Hamsun

Legendary director Jan Troell tells an uncompromising story from the Second World War in epic breadth and opulent images. His work avoids clear separations between good and evil. With Hamsun Jan Troell now makes use of a central protagonist who is both anti-hero and a victim of delusion. Late Max von Sydow offers the best portrayal of his life in the formation of Hamsun, an aloof, neck-wielding writer who was almost deaf completely dependent on his wife (Ghita Nørby). The film's plot begins in 1935, when Nobel Prize-winning Norwegian writer Knut Hamsun's passion for Hitler became increasingly known to everyone. The national bard is on the spotlight and becomes a traitor when he publicly speaks out for the German occupiers in 1940. It also portrays the relationship between Hamsun and his wife Marie in the years 1935 to 1952. They both sympathized with the Nazis, and this led to a lengthy trial against Hamsun which is one of the best highlights of the films.

Jan Troell tells of relationship and emotions at the end of the Second World War. He wraps the whole thing up in a melancholy drama, which is also loosened up again and again with a lot of dialog wit and humor. From the start, Troell has managed to break with classic clichés and shuffle the cards again and again. Hamsun is not what you would call entertainment, nor is it 100% clear who its audience is, but a good film nonetheless. The whole tragic tale is one of Jan Troell's yet again magic moments. He has so many of them. RIP Max von Sydow. there is plenty of competition, but his performance as Hamsun will be his greatest.

I expected an entirely different movie. Having read a single review when Hamsun was released, and having heard of him only from listings of Nobel Prize winners, I thought this would be about the traducing of a man's loyalty to country, the political evolution of an intellectual celebrity's thinking. It's not.

The movie is instead one of the most penetrating looks at a distinctive and more often than not failing, marriage I've ever seen. The examination begins after the couple have already been married 35 years; they are a tempestuous, often bitter, and jealous former author of children's books (and in youth, an actress) who desires love from her spouse - and a proud selfish ill-tempered intellectual author who lives in splendid rural isolation and admits his wife's nature disappoints him. The story of marriage is simply fascinating - even though the relations with their five children are cryptically portrayed.

It would be hard to ever better von Sydow's performance as Hamsun (or even as a man growing very old) - or the actress (previously unknown to me)who played his wife - they are simply astounding. I definitely recommend this movie - it is in the same vein as Cries and Whispers or Scenes from a Marriage.

The question I thought the film would address - the responsibility of someone for his words during wartime - is only glancingly struck. Without any attempt to whitewash Hamsun's written opinions favoring the Nazis who had occupied Norway, the movie's author clearly makes Hamsun more sympathetic as a human being as the movie continues.

I think few would agree about where the line should be drawn on punishment for one's opinions in a free society - when that society is at war. Most think those from the democracies who sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists during the Second World War (e.g., Ezra Pound, Celine, deKock, P.G.Wodehouse, Hamsun) are villainous. But is this because they sided with Nazis or because they sided with their country's enemies? Surely in a free society in peacetime, Ezra Pound's anti-semitic ravings and pro-fascist sympathies would not be punished as treason - any more than those who spoke, but did nothing, in favor of Stalin in America during the 1950s were ever tried for treason.

Clearly in a free society, the crime is not that one has taken a particular position, but that one has spoken in favor of an enemy during wartime. But if this is so, then what is one to say of those Americans who wrote to denounce the United States' war with North Vietnam? Or with Iraq? If we do refuse to label such writings as treason (and most probably do - few call for thousands of trials for treason), why? Could it be simply because neither Iraq nor North Vietnam was likely to so succeed that they would occupy the United States? If Iraq were winning so resoundingly that it now occupied parts of the United States, would writings denouncing the war and in favor of Iraq THEN be treason? Probably most would say so.

But by what logic does treason depend on whether one is winning or losing a war?

Further, if we assume a war between different ideologies, should those who have expressed sympathy for another country's ideology BEFORE any war - at a time when no one could have called it treason - be expected to completely forswear their former opinions the date the war is declared against that country? If so, is this not a strange definition of treason? That someone with PRE-WAR sympathies for a certain position must denounce his previous sympathies when his country goes to war against a country that shares his own beliefs?

Must someone perform an about face from his own repeatedly expressed views -- whenever his country enters a war - or be guilty of treason? Betray yourself or you betray your country? If so, is this not a demerit in any society professing to be free?

And yet no one can doubt that one's own country's success is badly affected (and conversely the enemy is uplifted) to the extent that influential people denounce their own government and praise the enemy - particularly when under enemy occupation.

The issues of treason for opinions are quite complex - but are scarcely touched on in this movie.

And that is fine - this is another movie altogether, psychologically penetrating, fascinating study of old age, of a poor marriage, of the unforeseen future as disappointment, of the yearning to die when old.

Knut Hamsun (1859 - 1952) was, alongside Henrik Ibsen, the most famous figure in Norwegian literature. Hamsun published works over an astonishing span of 70 years. He won the Nobel prize in literature in 1920, by which time he was probably his nation's most internationally famous citizen. This film mentions his glory days, but takes place afterwards. In the 1930's, when Hamsun was already an old man struggling with his hearing and possibly his mental capacities, he fell out of grace by supporting Nazi Germany. He wasn't an anti-Semite, but hated the imperialist UK so much as to align himself with Hitler. This reached a (very negative) peak when Germany occupied Norway in 1940, and the author supported the occupiers. This massive film is a depiction of Hamsun's downfall. The years before WWII, the occupation, and the subsequent final years in disgrace.

The film is an international production, between Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. It is directed by Swedish Jan Troell, and stars his oft-used actor Max von Sydow (also Swedish) as Hamsun, and Denmark's most famous actress Ghita Nørby as Marie Hamsun, the author's wife. The lead couple, who previously starred together in Bille August's "Den goda viljan" (1992), actually talk in their native languages, even though they play Norwegian characters. This is heavily audible for Scandinavian viewers, but you also get used to it really fast. Their acting abilities also make you want to let it slide. The rest of the cast is mostly Norwegian and German, depending on the characters they play. The film has an international feel to it, but the whole benefits from the larger budget, and the historical period looks believable.

Like so many great Scandinavian dramas, this is essentially a depiction of a troublesome marriage. It is Marie who first falls in love with Nazism, because it is shown to fill an emotional void in her life. When the traitorous Vidkun Quisling (played by the very evil-looking Sverre Anker Ousdal) finds out that his new fangirl is the wife of Norway's most famous writer, the Nazis take a quick interest in the man himself.

The film analyses the depth of the couple's guilt in a thorough manner. The running time of two and half hours allows us to go deep in their characters, which is of course supported by the intelligently structured screenplay and the fantastic performances. Max Von Sydow is fragile and tormented as Hamsun, a man past his prime who can't bring himself to act against the darkness that overcomes his nation. He struggles as he tries to believe that what he is doing is the right thing. This is one of the actor's finest performances outside of his Bergman roles. Ghita Nørby is likewise great as the manipulative Marie. The early scene where she works as her husband's translator and adds her own words to his, is possibly the best one to capsulate their complex relationship. The supportive cast is not fleshed out as well as the protagonists, but I did like the scene where Hamsun meets Adolf Hitler, played memorably by Ernst Jacobi. All in all, this is a fascinating account of history, a great character study and a nuanced drama.

The extraordinary Max von Sydow stars in this terrific film about the fine line between complicity and collaboration in the life of a Noble Prize winning writer from Norway during the Nazi occupation. But this film is also so much more than that: it is a film about the complex and heart-wrenching relations between the writer, his wife and their children. Like "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl," this film asks where we draw the line in holding artists responsible for their art and actions in an oft confusing world. But it takes that question a step further in examining how his art may also have cost him his relationships with his wife and children.

This is a beautifully filmed, well-acted movie; a true character study of the inner lives of a family, particularly Knut Hamsun and his wife, Marie, evocatively portrayed by Ghita Norby. It is a subtle and slow-paced film in true Scandinavian fashion and von Sydow again shows us why he will be remembered of one of the finest actors of cinema's first 100 years. I highly recommend it, and for those who are interested in other movies dealing with this theme, especially as it relates to artists, so often regarded as naive regarding politics and how they are may be used and manipulated for political gain, I highly recommend "Mother Night," the aforementioned documentary about Riefenstahl, and "Mephisto."

Out of all the countless films and shows I've watched over the course of my life, there's barely a single one that felt like such an obvious insult to any reasonable viewer and reason itself.

Written by one of europes most notorious rad-fems (a man btw), this film seems to be some kind of attempt to "deconstruct" Hamsun as a person by people who seemingly hated him and had him live rentfree in their head for decades.

The film isn't called "Knut Hamsun" but "Hamsun" for a reason. It's all about his wife and written from her radical feminist, jealous, bitter and angry perspective (allthough his children and every other living being seem to hate him as well in this fever dream of a film).

The whole thing is an almost Ibsen-like (that's an insult) moral play, superficial, one-sided and always playing/turning men and women against each other.

You have to search with a magnifying glas in order to find one single scene that is at least somewhat realistic or one that doesn't just exist in order to stamp on Hamsuns grave when he can't defend himself.

It doesn't take a Hamsun fan, nor an academic who dedicated himself to Hamsun for a long time (like me) in order to see through this film after just 5 minutes.

Ironicly, the more the film tries to throw dirt on Hamsun, the more likable and human he gets. Especially since he's literally the only person in the film who isn't driven by obsessive, pathological moralism and self-righteousness.

All that said, I want to end this review with a friendly suggestion: Whatever you do, read the books of a writer for gods sake, not books about him. And avoid films about him since they are mostly too flattering or evil-spirited anyway.