Terrible sub-plot

When the subplot was first introduced, I thought, Whoa! Wait, no. Did the blonde boy just say...? Then I took a step back and thought, Am I being overly sensitive as a viewer from America, where race relations and racial/ethnic identity are commonly questioned and examined, where that kind of material is taboo in a hyper-p.c. mainstream? I began to think that perhaps, while with racist overtones, the interchange between the boys was simply an investigation of differences. I thought that when I saw them practicing with the baskets; Theodore saw the black woman do it and wanted to see Noa do it, too, but both boys tried it, and they ended up balancing the basket while jumping on the bed. I was willing to cut Theodor some slack since the film takes place in Norway, a place understandably crawling with ethnic Norwegians (according to wikipedia, the majority identify as ethnic Norwegians and less than 40% of immigrants are from non-European countries: Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Pakistan and Vietnam). So even though what Theodor was doing was not okay, it was possible to view it as ignorant and misguided rather than racist in a hostile, malevolent way. However, as Theodor's actions continued, it became clear that he was actively subjugating Noa.

However, I don't think that it was a necessarily pointless subplot. Theodor appears to be a little older, and both children understand that something is amiss with their parents. Theodor punished Noa when something bad happened in his house; he made the Noa take the blame for Svige. His antagonism and oppression, while having a racial complexion, weren't specifically racist. He was being racist, but in a complicated way. Theodor latched onto what he could use to hurt Noa, the main tool being bullying baced on historical racism. Theodor saw his mother with Svige naked, and then when his own father came home, he was distant, abusive, and then he was gone for Christmas Eve. For all of this, he wanted to hurt Noa, probably because Svige was too big and it was too complicated for Theodor to fully understand. The fact that Theodor's cruelty had a slavery motif was kind of incidental.

I think the ending of Noa watching Obama speak was meant to assure the audience that no real harm has come to the boy, he is a highly plastic age, easily influenced in any number of ways. While he likely will remember playing slave on a vacation, it hasn't scarred him, and there are positive role models he can embrace. In short, his parents can raise him well in a white world if they can keep him away from little Hitler Youth children, a task they have yet to complete successfully.

As for the dinner, I think it was a trainwreck they couldn't avoid. They had to spend some kind of time together where they could resolve the situation. Apart from a full-on Jerry Springer episode, Christmas dinner was the only other option. Also, just logistics. Svige couldn't eat with Elisabeth because he was living at Kaya's, and it would be wrong to leave either woman alone. I think they went into the dinner prepared to hate every awkward, painful moment of it. It was a final showdown, and they all sort of knew it. Svige cared for Kaya; she made him realize what it was he wanted from his relationship with Elisabeth. He also saw why it wouldn't work with Kaya; while tender and cheerful, she was a bumpkin. A pleasant bumpkin, but still a bumpkin. Elisabeth revealed, seemingly for the first time, that her apparent coldness hid a great vulnerability: her fear she could never please Svige because of her infertility. Elisabeth could sympathize with Kaya and understand why she flung herself at Svige, having experienced firsthand Erik's "lovemaking", but she was still bitter about it until she got Svige back. And Kaya needed someone to make her really see that Erik was gay, needed someone to hear the truth aloud and agree with it. She needed someone to treat her well to see what she deserved. And she had to learn about the desperation that motivated her loving offerings, to figure out when someone valued her and when they didn't.

Phew.

Yes, that subplot was somewhat discomforting. We must understand that from a realistic point of view,it is something that is quite plausible and children do engage in those kinds of games.

Cruelty (meanness) can happen under innocent circumstances.

However, it was quite satisfying when the African boy's adoptive mom, Elizabeth, rectified the unjustness of the bully child by dunking his face in his soup bowl. At least, that lightened the mood for me.