
Following a rough chronology from 1884 to 1894, when Norwegian artist Edvard Munch began expressionism and established himself as northern Europe's most maligned and controversial artist, the film also flashes back to the death from consumption of his mother, when he was five, his sister's death, and his near death at 13 from pulmonary disease. The film finds enduring significance in Munch's brief affair with "Mrs. Heiberg" and his participation in the café society of anarch... (Full plot summary below)
Enjoy FREE movies and series with your Prime (USA) subscription or when you start a 30-day free trial!
Links compiled using automated software. Availability of offers subject to change / might be region specific / out of date.
Following a rough chronology from 1884 to 1894, when Norwegian artist Edvard Munch began expressionism and established himself as northern Europe's most maligned and controversial artist, the film also flashes back to the death from consumption of his mother, when he was five, his sister's death, and his near death at 13 from pulmonary disease. The film finds enduring significance in Munch's brief affair with "Mrs. Heiberg" and his participation in the café society of anarchist Hans Jaeger in Christiania and later in Berlin with Strindberg. Through it all comes Munch's melancholy and his desire to render on canvas, cardboard, paper, stone, and wood his innermost feelings.
Leave your thoughts about Edvard Munch.
| Detroit Free PressJohn MonaghanThere have been countless film biographies of famous artists, but only a few can be considered major works in their own right. Place Edvard Munch at the top of the list. |
| Film4Anton BitelWatkins' most experimental work is also his most accessible, painting a complex but compelling portrait of a man ill at ease with himself and his times. |
| Slant MagazineEric HendersonEdvard Munch, in Watkin's subjective documentary setting, is one of the penultimate cultural crusaders, a relic of a dying era in which individualism could, apparently, still conceivably be intuitive and not reactionary. |
| Filmcritic.comKeith Breesedeft, sacrosanct, images of sensuality captured like birth on film. |
| User ReviewDarren BLong and awkward, but awesome. The "reality" format used in this film is, of course, widespread now; but I was surprised to find out old this movie was. |
| User ReviewMätthew EThe best biopic of a painter ever made. An overwhelmingly impressive example of Watkins utter stylistic mastery in the editing room. |
| User ReviewAnne FTook me two days to watch this even though it wasn't painful to get through or anything. It' hasn't to be one of the most fascinating and inspiring movies about art I've ever seen. It's easy to just jump in and describe the formalistic decisions Watkins made, and the achievement of actually pulling it off. But it'd feel more appropriate if I tried to articulate the emotional reaction it got out of me. The moods it evoked. The tone of thoughts it stirred inside me upon witnessing the psychological anguish and subsequent creativity it inspired in Munch. There's a strange universality to the dreamlike web of Munch's life story. Like Sombre, he's haunted by this impossible desire to possess the women he loves. "The desire to possess her is a wound." It causes a paranoia. An icy fear that fuels his nightmarish and increasingly abstract works of art. The public, predictably, rejects the manifestations of these feelings. Labeling them as works of the unstable, the consensus dismisses them, horrified. These aren't my feelings. This is the emotional backdrop of his story. But if they convey feeling, perhaps that is what I meant to do. Because I, too, have often felt this angry artistic inspiration. This terrible desire to see deeply into the darkness and truth of oneself, and express it in hopes of redeeming these feelings. In hopes of supplying oneself with meaning. I've always known this can never happen. But what else can one do with these feelings? No, they must be expressed. Munch turned these obsessive and frightening feelings into master works of paint and wood carvings. But he never got over these feelings. This emotional state was his identity. It's also what made him this rare type of individual. He always felt opposed to the world. Unable to make complete sense of it. He felt opposed to women, because he perhaps thought they sought to weaken him. He felt opposed to other men because of jealousy, which he described as, not the fear of loss, but the fear of division. He sought to escape from the isolation of the world through emotional and physical love, and he never did. It's incredible how close I feel to his character, despite his existing an entire century before my time. It has a lot to do with this breathtaking, original narrative style Watkins serves us, which plays like Nicolas Roeg meets Terrence Malick. Memories appear unexplained, interwoven with the present tense. And there's a lingering voice of narrative/historical wisdom, as if in a documentary, giving us this overarching encyclopediac sense of time. And characters talk to us, right to us, about their political/artistic beliefs, completely convincing us that somehow this film was created in the 1880/90s. And we're right there, as close as you can get, when the moment of inspiration hits Munch. As he scrapes away all of the unimportant details of his canvas. As he tends to the obscurities of his deep, dark abyss. The most unforgettable formalistic technique by Watkins is to have his characters look directly into the camera in the middile of scenes, or during important moments of crisis, as if in one of Munch's own paintings. We get this strong sensation of connection with them. They confide in us, despite their intimacies. Despite their melancholia in their present moments, they look to US. Impossible. Such is the magic of this movie. |
| User ReviewAntonio LThis is brilliant biopic. As a matter of fact, I don't think a better one exists. Peter Watkins is an amazing talent and his editing style for this film is perfect. This film captures the artistic process of Munch. Watkins definitely is in the debate as the greatest Brit director ever. |
| User ReviewBen BAstonishing docudrama from the man who invented the genre. Gripping, captivating, deeply moving. One of the best films you've never seen. |
| User ReviewDarryl JI find it hard to start to even talk about this movie. Peter Watkins' masterpiece Edvard Munch is, above all else, a supremely successful experimental film. He avoids all bio-pic conventions and creates a style all his own. From the jarring edits to the non-linear storyline to the docudrama approach to the material, everything is handled with the utmost delicacy and care. I can't emphasize that last part enough. It may seem like the director is merely indulging himself when you hear about his "style" but that couldn't be farther from the truth. Even I thought that this was going to be one of those films that leaves the viewer feeling cold because of the old cliche "style over substance". This is, in fact, one of the most deeply personal films I've ever seen in my life. I really don't know how Watkins did it. I felt so immediately immersed in Munch and his life. Let's take a step back now. You know how I feel about the film in it's most basic form(being a biopic of Edvard Munch) but I've barely started peeling this onion of a film. Watkins also cleverly documents the social problems of the time involving issues of class, women's rights, and artistic freedom as a whole. He does all this without it ever feeling forced or separate from the actual movie. Edvard Munch is used as a sort of symbol(sort of, HE WAS) of a new era, a new beginning in the artistic world. An emotionally honest and raw era. The film brilliantly portrays this in the many scenes of him painting. Those scenes are so tangible, so textured. You look at his frenzied carvings and brushstrokes and you see the actual man behind those oil paintings. They were not ready for that back then but you can hear the fury of scratching and brushing since then and know that artists are still inspired and thankful for his tremendous contribution to the art world. It probably doesn't have to be said but this is one of the best films I've ever seen in my life. |