Kon-Tiki

A nominee for Best Foreign Language Picture at this year's Oscars, Norwegian import Kon-Tiki chronicles the journey of adventurer Thor Heyerdahl and his incredible journey some 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean from Peru to Polynesia on a balsa wood raft. Though comparisons will inevitably be drawn between this film and Ang Lee's Life of Pi, a fellow Oscar nominee, they are very different beasts and are both films deserving of attention.

If nothing else, Kon-Tiki (the name of the aforementioned vessel) adds to the impressive list of superb films from Scandinavia this past year. From Headhunters (one of my favourites of 2012) to the overlooked Snabba cash (Easy Money), fare from this region has never been more accessible or memorable.

So now comes Kon-Tiki, the first Norwegian film to score both a nomination at the Golden Globe and Academy Award ceremonies, and it's rather easy to see why. This sweeping journey appeals squarely to Hollywood sensibilities, twisting up an epic, historical adventure about overcoming the odds, with human drama. Though this intentional slanting may take some of the complexity and grit out of the film in the end, praise is abundantly deserved for all those involved.

Chief on that list is filmmaking duo Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, best known previously for the Luc Besson-produced Bandidas with Penelope Cruz and Selma Hayek, who craft something lavish and visually sumptuous out of this trek, despite the hurdle of being endowed with a budget of just $16 million.

By recreating Heyerdahl's raft, shooting out over the deep and using special effects only as infrequent enhancements rather than a crutch, these two lay the authenticity on thick and in doing so generate tension and wonder (sometimes simultaneously) like you wouldn't imagine. Kon- Tiki, though never overtly stealing, mirrors the most effective aspects of films like Cast Away, Jaws and Mutiny on the Bounty.

When Rønning and Sandberg aren't capturing sweeping, stunning shots of the Pacific (and the tiny boat at its mercy) they are letting the camera rest on the diminutive aspects of the voyage, at least so when compared to the grandness of what's around them. The ropes lashing together the massive balsa wood beams strain and groan in the water, summoning us back to an earlier scene where two sailors warn Heyerdahl that a raft of that nature will inevitably break apart with the movement of the logs. Sharks silently circle and the boat slowly crumbles as the wood absorbs seawater. These quiet moments are as unnerving as anything you'll see on the big screen.

Likewise, there are grander, more elaborate moments that drip with tension all the same, as when storms hit, men are cast overboard, and once again sharks, though proving to be one of the lesser threats in the scheme of things, use their mythos alone to chill to the bone. If not as complex as it could have been, Kon-Tiki is certainly never dull.

The cast of unknown actors are also strong, even if by the time the credits role their sporting of Grizzly Adams-like beards makes identifying between some of these brave men difficult. Leading the way as the driven Heyerdahl is – wait for this one – Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen, anchoring (no pun intended) the film as a man intent on proving his settlement theory to sceptical scholars. Joining him is engineer (and refrigerator salesman) Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) navigator Erik Hesselberg (Odd Magnus Williamson) ethnographer Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård) and two soldiers acting as radio men Knut Haugland and Torstein Raaby (Tobias Santelmann and Jakob Oftebro respectively).

Together, crammed together like sardines, they make the 101-day journey, each bringing not only their respective skill-sets but demons as well. Those versed in Heyerdahl's novel or the documentary of the voyage (the winner of the 1950 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature) may cry afoul at some of the changes that have been made in service to crafting a more dramatic effort, particularly tweaks to the Watzinger character, but they will in no way impact how most will respond to Kon-Tiki.

Though not as weighty or viscerally lasting as some fare that pops up in the Best Foreign Language Film category, it is, however, infinitely accessible to anyone who usually turns their nose up at that particular segment of the ceremony. Kon-Tiki is a strong import, fascinating and thrilling in equal measure and a film that is just as much about the perils of nature as it is about the gratification that comes with conquering it.

I sought out this Norwegian film only after I learned that this was nominated for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film. I only had a cursory knowledge of Thor Heyerdahl as a Norwegian explorer who wrote about his adventure at sea. However, I did not know any details at all about him or his journey. So I welcomed this opportunity to finally get to see it.

The film began with Thor as a child when he fell into the icy lake and almost drowned. However we later find out that that accident and his inability to swim did not deter his adventurous spirit. We fast forward to Thor and his wife Liv on Fatu Hiva, a Polynesian island, in 1937. There he learned the belief of the islanders that their ancestor Tiki actually came from the East (the Americas) instead of Asia as commonly assumed.

For several years, Thor tried to get his theory about Polynesian origins published but was repeatedly rejected. Therefore, he resolved to prove his theory by recreating Tiki's original ocean journey from Peru to Polynesia on a raft made of balsa wood (with strictly no modern materials).

It is just too coincidental that I am watching another ocean adventure just a few days after watching "Life of Pi." Kon-Tiki traveled the Pacific in the opposite direction that Pi did. It had an experienced though spare crew of 5, composed of two sailors, an engineer, an ethnographer and Thor, so it had a distinct advantage over the teenager and a tiger.

But maybe because I just watched Pi, maybe I expected to see so much more maritime misfortune than I did with Kon-Tiki. However, that sequence with vicious sharks had real heart-stopping suspense. I do have some misgivings about that episode with the whale shark, because it is not really the aggressive creature depicted in the film.

This was a straight-forward adventure film for the family. It may seem old-fashioned to some, nothing too controversial or strange as one can expect from modern European cinema. It was by no means boring, but I admit I felt like it lacked a certain edge while I was watching it. The crew members did not even have any significant conflict among each other and they were trapped on a raft for a hundred days! That may come across as unbelievable in these days of Big Brother and other "reality" TV shows.

I do hope I can find myself a copy of the 1950 Oscar-winning documentary about the real Thor Heyerdahl, his crew and their 101-day oceanic ordeal. That should be very interesting indeed.

KON-TIKI (2012)

During the 20th century some individual achievements so captured the popular attention as to become iconic: Lindberg's flight across the Atlantic, Hillary and Norgay's conquest of Everest, Roger Bannister's four minute mile. Thor Heyerdahl's 1947 voyage across the Pacific was one of these events. His book, Kon-Tiki, sold tens of millions of copies, and his 1950 documentary won an Academy Award, as much a recognition of the feat as the film.

Norwegian directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg have now decided to put on the screen a dramatized account of Heyerdahl's expedition. But the obvious question is how can you make interesting the story of six men confined to a small wooden raft for 101 days? In fact by comparison to the exploit it recorded, the original documentary came across as rather bland, precisely because of such limitations. But this new film is anything but tame, and succeeds in combining striking photography of the adventure itself with a compelling look at one man's quest to show that "it can be done."

The strength of the picture is that it situates the voyage within the context of Heyerdahl's struggle to get the scientific and financial support to try out his theories. He had speculated that Polynesia was settled by Inca voyagers who had used the prevailing currents to drift across the Pacific on rafts similar to the one he would build. (He proved this possible, although DNA testing suggests that Polynesians share a predominantly Asian heritage.)

Heyerdahl had developed this premise much earlier, but after World War II, he made serious attempts to secure the backing for a voyage that would test his theories. Not only did he encounter opposition from those who felt that he was wrong, but even more often he was dismissed as a fanatic with a suicidal plan.

Eventually he did manage to scrounge some backing, including private loans, help from the Peruvian authorities and supplies from the U.S. Navy. Perhaps more importantly, he found five companions who had confidence enough to put their lives in his hands. All were Norwegian except Bengt Danielsson, a Swede with an interest in migration. Erik Hesselberg was the navigator. Knut Haugland and Torstein Raaby, both heroes of the Norwegian resistance, were the radio experts. Herman Watzinger was an engineer who helped design the raft, and who recorded much of the voyage's scientific data.

Although he took along modern equipment, Heyerdahl was concerned that the raft itself should be constructed only from materials that were available in ancient times. Accordingly the raft was constructed from logs tied together with rope, surmounted by a thatched cabin and a large cloth sail. The raft itself was about 45 by 18 feet (13.7 by 5.5 m), and the cabin about 14 by 8 (4.2 by 2.4 m). The crew sailed from Callao, Peru, on April 28, 1947 and arrived in Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7.

The film succeeds by contextualizing these 101 days at sea against Heyerdahl's struggles to get the expedition underway. Although the inevitable storm and the equally foreseeable shark attack have their moments, the movie similarly attends to the relationships among the expedition's six members, their level of bonding to Heyerdahl as leader, and his own relationship with a wife who wanted to be supportive, but who found the risks unacceptable. It establishes the overall context by its early sequence dealing with Thor's honeymoon stay in the Marquesas, where he began to discover the apparent Inca connections that led to his theories.

In the central role of Thor Heyerdahl, Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen must carry the story, and he does. His re-creation of the historical character is convincing as the embodiment of determination, not quite obsessive but coming close, as he plans, argues and cajoles to try to turn his project into a reality. As his fellow Norwegian crew members Odd Magnus Williamson as Hesselberg, Tobias Santlemann as Haugland, and Jacob Oftebro as Raaby are equally credible figures: young, heroic, and willing to give Heyerdahl their trust. Playing the only non-Norwegian in the group, Gustaf Skarsgård as Bengt Danielsson is a little detached, but perhaps even more intellectually committed than the others to what they are about. For contrast and drama, the filmmakers apparently took liberties with the character of Herman Watzinger, played by Anders Baasmo Christensen. Christensen does well with the part given him, although the real-life Watzinger was almost certainly stronger and more competent than the movie shows him. Given that she must play an ambivalent role, Agnes Kittelsen as Liv gives a very effective performance as Thor's wife and the film's only prominent female character.

Gorgeous photography and great production values set Kon-Tiki off. The Pacific Ocean scenes were actually shot in the waters off Malta, the tropical ones in the Maldives and Thailand, with other locations in Norway and the U.S. used as appropriate. It is a real accomplishment that even with the limited space of the raft cinematographer Geir Hartly Andreassen never lets it become visually boring. Going from the micro to the macro, he manages to keep interesting also the vast empty spaces of the ocean, which emerges as a living character in its own right, often peaceful, sometimes petrifying, always powerful.

It must have been a temptation for the directors and principal screenwriter Petter Skavlan to fictionalize Heyerdahl's exploits and to create a stunning action/adventure tale on the lines of A Perfect Storm or White Squall. Thankfully they recognized that Heyerdahl himself was a character larger than life whose daring voyage became an extension of himself and his ambitions. In doing that they keep alive the iconic figure that he was, and give audiences some appreciation of how the sheer willpower of one individual can produce deeds that capture the imagination of the world.

The plot is about the greatest Norwegian explorer, Thor Heyerdahl who changed the course of history about the origin of Polynesians. Thor, along with 5 desperate fellows, set out an 101 day-voyage on a raft across the Pacific ocean to prove his scientific analysis before the world. They avoided all sorts of modern mechanical equipment and crossed almost 8000 kilometers in the vast sea just like primitive people having only the faith of Kon-Tiki, the Inca Sun-God. Acting seems so realistic and engaging to depict this true adventurous history :))) Some camera shots appear aesthetic while score sounds great. However, only flaw to me is the lack of crisis in the script___7/10___

NB: now willing to watch the original Kon-Tiki documentary film, that won Oscar in 1950, directed by Thor Heyerdahl himself during their expedition___:))))

As of 1/4/13, Kon Tiki is on the shortlist of 9 for Academy Award Foreign Language film; list of the 5 final nominees is expected next week.

Beautiful cinematography...including magnificent scenes of whales & sharks circling the raft.

Character studies of Thor Heyerdahl & his companions on the journey are intelligent subtle portrayals. Thor is one driven man, from almost drowning in childhood to landing on the beach on Roraia, Indonesia. Thor spent ten years with his theory that Polynesia was settled from Peru; not from Asia, the settled hypothesis at the time. Final proof came via the 1947 voyage on a raft using the same 1500 year old techniques of navigation and raft construction. While this may sound a bit dry, it is not. The passion of the participants is palpable. Each has their own reason for going on the journey; most simply falling under Heyerdahl's charisma. (Heyerdahl's 1950 documentary won the Academy Award, and remains the only Norwegian winner of an Academy Award to date.)

Though not cast based simply on physical looks (per the co-directors), several are magnificent specimens of blond 1940s fit men...and their bonding.

Every scene was filmed first in Norwegian, then in English; (US release of the English version seen is expected by the Weinstein group later in 2013.) Filming was 59 days in six countries. Audience reaction of the PSIFF screening was loudly appreciated followed with Q&A with the co-directors.