Iceland is a small, mostly peaceable country. But in 1970s, the country was rocked by a horrific pair of murders. A youthful gang of petty criminals was implicated and convicted. Only after they got out of goal were questions raised as to the accuracy of the convictions, with allegations made that their confessions were, in effect, tortured out of them. Many find the gang's protestations convincing, and the bodies of the victims have never been found. But the main individual held responsible died, an alcoholic, without getting his case reheard. Documentary film 'Out of Thin Air' revisits the case. As a pure story, it's limited by the absence of resolution: we still don't know what happened, nor have the accusations of a fit-up been ratified by the courts. But it's still a striking and depressing story, one that muddies Iceland's image as a supremely civilised country.
20 Reviews
"Once the confession is taken-once it's in the air,it corrupts everything."
morrison-dylan-fan13 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A fan of the Nordic-Noir genre,I caught up with the superb Nordic- Noir inspired Spanish mini-series I Know Who You Are just before it left the catch-up service. Watching the last ep,I got "recommended" a "Ripped from the headlines" doc about a murder case in Iceland,which led to me breaking the ice.
The outline of the doc:
In January 1974 Guðmundur Einarsson disappears,with the police not being able to find any clue over where he might be. Later,on the 19th of November 1974 Geirfinnur Einarsson disappears under similar circumstances. Known for being "Bad lads" the police arrest "Gang leader Sævar Ciesielski,his four friends,and Ciesielski's girlfriend Erla Bolladottir. Feeling the anger from the public over Iceland's loss of "innocence", the police put pressure on Erla Bolladottir to give them the confession they want.
View on the film:
Going from 1974 to the present day, director Dylan Howitt blends archive footage with tasteful re-constructions. Making the voice- overs reading the diary entries of the six suspects the main focus, Howitt brings the fading days of Iceland's innocence back in drab 70's colours,with a careful obscuring of the actors faces helping to place the viewer in the shoes of the speaking suspect. Deconstructing the case with interviews from Erla Bolladottir,still serving police officers and extracts from the diaries of the other five suspects, the "open" state of the case leads to the conclusion becoming blurred with the horrific "interrogation" methods the police used criss-crossing with the failed attempts to appeal the convictions,as the ice fails to break.
The outline of the doc:
In January 1974 Guðmundur Einarsson disappears,with the police not being able to find any clue over where he might be. Later,on the 19th of November 1974 Geirfinnur Einarsson disappears under similar circumstances. Known for being "Bad lads" the police arrest "Gang leader Sævar Ciesielski,his four friends,and Ciesielski's girlfriend Erla Bolladottir. Feeling the anger from the public over Iceland's loss of "innocence", the police put pressure on Erla Bolladottir to give them the confession they want.
View on the film:
Going from 1974 to the present day, director Dylan Howitt blends archive footage with tasteful re-constructions. Making the voice- overs reading the diary entries of the six suspects the main focus, Howitt brings the fading days of Iceland's innocence back in drab 70's colours,with a careful obscuring of the actors faces helping to place the viewer in the shoes of the speaking suspect. Deconstructing the case with interviews from Erla Bolladottir,still serving police officers and extracts from the diaries of the other five suspects, the "open" state of the case leads to the conclusion becoming blurred with the horrific "interrogation" methods the police used criss-crossing with the failed attempts to appeal the convictions,as the ice fails to break.
A well done film, but leaves unanswered questions
sophiamarinova4 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Overall the film is well made. Getting into the Icelandic atmosphere is definitely of some value. It does show how the culture was in the 70's and provides a glimpse at Icelandic life and society. However, as it regards the murder cases under investigation, the documentary does not provide any closure. Clearly the confessions of the accused were extracted under torture. However, the innocence of the accused is still quite questionable. The female participant who provided the first confession does not clearly state that she was not involved. In fact, it was around that time that she initiated an embezzlement and supposedly her partner was an inspirational force for committing the crime that none would discover. So it is quite evident that she was indeed moving in the wrong company of people. Furthermore, she states she had great concerns with her partner's life style upon the birth of her baby. He dreamed of committing a perfect crime that would leave the police puzzled according to her testimony. Well, with two missing bodies (no physical evidence of the actual murders), couldn't that be conceived as a perfect crime?
There was no in-depth exploration of the past of the suspects, but it was made clear that some had some criminal past. Likewise, motives were not explored by the police, but neither were they explored in the movie. For example, aren't there crimes where someone simply kills for the thrill of it? Or under the influence of drugs? It seemed as though some of the participants in this particular case were thrill seeking and getting involved in some stuff that is not so good to begin with.
In spite of the highly disputable (and perhaps even despicable) methods used in interrogating the suspects (clearly an area that should be investigated by the police to not repeat the same methods), it seems unusual that all six would agree to confess to not one but two seemingly unrelated murders. The film does leave the viewer with some haunting questions, but no clear answers. For example, can memory be so fickle as to completely replace reality? The woman interviewed never clearly denies or says what happened; she seems to imply that her memory was quite unreliable. While memory certainly plays tricks on people when it comes down to specific details, it seems unlikely that she would not have a memory of the overall event. She also indicates an overwhelming sense of guilt over telling on her partner- if there is nothing to tell, why tell and then feel guilty?
In conclusion, this movie seems to follow similar emerging movies in this genre in identifying what seem to be morally and procedurally wrong in the system, and the movie does cast doubt on the cases, but ultimately, leaves many questions unanswered. So where is the truth?
There was no in-depth exploration of the past of the suspects, but it was made clear that some had some criminal past. Likewise, motives were not explored by the police, but neither were they explored in the movie. For example, aren't there crimes where someone simply kills for the thrill of it? Or under the influence of drugs? It seemed as though some of the participants in this particular case were thrill seeking and getting involved in some stuff that is not so good to begin with.
In spite of the highly disputable (and perhaps even despicable) methods used in interrogating the suspects (clearly an area that should be investigated by the police to not repeat the same methods), it seems unusual that all six would agree to confess to not one but two seemingly unrelated murders. The film does leave the viewer with some haunting questions, but no clear answers. For example, can memory be so fickle as to completely replace reality? The woman interviewed never clearly denies or says what happened; she seems to imply that her memory was quite unreliable. While memory certainly plays tricks on people when it comes down to specific details, it seems unlikely that she would not have a memory of the overall event. She also indicates an overwhelming sense of guilt over telling on her partner- if there is nothing to tell, why tell and then feel guilty?
In conclusion, this movie seems to follow similar emerging movies in this genre in identifying what seem to be morally and procedurally wrong in the system, and the movie does cast doubt on the cases, but ultimately, leaves many questions unanswered. So where is the truth?
An incredible story with a solid production.
gricey_sandgrounder12 September 2017
While the way it was presented is perfectly functional but nothing exceptional, the story itself did its job.
The story is quite something and needs to be seen or at least read about.
As for the film documentary itself, it is perfectly coherent but not exceptional. However, it left me frustrated as there was never any conclusion.
But like I said, the story is unbelievable enough to check out.
The story is quite something and needs to be seen or at least read about.
As for the film documentary itself, it is perfectly coherent but not exceptional. However, it left me frustrated as there was never any conclusion.
But like I said, the story is unbelievable enough to check out.
Real life mystery
kosmasp26 March 2018
Innocent until pressured into pleading guilty? Or something to that effect ... well something this documentary shines a light on. And it is an interesting premise. Individuals and how it all came to become a story worth making a documentary about. Mistakes during trial do happen everywhere, but this is just a whole different level.
The interviews are good and the structure is neat too. It all works fine with the timeline and with suspension the movie builds up to. If you like real life story drama, then this will be right up your alley. It's not trying to show off too much, so be aware of that
The interviews are good and the structure is neat too. It all works fine with the timeline and with suspension the movie builds up to. If you like real life story drama, then this will be right up your alley. It's not trying to show off too much, so be aware of that
Interesting But Sort of Non-Conclusive
plasticanimalz31 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It was an interesting setup, the scenery is great, but nothing is really wrapped up. Basically, nothing is proven. It's a rather "thin" journalistic investigation of the case. The cops don't really prove their guilt, but the journalists don't really prove their innocence either. Saying you're innocent is a far cry from being innocent. And it would be in their best interest, trying to move on with their lives to say, "Oh yeah, I'm innocent." They have children. No parent wants their child to think they're capable of murder or being involved in it. Very few accused of crimes say they're guilty. There was a kid in our neighborhood, robbing everyone blind, and everyone but his negligent parents knew it, then after he was finally arrested, I heard him crying to his mother that he didn't do any of the things he'd been accused of, despite he had dragged multiple neighbor kids into a crime spree for 2 summers straight. Rarely do people admit their guilt, or they justify it in their mind.
Also, they were held based on the woman's confessions early in the investigation. Not to mention, the main guy said he wanted to commit a serious crime and to have the cops running around and not be able to pin it on them. So, them changing their stories is not concrete evidence of their innocence. It doesn't mean they had the legal means of proof to convict them, but, the journalist also do not offer much in the way of the transcripts through their interrogations. I really got the impression they just wanted to wrap it up with a quick twist, then neat and tidy bow at the end, but didn't really explore whether they were guilty or innocent. They went to prison 'cause they confessed to guilt, now you're saying they're innocent 'cause they say their innocent. The journalists don't seem to have any more integrity than the cops in this documentary. There is really not enough evidence to say whether they are guilty or innocent. They certainly seemed guilty, and 35 years later, me not influenced by the Icelandic media, how can you say that the media is the reason they went to jail? They seem guilty. Did they get a fair trial? Who knows. That's the thing, the media bends things in a narrative they want to hook you into their side. Often there are a lot of things the media leaves out of the story, and they didn't really dig that deep into their trial. Kind of like the show Making a Murderer, where the journalists are extremely one sided in defense of his innocence, but conveniently leave out lengthy history of that guy that paints a deranged man on the path towards murder or serial killer status.
So, I don't know. The journalists case of their innocence was more flimsy than the police's case of their guilt. Interesting, but a bit on the "light" crime side.
Also, they were held based on the woman's confessions early in the investigation. Not to mention, the main guy said he wanted to commit a serious crime and to have the cops running around and not be able to pin it on them. So, them changing their stories is not concrete evidence of their innocence. It doesn't mean they had the legal means of proof to convict them, but, the journalist also do not offer much in the way of the transcripts through their interrogations. I really got the impression they just wanted to wrap it up with a quick twist, then neat and tidy bow at the end, but didn't really explore whether they were guilty or innocent. They went to prison 'cause they confessed to guilt, now you're saying they're innocent 'cause they say their innocent. The journalists don't seem to have any more integrity than the cops in this documentary. There is really not enough evidence to say whether they are guilty or innocent. They certainly seemed guilty, and 35 years later, me not influenced by the Icelandic media, how can you say that the media is the reason they went to jail? They seem guilty. Did they get a fair trial? Who knows. That's the thing, the media bends things in a narrative they want to hook you into their side. Often there are a lot of things the media leaves out of the story, and they didn't really dig that deep into their trial. Kind of like the show Making a Murderer, where the journalists are extremely one sided in defense of his innocence, but conveniently leave out lengthy history of that guy that paints a deranged man on the path towards murder or serial killer status.
So, I don't know. The journalists case of their innocence was more flimsy than the police's case of their guilt. Interesting, but a bit on the "light" crime side.
Serious story, poorly told
rememberdave1 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is a sad story, and the film may have good intentions but does not make you sympathetic to these people. We do not really learn about the murdered victims, and only hear from 1-2 of the 6 people charged with the crimes. It begins by leading the viewer to think the leader of the group is like Charles Manson. Then they are charged with 2 murders because of forced confessions. Next is about 30 minutes of one of the 6 charged talking about how she had a hard time separating fact from fiction, and STILL can't separate the two. That is the DEPTH of this film. They note how the police and court people declined to be in this film. We do not hear from the families of the murdered men. Of the six people that were charged with the murders, we only hear from one or two and we learn that one has passed away, but otherwise, we do not hear from anybody else or their whereabouts. Zilch!! Of the six charged that appeared in this film, they do not talk about where they really were when these crimes went down. We learn very little about what happened to the victims in the days leading up to their disappearance and we do not hear from their families in this film. Either this was poorly researched or poorly structured. I give 4 out of 10 for the production quality being well done. If you are looking for the actual mystery of these two murders to carry into this film you will not find it here.
The manipulation of the fragile mind
valleyjohn19 October 2017
Iceland is a place everyone knows everybody. Back in the 70's there was a population of just 200k so when two men vanished over a space of several months there was massive pressure on the police to find the culprits. Six suspects were arrested and confessed to the murders and Iceland breathed easy again. The trouble is , despite their convictions , the six weren't sure if they were guilty or not. This is a fascinating documentary about how the human mind works if manipulated or mentally tortured. It's very sad in parts because lives were completely ruined but as documentaries go this is well worth watching. It's available on Netflix and BBCi player.
Disconnected narrative and confusing time line
mwatters-2268920 October 2017
One of the interviewed officers said that there was no DNA evidence at the scene--in 1975.
First use of DNA in a criminal investigation was in 1986.
This is what you get in this documentary. A lot of faulty memories and unclear statements by everyone. It drags on and on like a slow moving Fellini picture, and ultimately goes nowhere.
The case might be interesting, but this film is not.
First use of DNA in a criminal investigation was in 1986.
This is what you get in this documentary. A lot of faulty memories and unclear statements by everyone. It drags on and on like a slow moving Fellini picture, and ultimately goes nowhere.
The case might be interesting, but this film is not.
Underwhelming
tamarafcb21 March 2019
I can see how this story is interesting, but I just don't think it was interestingly told. I found it wanted to say much and used up a lot of space and time but in the end it gave me no solid clues why I should think they were guilty or not. I thought it just did a lot of talk over nothing instead of focusing on the story and the details. I also found it a bit one-sided as we were able to almost only see or hear Erla's story.
What I also wanted out of this is to kind of delve into what might have happened to the missing persons, the theories surrounding that and a bit more talk about the 'victims' so that we can maybe make our own theories about what might have happened to them.
I don't know. To me it's really bland - stylistically, the way the story was unraveled, the main character of this story (or who the focus was on)...
Just not my cup of tea. :)
What I also wanted out of this is to kind of delve into what might have happened to the missing persons, the theories surrounding that and a bit more talk about the 'victims' so that we can maybe make our own theories about what might have happened to them.
I don't know. To me it's really bland - stylistically, the way the story was unraveled, the main character of this story (or who the focus was on)...
Just not my cup of tea. :)
Good documentary
Calicodreamin25 March 2020
A good documentary detailing the conviction off six people over the disappearance of two Icelandic men in the sixties. The confessions obtained by the six charged were questioned after diaries were found which detailed extensive interrogations and solitary confinement. The doc went into a good level of detail and provided first had interviews from police, journalists, and surviving members of the six convicted.
Nothing Is Clear
nebohr8 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
So: Simply by making a telephone call Erla, with Saevar assisting her, somehow manages to embezzle a large amount of money from some company at nearly the same time that two men go mysteriously missing. Absolutely no connection between these incidents. Now, the Police somehow get it in their heads that there IS a connection and proceed to torture Erla, Saevar and several others into confessing to murdering the two missing men. But just how and when do they do this? The documentary leads you to believe the torture was while the group was already in prison. At the end of the documentary basically nothing more is explained and Saevar dies before he is able to clear his name.
And So What?
Mehki_Girl2 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I don't get it. Two people died and six people were arrested for their murders to which they confessed. Not only confessed, but gave similar stories, which were later changed but what does that mean?
The female of the bunch admits she was hanging around a guy who was criminal and that she masterminded an embezzlement. I don't know how much money it was in kronin's. That takes a lot of moxie and a willingness to commit crimes.
Anyway now she's saying she doesn't know what's fact and what's fiction. How convenient.
According to the cops, the story that she told matched the boyfriend story. A story he later denied, although he supposedly threw her under the bus regarding the embezzlement.
Then you get this guy who I'm not sure he was too the case - a defense attorney or what or what his credentials are. But he's spouting off on some pseudo psychological nonsense to explain these faulty, cloudy, I really don't know fact from fiction really convenient memory loses. He's just making stuff up as he goes along.
Again, two people are missing presumably dead - somebody killed them whether it was one person or all six of them were involved in some way. They all can't be not guilty.
So what am I supposed to feel about them, empathy? I'm supposed to believe them now? What was the point of this terribly flawed documentary?
Somebody's guilty, two somebody's are dead. I don't know what the point of this was.
The female of the bunch admits she was hanging around a guy who was criminal and that she masterminded an embezzlement. I don't know how much money it was in kronin's. That takes a lot of moxie and a willingness to commit crimes.
Anyway now she's saying she doesn't know what's fact and what's fiction. How convenient.
According to the cops, the story that she told matched the boyfriend story. A story he later denied, although he supposedly threw her under the bus regarding the embezzlement.
Then you get this guy who I'm not sure he was too the case - a defense attorney or what or what his credentials are. But he's spouting off on some pseudo psychological nonsense to explain these faulty, cloudy, I really don't know fact from fiction really convenient memory loses. He's just making stuff up as he goes along.
Again, two people are missing presumably dead - somebody killed them whether it was one person or all six of them were involved in some way. They all can't be not guilty.
So what am I supposed to feel about them, empathy? I'm supposed to believe them now? What was the point of this terribly flawed documentary?
Somebody's guilty, two somebody's are dead. I don't know what the point of this was.
Terrible writing
cyndivedock30 September 2020
A documentary entailing two murders in Iceland, with the majority of focus on false confessions.
It is slanted so far it is no longer a documentary but a glorified Facebook post! It does not address so many obvious blaring questions yet repeatedly shares "their opinions"
Potential for a great view but failed miserably. They needed to decide focus of film.....murderers? people claiming innocent? or false confessions?
Disappointing
gabriella-9289630 April 2020
long story 44 year old
trancedj29 September 2018
Lesser documentary
Leofwine_draca1 March 2022
Not one of the best true crime documentaries I've seen. This one could easily have been an hour and feels very padded at an hour and a half. I've never liked reconstructions and they doesn't add anything here either. The story starts out interesting and goes for the psychological angle, which is fine, but as an open-ended case we learn very little by the end about what actually happened.
20 min into it...
minnieweathernatalie13 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Well... The timeline is broken...not understanding what is going on.
They closed one of the cases 17 seconds after the disappearance was mentioned...
Some guy disappeared...and then it jumps to embezzlement from somewhere they don't explain... and then they get arrested... total disconnect.
???????
They closed one of the cases 17 seconds after the disappearance was mentioned...
Some guy disappeared...and then it jumps to embezzlement from somewhere they don't explain... and then they get arrested... total disconnect.
???????
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
