eigaeye

Comparisons between the original book and this film version are rather pointless, not least because the surviving version of the film is half the length of Kurosawa's original. One assumes that the use of bridging text and voice overlay early in the (released) film are there to substitute for action now edited out, anyway the story-lines of the book and the film deviate considerably.

At more than two hours, the film still seems long to me, so I sympathize with the studio. But the main problem for me is the uneven casting. Masayuki Mori, as "the idiot", and Toshiro Mifune, as his rival in love for the courtesan, are unconvincing in their roles. Their scenes together are the weakest and tend to drag.

On the other hand, Setsuko Hara as Taeko (the character corresponding to Dostoevsky's "Princess") and Yoshiko Kuga, as Ayako, her rival for the attentions of the "the idiot", are both exceptionally good. Their one scene together--a great clash of wills towards the end of the film--is riveting.

The other star of this film is Hokkaido in mid-winter. Kurosawa must have commanded great loyalty (or just commanded) from his cast and crew, as there are many scenes shot outdoors in near blizzard conditions.

I rate this 6.5. I do not feel that Kurosawa really has command of his material, even if only half of it made it to commercial release.

At 221 minutes, this film pushes to the outer limits of its material and cinematic technique. Certainly the director's style is fresh and arresting, and the performances (if that's the right word for a 'fly-on-the-wall' directorial style), including the remarkable look-alike actor who plays Munch, are uniformly excellent. The art direction is also particularly impressive, evoking both late 19th century middle class and bohemian Europe with real pungency. The film concentrates on some of the main formative influences on Munch's art: his family relations, circle of friends and lovers. Munch's poor health as a child (you would never guess from this film that he actually lived to the age of 80) is given much prominence. The film, however, could not be described as a biography of the artist. It has nothing to say about his commercial success (which was not insignificant by 1897), what paintings he sold, how he supported himself, or anything about the second half of his life. For me, the last 30 minutes of the film seemed repetitive and, with the accumulation of repeated images and scenes, suffered from the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps the film's greatest strength is its exposition of the circumstances under which several key works in Munch's oeuvre were created. The depictions of the act of painting – often the weakest element in such biopics – are brilliantly handled by Watkins. Worth seeing. But worth owning?

It is not surprising to find that the creator of this series also had a hand in writing quite a few episodes of "Midsomer Murders", the UK detective series that took implausibility and caricature-melodrama to new depths. The writing and story construction here are rarely better than mediocre – and often worse. The producers assemble a well-known cast of players, and everyone seems to be trying hard, but there are too many howlers in the dialogue, art design and direction to allow the audience to settle into anything like a willing suspension of disbelief. The idea that this offers anything like a realistic portrayal of life in an English coastal town during the Second World War is best left to one side if you are considering tasting this piece of confection.