The cinema-ready film «Munch» gives an absolutely broader understanding of men and art, and one understands more of the background for several of his paintings.

Four actors are Munch

In Henrik Martin Dahlsbakken’s film, the artist follows Edvard Munch through four periods, in four different places and portrayed by four actors.

The young Munch is played by Alfred Ekker Strande, and we meet him at the beginning of his life as an artist, one summer in Vestfold, when he falls in love with the gifted Mille Thaulow (Thea Lambrechts Vaulen).

Mattis Herman Nyquist is Munch in Berlin, and we are with him one evening his exhibition is stopped and it ends with a damp evening in the city. While Ola G. Furuseth is Munch in Copenhagen, we follow his visit to a psychologist after a breakdown.

Anne Krigsvoll plays the aging Munch in Oslo, who works to keep art away from the Germans during World War II.

Interesting interpretations

It is an exciting move to use four very different actors, and have four different interpretations of Munch. When we meet Munch (Ola G. Furuseth) in Copenhagen, he is in a dark and destructive place, and thus the cinema screen narrows in and we switch to black and white, a clever move which does not confuse, but fills in more.

While Munch (Mattis Herman Nyquist) in Berlin is a period set in the present, and he ends up at a rave with August Strindberg (Lisa Carlehed) and Gustav Vigeland (Nader Khademi). It works surprisingly well, and shows that Munch’s story is universal and still relevant.

The actors deliver in their own time, but it is most interesting to follow an unrecognizable Anne Krigsvoll who interprets Munch with tenderness and fervor.

Should have come closer

The film could give a greater understanding of why life is so difficult for Edvard Munch. We so far touch on rejections both on the love front and from the art world, but it will only be parents in this story and we will not experience the massive resistance from his contemporaries and his feeling of outsiderness.

It’s such an exciting life and I’d love to host more with on the journey rather than being a spectator to it. In «Munch» we follow a soul that is twisted and torn to pieces, but our soul touches a little.

Although the film’s artistic choices work well, it probably comes at the expense of getting closer to the person Munch. Nevertheless, it is a film that in many ways suits his art. It has several neat artistic touches used by animation and a picturesque Munch sky.

The parts individually

The film does not follow Munch’s life chronologically, but we jump back and forth between the four places, the four periods and the four actors. It is clear where we are in the story, and this way of telling makes us understand why middle or older Munch acted as he did and who he was. At the same time, each story moves on before it really settles down. The four portraits of Munch work fine individually, but are somewhat uneven as a whole.

Director Henrik Martin Dahlsbakken has made all the feature films in one year, and he has moved within most genres. When he now has to say one of our greatest artists in a biographical film, it is exciting and brave to make a film that, far from choosing simple solutions, has become both watchable and interesting.

Dice roll 4.