Vanskabte land

Iceland is terrible and beautiful.

A wooden trunk is uncovered with seven photographs in it from a hundred and fifty years ago in Iceland. The trunk belonged to a Danish priest who died there. Among the images are snow covered mountain ridges, a waterfall, glacier, and a portrait of a girl on a horse. Godland imagines the circumstances of how the photographs were taken.

A young Danish priest, Lucas, is assigned to a remote Icelandic village. He is told to adapt to the people and place, but because he is arrogant, he does neither. Against the advice of his guide and despite freezing rain and snow, Lucas insists upon going into the mountains and crossing a treacherous river. By the time they make it to his assigned village, Lucas is miserable, detested, isolated, and barely alive. Lucas is destined to become a part of Iceland, but not in the way he desires.

The sights and sounds of Godland are exquisite and resplendent. Listen to the women and birds singing, the ocean swells, the roar of a waterfall, a fierce river current, and volcano rumbling. Peer beneath the surface of the river, look across ice fields and canyons, see raindrops beginning to fall on smooth and sable stone, find your way through the thick fog, and gaze up close into a woman's eyes.

One of Lucas' greatest mistakes is seeing himself apart from nature, animals, and the local people. In showing the cycles of the seasons, and of life and death, Godland gently makes us aware of this crime. It is just one of the many wonders and complexities of this compelling, visually stunning, and thought-provoking film.

Godland premiered in Cannes and I saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival.

GODLAND reminded my of MEEK'S CUTOFF, and not just because of the squarish aspect ratio. Both are a journey across harsh landscapes that test and transform people. But to my mind it is no BLACK ROBE. I've read reviews calling the main character, Lucas, pious with a desire to save souls etc. I didn't get this feeling AT ALL. He seemed more preoccupied with taking photos than being some kind of head in the sky religious zealot on a mission to spread the word of God (as in BLACK ROBE). There's very little Bible thumping to be had. Other reviewers have also called it 'bone-chilling', 'horror' etc. It's none of these things. I'm not sure why they are reaching for such superlatives. It's actually a fairly pedestrian story and the dramatic moments came as something of a surprise (to me at least). I found the ending somewhat unfathomable as well bc, for me, little led up to it. Still, it was satisfyingly bleak with majestic mountains, mist, rivers and glaciers. But really, it could have been much more,

Visuals: 10/10. Sound design: 10/10. Storyline: 10/10. Where this film loses me is primarily the storytelling and dialogue. Some things happened in this movie that just felt odd and out of place. Some characters said/did things that made me feel like i had missed a huge part of the movie. The dialogue was a huge reason that the storytelling was inadequate. All the characters feel, though seemingly on purpose, extremely stiff and nothing they say flows at all. However, like I said, that was probably Hlynur Palmason's intention for the movie is an adaption of simple photographs which is evident in the cinematography. This film is not really a movie so much as a slideshow, which, although it makes for stunning photography and a unique shtick, makes the characters less relatable. However, I must say there were moments near the end where a felt a strong bond with the protagonist that I hadn't expected throughout the first hour and a half.

A bit slow and vague to my personal taste the movie is divided in two parts that shows the travel and settlement of a young Danish priest (protestant) and photographer to a remote village on Iceland, on the 19th century (then a colony of Denmark, from 1376 to 1918), with distinct languages.

The first part focus on the travel and hardship of the travel with the loss of a friend and rising animosity between the priest and some people of the party; the second part focus on the settlement of the priest and some of the locals, with rising of of disputes and claims, while he involves with the daughter of a local farmer and a builder that acompanished him the first part of the movie.

The photography is marvelous with the Icelandic landscape and to a degree it shows the variation between the seasons and the body and soul of man, that loses gradually his aim and mission till he looses all of his former personality.

But other than that it didn't have a really strong message being more a display of beauty in harshness landscapes and personalities than having a message on itself. For this I score it with a 6.5 out of 10.0 / B-.

No likes yet.

Fr. Lucas (Elliott Crosset Hove) is despatched by his bishop to a remote settlement in Iceland where he is charged with building a church and establishing a parish. Upon arrival, he is met by "Ragnar" (Ingvar Sigurdsson) - a rather unwelcoming man, who is tasked with guiding him to the hamlet many days trek away. Their journey tests the mettle of the young priest. The hostility of the environment, the indifference of his travelling companions, the cold, the wind, the rain - all of these make him consider seriously what he is doing and whether he actually has the faith. His exhaustion causes him to finally fall from his horse and upon wakening we discover that he has luckily arrived at his destination and is being nursed by "Anna" (Vic Carmen Sonne). He is broadly welcomed and the construction of his church proceeds but he is not a man at ease with his surroundings, his new-found parishioners and but for an increasingly close relationship with "Anna" would be an inch from despair. Is this a place where he can settle and live? The cinematography is gorgeous - make sure you take a jumper when you watch it. The sheer inhospitableness of this island. It was hardly a place for the indigenous ponies, it is certainly not a place for a clergyman used to home comforts now reduced to sleeping in a thin canvas tent! He was a photographer - and the film is inspired by a small collection of his photographs that were found. It was possibly this photography that he felt gave him a purpose as the man we see at the end bears little resemblance to the one we meet in Denmark at the beginning. This features a very strong performance from Hove. He manages the transformation of his character well and that encourages us to feel invested in him and his conflict. I did not enjoy, nor really understand, the last fifteen minutes. The story takes a turn for the brutal and the tragic in a way that seemed to me unnecessary and somewhat inexplicable. Cause and effect - but why? Perhaps I missed something? Anyway, this is well worth watching and though a bit long, is quite thought-provoking at times.