Hamsun

I expected an entirely different movie. Having read a single review when Hamsun was released, and having heard of him only from listings of Nobel Prize winners, I thought this would be about the traducing of a man's loyalty to country, the political evolution of an intellectual celebrity's thinking. It's not.

The movie is instead one of the most penetrating looks at a distinctive and more often than not failing, marriage I've ever seen. The examination begins after the couple have already been married 35 years; they are a tempestuous, often bitter, and jealous former author of children's books (and in youth, an actress) who desires love from her spouse - and a proud selfish ill-tempered intellectual author who lives in splendid rural isolation and admits his wife's nature disappoints him. The story of marriage is simply fascinating - even though the relations with their five children are cryptically portrayed.

It would be hard to ever better von Sydow's performance as Hamsun (or even as a man growing very old) - or the actress (previously unknown to me)who played his wife - they are simply astounding. I definitely recommend this movie - it is in the same vein as Cries and Whispers or Scenes from a Marriage.

The question I thought the film would address - the responsibility of someone for his words during wartime - is only glancingly struck. Without any attempt to whitewash Hamsun's written opinions favoring the Nazis who had occupied Norway, the movie's author clearly makes Hamsun more sympathetic as a human being as the movie continues.

I think few would agree about where the line should be drawn on punishment for one's opinions in a free society - when that society is at war. Most think those from the democracies who sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists during the Second World War (e.g., Ezra Pound, Celine, deKock, P.G.Wodehouse, Hamsun) are villainous. But is this because they sided with Nazis or because they sided with their country's enemies? Surely in a free society in peacetime, Ezra Pound's anti-semitic ravings and pro-fascist sympathies would not be punished as treason - any more than those who spoke, but did nothing, in favor of Stalin in America during the 1950s were ever tried for treason.

Clearly in a free society, the crime is not that one has taken a particular position, but that one has spoken in favor of an enemy during wartime. But if this is so, then what is one to say of those Americans who wrote to denounce the United States' war with North Vietnam? Or with Iraq? If we do refuse to label such writings as treason (and most probably do - few call for thousands of trials for treason), why? Could it be simply because neither Iraq nor North Vietnam was likely to so succeed that they would occupy the United States? If Iraq were winning so resoundingly that it now occupied parts of the United States, would writings denouncing the war and in favor of Iraq THEN be treason? Probably most would say so.

But by what logic does treason depend on whether one is winning or losing a war?

Further, if we assume a war between different ideologies, should those who have expressed sympathy for another country's ideology BEFORE any war - at a time when no one could have called it treason - be expected to completely forswear their former opinions the date the war is declared against that country? If so, is this not a strange definition of treason? That someone with PRE-WAR sympathies for a certain position must denounce his previous sympathies when his country goes to war against a country that shares his own beliefs?

Must someone perform an about face from his own repeatedly expressed views -- whenever his country enters a war - or be guilty of treason? Betray yourself or you betray your country? If so, is this not a demerit in any society professing to be free?

And yet no one can doubt that one's own country's success is badly affected (and conversely the enemy is uplifted) to the extent that influential people denounce their own government and praise the enemy - particularly when under enemy occupation.

The issues of treason for opinions are quite complex - but are scarcely touched on in this movie.

And that is fine - this is another movie altogether, psychologically penetrating, fascinating study of old age, of a poor marriage, of the unforeseen future as disappointment, of the yearning to die when old.

Knut Hamsun (1859 - 1952) was, alongside Henrik Ibsen, the most famous figure in Norwegian literature. Hamsun published works over an astonishing span of 70 years. He won the Nobel prize in literature in 1920, by which time he was probably his nation's most internationally famous citizen. This film mentions his glory days, but takes place afterwards. In the 1930's, when Hamsun was already an old man struggling with his hearing and possibly his mental capacities, he fell out of grace by supporting Nazi Germany. He wasn't an anti-Semite, but hated the imperialist UK so much as to align himself with Hitler. This reached a (very negative) peak when Germany occupied Norway in 1940, and the author supported the occupiers. This massive film is a depiction of Hamsun's downfall. The years before WWII, the occupation, and the subsequent final years in disgrace.

The film is an international production, between Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. It is directed by Swedish Jan Troell, and stars his oft-used actor Max von Sydow (also Swedish) as Hamsun, and Denmark's most famous actress Ghita Nørby as Marie Hamsun, the author's wife. The lead couple, who previously starred together in Bille August's "Den goda viljan" (1992), actually talk in their native languages, even though they play Norwegian characters. This is heavily audible for Scandinavian viewers, but you also get used to it really fast. Their acting abilities also make you want to let it slide. The rest of the cast is mostly Norwegian and German, depending on the characters they play. The film has an international feel to it, but the whole benefits from the larger budget, and the historical period looks believable.

Like so many great Scandinavian dramas, this is essentially a depiction of a troublesome marriage. It is Marie who first falls in love with Nazism, because it is shown to fill an emotional void in her life. When the traitorous Vidkun Quisling (played by the very evil-looking Sverre Anker Ousdal) finds out that his new fangirl is the wife of Norway's most famous writer, the Nazis take a quick interest in the man himself.

The film analyses the depth of the couple's guilt in a thorough manner. The running time of two and half hours allows us to go deep in their characters, which is of course supported by the intelligently structured screenplay and the fantastic performances. Max Von Sydow is fragile and tormented as Hamsun, a man past his prime who can't bring himself to act against the darkness that overcomes his nation. He struggles as he tries to believe that what he is doing is the right thing. This is one of the actor's finest performances outside of his Bergman roles. Ghita Nørby is likewise great as the manipulative Marie. The early scene where she works as her husband's translator and adds her own words to his, is possibly the best one to capsulate their complex relationship. The supportive cast is not fleshed out as well as the protagonists, but I did like the scene where Hamsun meets Adolf Hitler, played memorably by Ernst Jacobi. All in all, this is a fascinating account of history, a great character study and a nuanced drama.

First of all I'd like to say that this movie was more exciting than I would have thought it to be in the start. Which is always a plus. In the beginning it was odd to me that Knut Hamsun were played by a Swedish actor and his wife Marie Hamsun were played by a Danish actor. But to tell you the truth, after a while you hardly noticed the language difference. And they could probably not have found a better Knut and Marie for this movie. The movie starts right before the second world war, and the 'action' in it is mostly about the Hamsun family's life during the second world war and afterwards. It was kind sad that the movie started so late in Hamsun's life, seeing that he was around the age of 80 (?) in the war years. Because Knut Hamsun had an utterly exciting life before that, and the most of his writings were written before that. It was confusing to me who his kids were at times, seeing that they weren't introduced to us that well. This is a great movie about an Norwegian author who rather took side with the Germans during the second world war, since he despited the English. Or was he on the German side? this movie takes up this dilemma, which no one yet can be a 100% sure about. But just remember. This movie only takes the Last years of Knut Hamsun's life. You should know a few things about his life before this, if you want to understand the movie properly.

This Norwegian-Swedish-Danish-German coproduction directed by Jan Troell is quite a compelling watch.

Max von Sydow playing a great role as the old writer In his early 80'ies. The Norwegian Nobel laureate has written some profoundly world-renowned novels made into films since 1916.

This film takes on Hamsun's legacy as an anti-British and pro-nazi spokesman. It tells the naïve older man's belief in the 3rd Reich, but with Norway as a sovereign nation. He meets up with Hitler, who he admires, to ask him to save Norway from Reichskommisar Terboven.

Following the last years of Hamsun's life (he died in 1952) this film gives an upright depiction of the national hero ruining his reputation with his nazi sympathies.

The film lets Max von Sydow and Danish Gitte Nørby as his wife Marie Sydow speak their own native languages, even if both Knut and Marie was Norwegian. This is it first off-outting but you soon forget it. Why it's done? Maybe making it easier to accept that he was a traitor?

In Scandinavian filmography this is a must watch.

To put it nice and simple, this movie is wonderful.

Von Sydow delivers a performance worth of every Award on Earth, Ghita Norby as Hamsun's wife is also splendid, the movie is written and directed with a nice but firm hand, even on the most unpleasant portions of Hamsun's life.

Knut Hamsun had a controversial and tormented relationship with everything and everyone in his life, as self-centered as he was. The stigma of the true genius indeed.

His sympathy for Nazism caused him a lot of troubles when the war ended and Norway was free from the Nazi occupation and from the collaborationist government.

Hamsun's previous opinions, albeit somewhat changed as the Germans were showing their true colours, still were enough to get him accused of treason. After the trial and an humiliating detention in a mental hospital, Hamsun got labeled as "insane", despite still managed to write a sharp and honest apologetic memoir, at 90 years of age.

The movie capture all of that, with a level of immersion that is truly engaging and astonishing. And side-by-side with Hamsun's public success and subsequent downfall, we follow the downfall of his personal life, to a point where public and private become one.

As said, acting is nothing short of brilliant

The only, marginal, problem is the language... Everyone speaks Norwegian, while Hamsun and his wife speak Swedish and Danish. It's a tad weird hearing arguably the best Norwegian author in history and his wife talking to each other in a different language (neither of them being their actual one).

But in all honesty, if the lack of language consistency was the price to pay to get such a good performance, I would gladly have Hamsun and Marie speaking French...

FINAL VERDICT: Hamsun is graceful and brutal at the same time. A true gem.