A Filmmaker's Review: "Edvard Munch" (1974)

This film is probably one of the best biopics I have ever seen because there are no massive actors involved, there seems to be no real structure apart from the basis of the chronological story. Directed by Peter Watkins, this movie makes a genuine effort to blend together Munch's style, his life and his mental instability. It seems like the director is not just trying to tell us a story of his life, but a story of how he fit into and ultimately did not fit into his time. The director tells us in various interview snippets that not only did the Edvard Munch expert not like the idea of making a film about the personal side of Munch for the public to see, having some worry about his reputation - but there is also a danger in calling the film a 'documentary' - which, understandably, it is not.

The film is not a documentary not because of its content, but because of its style. The way in which the film is made via re-enactments and commentary throughout the narrative creates this almost impulsive biopic, complete with the various requirements for things such as interviews and these scenes of several seconds where people just stare into the camera, mainly Edvard Munch himself.

Another thing that I found quite brilliant about this movie is the way in which it uses the present of the time. The filmmaker calls this 'documentary reality' in which events and storytelling are used to make it seem as though the events that are happening in the film are happening in the present rather than the past. This experimental way of creating a biopic had not really been explored that much until this time.

As I have said, I enjoyed the fact that the cast was unknown. The fact was that none of the people who starred in the movie were actually professional actors of any kind and only a few had some acting experience on stage at all. Peter Watkins actually went out of his way to sift through over six-hundred people in order to find someone who looked just like Edvard Munch. And the guy he found was not only brilliant, but has an uncanny resemblance to the painter.

At just over three and a half hours, this film comes in two parts and in my understanding of watching this film a few times, it should be viewed one part at a time. There is something completely different about the two parts with the first focusing on the build up of Munch's career as a painter and the second being the breakdown both professionally and mentally. It is a surreal experience to watch them both, but I do think that they should be watched separately in order to be understood entirely.

As a conclusion, I do not really want to give away too much of the film’s incredible experimental techniques. But I do want to say how much I enjoyed these scenes where nobody is doing anything. People are looking sombre, things are not moving and it is almost like a painting. It reminds me of when I first watched the movie “Caravaggio” (1986) by Derek Jarman and that scene where they re-enact the entombment. Edvard Munch by Peter Watkins contains many different scenes in which real life looks like the paintings that this man painted far before his mental distress got the better of him. All in all, the film is a beautiful portrayal of his time, his country and his art - making great references to the biggest moments in his career and giving notice where notice is due to paintings such as “The Scream”.