Tuntematon sotilas

Rauni Mollberg's (from now on referred to as 'Molle') Tuntematon Sotilas has been left far behind in fame to its predecessor, that of Edwin Laine's Tuntematon Sotilas from 1955. This is not surprising as the newer movie lacks the sentiment that is almost omnipresent in the older version. Despite this, is Molle's version more faithful to the original novel by Väinö Linna who was himself involved in making of the new version. Both movies however deserve their place, in Edwin Laine's time there was a need for high national epic but as the times changed a new version was also welcome and maybe even in demand.

Molle's version deserves perhaps more praise and attention than it has been used to have, but also criticism. The newer version is no way meant to be 'a better' version but rather an alternative account of the psychological reality of a man. Therefore I call it an antithesis, it is impossible to see the newer version without comparing it to the all too familiar older version. You actually need to watch the film several times before it really opens to you in the way Molle had intended it. Tuntematon Sotilas is a war film, but the highlight is upon the people who fought in there, both Finns and Russians, who are brought to suffer the very same meat-grinder. Parts of it are funny, parts of it are disgusting.

What is left to a lesser notion is historicity, the weapons and uniforms are from the second world war but you should not expect them to appear in correct order. For the weapon freaks be it informed that the same KV-1's appear as both Finnish and Soviet tanks. For those who already know everything that has been written about the Continuation War this movie does not offer any historical references, this time it is all literature from the ground view. Nevertheless this is one of the best war films there is, perhaps there is a conscious focus and perhaps there is some message, but the weight of the overall work will just make you silent.

If you are going to see this film, make sure you are watching a quality copy. Many dark scenes have become incomprehensible in poor quality VHS transfers. The darkness is essential visual effect in Molle's version.

Sometimes in life you want to experience something true and realistic. Molmberg's Unknown Soldier comes as close as it is possible in movie to experience war. Linna's 1955 version was more theatrical and entertaining. It had it's merits but I like Molmberg's better.

In early 1990's I did my military service in Finland and trained a lot attack in the forest and the attack on the bunker line in Molmberg's film looks, sounds and almost smells the same. All details are in place and they really fire Maxim MG's and Suomi SMG's.

I think you can't do good war movie without showing the ugly side of war. Molmberg shows the true nature of war. War is totally evil.

I'm writing this 19 years after I saw Mollberg's Unknown Soldier in Helsinki's Bristol Theatre. However, seeing the original 1955 film somewhat recently, and being comparative to the Väinö Linna historical novel, it raised memories of that 1985 rendition. Mollberg certainly made a far superior film as far as cinematography and aesthetic realism is concerned. He used a familiar technique of confusion in combat by utilizing the cameraman on foot, and running. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan had these effects in 1998, but I'm not insinuating that Rauni Mollberg invented it. Perhaps Elem Klimov in "Come and See" (Soviet Union, 1985) had these stylistic effects. That USSR film, in my opinion, is the most anti-war film ever made. As far as Finnish war films, I would recommend "Talvisota" (Winter War)(1989), and "Täällä Pohjantähdenalla" (Here Under the North Star)(1968), with a sequel in 1971 titled "Akseli ja Elina". These last three are indicative of the tragedy of the Finnish Civil War, and WW2, and how they affected not only a family, but various social classes of society in Finland. This phenomenon of class hatred exists today in Finland.

Rauni Mollberg's 1985 version of the Unknown Soldier also included this biased left-wing attitude towards the soldiers, but especially officers of the Russo-Finnish wars. Essentially, in the theatre and film world of 1970's and 1980's Finland, one had to be the figurative "Communist." Fortunately that has changed since, at least a bit.

Having rambled, "Unknown Soldier" (1985) and the aforementioned film reviews, really only interest certain film historians, as well as historians of Soviet-Finnish politics. I hope that I gave you some insight.

Respectfully, Timppa

This new version of Tuntematon Sotilas is very different from the earlier one made during the fifties, when Finland still had vivid memories from the war. In Mollberg's version there are less humour, and in addition to this there are nothing left of the nationalism, that we are used to connect with this kind of movies. Tuntematon Sotilas reflects about the situation of the soldier and the front-men as a mass. Instead of pathetic patriotism the film tells about the war without great gestures and bloody action scenes. The director keeps Väinö Linna's very critical outlook on the world.

Rauni Mollberg's version of the Unknown Soldier, the novel of Väinö Linna, has always been the one that has been compared to the first movie version directed by Edvin Laine 30 years earlier. The times have changed between 1955 and 1985 and it shows. Laine's Unknown was jolly and cheerful, almost farce-like when compared to this one. Mollberg's Unknown is grimmer and wants to show the darker shades even darker and deeper than the first one. Laine skips the difficult themes like plundering of enemy cities and the executions of the soldiers sentenced in court-martial quite quickly or doesn't handle them at all. Mollberg obviously wants to dig deeper in them but hasn't left out any of the original scenes either. Hence the titanic length of the film.

When one has seen the Laine's version so many times as, for example, I have, it is difficult to form an objective opinion about Mollberg's version. The first impression stresses the darkness and seriousness of the atmosphere. It would be OK, if all the actors seemed natural, but they don't. Of course, all the actors in the first version don't seem natural either, but hey, it's Laine's Tuntematon Sotilas! Who cares!? This one gets better along the way, though. You get used to the "new sides of the characters" and forgive some of their faults compared to the old ones. I have to say I haven't read the novel so fortunately I don't have to compare this film to the book. Fortunately, because the book usually overcomes the movie versions. Because of my illiterate manners, I cannot compare this film to the original novel, and again, cannot say how much this one is more or less true to the novel than Laine's film. Therefore, I can only compare these two films. This version has its strengths. It is in some ways more realistic and brings out the characters more than Laine's version, which is almost like an action movie because of its fast pace and light atmosphere. But sometimes Mollbergs Unknown is almost too dark and grim to believe. This is a nice film but it doesn't compare to the first one, which, unfortunately for this film, is a legend. However, Mollberg's Unknown couldn't make it without Laine's version, because to me, it could not stand alone without the legendary memories experienced with the scenes in the first one. Mollberg's Unknown adds something to the "one and only" but that's all there is to it. I first and foremost recommend Laine's Unknown and after that, if you have some extra four hours on your hands, take a look at this Mollberg's view.