Editorial Reviews and
DVD Information about
Edvard Munch
Description
Famously described by Ingmar Bergman as a "work of genius", Peter Watkins' multi-faceted masterpiece is more than just a bio-pic of the iconic Norwegian Expressionist painter. Focusing initially on Munch's formative years in late 19th Century Kristiania (now Oslo), Watkins uses his trademark style to create a vivid picture of the emotional, political and social upheavals that would have such an effect on his art. The young artist (Geir Westby) has an affair with "Mrs Heiberg" (Gro Fraas), a devastating experience that will haunt him for the rest of his life, and his work is viciously attacked by the critics and public alike. He is forced to leave his home country for Berlin, where, along with the notorious Swedish playwright August Strindberg, he becomes part of the cultural storm that is to sweep Europe.
Amazon.com
Positing itself as a live documentary filmed between 1884-1894, director Peter Watkins' experimental biography of Norwegian artist Edvard Munch(played by Geir Westby) is an angst-ridden glimpse into the traumatic political and social conditions that birthed Munch's invention of Expressionism. Tracing Munch's rise to infamy, the film begins in Victorian-era Christiania (Oslo), where Munch spent his formative years with a family plagued by disease. It then follows Munch to Berlin, where after studying Symbolism and befriending August Strindberg, Munch finds the impetus to create honest work that mimics his life rife with disconnect and rejection, despite scathing reviews by conservative art critics for his "nervous dissolving treatment of color." Plot-heavy scenes set in his studio and elsewhere are interrupted, as if by Munch's own obsessive memories, by shots of his lost true love, "Mrs. Heiberg" (Gro Fraas), accentuating the loneliness and longing Munch feels for this unattainable married woman. As the film's somber color palette alternates between black and blue, Munch's preferred "colors of death," Munch's interior thoughts are conveyed through Watkins' experimentation with sound and film. The sound made by Munch's brush scratching canvas is, at times, unbearably magnified, for example, and visual montages featuring close-ups of the artist's facial expressions elucidate Munch's disturbed emotional states and fragile nerves. The film's expressive qualities emulate the artist's stylistic approach to his art-making, making Edvard Munch an especially convincing artist's biopic. –-Trinie Dalton
|
Customer Reviews for
Edvard Munch
Edvard Munch
Peter Watkins's fascinating biopic about a troubled, nontraditional figure is itself iconoclastic, as it approaches telling Munch's life story through a mosaic of re-enactments, personal diary readings, and faux documentary footage, often repeated for effect. Distant from his father, Munch finds sustenance in a short-lived affair with Mrs. Heiberg (Fraas), a married woman from whom he draws inspiration. Using a variety of sound and color elements to convey Munch's state of mind, Watkins's engrossing film mirrors the inner turmoil of its talented subject.Edvard Munch
"Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye, it also includes the inner pictures of the soul." --Edvard Munch
EDVARD MUNCH, Peter Watkins' experimental, psychological exorcism of a bio-pic, is quite simply the greatest film about art and the artistic process ever produced. A stunning, emotional, provocative, unforgetable masterpiece surpassing even Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" in its ability to convey an artist's emotional turmoil and the existential "struggle to remember, struggle to forget", as Munch himself put it, which is virtually impossible to communicate regardless of medium. However, through brilliant camerawork, ingenius editing and an uncanny ability for pulling soul-searching performances out of non-actors ala Robert Bresson, Watkins, like Munch, manages in (and within) the process to magically transcend the limitations of the medium to create something simultaneously organic yet profoundly expressionistic despite the limitations of the "canvas".Edvard Munch
A Master Painter Revealed
Peter Watkins reveals the inner life of Edvard Munch in much the same way as Paul Cox reveals Vincent Van Gogh's in VINCENT.
Watkins' approach, though, is more sylistic. The flashbacks and the repetition, which may seem obnoxious at first, do have a purpose and have a cumulative effect. Eventually, one comes to understand in a profound way how Munch's family and romantic associations affected his art. One of the most profound revelations I had while watching the film had to do with Munch's famous painting, "The Vampire." Watkins suggests what may have influenced it; however Watkins allows the viewer to make the connection. Indeed, Watkins uses the strategy several times. My point is that one begins to understand the psychological underpinnings of Munch's art. Watkins doesn't rely on explaining concepts, techniques, or artistic movements the way many art historians and critics do. The result of Watkins' approach is startling and original.
In making VINCENT, Cox used Van Gogh's letters. I expected Watkins would draw heavily from Munch's journal, but he didn't. That is to say, Watkins didn't have a narrator read from the journal as a means of pushing forward or explaining the film. However, Watkins does reference the journal several times.
If you're looking for a straightforward documentary on Munch, this film may disappoint you. It's long and may seem fragmented at first. Only after sitting with the film a while does one begin to live inside it. In a sense, Watkins attempts to recreate Munch's inner life on screen, rather than simply telling the viewer about it.
Watkins' film is a work of art in itself, and, as such, defies conventions and expectations. It is, in the final analysis, unforgettable.Edvard Munch
This is an amazing film.
An experimental biography teeming with life. Up there with Andrei Rublev.
Also, the transfer to DVD looks great.Edvard Munch
Cinema is NOT television
Munch has long been one of my favorite painters, if not my favorite, since I was seventeen years old. I love films (Angelopoulos, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman, you name it.). Therefore, it was not a hard decision for me to forgo a particularly beautiful afternoon in the outdoors for being locked up for three hours in the AC atmosphere of a movie theater. What a mistake, and what a disappointment! Where was the editor (sorry, it was Watkins) for this film? I am amazed that director/editor Peter Watkins should so obviously confuse the television medium for cinema. The film is about one hour too long. It is repetitive, grossly uneven in its presentation of the painter's life (half-life, would be a more appropriate term). It seems that Watkins went on and on, repeating himself, and suddenly, looking at his watch, realized he had to rush through the remainder of Munch's life to finish the film. He rushed and still did not make it past 1909. Why ignore Munch, the man and his work, after 1909? But I guess this is the director's prerogative, to show what he wants of Munch's life.
In general, the cinematography is good, with delicate colors. The representation of the period was well researched and comes across as authentic. The hand-held camera works well most of the time, with beautiful close-ups. In some scenes, such as the socio-political discussions in the cafes, its unsteadiness underlines the chaos of the expounded philosophy. There are even moments of greatness, such as when Munch is painting "Death in the Sickroom." Unfortunately, more often than not, the camera is shaky for no apparent reason. But there are far too many cuts, so many it makes one dizzy at times just watching, and they interfere with the narrative thread of the story. Worse, the contrivance of the cuts is astonishingly predictable -- after a while, I knew that the instant any character's eyes looked directly into the camera, the scene was going to quickly cut to something else. Geir Westby's performance, whose likeness to Munch is remarkable, is not convincing: one does not get any insight regarding Munch's internal demons, or any real sense of the artist's passion, jealousy, and repression. The dreadful environment, familial, social and political, seems practically divorced from Munch's life, as the artist appears to stand apart from it all, an outside observer. His very critical relationship with his father is hardly touched upon, except for a (too often) repeated short scene at the dining table, when Munch was still young. Munch's complex and ambiguous feelings about women in general, which shaped so much of his work, are not even touched upon, except for his particular relationship with Mrs. Heiberg (Gro Fraas). Waltkins' decision to present Munch's biography more like a docu-drama could have been rewarding, except for the fact that he was not able to integrate the historical document with the subject matter.
It all boils down to the editing, which is just AWFUL. Believe me, I say this not because the film is three-hours long (Angelopoulos' and Tarkovsky's films do not exactly produce short subjects), but because when a director has nothing new to say, and keeps repeating himself, it quickly becomes tedious and boring. Most likely, the original television production was shown in three one-hour installments. Therefore, many of the numerous flashbacks were justified, not only to somehow refresh the memories of the viewers who might have seen one or two previous episodes in the preceding weeks, but also to "bring aboard" new viewers. But in the continuum of the film, these same flashbacks become useless, even counter-productive, unnecessarily weighing down the viewer with back-story.
Please note that I did not follow many of my fellow spectators who left the theatre early. I suffered through to the ending credits.
Edvard Munch
|
