; it really is a bogus question since everybody will agree that we all lie : adults, children, teenagers (foetus ?) etc…