O Preço do Triunfo

I watched this the day after watching The Emigrants. They're really one film cut into two very long halves. I suppose Kill Bill 2 also is a standalone movie, but no one would recommend seeing only that and not watching Kill Bill 1. It's the same for The Emigrants and The New Land. Certain relationships in this movie only have power because of the backstory found in The Emigrants, such as Robert and Arvid's close friendship, why Kristina is so attached to Kristina despite religious differences, and even why Uncle Danjel is relevant.

The cinematography in this film felt more jarring and experimental, particularly with respect to Robert's trip out west. The movie is incredibly long and drawn out, and the timeline can be hard to pinpoint. An hour may be spent on days or weeks and then years suddenly pass between camera cuts.

This film does excel at showing both the impact of loss and how commonplace death was on the frontier. Danger never was far away, and seemingly distant occurrences suddenly could have local impact, whether the Civil War or strife with the Indian tribes. The New Land a pretty good film, but it suffers even more so than The Emigrants from overlength and without quite as much punch.

"The New Land" finishes the story begun in Jan Troell's "The Emigrants," which was released the year before. It's a longer and bleaker film. "The Emigrants" was harsh, but at least in that film the people making the arduous journey to America had the promise of all that America had to offer (or at least what they thought it had to offer) to get them through the tribulations. But in "The New Land," they've settled into that life, and their new home proves not to be the utopia they dreamed.

It's astonishing how authentic these films feel, and it's hard to remember while watching them that they were made in the early 1970s. "The New Land" has some really difficult passages to watch, namely one involving the murder of a settler family at the hands of a gang of Native Americans -- including the horrific death of a baby -- and another an extended segment that details the nightmarish fever dream of a journey two of the settlers take to mine for gold in California. This story line started to feel long to me, and in a film that clocks in at nearly three and a half hours I wouldn't have minded this one being left on the cutting room floor. But it doesn't mar the overall brilliance of this film as a stand alone story, or the entire two-film saga.

And unlike "The Emigrants," which I only found in a dubbed version, "The New Land" is subtitled in English, which makes for a much more pleasant viewing experience.

"The New Land" was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 1972 Academy Awards, in the same year that "The Emigrants" was nominated in four categories, including Best Picture.

Grade: A

Picking up right where 'The Emigrants' left off, this film tells the story of an Swedish farming family who have staked out a claim and being their life anew in Minnesota. It's done in a highly realistic way, and we really feel the struggle of building a house, clearing the land, facing language difficulties, enduring the cold of winter, not having much money, and the possibly mortal threat of sicknesses. While it's giving us 1850's rural life in an authentic way, without a lot of glitz and a slower pace coming along as a part of that, it somehow does so without ever lagging over its 200+ minute run time, at least for me.

The story-telling a little more disjoint in this film, giving us bits of life in America almost as if in chapters, some parts of which we see once and then are never mentioned again. One example is the family's neighbors chastising them for their friendship with the former prostitute Ulrika (Monica Zetterlund), who has married a Baptist minister and converted to that faith, which they see as sacrilegious, and failing to note the irony in this view, given their own persecution prior to emigrating. It's a powerful scene, but nothing more comes of it. Similarly, we see a brief interval where Karl-Oscar (Max von Sydow) faces the possibility of going off to fight in America's Civil War after having been in the country for less than ten years, a perspective which was fascinating to me, but after he's rejected because of a limp, we hear nothing more about the distant fighting. Maybe this is like life.

Director Jan Troell is more daring stylistically during the flashback sequence involving the brother (Eddie Axberg), who goes off with a friend (Pierre Lindstedt) to try to find gold in California. Without spoiling anything, the surreal way he portrays this amplifies their harrowing ordeal, and I liked how the story behind how he returns with so much money is revealed.

The cast is wonderful, led by von Sydow and Liv Ullmann who have several great scenes. In one of the difficult moments, we see the attitude towards women in the period shown when she's told that getting pregnant again might prove fatal to her given past complications. She feels immense sadness over this because she feels like she wouldn't be a wife if this is true, and in turn, that she wouldn't be able to sleep with her husband if she couldn't risk pregnancy.

Unlike 'The Emigants', there is acknowledgment that the land these Swedish-Americans are farming was stolen from the Native Americans, but this is a film that is definitely told from a European perspective. Karl-Oscar defends himself, and we sympathize with him - he had no part in any of that, paid the government for the land, and has put in a lot of toil. We don't see any of the atrocities that the white settlers or the government committed, but we see some horrifying things the native Sioux do when backed into a corner and starving. One of the acts done after the killing of an entire white family is so brutally heinous, cruel, and disgusting that it seems to justify the mass hanging of Native Americans which follows. The events seem to be based loosely on the events of the Sioux Uprising in 1862, which led to the mass hanging of 38 Sioux in Minnesota. Still, I give the film credit for directly confronting the moral dilemma, though I struggle, wondering if there is an element here that is in a small way accepting one of America's two original sins. The film successfully strives for honesty through the lens of this family, achieves that, shows us just how hard life was in this period, and lets the viewer then grapple with what it all means. It made me think of the quote from Joyce, History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

Part 2 of The Emigrants/ The New Land duology (I'm not sure what to collectively call them?) is just as well-made and as emotionally harrowing as the first, but in a different way. The Emigrants naturally dealt with the main characters making a difficult journey from Sweden to the U. S. in the 19th century, with The New Land seeing them settled down and trying to make the most of life in... well, a new land. Naturally, things aren't as great as they hoped it all would be, and the various challenges the characters are put through end up making this a challenging watch for the audience.

It's not challenging because it's boring or slow, though - more so that it's heavy-going and quite brutal in places. It's also over three hours long, which I know probably already makes it a no-go film for a good many people. It's actually very easy to appreciate all the stuff this does well, because the acting's great, it's visually excellent, and there are some really inspired editing choices in this as well (so it's not surprising to see in the credits that the director and editor are one and the same: Jan Troell).

These two films end up being about six and a half hours long, and together tell a difficult but engaging story about Swedish/American history, and the plight of an emigrant family plus all the challenges that come with both travel and settling. Not the easiest two-part film in the world to recommend, but it makes for a compelling epic that should deliver for those who find the idea of watching such a film intriguing.

Great but tough to watch - slow, slow and strange music