Review of Edvard Munch (1974) by David S — 12 Jun 2011

At 3 1/2 hours, this is a challenging film to experience about the life and work of Edvard Munch. The film takes the form of a documentary, with some characters speaking directly to the camera and other action narrated as if it had been captured while it took place.

There are also numerous shots of characters staring directly at the camera during scenes, sometimes seeming as though they are imploring us for something, sometimes looking for vindication. Are they meant to be looking at us, or is that act, more likely, how we are to perceive them in their inner mind? Not only is director Watkins working at the visual level to evoke the experience of Munch's time and its effect on his work, he's also using the film to recreate the chaotic thoughts and emotions of Munch himself.

Watkins attributes three main events to the impetus behind Munch's themes, and they replay in various forms throughout the film. As the movie progresses, the film also cross-cuts between events more and more, and typically adds an additional layer of sound disjoint from the action on-screen.

This starts as two or three things intertwined in the first part of the film, but as the film nears its conclusion, it works up to six, seven, and eight separate but interlocked images and sounds, all seeming to roil within Munch's mind, all wanting to be expressed in his art.

If there are flaws in this film, it's that at times these events can seem, even in sum, as too pat an explanation for Munch's obsessions. It's also the case that the actor who plays Munch says little, but when he does, the actor doesn't seem especially skilled.

It's important that Munch in the film doesn't say much, seeing as how the film is presenting itself partially as a historical document, with intelligent insights into how his work was created, how his media changed, and explanations of the breakthroughs in his work.

With all of that "fact" presented to us, we are viewers at a distance who must accept this version of Munch, the one made up of art and motivations, unfulfilled desires and conflicting emotions, as the person himself, one whose views we already have presented to us.

But when the actor does speak, it would be nice if he could be more convincing with the dialogue (which is saying something, since he's not speaking in English). Overall, the film is a work that rewards patience, one that illuminates both the physical and emotional processes of making art, and one that never deifies its subject.