Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn 1890, Pontus, the starving writer, wanders the streets of Christiania in search of love and a chance to get his work published. All he meets is defeat and suffering while his sense of rea... Tout lireIn 1890, Pontus, the starving writer, wanders the streets of Christiania in search of love and a chance to get his work published. All he meets is defeat and suffering while his sense of reality is withering. One moment he is delighted and the next he curses everybody. Neverthele... Tout lireIn 1890, Pontus, the starving writer, wanders the streets of Christiania in search of love and a chance to get his work published. All he meets is defeat and suffering while his sense of reality is withering. One moment he is delighted and the next he curses everybody. Nevertheless, all the time he manages to maintain human dignity and pride.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 7 victoires et 1 nomination au total
Avis à la une
So there's a sort of twist built into the thing, we see a tubelocked artist and depend on an efficient artist to receive the art that conveys this. That means the manner of the way it is constructed matters, and that's why you may want to see this. Because its a complex calculation that the filmmaker has to make. There's a balance here between art that escapes the artist and art that doesn't.
I don't know the book, but presume it is rooted in internal dialog, noted here in a few spots with muted tones and the appearance of our artist as listener for his ramblings. But it is an afterthought in the film. The real center here is in the antiseptic stance we are placed in as viewers. We see but cannot touch. We always find ourselves just a bit beyond the perimeter of this man's artistic reach. Its us that cannot reach him, not he that has trouble reaching us.
Oddly, this reversal works. It may be just me and my deep obsessions with narrative agency, but I think a deliberate decision was made here as sort of role reversal and symmetric reflection at the same time. Its characteristic of Scandanavian film problemsolving.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
"Sult" is an impressive, depressive and heartbreaking character study of one of the most complex characters I have ever seen. The viewer does not have information about the past of Pontus, but his behavior indicates that he was from the aristocracy of the upper-classes that has moved to Norway expecting to become a successful writer but that is actually a loser. Or that he feels superior to the other people and also inferior, at the same time. His personality is contradictory since even under a deep starvation,he keeps his self-esteem, pride and arrogance, capable to hock his jacket to give a handout to a beggar.
Pontus does not give-up and only when he indirectly receives money from Ylajali, he is capable to return to his country. I have never read the novel of Knut Hamsun, but it certainly might be a depressing story. Per Oscarsson has one of the best performances I gave ever seen and participates in every scene through his presence, his visions or his feelings. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Fome" ("Hunger")
'Sult' starts worryingly. Carlsen's opening shots of the streets of Christiania (Oslo) in 1890 - with wacky carnival music for the theme tune - are reminiscent of a student film. The movie rapidly improves though... as soon as Per Oscarsson starts to act.
Oscarsson genuinely looks starved and near death, with hollow eyes and a teetering walk in the wind. Yet he also captures Pontus' showy arrogance and refusal to admit to anyone that he is starving. Oscarsson walks that line perfectly, and there's enough in his looks and movement to gradually draw sympathy. I found myself willing for Pontus to just ask for help... to the point I wanted to shake him... but he ploughs resolutely on, convinced he'll write something that will blow people's minds.
The film has also been criticised for portraying a stereotype of a starving artist. The counter argument is 'Sult' was one of the first literary portrayals of this stereotype. And even if Pontus isn't as much of a surprise as he would have been 40 - or 100 - years ago, the character is easily interesting enough to maintain attention. There's also plenty of black comedy in the scenes where Pontus visits the pawnbroker and offers ludicrous things for sale, while he still desperately tries to come across as moneyed and intellectual.
I think Carlsen did a superb job of capturing the spirit of 'Hunger', without following it slavishly enough to hurt the visual flow. The film doesn't use lengthy voice-overs, and prefers to let the acting and the situations show Pontus' complex mental state. For that reason, 'Sult' should play for both fans of 'Hunger' and for viewers interested in outsider folks fighting to exist. Sure, the cinematography lacks flair and the movie will be too slow for some, but it's a rewarding and thought provoking movie.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIt is one of the ten films listed in Denmark's cultural canon by the Danish Ministry of Culture.
- GaffesWhen Pontus comes to the harbor (80 minutes in), the first shot is of the ship Copegoro from Petrograd. Petrograd was the Russian name for Saint Petersburg in the years 1914-1924. The film takes place in 1890.
- ConnexionsEdited into Eventyret om dansk film 16: I lyset af en filmlov - 1965-1966 (1996)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Hunger?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Hunger
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 52 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.66 : 1