“The Dialogue Police feels like a grim diary about a world that does not care for nor want any dialogue police other than the one envisioned in the first lines of this text: a force whose purpose is to repress rather than help express”

Seeing how so many places on Earth turn into authoritarian or almost full-fledged fascist regimes these days, the ‘dialogue police’ referred to by the title of Susanna Edwards’ film could very well be a unit commissioned to enforce censorship laws, forbidding the use of specific words or notions in the public discussion, online or in the real world. Luckily, the real dialogue police of the film is quite the opposite: a task force set up by the Swedish state following tragically violent fights between the police and demonstrators in 2001, with the mission of preventing such a thing to occur again through the use of dialogue. Verbal communication to deescalate tensions, and have everyone grow their respect for the law by knowing it and its implications; and in the process, hopefully, grow respect for each other, especially in their exercise of their freedom of speech, even if it leads to divergences and conflicts.

In keeping with the purpose and values of this taskforce, Susanna Edwards got unrestricted access to its members, in their offices where they plan and debrief their actions, and on the streets where they try to fulfill their mission – which is a conundrum. Police forces have historically been established as the weaponized arm of the State, finding its legitimacy in the authorized use of force. This dialogue police is expected to find a whole new way to interact with civilians, to have them obey the law, in all its arbitrary and sometimes paradoxical nature, while at the same time forget so many years of experiencing ‘dialogue’ with batons and abuse of power. In scene after scene of the film we are confronted at the same time as the officers with the near impossibility of this task, whether they intervene to disperse an Extinction Rebellion blockade, to help mediate a political forum, or to convince counter-demonstrators not to disrupt an authorized event – even if said event consists of praising people accused of war crimes, or burning a Quran.

In many ways, The Dialogue Police reminds us of embedded journalism at its best, mainly thanks to the sharp editing which gives to the footage great pace, legibility and strength. It does not just look for the moments with the most impact, even though there are quite a few of them – happening for the most part when dialogue has failed but no one has figured it out yet. Because, sadly, despite all the efforts and good will of its officers, dialogue is mostly shown failing throughout the film, which aims at giving us the bigger picture as to why and how these failures unfold. The answer to attacks on democracy cannot be anything but more democracy, freedom of speech, in a trial-and-error manner; but what if the mechanics of democracy itself get jammed, with less and less people believing in it, and in a pendulum swing more and more people wishing to resort to force to prevail? The results of the 2022 Swedish general election occur in the final moments of the film as a confirmation of this concern, since it resulted in an unprecedented surge in votes for the far-right party, the very kind that revels in diverting freedom of speech into hate speech. With this choice of conclusion, The Dialogue Police feels like a grim diary about a world that does not care for nor want any dialogue police other than the one envisioned in the first lines of this text: a force whose purpose is to repress rather than help express.