Collaborating instead of competing: on Lilyhammer, Netflix and the future value of entertainment for Public Service Broadcasters

(1)

Collaborating instead of competing: on Lilyhammer,

Netflix and the future value of entertainment for

Public Service Broadcasters

MA Thesis

Michiel Baars 10645950 21st of May 2018

1st_{supervisor Sudeep Dasgupta} 2nd_{supervisor Toni Pape}

Television and Cross-media Culture University of Amsterdam (UvA) 21.774 words

(2)

1. Introduction

In spring 2015 the former Dutch state secretary of Education, Culture and Science Sander Dekker expresses his disagreement with the NPO (Dutch Public Broadcaster) about the broadcasting strategy and policy for the upcoming years (Hendrickx, De Volkskrant).

However Dekker and the NPO agree on most of the reforms, there is one major issue: what to do with entertainment television on Public Service Broadcasting (PSB)? De Volkskrant states that Dekker’s strategy and policy basically consist of the following: “No flat entertainment anymore, yet still remain relevant for the new generation of viewers”. For me personally, this statement from 2015 raised a lot of questions.

First of all, when can entertainment be called flat? And in line with this: to what extent does entertainment have value for PSB? I am convinced that I have learnt a lot from watching television as a young child and as a teenager, although I did not very often tune in on

informational, educational television broadcasting. Television, traditionally seen as a window to the world, has the ability to create encounters with society, stimulating reflection on

society. For me it is also through entertainment that this kind of reflection is facilitated. Dekker’s strategy therefore to me seems contradictory. Younger people use more computer related media (Bardoel & D’Haenens 352), and therefore it is logical that in the contemporary television landscape the Public Service Broadcasters (PSBers) have the task to adapt to new viewing or user practices. This seems necessary to keep the younger audience involved with PSB content. In this time of enormous amounts of Video On Demand (VOD) content however, it is also the case that often watching hours of entertainment is preferred over informational content. So Dekker’s strategy also raised the question to me: is

entertainment programming not part of the new viewing practices, and thus necessary to stay relevant for the younger generation of viewers?

In the eventual law, as a compromise the NPO is allowed to broadcast entertainment television in order to “attract and bind a diverse audience, by means that the targets of the public broadcaster can be brought under attention” (Keultjes & van Leeuwen, Algemeen Dagblad). In practice this means that in the Netherlands entertainment on the NPO is tolerated. For proponents of entertainment on PSBers one would say: count your blessings, entertainment is still alive.

I am however convinced that Dekker’s discourse of social worthlessness of a vast part of entertainment programs it is unwise and unfair. Through a case study of Lilyhammer (2012), an entertainment series produced by Netflix in collaboration with the Norwegian PSB Norsk

(5)

Rikskringkasting (NRK), this Master’s thesis aims to argue that if entertainment is produced and distributed in the right way by PSBers it can be core in the PSB strategy in reaching the new generation of viewers with their specific content. The people that are interviewed for this Master’s thesis namely unambiguously state about Lilyhammer that they see the series as pure entertainment series. However when discussing the series, it comes forward that they all have reflected on issues such as immigration, national identity and core ideological values.

On the one side, Dekker asks PSBers to provide the sort of entertainment that is relevant to both citizens and the role of PSB, a policy statement which is hard not to agree on. In this thesis I however want to argue that perceived flat entertainment seems to be more valuable than Dekker suggested, as Lilyhammer is highly reflected on by the interviewees. On the other side, Dekker asks PSBers to address new viewing practices in the digitized media landscape, and thus to evaluate its modes of access. In this research project it is argued that rather than being two separate entities, entertainment and new viewing practices tango together, as entertainment as a type of content is part of the younger generation’s viewing culture of binge-watching. It then is the task for PSBers to respond with adequate content and modes of access in order to engage younger citizens with socially relevant issues.

For the above mentioned reasons the answer on the following research question is sought in this thesis: to what extent does Lilyhammer reflect on social issues through comedy, and how does this mechanism, combined with Lilyhammer’s broadcasting strategy, enable PSBers to reformulate its role in citizenship for millennials? This research question can most adequately be answered with the use of more than one research method. In order to discuss the social issues and the value of comedy, this thesis firstly undertakes a textual analysis on the series Lilyhammer. In this way the stereotypical discourses in the series as a tool to reflect are revealed, as well as the role of comedy in aggregating these discourses. Secondly a reception analysis aims to reveal if the audience is concerned with in-depth watching. For the carefree nature of entertainment it is the question if the audience is concerned with the

stereotypes and discourses as suggested by the text. In this way the interaction with the text is analyzed, and thus partly the function of humor in this interaction. Thirdly a platform analysis is performed on Netflix, the NRK on television and the NRKtv Internet platform. Through this analysis I argue that Lilyhammer uses a multiplatform strategy to reach a diverse target audience, but also that NRKtv on Internet has adopted the platform specifics of Netflix in order to reach the millennial audience.

The analyses all provide with part of the answer on the research question, which leads to the observations that (a) Lilyhammer consists of more than enough culturally significant

(6)

scenes full of interesting stereotypes and discourses to reflect on, (b) the interviewed part of Lilyhammer’s audience does reflect on these stereotypes and discourses, and comedy arguably assists in this reflection rather than standing in its way, and (c) the multiplatform strategy and the collaboration between NRK and Netflix addresses a large target audience, but most importantly chases the viewing behavior of millennials. It is for these reasons of meaning and availability that Lilyhammer is an example of how social-cultural PSB content can be relevant for millennials in a mediascape of digitization, and thus maintaining the PSBer’s role in cultural citizenship. Quite obviously therefore, this article seeks to contribute to the debate of entertainment on PSBers, and therefore also in the debate of involving the new generations with citizenship.

(7)

2. The theory of television’s history and future

2.1 Introduction

Television has just like any other medium historically undergone notable changes on every aspect, from the machine itself to the audience and its viewing habits. The digitization of this media landscape challenges the sustainability of the medium once again. Keilbach and Stauff however argue that “part of the ‘power of television’ lies in its constant transformation process, enforced by a continuous reflection on the ‘appropriate’ use and an ongoing redefinition of television” (80). Lotz described in 2014 what the state of the medium was at that time:

“We may continue to watch television, but the new technologies available to us require new rituals of use. Not so long ago, television use typically involved walking into a room, turning on the set, and either turning to specific content or channel surfing. Today, viewers with digital video recorders (DVRs) may elect to circumvent scheduling constraints and commercials, while others download or stream the latest episodes of their favorite shows, either within or outside the conventional setting of the living room” (Lotz 3).

These radical changes recognized by Lotz require certain anticipation by media companies, as they need to adapt their means of production and transmission to stay relevant players. This is especially interesting in relation to PSBers, who are expected to contribute to citizenship in democratic societies. This chapter seeks to further elaborate on the social function of television and PSB in particular, in order to better contextualize this research project on Lilyhammer. For the same reason a brief theoretical view on the contemporary television zeitgeist and the history of PSB in Norway is presented.

2.2 Historical overview

In order to work up to the case of (Norwegian) PSB up to this date and the future of PSB in a digitalizing media landscape, first as a matter of contextualization a brief review on the historical development of television as a medium and social practice is presented. There are innumerable different ways to cluster television’s history. Many theorists however agree on dividing television into three main periods, which are in particular composed on the base of technology and availability in relation to the Western market.

(8)

The first period in television’s history is commonly acknowledged as what Ellis calls the ‘era of scarcity’. According to Ellis, “the era of scarcity was the era of television’s introduction into society” (40). The name ‘era of scarcity’ derives from the fact that in this period, there were only few broadcasting channels, which were only on-air at some parts of the day (39). With this structure television addressed a mass audience. In this period television as a

domestic medium found its place within the households of a society with “growing affluence in the developed world after the Second World War” (41). Other terms used to describe the first phase of television from 1950 to 1975 are the ‘broadcast era’ and ‘TVI’.

1975-1995

The second period in television’s history in Ellis’ way of ordering, is what he calls the ‘era of availability’. This phase of television’s development is technologically characterized by the growing influence of cable and satellite as means of transmission. Because of this

technological shift, “television moved into [this] era of availability, where a choice of pre-scheduled services existed at every moment of the day and night” (61). The television

audience in this period was provided with more content than before, mostly facilitated by the rising amount of commercial broadcasters. However television was mostly pre-scheduled and still linear at this time, the audience’s autonomy of choice has greatly increased in comparison to the era of scarcity (61). Other terms used to describe the second phase of television from 1975 to 1995 are the ‘cable era’ and ‘TVII’.

1995-now?

Ellis describes the third phase in television’s history as ‘the era of plenty’. This period is arguably known as the period of digitalization we are living in right now. The era of plenty was, as Ellis writes in the year 2000, “foreseen as an era in which television programs (or, as they will be known, ‘content’ or ‘product’) will be accessible through a variety of

technologies, the sum of which will give consumers the new phenomenon of ‘television on demand’ as well as ‘interactive television’” (39). This increased availability through the digitalization of the media environment in combination with the choice when to watch the programs at that time further enlarges the viewer’s autonomy. Other terms used to describe the third phase of television from 1995 up to this date, are the ‘digital era’ and ‘TVIII’. 2.3 TVIV and matrix/multiplatform media

The digitization of the media landscape in the age of plenty has in the past years put question marks to the future of linear television. Within the West, there is a growing trend for people, especially those of younger generations, to watch less television, preferring instead to use

(9)

more computer related media (Bardoel & D’Haenens 352). It therefore is a relevant question what will be the next step for television in order to keep its head up. To stay within the terms of TVI, TVII and TVIII, Jenner asks herself if we maybe have yet reached the phase of TVIV keeping the rise of Netflix in mind. TVIV can according to Jenner be “understood as an era of matrix media where viewing patterns, branding strategies, industrial structures, the way different media forms interact with each other or the various ways content is made available shift completely away from the television set” (4). The variety of media involved with TVIV, and the detachment from the television set itself, “signals a further move away from what is still understood as television” (13-14). This raises the question what we are actually referring to when speaking about television.

In the redefinition of television the interaction between media forms as mentioned by Jenner is generally recognized. Television is nowadays commonly seen as a multiplatform medium. Jenkins places this multiplatform transformation in the larger context of a

‘convergence culture’. With this, Jenkins refers to “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want” (2). In this way, Jenkins does not only keep in mind the way of transmitting televisual content. With his view on the audience Jenkins also recognizes that certain technological shifts also have its effect on the viewer. Whereas the viewer has become more diverse and volatile, the creators and distributors of televisual content try to find their ways to transform their product in ways in which their target audiences remain within their grasping range. The etymology of broadcasting derives from addressing a mass audience, but within the digitalizing media scape with VOD and individual switching between media platforms it becomes harder to gather the masses for certain content. Anticipating to the changes in the media landscape is therefore essential for television- and other media

companies to keep their heads above the water. PSBers, discussed in 2.7, have the extra task to keep their heads above the water while producing socially relevant content.

2.4 On the role of television in society

Television has historically been a medium with a prominent social role. Zelizer adequately describes the social process of watching television: “Television audiences view, watch, and witness on one level. On another, they might physically interact with others. On yet another, they might attend to larger ready-made meanings for what they are seeing. On each level, it is possible that activity undertaken within the viewing situation ‘connects’ them with others”

(10)

(71). This explanation can be divided in two main observations. Firstly, television has a social role by aggregating direct interaction between people. This process can for example be seen in what is informally called the ‘water cooler conversation’, in which people chat about which events are presented through media such as television. Secondly, the social role of television derives from interpreting the media text itself. This point inherently directs towards Hall’s model of encoding/decoding. In short, in this model Hall stresses out that media texts are ‘encoded’ with a certain meaning by the media creator, but that this media text is thereafter ‘decoded’ by the receiver, who distracts a certain discourse from the media text from within his/her own framework of knowledge (Hall in Durham & Kellner 165). Zelizer describes what can be seen as a result of the social act of interpreting a media text:

“…undoing the link between actual physical places, the home or public stage, and boundaries of private and public [implies] that people can act as part of a public while situated in private settings. They can ‘connect’ without the presence of others, their connectiveness depending little on physical locus or setting. This means that connectiveness … can take place in the ultimate private domain, the home” (Zelizer 71).

With this analysis Zelizer describes the traditional core social characteristic of television. The medium can contribute to social interaction both by facilitating conversation among people about television texts, as well as by facilitating interaction with the text itself. In 2004, before the evolvement of multiplatform television, Gripsrud states about the role of broadcast

television in society that it is the “central institution within the public sphere, making essential information, knowledge and cultural experience available at the same time to all members of a particular society” (212). According to Williams therefore, “broadcasting can be diagnosed as a […] powerful form of social integration and control” (16). Rizzo however states that “as a form of television that disperses its content across a number of devices and platforms, multiplatform television does not have this unifying capacity” (121). It therefore seems that the social role of television is altered by the medium’s change.

Despite the statement of Rizzo that multiplatform television does not have a unifying capacity, referring to the idea that alternatives to broadcasting leads to a separated audience, the digitalization of the media landscape does not necessarily negatively affect social

discussion or unity. Selva argues that “the combination of television and social media

(11)

constitution of publics, to political engagement, and to collective shared identity” (169). Whereas the audience may not watch everything in the same way and at the same time, social media therefore proof to be a digital facilitator of discussions on televisual content. Social media therefore support the maintenance of television’s social value. Sørensen complements that “broadcasters are in a unique position to combine the reach of TV as a medium with the reach and affordances of social media to create personalized viewing experiences, as well as attention and a buzz around events” (387). This indicates that however the audience is not one consistent entity, it can be pointed towards certain common issues by addressing the viewer individually.

2.5 The role of traditional television in a multiplatform environment

Just as with any other shift between the eras of television, a possible shift from TVIII to TVIV is not a clear visible breach with the past. For this reason it is especially interesting to look at the role of the more traditional forms of television in the era of matrix media. In relation to this topic, Rizzo states that “broadcast/network television and multiplatform television should not be understood as opposites” (121). As a notable example to support this statement, she analyzes that “broadcast television continues to maintain a national presence through scheduled programs such as evening news programs”, but that “it is also becoming

increasingly multiplatform by spreading its content across different devices and platforms that encourage viewer participation” (121). In this sense linear television seems to maintain a role of significance, also within the multiplatform television landscape. Modern platforms

however prove to be an important tool for broadcasting channels to chase the audience, and therefore to keep the televisual content relevant. Curtin also argues that multiplatform television does not mean the end of linear television, as “some television series are now viewed millions of times after they are broadcast, via Fancast, Veoh, Hulu and dedicated network sites” (16). In this way, television has as a multiplatform medium become a way to recycle- and therefore add (economic) value to- what is broadcasted.

Also Mikos acknowledges that “although conventional television is still dominant, more and more viewers use mobile devices to watch films and television series

asynchronously and autonomously” (159). Now that televisual content is watched on several different platforms, the perception of the content also differs. Mikos states about the viewers that “their changed use habits go hand in hand with new offerings that invite intensive reception” (159). With this he seems to refer to binge-watching. Watching recycled (or resurrected) series from traditional (linear) television on other platforms provokes a different

(12)

viewer experience, as the autonomous choice of when to watch allows the viewer to come to a better understanding of the series. On the other way around, for the same reason of affordance television series are now often made more complex. As Mittell states:

“Giving viewers the technology to easily watch and rewatch a series at their own pace has freed television storytellers to craft complex narratives that are not dependent on being understood by erratic or distracted viewers. Today’s television assumes that viewers can pay close attention because the technology allows them to easily do so” (Mittel at The Conversation).

With this statement Mittell suggests that aesthetics and viewing practices have changed. In conclusion to the role of traditional television, it can be said that it is “still dominant” within the television landscape (Mikos 159), and that although there is a shift to a multiplatform media landscape, there still is a place for the content originally produced for traditional television. Within the era of matrix media however, there is a shift in the viewer’s perception. The autonomy of the audience has increased in a time in which the viewing practices are shifting towards a culture of binge-watching. It is therefore the challenge for television (broadcasting) channels to find a way to (a) reach their target audience on the available platforms, and (b) to respond to the newly evolving viewing practices.

2.6 On viewing practices and the new flow

The newly evolving viewing practices in the era of matrix media are discussed by Van Dijck. Van Dijck adopts two key concepts of Williams in relation to television’s audience. Firstly, she discusses “the concept of ‘flow’ – an endless stream of concatenated programs that glued the viewer to the screen –…” and secondly she mentions “the concept of ‘mobile

privatization’ – referring to the way in which mass media makes mobility an endeavor that can be pursued in the privacy of one’s own home, allowing people to see what happens in the world without having to leave their living room” (Van Dijck 147). With the digitization and the evolvement of television as a multiplatform medium, the notion of flow has changed. Van Dijck explains that “unlike broadcast networks, homecast platforms such as YouTube or GoogleVideo do not decide what viewers get to see at what time (a continuous flow of programmed content), but watching videos is a based on viewers decisions, facilitated by search engines and ranking algorithms” (150). This is also the case when looking at online services provided by traditional broadcasters, who have therefore partly lost control of what

(13)

its audience sees at what time. And, in relation to mobile privatization, they broadcasters have also lost control of where their content is seen, as it can now be watched on mobile devices almost anywhere.

Despite the increased autonomy of the viewer due to mobile privatization and the absence of strict televisual programming, the term flow still remains of key importance within the strategy of online video platforms. As Van Dijck argues, “just as television stations are eager to capture viewers’ attention by programming a ‘flow of content’, as Williams typified the produced concatenation of television programs, video-sharing sites are keen to keep their users glued to the screen” (152). The artificial creation of a flow nowadays does not anymore derive from programming, but from directing the audience’s choice. Hallinan and Striphas mention that “the shift away from ‘appointment viewing’, long prevalent in traditional television, to ‘binge-viewing’ grew out of Netflix’s analysis of viewing data, which showed its streaming customers tended to watch several TV episodes back to back instead of one at a time” (129). This awareness of viewing data has helped companies such as Netflix to keep their viewers attached to the screen on the basis of such data. The concept of flow proves to be relevant for Netflix, as the company made itself able to stimulate binge-watching through its platform’s specifics, and also for example by creating complex narratives.

2.7 Public Service Broadcasting in a multiplatform media landscape

A brief insight in the renewed viewing practices such as VOD and binge-watching in combination with the changing social role of television brings up the issue of the legitimacy of PSBers in a multiplatform environment. In order to discuss this matter, this paragraph first discusses the historical legitimation of PSB. According to Pickard, the legitimacy of PSB can be found in social democratic ideals. He states that “social democracy promotes a mixed economy and treats fundamental services like education as public goods that require subsidies and special protections. It thereby seeks to reinforce civil society’s foundations by promoting public investments in critical infrastructures and institutions like universal health care, public media, libraries, and schools” (Pickard 202). A certain social usefulness of media is in this system thus seen as the government’s responsibility.

The traditional role of PSB is a “role of making available spaces where ideas of collective identity are articulated and deliberated, and in so doing constitute a ‘technology of citizenship’” (Nolan 227). With this, Nolan refers to the facilitating power of television in the forming of public discourses. Wu deepens this mechanism, as she states in relation to

(14)

public discourses to solve immediate, grand social issues but to also search for the core values that define the political system” (416). With this, Wu acknowledges the value of television for different levels of cultural involvement. Cultural citizenship is thus layered, and so is the way in which social discourses are produced. Wu therefore argues that “the discourses may as well, if not more enthusiastically, be inspired by pleasure-oriented experiences” (416-417), referring to entertainment television.

The characteristics of PSB content have in relation to citizenship mostly been “information, culture, education, the organization of pluralism [and the] promotion of minority cultures” (Budacia 56). These content characteristics derive from a certain PSB mission. According to Blumler, this “public mission, then, distinguishing it from private television neglect, may be conceived in terms of four communication tasks within four underlying value commitments” (405). An important task is “[1] communication for

citizenship: bearing a sense of some responsibility for the health of the political process and for the quality of public discussion generated with it” and “geared to the idea of the well informed and self-determining individual able to make sense of civic information in ways that relate to his/her own life and decisions and informing the national debate” (405). The other three tasks mentioned by Blumler are [2] programming for children, [3] cultural patronage and [4] the expression of national and regional cultural identity (406-407).

The mission of PSB is historically frequently challenged. In the 1980s for example, “European PSB was roughly shaken up. Technological (cable and satellite, digitalization and convergence), political (neo liberalism, deregulation, Europeanization of legislation),

economic (economies of scale and scope, concentration, commercialization and trans-nationalization) and socio-cultural (postmodern, assertive, hedonistic consumer-viewers) factors seriously reorganized the media scene in European countries” (Van den Bulck 2007; 29). Van den Bulck continues that “as a result, PSB lost its monopoly, its audience, its

credibility, its clearly defined mission (29). Furthermore, “for public service broadcasters, the coming of digitalization coincided with political pressure to cut expenses” (55). For these reasons, PSBers are looking for “new sources of revenue” (55) which can still help in fulfilling the traditional PSB ideals.

The question here is raised if PSB can maintain its objectives in the contemporary media landscape. Moe is optimistic, as het states that the attitude of PSB “is characterized by a set of values rather than specific distribution channels. In line with this, the core values of public service broadcasting – supporting citizenship universally with quality services – can be transferred to new means or forms of communication” (63). Yet also if PSBers succeed in

(15)

usefully addressing these new means of communication however, as Citton argues especially within the digitalized media landscape attention is a scarcity (6-7). It seems hard for

informational- and educational content to compete with largely entertaining commercial content and social media. PSBers have traditionally also been broadcasting entertainment, but not directly for its value for citizenship as Wu discussed. Van den Bulck states that by

PSBers, “entertainment programs were used to gain an audience for the serious, (in)formative programs” (338). Van den Bulck argues that:

“[PSB] television had to target a general audience while at the same time pay attention to a variety of tastes and interests all within the boundaries of ‘quality’ and

‘relevance’. Special attention was paid to the enhancement of the educational and cultural capital of the audience. This led to high professional standards and a demand for impartiality. With regards to content, the two main pillars of its policy were the contribution to national identity and a cultural educational logic” (Van den Bulck 323).

Referring to the increased competition for the audience’s attention within the digital media landscape, the question can be asked if it is not necessary to acknowledge the value of

entertainment within citizenship in order to grasp especially the younger audience’s attention.. By answering this question, it will be clear if high quality entertainment can fit within

Larsen’s vision that “a publicly funded broadcasting institution can survive in a digital media environment … by maintaining a focus on the quality of the content” (73). He furthermore states that this is “regardless of the platform on which it is distributed” (74).

This statement implies that PSB should not solely focus on broadcast television, but also involve in online strategies. One of the most successful forms of Internet television is Netflix, with its subscription video on demand (SVOD) characteristic. Netflix “inspired widespread marathon viewing sessions for the eighteen-to-thirty-four age demographic and the younger audiences of Netflix” (Matrix 119). This means that Netflix with its platform and its content is able to capture attention in the time of its great scarcity. It is therefore that it seems that PSB can learn from Netflix, however, “the VOD service offers none of the more ‘traditional’ television genres, such as news, game shows, sporting events or other programs associated with TV’s live aesthetics” (Jenner 261-262). Whereas Netflix is focused on

(16)

success with serialized drama, it is therefore the question for the PSBers to what extent serialized drama and other entertainment content can be addressed in order to still contribute in providing with content fitting within the traditional PSB mission.

2.8 The case of Norwegian PSB

The history of television in Norway is comparable to the medium’s development in the rest of the Western world. Broadcasting in Norway started with private radio entrepreneurs in the 1920’s. According to Puijk, “partly because the government realized that the private sector would not be able to offer radio services to all parts of the country, broadcasting was taken over by the state in 1933” (101). The newly founded public broadcaster Norsk

Rikskringkasting (NRK) was then “granted a monopoly in both radio and television”, however television broadcasting found its birth way later: in 1960 (101).

The monopoly of the NRK in the television landscape “ended at the beginning of the 1980’s, when the government allowed both local broadcasting and cable networks to

distribute (foreign) satellite television” (99). It is in this time that the Enlightenment Department of the NRK becomes very relevant. This department “is important for the

legitimation of public service broadcasting, because it is meant to produce exactly the kind of programs that commercial broadcasters often leave out from their programming, including programs for minorities and special interests” (100). Since the 1980’s it has thus been the quest for NRK to compete with commercial content and in the meantime staying close to the PSB mission.

To stay relevant, according to Sundet “since the 1990’s, NRK has s gone from being a broadcaster of public radio and TV programs to being a multi-platform media company with activities on a number of such platforms” (177). She concludes that “the transition has been a successful one. The company continues to be a dominant actor in the Norwegian media market in general, and NRK’s radio and TV channels are among the largest in their respective arenas” (177). Internet services such as NRK.no were established in the 1990’s, and in the first decennium of the new millennium there has been a focus “on developing mobile media services” (178).

In relation to the contemporary zeitgeist, Sundet notes that there is a “future in which NRK’s position, particularly among young people, is threatened by social and interactive media services on the Internet and mobile phones” (177). According to Sundet this has its effect on both the ways of transmitting and producing content. She states that “to counter this fate [or: threat from interactive media services, red.], NRK must be innovative and creative

(17)

both in their use of platforms and genre” (177). For PSBers it is the fear that upcoming platforms “will actually replace the more traditional use of radio and tv” (179), and this inherently questions in the case of Norway the legitimacy of the conventional license paying by the younger generations (180). It is therefore a key task for the NRK to address the

younger audience in creative ways. According to Sundet the NRK is aware of this task, as she states:

“For NRK, it is clear, the emergence of new media platforms has been used as an argument for expansion, and NRK has stated its aim to explore areas outside its core markets. The

main argument has been that NRK, as a public service broadcaster, must provide something for everybody to the extent possible; hence, it needs to be part of those new media platforms that are so evidently popular with its viewers and listeners. By distributing the same type of content to several platforms, NRK allows audiences to select where and when they want to consume it” (Sundet 180).

In NRK’s strategy for 2007 to 2012, the broadcaster’s aim is described in the following way: “Something for everyone. Always” (182). As a result, according to Pickard PSBers like NRK are now public service media institutions rather than just broadcasters. “By 2011, the

institution [NRK, red.] views its Internet-based service as basic and on a level with broadcast services” (Pickard 58). On these services other than broadcasting, the NRK is according to the Broadcasting Act of 2008 just like with broadcasting expected to adhere to certain pillars: “[1] to support and strengthen democracy; [2] be universally available; [3] reinforce Norwegian languages, identity and culture; [4] aspire to high quality, pluralism and innovation; and [5] be non-commercial” (Moe 57). Roppen, Lund and Nord about this last point however state that in practice in Norway “the PSB also has dressed up as a commercial player in some contexts. But what is more important is that this is done as a way of strengthening the PSB” (145).

(18)

3.1 Introduction

The Norwegian-American series Lilyhammer (2012) is announced by Netflix as “the first of many brand new, original and exclusive series to debut on Netflix” (Netflix Blog).

Lilyhammer therefore is a notable series in Netflix’ history. It can be seen as a preamble to other highly celebrated Netflix-original series such as House of Cards (2013), Orange is the New Black (2013) and The Crown (2016).

Lilyhammer is an entertainment series about the Italian-American New York-Mafioso Frank ‘the Fixer’ Tagliano, who is placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program after testifying against the new mafia boss in the city. Because of his positive memories of the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Tagliano asks to be relocated to Norway. His new identity is now Giovanni Henriksen, an American-Norwegian immigrant.

In this little town Lillehammer, of which mostly the characteristics of the village community are emphasized, Henriksen’s bold New York-mafia background clashes with the mainly soft Norwegian inhabitants. This culture clash between the American metropolitan citizen and the Norwegian village citizen provides interesting insights about how the national identities of both countries are represented in Lilyhammer.

Throughout the series, (comical) stereotyping is recognizable as a key mechanism in forming these identities. Through the amplification of personal characteristics Lilyhammer provides numerous comical scenes through which conflicting identities are represented. American national identity is represented as relatively individualist, or even egoistic compared to the Norwegian, however some Norwegians in the series idolize the American identity since it is to them a tool to be less of a ‘failed’ resident of Lillehammer. The American urban culture and the rural Norwegian culture are therefore to some extent both critiqued– as well as celebrated throughout the series, and the American and the Norwegians copy some of the others’ social conventions. The Norwegian and American identities in Lilyhammer negotiate about norms and values within the liberal-democratic system through (comical) stereotyping.

Because of the humorous scenes in which both the differences and the similarities between the American and the Norwegian national identity are represented, the choice is made to perform a discourse analysis focused on stereotyping and comedy. All three seasons of the series are discussed. The most exemplary scenes are however extracted from the first season of Lilyhammer. This season exposes the biggest cultural clash as both identities are not yet adapted to each other. Through this methodology this chapter exposes the representation that however the Western world is often seen as a unity and the non-Western world as

(19)

different, there are still significant differences within the Western world itself. Lilyhammer for example exposes the differences in the gradation of governmental involvement in Norway and America. On the basis of divergent characters, it is represented that neither the Western identity, nor the national identity is uniform. Rather than just exposing conflicts within the negotiation of Western identities, Lilyhammer also shows that a lot can be learnt from each other. Giovanni Henriksen in a hard way teaches Lillehammer’s community how to stand up for themselves, whereas the Lillehammer community shows Henriksen how kindness and collaboration can also be addressed to reach certain goals.

Numerous scenes about non-Western immigrants in Lilyhammer furthermore expose how the Norwegian and American national identities are not always represented as opposites. Through the (comical) stereotyping of non-Western immigrants, a discourse of the opposition of the Western against the non-Western world suddenly unites the American and the

Norwegians. The case of immigrants in Lilyhammer is represented through the problematic mechanism that the Western characters see themselves as a unity only when it is within their own interest, such as in their attitude towards non-Western immigrants. Lastly this chapter discusses the status of the Norwegian welfare state on the basis of comically stereotyped American, Norwegian and (non-)Western identity.

Added together, the geopolitical complexity of the relationships in Lilyhammer makes the series a relevant case study within the field of popular geopolitics. This complexity consists of (former) foreigners negotiating with national identities, and of the representation that

belonging to a certain group is stretchable and volatile. In order to be able to make any practical conclusions on Lilyhammer’s social value however, the series’ audience can’t be left out of sight. It is for this reason that the textual analysis of Lilyhammer is supplemented by ethnographic audience research. In this way, a combination of analyzing the text as well as the reception of Lilyhammer can contribute to the debate on the social value of entertainment television on Public Service Broadcasting, taking into account that the series is co-produced by the Norwegian PSB NRK.

3.2 Norway vs. America in the theoretical field of geopolitics

The field of popular geopolitics is a sub-field within critical geopolitics. Dittmer states that “critical geopolitics interrogates how and why we have come to think of the world (or parts of it) in a certain way” (11). Dittmer acknowledges that critical geopolitics is not only relevant in an historical way, but that the field also calls into question the wisdom that we produce now (11). Therefore, the field of critical geopolitics is the most relevant field when looking into the

(20)

contemporary balances between the Western countries.

As a starting point for this chapter, this theory sections adopts Driver’s analysis that “images of national identity do not work exclusively from within”, but that “they are

frequently constructed by contrast with an imagined ‘Other’” (152). This Other can be a group of people from a culturally totally different part of the world. As an example, “European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self” (Said 3). But national identity can also derive from seemingly smaller differences, such as differences within the liberal-democratic parts of the Western world itself.

A common tool to emphasize differences is stereotyping. According to Dodds, the analysis of stereotyping in media texts can “be used to explore how commonsense

stereotyping of ‘Others’ contributes to the articulation and reproduction of national identities” (75). These stereotypes can for example be emphasized in media texts within the adventurous travel theme, where a character leaves his home environment for an unknown place. This theme can according to Zimmerman “traditionally create, reinforce and promote specific ways of seeing for particular cultures” (60). Writers can in this way use the theme to “transport ideas” (60). Internal stereotyping within a country can also be performed, among others by opposing the rural and the urban areas. Dirksmeier states that “the asymmetric representation of country and city could be used as a fruitful stimulus in more recent studies of spatial relationships, as it links to the efforts being made to criticize binary oppositions and hidden systems of hierarchies” (885), exposing that Otherness is not always related to a national notion of identity.

Stereotypes in media texts thus amplify characteristics. A lot of the characteristics of Nordic crime fiction lead back to the Nordic socio-political system. Mostly, Nordic crime fiction is filled with criticism on the well-known extensive welfare states in the region (Bergman 84). Bergman specifies why:

“Since the 1950’s, the Nordic welfare societies have developed a reputation abroad for being a successful middle way between capitalism and communism, a type of society where the state takes care of its citizens. People from other parts of the world are often curious—sometimes even envious—of the Nordic welfare states with their high taxes that provide such things as free education, free healthcare, and free care for children and the elderly. Although this is not as true as it used to be, as the welfare systems are currently in the process of being dismantled, many people abroad still believe things to be the way they used to be in the past, and they still want to learn more about these

(21)

strange societies” (84).

With naming the Nordic countries ‘strange societies’, Bergman suggests that the Nordic countries have an own identity, which is interesting for others (or: ‘Others’) to look in to. Nordic crime fiction is according to Bergman furthermore known for its strong women characters, which relates to the relatively high gender equality in the country. According to Bergman, “to international readers much of this (…) seems progressive” (85). Furthermore, the Nordic landscapes are often represented in Nordic crime, whereas “the large and sparsely populated landscapes of the north” are pictured “as something exotic; a land with its extensive forests, deep lakes, and wide mountain tracts—where wolves, moose, reindeer, and perhaps even polar bears roam—seems far removed from the densely populated urban areas of many countries” (86). The characteristics and identity of the Nordic region are an important part in the storytelling about the region.

America’s national characteristics are according to Eissenloeffel “an outcome of an idea” (78). Chesterson states that “America is the only nation in the World that is founded on a creed” (Chesterson in Eissenloeffel 78). Hofstadter states about his home country that “it has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one” (Eissenloeffel 78). For these reasons, America seems to pursue a clear identity that its citizens are generally aware of.

A vast part of this ideology can be recognized when looking at the notion of ‘the American dream’, the “dream of a land in which life should be better and richer, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement” (Adams 404). This American dream “is important for the American cultural identity” (Eissenloeffel 79). From the ideas behind the American dream, certain aspects are extracted. One of them is individualism, “the consciously chasing of gratification” (79). Individualism according to Giampetro and

Kubasek “assumes that citizens should succeed in economic pursuits by their own initiative” (165). This implies that rather than the government or society, the individual is the focus of social power. In Giampetro and Kubasek’s words, collectivism is therefore “the antithesis of individualism” (166). Furthermore individualism is according to several authors highly linked to materialism. Other aspects attached to the American creed are liberty, egalitarianism, populism and laissez-faire. These aspects together with individualism lead to the idea “that if you work hard enough, grab your individual chances and believe in God, ‘the American dream’ is within the reach of everyone” (Eissenloeffel 80).

In relation to the American dream, “the archetypal American has been seen as self-reliant, optimistic, strong, ingenious, determined, adaptable, principled, moral, peaceful, democratic and prosperous” (Renwick in Jansson 268). According to Zielinski, Americans

(22)

have a “heroic self-image of the lone, self-reliant, upward-striving individual, sharing equal rights and opportunities with all” (41), which relates to the notion of the American dream. These archetypical characteristics are leading in discussing the American national identity. Within fiction media, the writers can make use of such characteristics in their storylines in order to add meaning to the characters.

The meaning of characters is, besides how they are constructed by media producers, however also dependent on the reception of it. A commonly accepted method for audience reception within media studies is ethnographic research as a form of qualitative empirical research. This ethnographic research is according to Ang “usually carried out in the form of in-depth interviews with a small number of people (and at times supplemented with some form of participant observation)”, which can be used “to learn about the differentiated

subtleties of people’s engagements with television and other media” (29). This differentiation points towards the idea that the knowledge of any identity represented in media texts is related to the framework of knowledge and ethnographic specificities of the recipient.

Hine states that “by the act of choosing to do ethnography within defined contexts, we make tentative claims about what might be significant in making particular engagements meaningful, and different from other engagements” (568). Ethnography thus is a matter of the interpretation of researchers. Hine continues that “methodological choices can (…) be highly consequential for theoretical development, and the issue of choosing contexts relevant to understanding interpretive practices is particularly highly charged” (568), as it is the researcher who relates the findings to certain theoretical observations.

3.3 Belonging to a group in Lilyhammer: when and why? 3.3.1 Introduction

The media text Lilyhammer mainly aggregates the forming of identity by diverse comical situations in the narrative. However, the characters do not always unambiguously belong to one certain group with a solid set identity. In many scenes in Lilyhammer, the Norwegian people and the Italian-American protagonist Giovanni Henriksen are represented as opposites. It is for this interplay of identities that when a scene constructs a Norwegian identity, it often immediately also constructs an American identity. In the series often first the similarities of the identities are shown prior to the oppositions. Lilyhammer often uses the comical confusion after the initial representation of unity as an introduction to the differences between the general notions of their identities.

(23)

Henriksen joins the neighborhood watch group the ‘Night Ravens’, because he wants to “talk sense into the kids” who misbehave in Lillehammer. At first it is suggested that both Norway as well as America have concerned citizens in relation to the youth’s behavior, and that therefore they are much alike each other. When the group gathers with Henriksen for the first time however, the contradictions become clear. When Henriksen appears with a baseball bat in his hands, the group leader says: “We Night Ravens are one hundred percent non-violent”, to which Henriksen reacts: “How do you expect to get anything done? You can’t talk to bad guys. You think we would have gotten Saddam if we’d shown up in yellow vests and wanted to chat?” (S01E04). In this scene, after having the same moral starting point, the Norwegians are comically represented as soft towards misbehavior, whereas Lilyhammer stereotypes the American as harsh and violent. This fits with the idea that stereotypical projections can help mapping the Other’s national identity (Dodds 75).

However most scenes add to the representation of both identities, the scenes are mainly discussed for either Norwegian or American identity. In this way the strongest evidence for the interpreted representations are presented. Furthermore, in order to expose that the Norwegians and the American are also in some way represented as unified with a collective Western identity, this chapter discusses the case of stereotyping non-Western immigrants in Norway. As a follow-up, this chapter exposes how the immigration theme as a whole is used to discuss the status of the Norwegian welfare state in order to reflect on the possible use of (comical) stereotyping to address certain topics. The Norwegian, American, Western and non-Western identities, as well as the status of the Norwegians welfare state are discussed on the basis of audience remarks, after each individual part of the textual analysis. This methodology helps in finding out how the interviewed audience members perceive the discourses and stereotypes of Lilyhammer.

3.3.2 Norwegian national identity

The representation of the Norwegian national identity

The Night Raven–scene brings up a reoccurring theme within the representation of

Norwegian identity in Lilyhammer, which this analysis refers to as ‘correctness’. Correctness (in relation to this research) refers to an attitude of lawfulness as well as an attitude of socially desirable behavior. The theme is for example also exposed in the scene where Henriksen points out that the campaign “Hip-Hop Against Drugs” sounds contradictory, just like according to him a campaign as “Hookers Against Blowjobs”. A Norwegian man reacts to him: “I hope also everyone understands the seriousness of this here” (S01E04). The

(24)

Norwegian man is here represented as serious and decent, since he does not laugh at all as he seeks for respect towards the campaign.

This Norwegian correctness also comes forward when Henriksen wants to bribe his driving instructor in order to get his Norwegian driving license, the instructor says: “Well, that is not really by the books” (S01E03). Henriksen replies: “The book, the book, always the book…” (S01E03), suggesting that Norwegians are according to him far too decent and law-abiding people. This is also the case when Henriksen bribes an immigration service official by offering money for a license when he wants to open a bar. The official reacts by saying: “Do you want me to call the police?”, to which Henriksen replies: “All right, maybe you do things differently here” (S01E01). Through these scenes, Lilyhammer negotiates the borders of the represented correctness of Norwegians, since eventually both the driving instructor and the immigration service official break at certain points of Henriksen’s bribes. In the narrative, the stereotypical American character Henriksen evokes situations in which the limits of the represented Norwegian lawfulness and socially desirable behavior are sought.

The correctness of Norwegians, often as a reaction on the comically stereotyped individualist harshness of Henriksen, introduces a critique on Norway as a bureaucratic country. How Norwegians are represented as attached to many procedures, is for example exposed when Henriksen brings his girlfriend Sigrid to the hospital as her leg is clearly broken. The service desk employee takes a lot of time with administrative works, such as filling in the social security number. Henriksen just brutally and angrily skips the service desk to find the doctor himself to expose how all this excessive administration does not help (S01E02).

Lilyhammer also suggests that Norwegians are attached to procedures when Henriksen fires the employees of his newly opened bar when they bring up the question if Henriksen is concerned with the labor union. Henriksen immediately rudely fires them since his business is “against the law-work” (S01E02). The comical stereotyping of Henriksen as direct and profit-oriented evokes and amplifies the representation of Norwegians as correct. In both scenes on bureaucracy, inherently the Nordic welfare state’s governmental influence in taking care of citizens (Bergman 84) is critiqued for being overly present.

In line with the correctness, the Norwegians are often represented as being soft and dull. The chief of police for example asks the residents for a waffle after she enters their house to confiscate a rifle. This scene suggests that the Norwegian civilians and the Norwegian authorities are kind and humble to each other, as the chief’s tone in the scene changes from the top-down condemning of possible plans to hunt on a wolf, to a personal,

(25)

friendly request for the sweet food (S01E01). Also, a Norwegian farmer is by Henriksen twice mockingly referred to as a “treehugger” (S01E03) when the farmer thwarts a building project for environmental reasons, representing that Henriksen sees the Norwegians as soft.

Lilyhammer represents the dullness of Norway in a scene in which a taxi driver does not understand why Henriksen would come to Lillehammer. The taxi driver says: “You’re an American? What the hell are you doing here” (S01E01), suggesting that for people from the big country America the rural Lillehammer must be a boring place. The differences between the country and the city amplify both the American as well as the Norwegian identity, as the dull Norwegians live in a peaceful place and the American is from the relatively harsh New York City.

The comically stereotyped correctness of Norwegians in Lilyhammer in contrast to Henriksen as a character leads the series to subthemes in line with correctness, namely softness, dullness and bureaucracy. These subthemes help the series to expose the pros and cons of Norwegian society. Whereas correctness is sometimes depicted as negative (dull, overly soft and bureaucratic), it is also often depicted as positive (kindness and free of worries through shared prosperity). The positive aspects refer to how a sense of community can be helpful, whereas the negative aspects refer to the idea that individualism is in some way better, as it asks for assertiveness and less dependence on the government. The role of Henriksen does not only help the story in depicting the American identity as an opposite, but also suggests when to step away from the boring and safe correctness if you want to excel within the Norwegian society. This mechanism is amplified by depicting the Norwegians as rural, making their lives even duller. In this way, the idea of perceived incorrectness in order to ensure self-gain stands out.

This negotiation between community correctness and coming up for your own gain fits within the idea of the Nordic countries as a balanced entity with regards to capitalism and communism (Bergman 84). Lilyhammer explores this balance. Henriksen tests the softness and the community feeling of the rural Norwegians, as he often gets things done by being egoistic and rude. In this way, Lilyhammer reflects on if the balance between communism and capitalism is the right, with the result that for most, it is. For the ‘failed’ people who idolize Henriksen it however seems better to be more individualist than how Norwegian society is generally represented.

The reception of the represented Norwegian national identity

(26)

of the interviewees must be kept in mind, as their interpretation of the characters is facilitated by (generally) a Dutch paradigm. On the question how the Norwegians are represented in Lilyhammer, the interviewees answer unambiguously. Person A states that the Norwegians are portrayed as “a bit clumsy”, “especially with integration, this social hassle, I slightly get the feeling that the Norwegians are made look like a fool”. Person B also thinks the Norwegians are represented as being “particularly clumsy”, and recognizes that they are “all farmers”. Person D believes that the Norwegians are portrayed as what she directly calls “a bit like softies”.

Person B continues about Scandinavia in general: “Of course, there things go a bit more farmer-like over there, and not like things go in the big city” … “They know each other very well I believe” (B), pointing towards the representation of the importance of community within Norway. Person D believes that the choice in the plot for the village Lillehammer instead of the Norwegian capital Oslo contributes to this community feeling, as “with these village festivities, you see clearly that they are one unity” (D). Person C feels “attracted” by the represented community life in Norway. “It is nicely simple, nicely ‘cabin in the woods’. Everyone living nicely close to each other in such a small village. It makes me think: those Norwegians, they have arranged things well. They give an image like: they live in their own village and they don’t care what happens outside of it. It is purely their own village and they just find it great” (C). With or without a personal opinion, the interviewees generally

recognize a Norwegian characteristic of community.

Furthermore, person C described Norway as “quite socialist” in the series, which he links to his notion that the Americans in the series are “just a bit extremer in everything in comparison to the Norwegians”. This again links to the softness of the Norwegians, as person C perceives them to be portrayed as relatively mild and aimed at the community. Person D stresses out that the social part within Lillehammer derives from the country life, as “because the people live in a village, they know each other better: a bit of social control”. This

emphasizes the identity of working together for the community.

The interviewees often refer to the Norwegian characters in Lilyhammer as exaggerated. The representation of the Norwegian identity in Lilyhammer is according to person E “too soft” and “too left-wing”. As he has encountered Norwegians on an educative course, he believes that Norwegians in reality have a “touch of America”, as they have a “certain toughness, urge for survival” and “a sort of certainty”. That the characters are highly stereotypical contributes according to person A to the series’ storyline: “I don’t think this is the reality. So I think it is highly exaggerated” but, as he continues, “this does provoke that

(27)

something happens, as it is different and things interact with one another. For this reason, slightly crazy things happen” (A). The comical stereotyping within Lilyhammer thus seems to contribute to the series’ attraction value for the viewer.

3.3.3 American national identity

The representation of the American national identity

In contradiction to the representation of the Norwegian identity, Lilyhammer represents the American identity as harsh and individualist. The characteristics of Henriksen are roughness, rudeness and being overly focused on personal gain. In the paragraph on the representation of Norwegians, this has already come forward in the bribes, the rude initiative Henriksen takes at the hospital, and the rough joke about ‘Hiphop Against Drugs’. The label of “treehugger” attached to the Norwegian farmer also emphasizes that the American Henriksen is from tougher city descent. This shows how Lilyhammer consists of interplay between the two identities. In this paragraph, the stereotypical identity of America presents itself through the character of the Italian-American Henriksen. Although he as a protagonist is one of the few Americans in Lilyhammer, representations of Henriksen can be seen as a representation of America since the Norwegians refer to him as ‘the American’. This is also the case with his Italian-mafia background; however his stereotyped mafia-background amplifies his incorrect identity, his deeds are by the Norwegian characters in the series seen as performed by an American.

The aim for personal gain is represented in a scene in which Henriksen solves a violent conflict between him and a Norwegian gang. Henriksen states: “You beat up one of my people, I beat up one of yours. If you take a finger, I take an arm. Nobody is going to win”, after which Henriksen tries to negotiate (S01E02). This shows that Henriksen’s goal is to make profit, and either making deals or acts of violence are used by him to reach this goal. The importance of self-gain within the representation of the American often presents itself in Henriksen’s adoration for money. When a Norwegian who owes Henriksen says: “It’s just pennies, okay?”, Henriksen replies: “I like pennies” (S01E03), suggesting that even the smallest amount of money is important. This represents part of the identity of the American dream, namely of a richer life (Adams 404).

The rough, rude character of Henriksen as representation of the American identity comes forward more often during his bribes and negotiations for personal gain. For example in one scene, a Norwegian man declines one of Henriksen’s shifty business offers by saying: “To use the words of Gandhi: “You have to be the change you want to see in the world”.

(28)

Henriksen counters by aggressively stating: “Yeah, well, remember what Confucius said: ‘Man who pass on generous offer often wind up with an umbrella up his ass’” (S01E03). This shows that Henriksen does not get along well with the soft tone of the Norwegians, and that he gets rough when the offers for his personal gain are rejected. Ignoring that the insults might hurt the Norwegians fits with the individualism in the American national identity, as

Henriksen’s “consciously chasing of gratification” is done at any cost.

In another scene Henriksen is represented as materialistic. After Henriksen gives a MacBook laptop as a birthday present to his girlfriend’s young son, a Norwegian kid gives the son a tree branch, or as the kid calls it, a “scratching stick” (S01E03). A discussion evolves, in which the kid says: “In my house we don’t approve materialistic gifts” (S01E03). Henriksen reacts: “It’s not polite to disrespect other people’s gifts. Especially when you’re giving away trash you found in your backyard” (S01E03). Henriksen’s girlfriend tries to settle the

discussion by stating: “It’s good that we are all different” and: “I think both gifts are nice” (S01E03). In this scene, Lilyhammer represents that Americans attach more value to objects than Norwegians do.

Another representation of the American identity is one of conservatism. An exemplary scene is when Henriksen and his girlfriend Sigrid visit a midwife after Sigrid got pregnant. This midwife, in contrast to the word’s origin, turns out to be a man. Henriksen does not allow himself to agree with a man looking at his undressed girlfriend. After expressing his disagreement several times, Henriksen says to Sigrid: “I don’t know. Honey, listen, I think we need a regular midwife (…) Yeah, you know, key word ‘wife’. You know, as in broad, as in skirt, as in dame. (…) I just don’t want the first thing my kid sees to be his mother spreading her legs for another man” (S01E04). The comical stereotyping of Henriksen in the context of Norway as a state with progressive, gender-equal country (Bergman 85) assists in

representing America as conservative on this topic.

Another relation between men and women as suggested in the representation of the American identity is one of the dominant man and the subordinate, objectivized, sexualized woman. This is strongly represented in a scene in which Henriksen tells Sigrid’s young son not to be shy anymore when he is around a girl he likes:

“Next time you get a little anxiety around a girl, you know, a little intimidated, you look at her, up and down, say to yourself, ‘Women are food’. Yeah. They are a

reward for a man's hard day's work. Like a good meal. Why do you think we call them ‘sugar’, ‘honey’, ‘sweetie’, ‘cupcake’? Am I right? They're our nourishment. They exist to inspire us. With those luscious lips, beautiful tits, round, smooth, creamy

(29)

asses, delicious pussies, all waiting to be tasted, licked, bitten, sucked, savored like a fine wine” (S01E04).

In this scene, Henriksen as a stereotypical characterization of the American identity is

represented as a person who thinks that women are supportive to the traditional working men. By suggesting to “look at her, up and down”, he objectifies- and in the end sexualizes women. The awe in the reaction of the kid reveals that this is not something a kid is used to hear from an adult.

In conclusion, the comically stereotyped correctness of Norwegians in Lilyhammer amplifies the contrasting identity of Henriksen as representative for America. Henriksen is rather depicted as an individualist, through seemingly negative subthemes as rudeness, roughness, self-gain at any cost, materialism and gender-inequality. The reoccurring event that in the narrative Henriksen is presented as a winner who is idolized by some of the Norwegians does however suggest that some of his apparently individualist behavior can be seen as a positive tool for a part of Lillehammer’s ‘failed’ residents. The subthemes can therefore also be seen as a lesson in coming up for yourself and increasing your self-esteem.

In this way, the ‘failed’ people of Norway are made able to follow their own dream; succeeding in Norway by finding their abilities or achievements, just as with the American dream (Adams 404). The idea “that if you work hard enough, grab your individual chances and believe in God, ‘the American dream’ is within the reach of everyone” (Eissenloeffel 80) greatly relates to Lilyhammer, since Henriksen teaches the ‘failed’ people in Lillehammer that they do not necessarily have to accept that they are of no prominence. Or in other words: that their fate is not in the hand of the societal system, but rather in their own hands.

The reception of the represented American national identity

Henriksen’s characteristics that derive from the textual analysis are by most of the

interviewees linked to his American background. The contrast between Norway and America is subsequently recognized as a theme within the series. Person C for example states about Henriksen that “he has a capitalistic attitude, and in his accent is purely from New York” and that therefore, Henriksen “behaves quite differently from the Norwegians” (C). Person D states about Henriksen that “he is very American; exuberant et cetera”, corresponding with the directness of Henriksen.

Furthermore, person D states about Henriksen that “if it doesn’t happen the way he plans it, it still must be the way he wants it to be, and then it doesn’t matter how this happens” (D), referring to the American national identity of chasing your own gratification. Person E

Collaborating instead of competing: on Lilyhammer, Netflix and the future value of entertainment for Public Service Broadcasters