Back to selection
“It Became More a Story About How the Artwork, and All the Commotion Around It, Affected His Mental Health”: Ole Juncker on His Tribeca-Debuting Take the Money and Run
Take the Money and Run Ole Juncker’s Tribeca-premiering Take the Money and Run follows Jens Haaning, a Danish conceptual artist to whom the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art Aalborg loaned $83,000 — money that was to be tangibly incorporated into a specific commission for their 2021 group exhibition centered on the future of working life. (Which was not so creatively titled “Work it out.”) Unfortunately for the museum, Haaning decided to incorporate the dollars into his own personal life instead, though he did deliver a piece called Take the Money and Run — a pair of empty frames — along with an email explaining the artwork’s intent to spotlight the terrible working conditions that artists face. Needless to say, when Haaning subsequently refused to actually return any of that borrowed moola the Kunsten Museum called it something else and promptly sued.
Cut to the international media circus, which couldn’t get enough of the art world’s David-versus-Goliath dispute, particularly the sordid accusations of con artistry and countercharges of corporate exploitation. (And extortion once Take the Money and Run went viral. Sensing a million-dollar opportunity, the museum offered to drop the lawsuit in exchange for taking permanent ownership of the work.) Though fortunately, behind the scenes was another Danish creative, a filmmaker with intimate access to the impish and erratic Haaning as well as the incredible patience and wherewithal to tag along on the unpredictable artist’s wild (and often self-generated) rollercoaster ride.
A week before the film’s June 6th debut in the Spotlight Documentary section, Filmmaker caught up with Juncker, a graduate of both the Danish School of Journalism and the University of Missouri, who seems to have a nose for unusual stories. (Juncker’s 2023 doc The Most Remote Restaurant in the World focused on the chefs of the Michelin-starred KOKS as they set up shop in Ilimanaq, Greenland: population 53).
Filmmaker: How did you first meet Jens? Was he always onboard with participating in the doc?
Juncker: Once it was clear that Jens was dead serious about not returning the money the museum had loaned, I contacted him via Messenger. I thought I would never hear back, figuring another filmmaker probably would be filming him at that point, but he actually called me back that same day. We met in his studio. He told me four other people had already contacted him, though I was the one who ended up doing the film.
I actually started filming as soon as we met because journalists and artists were calling him throughout our meeting. When he had to leave for something else I told him that we needed to talk about if he was onboard or not, whether he needed time to think about it. He answered that he was onboard right away.
After filming for a couple of months he said he needed a six-month break from shooting, which I took to mean he wanted to cancel the project. But he did in fact return after six months, and we were able to finish the film after two and a half years of shooting.
Filmmaker: The film is an up close character study that ultimately paints a sympathetic portrait of Jens, which made me wonder if this was always the plan. Did you ever consider including folks on the other side of the story (like Kunsten Museum director Lasse Andersson, who only appears in news footage)?
Juncker: From the start, after hearing Jens on a radio show when the story broke, I was fascinated by what he did and his uncompromising personality. He is certainly not the average guy. While not knowing exactly how the story would unfold, I thought there would be a lot of drama. But it evolved in so many different ways that I could never have imagined.
In the beginning I was very focused on the case and the plot. But as it became clear that Jens’s bipolar disorder greatly impacted his life, it became more a story about how the artwork, and all the commotion around it, affected his mental health.
I did reach out to the museum but they were not interested in participating in the film. Also, I wanted to make a documentary that felt like a narrative film — not one that had experts and other people interviewed in between scenes with Jens. I always wanted Jens to be the protagonist that I was following, so I was much less interested in other folks.
Filmmaker: What were some of the challenges of following such an unpredictable and erratic protagonist?
Juncker: One big challenge was that Jens cancelled a lot of shooting days the evening before or that morning because he didn’t have the energy to have me around, which was very understandable. I respected that. Our original plan was to have an acclaimed DP filming, but it would be too costly with all the cancellations. As a result, I shot the entire film myself. Though I think we established a closer relationship because it was often only the two of us.
Filmmaker: I was actually surprised to see Jens’s struggle with mental illness so forthrightly addressed. Why was it important for you to spotlight this aspect? Has he always been so open about his health? Did his mental state play any role in the legal case?
Juncker: In the beginning I actually thought about not making a big deal out of his mental health, but after some time it was clear that it affected his behavior and life so much that it had to be included in the film. Jens was very open about it and didn’t want to hide it away. I think one takeaway from the film could be how often people we meet are struggling without us being aware of it.
His mental illness didn’t play any role in the legal case, though. A couple of people around Jens suggested he should say he was sick when he made the decision and thus not legally responsible for his actions. But he didn’t want to go down that road. He is very proud of this work and made it deliberately, not by accident.
Filmmaker: How do Jens and his partner feel about the final film? Had they viewed rough cuts?
Juncker: Jens should really be the one to answer that. Though I do think seeing that first cut was an overwhelming experience for him; to see himself from the outside and in some very extreme emotional states, both manic and later depressed.
Because he initially had such a hard time judging the film, he subsequently attended a couple more screenings with people he relied on. I will say that it made me happy that after viewing Take the Money and Run, his partner said she definitely recognized the Jens that is portrayed in the film.
