He is a monster who took an innocent girl hostage, she is the one who, despite the horror of the situation, was able to feel sympathy for the aggressor and look at what was happening through his eyes. A beauty who loves a monster. About such stories – and they appeared long before Perrault – they say “as old as the world.” But it was only in the second half of the last century that a strange connection between the characters got a name: Stockholm syndrome. After one case in the capital of Sweden.
1973, Stockholm, Sweden’s largest bank. Jan-Erik Olsson, a criminal who escaped from prison, takes hostages for the first time in the history of the country. The motive is almost noble: to rescue the former cellmate, Clark Olofsson (well, then it’s standard: a million dollars and the opportunity to get out). Olofsson is brought to the bank, now there are two of them, with several hostages with them.
The atmosphere is nervous, but not too dangerous: the criminals listen to the radio, sing, play cards, sort things out, share food with the victims. The instigator, Olsson, is absurd in places and generally frankly inexperienced, and isolated from the world, the hostages gradually begin to demonstrate what psychologists would later call illogical behavior and try to explain as brainwashing.
There was no flush, of course. The very situation of the most powerful stress launched a mechanism in the hostages, which Anna Freud, back in 1936, called the identification of the victim with the aggressor. A traumatic connection arose: the hostages began to sympathize with the terrorists, to justify their actions, and in the end partly went over to their side (they trusted the aggressors more than the police).
All this “absurd but true story” formed the basis of Robert Boudreau’s film Once Upon a Time in Stockholm. Despite the attention to detail and the excellent cast (Ethan Hawke – Ulsson, Mark Strong – Oloffson and Numi Tapas as a hostage who fell in love with a criminal), it turned out not too convincing. From the outside, what is happening looks like pure madness, even when you understand the mechanism for the emergence of this strange connection.
This happens not only in bank vaults, but also in the kitchens and bedrooms of many homes around the world.
Specialists, in particular, psychiatrist Frank Okberg from the University of Michigan, explain its action as follows. The hostage becomes completely dependent on the aggressor: without his permission, he cannot speak, eat, sleep, or use the toilet. The victim slides into a childish state and becomes attached to the one who “takes care” of her. Allowing a basic need to be met generates a surge of gratitude, and this only strengthens the bond.
Most likely, there should be prerequisites for the emergence of such dependence: the FBI notes that the presence of the syndrome is noted only in 8% of the hostages. It would seem not so much. But there is one “but”.
Stockholm Syndrome is not just a story about hostage-taking by dangerous criminals. A common variation of this phenomenon is everyday Stockholm syndrome. This happens not only in bank vaults, but also in the kitchens and bedrooms of many homes around the world. Every year, every day. However, this is another story, and, alas, we have much less chances to see it on the big screens.
Behind the scenes
- In Sweden, this incident is known as the “Robbery at Norrmalmstorg Square”. It was the first criminal event in the country to be covered live on television.
- Jan-Erik Olsson was sentenced to 10 years, during which he received enthusiastic letters from fans. He later married one of them. Now 78, he says he occasionally sees some of the hostages. In 2009, his autobiography was published.
- Clark Olofsson was acquitted.