Godland

Hylberg, the director of Godland said in an interview that Danes will see his film one way, Icelanders another, and international audiences in a third way. I'm an American who lives in Copenhagen, and I have Icelandic friends. I'm right in the center of the triforce.

Hylberg is right that there are different levels at which one can understand the film. The main character, a Danish priest named Lukas sent from Copenhagen to build a church in a remote settlement, is a photographer. The first frames of the film announce that it is based on early photographs of Iceland found in a wooden box. Hylberg admits in interviews that this premise was entirely contrived, but as an unknowing audience member, I thought the film was recreating the circumstances behind the actual photographs found in the box. Photography is the idiom of the camera work, with beautifully framed, lingering shots of the Icelandic wilderness.

On another level the film is about colonialism. Lukas does not speak Icelandic, and cannot understand the Icelanders that port his supplies on the long journey across the country from coast to coast. He disregards the advice of the locals, and the trip turns deadly. He falls ill and becomes delirious, and his porters care for him drag him on a tarp behind a horse. When he arrives at his destination, a Danish settler asks him why he didn't just sail directly to the settlement. It turns out that the ordeal was a choice, so that Lucas could get to know Iceland. Lucas continues his photography, but all but ignores the Icelanders. In a montage, nearly every photograph he takes is of a Dane, often as not beautifully framed by Icelandic nature. As time goes by, he feels about Iceland more and more like my Turkish friend does about Istanbul. Beautiful place, except for all the people.

A third level of the film is the permanence of nature and the finiteness of life. The camera follows the breaking and butchering of a sheep by the Icelanders, and there are a series of overhead shots of a decomposing horse. Human cadavers turn up here and there as well. Death is mixed in with the indifference and continuity of the landscape and the seasons.

This is film as art, and the pacing is slow. The meditative, long camera shots ask the viewer to contemplate its message as part of the viewing experience. The filming was also slow, taking place over two years, and one of the young girls in the settlement grows visibly from the first time we meet her to her last scenes. This isn't an adventure story, it is a deliberative walk through 19th century Iceland, with an unlikable guide. I like the way that critic Alan Zilberman put it in his review: this is the kind of film the viewer has to meet halfway.

The film has some amazing imagery, it is intriguing, it has drama, mistery and above all, it shows the dominant force of nature, that is depicted as far more powerful than the ephemeral characters that try to make a living on earth.

I found it as an odd to nature, to specifically the Icelandic harsh but majestic natural landscape and to the way people used to respect this. It is a great movie in many ways.

However, it's plot is slow-moving, the scenes are extremely long, do not expect to be entertained as it is the complete opposite of a fast-action, Hollywood-style movie. It is often rather boring and there is the real danger that the 2 hours and 23 minutes to pass rather slow to you as it did to me. I has the impression that the movie could have been just as deep and beautiful lasting only say 1 hours and 45 minutes.

GODLAND reminded my of MEEK'S CUTOFF, and not just because of the squarish aspect ratio. Both are a journey across harsh landscapes that test and transform people. But to my mind it is no BLACK ROBE. I've read reviews calling the main character, Lucas, pious with a desire to save souls etc. I didn't get this feeling AT ALL. He seemed more preoccupied with taking photos than being some kind of head in the sky religious zealot on a mission to spread the word of God (as in BLACK ROBE). There's very little Bible thumping to be had. Other reviewers have also called it 'bone-chilling', 'horror' etc. It's none of these things. I'm not sure why they are reaching for such superlatives. It's actually a fairly pedestrian story and the dramatic moments came as something of a surprise (to me at least). I found the ending somewhat unfathomable as well bc, for me, little led up to it. Still, it was satisfyingly bleak with majestic mountains, mist, rivers and glaciers. But really, it could have been much more,

At least twice during this film, the director uses a bold and spectacular cinematographic gimmick. In the shots, lasting several minutes, the camera turns very slowly around in a 360-degree movement. These shots are almost mini-films within the film. In the second one, the camera captures a village wedding party, with musicians, dancers and children playing. Wonderful to look at.

There are more beautiful shots in the film. One shows a dead horse, slowly decaying in a series of identical shots, but filmed in different seasons. Has the director filmed the entire process during a full year? It's possible, there is enough space in the immense expanse of Iceland's remote wilderness.

Apart from the 19th century Danish priest who is the story's protagonist, the Icelandic landscape is really the most important element in the film. In the first part, there really isn't much else. After having arrived by ship, the priest travels on horseback through the barren landscape, accompanied by some taciturn Icelanders. When he arrives at a village in order to build a new church, the story concentrates on the tension between the Icelanders and the priest, who is not only seen as a representative of an oppressive country, but also seems ill-prepared for the physical challenges of the primitive Icelandic lifestyle.

In order to give this simple story an extra dimension, the priest is also a photographer, making portraits of the people he meets. In the 19th century, this was an elaborate process involving eggwhite and silver. The director wants us to believe it is the recent discovery of those photo's, which survived the centuries, that made him reconstruct the priest's journey.

For me, the film ticked several boxes. I have hiked through the Icelandic interior, and yes, the landscape really is amazing. I also like slow cinema, and this is very slow cinema. Thirdly, this film also contains some food for thought about religion. Officially, the Danish priest and the Icelandic villagers share the same religion, but the way they experience it couldn't be more different.

Visuals: 10/10. Sound design: 10/10. Storyline: 10/10. Where this film loses me is primarily the storytelling and dialogue. Some things happened in this movie that just felt odd and out of place. Some characters said/did things that made me feel like i had missed a huge part of the movie. The dialogue was a huge reason that the storytelling was inadequate. All the characters feel, though seemingly on purpose, extremely stiff and nothing they say flows at all. However, like I said, that was probably Hlynur Palmason's intention for the movie is an adaption of simple photographs which is evident in the cinematography. This film is not really a movie so much as a slideshow, which, although it makes for stunning photography and a unique shtick, makes the characters less relatable. However, I must say there were moments near the end where a felt a strong bond with the protagonist that I hadn't expected throughout the first hour and a half.