Edvard Munch (1974)

Top comments

1. 

   Sonjay89

   One of the finest cinematic experiences I've had. The montage is fabulous, invoking Soviet montage in that it is intellectual rather than continuity editing. It seems Watkins was more interested in the time period and social problems going on than any one person. He intercuts between individual freedom/creative freedom, sex, gender, among other issues. The narration is perfect. The cinematography is beautiful. The perfect balance of aesthetics and intellectually-engaging content. A masterpiece to be cherished. 9 years 4 months ago
2. 

   stabat_mater

   An awful lot can be said about this masterpiece, or absolutely nothing. All I can say is that it made my soul mature. 11 years ago
3. 

   ucuruju

   I thought the length didn't gel completely with the repetitiveness and fragmented nature of the narrative-- the jumping back and forth starts to get a bit tedious in the second half. However it does accomplish its goal: we understand how past experiences forever link love and death, ecstasy and agony, lust and hate in my boy Edvard's mind-- themes that will be depicted in his immortal artistic output. Also interesting is how the film explores the incel-like qualities of turn-of-the-century intelligentsia. August Strindberg apparently was a huge asshole and there's a not so hidden misogynistic streak in all the male speechifying about free love. But still. I do agree with the movie's POV about Munch's importance and the Christ-like suffering that gave the world new ways to express itself. "I thought you looked like Jesus", she says. Only Jesus got crucified one time-- the press just wouldn't give poor Edvard a break! Overall this is a must-see. Probably Watkins most ambitious and personal film. More than recommended. 2 years 3 months ago

See all comments

Friends

Login to see which of your friends have seen this movie!