Fjord director argues for tolerance of deeply held religious beliefs
Cristian Mungiu's sixth feature film, Fjord, centres on a devout Romanian family who moves to rural Norway and faces suspicion from the local community because of their openly religious beliefs. In an interview about the film, Mungiu discusses the central question of whether liberal societies can tolerate minorities whose values they don't share, arguing that true progressivism requires tolerance for even those with deeply different convictions, provided they don't resort to violence.
The film depicts a God-fearing family with strict parenting approaches, contrasting them with the secular values of their Norwegian community, where tolerance is reserved for the secular. Mungiu, himself Romanian, developed the film's ideas from years of reading news articles about immigrant families in Nordic countries, but deliberately avoids sensationalism to explore deeper questions about morality and human values. He emphasises the importance of incremental, step-by-step persuasion rather than imposing views on others, which he argues only leads to radicalisation.
- Mungiu's film examines tensions between religious minorities and secular societies
- The director advocates for tolerance of different beliefs whilst avoiding sensationalism
- Religious family's values clash with progressive Norwegian community's expectations
New here? Start with this
Cristian Mungiu is a Romanian film director whose latest work, Fjord, centres on a deeply religious family who relocate from Romania to rural Norway. The family's openly devout lifestyle and strict approach to parenting soon creates conflict with their secular Norwegian neighbours, who view their religious beliefs with suspicion and distrust.
The film examines a question relevant to many Western democracies: whether societies that value tolerance can genuinely extend that tolerance to minorities whose fundamental beliefs clash with dominant secular values. It explores the tension between celebrating diversity and accepting those whose deeply held convictions seem at odds with how most people in the community live.
Mungiu developed the film through years of studying news stories about immigrant families in Scandinavian countries, aiming to explore genuine tensions without sensationalising them. The work considers whether mutual respect and patient dialogue might help communities with very different worldviews to understand and coexist with one another.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Liberal democracies built on principles of individual freedom and pluralism have a logical obligation to extend genuine tolerance to people with deeply held religious convictions, even when these differ markedly from secular norms, provided they do not involve violence or direct harm. Attempts to suppress or marginalise religious beliefs typically produce backlash and radicalisation; conversely, tolerance and genuine dialogue enable peaceful coexistence among diverse communities. True progressivism, from this perspective, proves its commitment to freedom and pluralism precisely through respecting those whose deepest convictions differ substantially from its own.
The case against
Whilst respecting diverse beliefs matters, liberal societies rest on foundational commitments—gender equality, human rights, child protection, individual autonomy—that may conflict with certain religious teachings and practices. From this perspective, tolerance cannot be infinite; some beliefs and practices risk genuine harm to vulnerable individuals, particularly children, and may undermine the very equality and rights that liberal societies exist to protect. A liberal democracy must therefore actively defend these core values rather than treat all worldviews as equally valid, recognising that principled boundaries on harmful practices are compatible with, and necessary for, genuine liberalism.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Verge as “The director of Fjord takes the ‘risky position’ of moderator”.