The Northman. (15.)
Directed by Robert Eggers
Starring Alexander Skarsgård, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Anya Taylor-Joy, Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe. In Cinemas. 137 mins.
This blood-drenched, mumbo jumbo fuelled Viking epic offers a vision of a society so bleak and so depraved that Willem Dafoe is the comic relief. That said, he doesn’t last long as the court jester to the returning king (Hawke), his services are dispensed with when his position is cut, along with his tongue and ears, in the extensive downsizing exercise affected by the usurping bastard brother (Bang) when he decides to seize the throne and queen Kidman.
After that, the story is that of Prince Amleth (Skarsgård), an avenging Scandanavian who doesn’t waste a moment pondering To Be Or Not To Be: for him it’s To Be, most everybody else Not. He is set on vengeance and nothing will get in his way. The Northman is insanely, unrelentingly, and dementedly violent. There're severings, slashings, slicings, batterings, beheadings, bludgeonings and headbuttings galore. You wonder how Universal managed to get this a 15 certificate. Perhaps they sacrificed a lamb on the steps of the BBFC’s Soho offices.
Co-writer and director Eggers made his considerable reputation with two low budget genre-defying efforts, The Witch and The Lighthouse. The fear going in would be that this singular talent would be held back by the pressures of handling a $90 million budget but if anything it has pushed him to be more extreme. The Northman is more intense and tightly wound than any big-budget action film I can remember. The dark and oppressive visuals, a mix of CGI and remote Icelandic landscapes, are like a rustic 300.
Personally, I can live without the rape and pillaging but can see the necessity for it in a film about Vikings; it's the mumbo jumbo I don't need. Ten minutes can’t pass without some soothsayer, shamen or witch turning up to make a prophecy, or pontificate on fate and destiny. All of this is the kind of Norse mythology you'll be familiar with from Thor films: Odin, Valhalla, etc. The film takes its Norse mythology very seriously: the prophecies always come true and on occasion, Amleth is aided in his quest by supernatural powers. Half a century ago, the historical epic would often be a vehicle for Christian propaganda; here you wonder if the film is proselytising for paganism.
(Alongside The Witch, you can discern a clear anti-Christianity theme to Egger’s work, a sense of it being a rigid formulation that oppresses deeper, older wisdoms.)
And if it isn’t, what is the purpose of the mythology in this film? Without it, this would be a bleak, wretched tale of petty vengeance and brute savagery. With it, this murderous barbarity is supposed to have some elevating nobility to it. It is performing the task that religions have always fulfilled down the ages – to sanctify war and bloodshed, as well as help pass it off as entertainment.
Which makes the decision by the usurper to take Kidman for his bride that bit more surprising. Surely even Norse mythology knew that Nicole Kidman was a harbinger of ill fortune? That no film with her in (Aquaman cameo excepted) will ever be a box office hit? Will this be any different? It's a singular vision with some startling scenes and its berserk momentum is quite something to behold. But, as the film is being hailed as this generation's Gladiator, I think you have to ask the question, are you not entertained? I suspect that or all its critical acclaim, the answer for most people might be no.
Directed by Robert Eggers
Starring Alexander Skarsgård, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Anya Taylor-Joy, Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe. In Cinemas. 137 mins.
This blood-drenched, mumbo jumbo fuelled Viking epic offers a vision of a society so bleak and so depraved that Willem Dafoe is the comic relief. That said, he doesn’t last long as the court jester to the returning king (Hawke), his services are dispensed with when his position is cut, along with his tongue and ears, in the extensive downsizing exercise affected by the usurping bastard brother (Bang) when he decides to seize the throne and queen Kidman.
After that, the story is that of Prince Amleth (Skarsgård), an avenging Scandanavian who doesn’t waste a moment pondering To Be Or Not To Be: for him it’s To Be, most everybody else Not. He is set on vengeance and nothing will get in his way. The Northman is insanely, unrelentingly, and dementedly violent. There're severings, slashings, slicings, batterings, beheadings, bludgeonings and headbuttings galore. You wonder how Universal managed to get this a 15 certificate. Perhaps they sacrificed a lamb on the steps of the BBFC’s Soho offices.
Co-writer and director Eggers made his considerable reputation with two low budget genre-defying efforts, The Witch and The Lighthouse. The fear going in would be that this singular talent would be held back by the pressures of handling a $90 million budget but if anything it has pushed him to be more extreme. The Northman is more intense and tightly wound than any big-budget action film I can remember. The dark and oppressive visuals, a mix of CGI and remote Icelandic landscapes, are like a rustic 300.
Personally, I can live without the rape and pillaging but can see the necessity for it in a film about Vikings; it's the mumbo jumbo I don't need. Ten minutes can’t pass without some soothsayer, shamen or witch turning up to make a prophecy, or pontificate on fate and destiny. All of this is the kind of Norse mythology you'll be familiar with from Thor films: Odin, Valhalla, etc. The film takes its Norse mythology very seriously: the prophecies always come true and on occasion, Amleth is aided in his quest by supernatural powers. Half a century ago, the historical epic would often be a vehicle for Christian propaganda; here you wonder if the film is proselytising for paganism.
(Alongside The Witch, you can discern a clear anti-Christianity theme to Egger’s work, a sense of it being a rigid formulation that oppresses deeper, older wisdoms.)
And if it isn’t, what is the purpose of the mythology in this film? Without it, this would be a bleak, wretched tale of petty vengeance and brute savagery. With it, this murderous barbarity is supposed to have some elevating nobility to it. It is performing the task that religions have always fulfilled down the ages – to sanctify war and bloodshed, as well as help pass it off as entertainment.
Which makes the decision by the usurper to take Kidman for his bride that bit more surprising. Surely even Norse mythology knew that Nicole Kidman was a harbinger of ill fortune? That no film with her in (Aquaman cameo excepted) will ever be a box office hit? Will this be any different? It's a singular vision with some startling scenes and its berserk momentum is quite something to behold. But, as the film is being hailed as this generation's Gladiator, I think you have to ask the question, are you not entertained? I suspect that or all its critical acclaim, the answer for most people might be no.
