Godland

At least twice during this film, the director uses a bold and spectacular cinematographic gimmick. In the shots, lasting several minutes, the camera turns very slowly around in a 360-degree movement. These shots are almost mini-films within the film. In the second one, the camera captures a village wedding party, with musicians, dancers and children playing. Wonderful to look at.

There are more beautiful shots in the film. One shows a dead horse, slowly decaying in a series of identical shots, but filmed in different seasons. Has the director filmed the entire process during a full year? It's possible, there is enough space in the immense expanse of Iceland's remote wilderness.

Apart from the 19th century Danish priest who is the story's protagonist, the Icelandic landscape is really the most important element in the film. In the first part, there really isn't much else. After having arrived by ship, the priest travels on horseback through the barren landscape, accompanied by some taciturn Icelanders. When he arrives at a village in order to build a new church, the story concentrates on the tension between the Icelanders and the priest, who is not only seen as a representative of an oppressive country, but also seems ill-prepared for the physical challenges of the primitive Icelandic lifestyle.

In order to give this simple story an extra dimension, the priest is also a photographer, making portraits of the people he meets. In the 19th century, this was an elaborate process involving eggwhite and silver. The director wants us to believe it is the recent discovery of those photo's, which survived the centuries, that made him reconstruct the priest's journey.

For me, the film ticked several boxes. I have hiked through the Icelandic interior, and yes, the landscape really is amazing. I also like slow cinema, and this is very slow cinema. Thirdly, this film also contains some food for thought about religion. Officially, the Danish priest and the Icelandic villagers share the same religion, but the way they experience it couldn't be more different.

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,

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.

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.

The film has some amazing imagery, it is intriguing, it has drama, mistery and above all, it shows the dominant force of nature, that is depicted as far more powerful than the ephemeral characters that try to make a living on earth.

I found it as an odd to nature, to specifically the Icelandic harsh but majestic natural landscape and to the way people used to respect this. It is a great movie in many ways.

However, it's plot is slow-moving, the scenes are extremely long, do not expect to be entertained as it is the complete opposite of a fast-action, Hollywood-style movie. It is often rather boring and there is the real danger that the 2 hours and 23 minutes to pass rather slow to you as it did to me. I has the impression that the movie could have been just as deep and beautiful lasting only say 1 hours and 45 minutes.