The cinema-ready film “Munch” gives an absolutely broader understanding of the man and his art, and one understands more of the background for several of his paintings.
Four actors are Munch
In Henrik Martin Dahlsbakken’s film, we follow the artist Edvard Munch through four periods, in four different places and portrayed through four actors.
The young Munch is played by Alfred Ekker Strande, and we meet him at the start of his life as an artist, one summer in Vestfold when he falls in love with the married Mille Thaulow (Thea Lambrechts Vaulen).
“MUNCH”: Alfred Ekker Strande portrays the youngest Munch. Photo: Ymer Media AS
Mattis Herman Nyquist is Munch in Berlin, and we are with him one evening his exhibition is stopped and it ends with a damp evening in the city. While Ola G. Furuseth is Munch in Copenhagen, where we follow his visit to a psychologist after a breakdown.
Anne Krigsvoll plays the aging Munch in Oslo, who works to keep art away from the Germans during World War II.
Interesting interpretations
It is an exciting move to use four very different actors, and to have four different interpretations of Munch. When we meet Munch (Ola G. Furuseth) in Copenhagen, he is in a dark and destructive place, and thus the cinema screen narrows in and we switch to black and white, a clever move that does not confuse, but rather complements.
While Munch (Mattis Herman Nyquist) in Berlin is a period that is set in the present, and he ends up at a rave with August Strindberg (Lisa Carlehed) and Gustav Vigeland (Nader Khademi). It works surprisingly well, and shows that Munch’s story is universal and still relevant.
The actors deliver in their own time, but it is most interesting to follow an unrecognizable Anne Krigsvoll who interprets Munch with tenderness and fervor.
“MUNCH”: Mattis Herman Nyquist as Munch preparing an exhibition in Berlin. Photo: Ymer Media AS
Should have come closer
The film could have given a greater understanding of why life is so difficult for Edvard Munch. We barely touch on rejections both on the love front and from the art world, but there are only parentheses in this story and we do not get to experience the massive opposition from his contemporaries and his sense of outsiderness.
It’s such an exciting life and I wish I was more with on the journey rather than being a spectator to it. In “Munch” we follow a soul that is twisted and torn to pieces, but our soul is little touched.
“MUNCH”: When we meet Munch (Ola G. Furuseth) in Copenhagen, he is in a dark place in his life. Photo: Ymer Media AS
Although the film’s artistic choices work well, it probably comes at the expense of getting closer to Munch the person. Nevertheless, it is a film that in many ways suits his art. It has several lovely artistic touches, such as the use of animation and a picturesque Munch sky.
The parts work individually
The film does not follow Munch’s life chronologically, but we jump back and forth between the four places, the four periods and the four actors. It is clear where we are in the story, and this way of telling gives us an understanding of why middle or older Munch acted as he did and who he was. At the same time, each story moves on before it really gets to settle completely. The four portraits of Munch work well individually, but are somewhat uneven as a whole.
Director Henrik Martin Dahlsbakken has made a total of ten feature films in eight years, and he has moved within most genres. When he now deals with one of our greatest artists in a biographical film, it is exciting and brave to make a film that is far from choosing simple solutions, and which has become both watchable and interesting.
Dice roll 4.
