Review: ‘Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway,’ starring Rani Mukerji

April 8, 2023

by Carla Hay

Rani Mukerji in “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” (Photo courtesy of Zee Studios)

“Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway”

Directed by Ashima Chibber

Hindi, Norwegian and English with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway and India, the dramatic film “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” (based on a true story) features an Indian and white cast of characters representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A married mother, who is an Indian immigrant living in Norway, loses custody of her two children to the Norwegian government over cultural conflicts, and she fights to get her children back. 

Culture Audience: “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching badly edited and melodramatic movies about child custody battles.

Rani Mukerji, Irha Ali, Anirban Bhattacharya and Yuvaan Vanvari in “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” (Photo courtesy of Zee Studios)

“Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” ruins a lot of audience good will meant for the title character by making her look entitled to some of her awful actions. Assaulting a law enforcement officer and kidnapping don’t mean that you should win a child custody battle. And what’s even worse is that “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” is based on a real-life custody battle that makes the real mother involved look a lot worse than she probably is, just for the sake of having melodrama in the film. Unfortunately, all of the performances in the movie match the bombastic screenplay and direction.

Directed by Ashima Chibber, “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” is based on the real story of Sagarika Chakraborty, an Indian immigrant mother who waged a two-year custody battle (from 2011 to 2013) against the government of Norway to regain custody of her son and daughter, who were both under the age of 7 during this ordeal. In the movie, the real people’s names have been changed. Chibber, Sameer Satija and Rahul Handa co-wrote the “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” screenplay and made this mother look like every worst stereotype of a shrieking, irrational ditz who does so many things she’s been told not to do that end up hurting her case and delaying the legal proceedings even more.

“Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” also has horrendously choppy editing that jumps back and forth in the timeline, creating an unnecessarily jumbled narrative. The movie begins with a scene where Debika Chatterjee (played by Rani Mukerji) is seen frantically running out of her house in Stavanger, Norway, and chasing after the three Norwegian social workers who have taken away her two children: 5-month-old daughter Shuchi (played by Irha Ali) and 4-year-old son Shubha (played by Yuvaan Vanvari). Predictably, to add to the drama and to make Debika look more pitiful, she falls down in the street as the social workers and the children speed away in a car.

The movie circles back to that scene of the child snatching and car chasing much later in the story. “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” then shows how and why Debika and her husband Aniruddha Chatterjee (played by Anirban Bhattacharya) lost custody of their kids. Debika and Aniruddha are both natives of India, but their children were born in Norway. Aniruddha works for an oil rigging company, where he does a lot of manual work outside. Debika is a homemaker. Subha happens to be living with autism.

As “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” makes abundantly clear, because it’s repeated so many times in the movie, Aniruddha’s top priority in life is to get Norwegian citizenship. Therefore, he doesn’t want to do anything that would put his citizenship application in jeopardy. And so, this husband and wife have very different opinions on how they should deal with the Norwegian government after their two children are taken away by the government. You know where this is all going, of course.

Life seemed to be going so well for the Chatterjee family, who were living in a comfortable, middle-class home. This family seemed to be very stable and loving. But then, as shown in the movie, Debika became the subject of gossip among some mean-spirited mothers at Subha’s pre-school. They noticed that Debika would sometimes feed her kids with her bare hands, instead of using utensils. It’s an Indian custom for kids to be fed with bare hands, but someone reported Debika to child welfare authorities as an unfit parent.

And so, an investigation was opened at Velfred, Norway’s national child welfare service. Two Velfred officers named Sia Larsen (played by Kärt Tammjärv) and Matilda Magnusson (played by Britta Soll), who are both psychologists, had to visit the Chatterjee home every week for one month to interview Debika and Aniruddha, as well as observe these parents with their children. Aniruddha is irritated because he has to take time off from work for these child-welfare visits.

During these visits, Sia and Matilda notice that Debika is very involved in the childcare, but Aniruddha seems emotionally detached from these responsibilities. Debika explains that they have a traditional marriage where she is expected to do all the housework and other childcare, while Aniruddha is the household income earner. Sia and Matilda asks Aniruddha if he ever offers to help Debika with her domestic responsibilities, and he says somewhat defensively, “I earn. She takes care of the house.”

Sia and Matilda explain that this patriarchal attitude isn’t very acceptable in Norway, which has a culture that promotes gender equality in as many aspects of society as possible. Aniruddha and Debika are polite but firm in saying that the arrangement that they have works best for them and it isn’t hurting anyone. However, Sia and Matilda give each other looks that indicate this isn’t an acceptable answer.

As for the matter of feeding the children with bare hands, Debika assures these social workers that her hands are always clean when she feeds the kids. However, she acknowledges that people in Norway might not understand this Indian custom. Debika says she’ll feed her kids with utensils in public, so she won’t offend any Norwegians. There is underlying racism in the social workers’ judgments of the Chatterjee family, but no one says it out loud because Debika and Aniruddha want these child welfare officers to give them a good evaluation and then just leave the family alone.

However, during one of these visits, interview questions uncover that the marriage of Aniruddha and Debika isn’t as happy as they want people to think it is. Debika reluctantly admits Aniruddha has a temper and he can get a little rough with her. This statement is more cause for concern.

It doesn’t take long before Sia and Matilda tell Aniruddha and Debika that a Barnevernet senior officer named Aliis Ramsfjord (played by Tiina Tauraite), who is another psychologist, will be coming from Oslo to join Sia and Matilda on the next visit to the Chatterjee home. And that’s the day that Aliis, Sia and Matilda take Shubha and Shuchi away, with no advance warning. Velfred quickly puts Shubha and Shuchi in foster care.

The rest of “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” is a series of scenes showing Debika having various meltdowns while she tries to get back custody of the children. Lawyers get involved, of course. And so do the families of Debika and Aniruddha. And so does India’s external affairs minister Vasudha Kamat (played by Neena Gupta), who has a press conference interrupted by Debika pleading for Vashudha to help Debika.

At first, Debika and Aniruddha get a court-appointed lawyer named Sunil Kapoor (played by Namit), who doesn’t last long on the case. It doesn’t help that Debika is the type of client who will speak out of turn in court and have outbursts in front of the judge, thereby making things harder for her. There are small victories, such as Debika and Aniruddha getting limited visitation rights, but the spouses will have disagreements over how they should handle the case.

The lead attorney representing Velfred/the Norweigian government is Daniel Singh Ciupek (played by Jim Sarbh), who is somewhat arrogant and likes to win at all costs. The case goes through twists, turns and other complications, usually caused by Debika. She gets into legal trouble regarding the case, including getting caught kidnapping Shubha and Shuchi.

Debika also gets into physical altercations with people (including assualting law enforcement officials) and sometimes has to be restrained during her temper tantrums. What’s so atrocious is that the movie makes this violence look acceptable because it’s “a mother fighting for her children.” But the violent ways that Debika lashes out are all so counterproductive because Debika just makes herself look like an unstable mother.

In other words, Debika’s “loose cannon” temper and her willingness to commit serious crimes to get her kids end up really hurting her case (and her children) in the long run. It’s hard to feel complete sympathy for someone who has such a nasty and violent temper. Debika also has an obnoxious attitude that she shouldn’t be stereotyped as hysterical and unstable when she in fact does act hysterical and unstable. She’s not a horrible person, but is someone who is lacking in self-awareness about how she can be her own worst enemy in her case.

To be clear: This criticism of Debika is only about the character in the movie, not the real-life person who went through this terrible ordeal. And there’s no doubt that the mother in this movie (and in real life) was mistreated by a system that is portrayed as taking kids away from parents out of greed for money that the government gets for adopting out these children. If any good can come out of “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway,” it’s in exposing the vulnerabilities that immigrant, non-citizen people have with governments that take advantage of non-citizens.

However, “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” comes across as less-than-honest when it tries to dismiss any blame that Debika deserved for nearly ruining her own case by committing a serious crime (kidnapping) that she deliberately planned. The movie makes it look like Debika expected this crime to be excused just because she cries a lot in front of judges and lawyers. Had she not committed this kidnapping, the case would have been resolved a lot sooner. And there probably would have been a lot less screaming hysterics in this over-the-top and over-acted movie.

Zee Studios released “Mrs. Chatterjee vs. Norway” in select U.S. cinemas and in India on March 17, 2023.

Review: ‘Wild Men’ (2021), starring Rasmus Bjerg, Zaki Youssef, Bjørn Sundquist, Sofie Gråbøl, Marco Ilsø, Jonas Bergen Rahmanzadeh and Rune Temte

August 15, 2022

by Carla Hay

Rasmus Bjerg and Zaki Youssef in “Wild Men” (Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films)

“Wild Men” (2021)

Directed by Thomas Daneskov

Norwegian and Danish with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Aurland, Norway, the comedy/drama film “Wild Men” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few people of Middle Eastern heritage) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: A middle-aged married father, who wants to leave his modern life behind and live life in the wilderness as a Viking, befriends a drug smuggler who wants to hide for very different reasons. 

Culture Audience: “Wild Men” will appeal primarily to people interested in darkly comedic films about male bonding and unlikely friendships.

Sofie Gråbøl in “Wild Men” (Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films)

The ending of the comedy/drama “Wild Men” is very predictable and requires some suspension of disbelief regarding law enforcement, but this movie is ultimately an entertaining story about two strangers and their unlikely friendship as outlaws. Their story has less to do with whether or not they care about being arrested and has more do with why these two lost souls want to run away from lives that make them miserable. The movie’s droll comedy and above-average performances from the cast members prevent “Wild Men” from sinking into forgettable mediocrity.

Directed by Thomas Daneskov (who co-wrote the “Wild Men” screenplay with Morten Pape), “Wild Men” was filmed on location in the municipality of Aurland, Norway. The movie had its world premiere at the 2021 Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. “Wild Men” goes through some expected scenarios that are often seen in chase movies when two strangers meet and team up to evade being caught for reasons that are similar or the same.

In “Wild Men,” Martin (played by Rasmus Bjerg) is a man in his 40s who is first seen by himself in a snowy wilderness. He’s dressed as a Viking (including wearing animal fur) and he is sobbing for reasons that are explained later in the movie. Armed with a bow, arrows and an axe, Martin tries to kill a deer for food, but the wounded deer runs away. The most that Martin can get for that night’s meal is a frog, which he eats around a campfire.

Martin is not living in a medieval time period. He is man living in the 21st century, but he wants to drop out of modern society and live as a Viking. Martin isn’t completely “off the grid,” because he goes into a gas station convenience store to get some food. However, he doesn’t want to pay with money. He wants to barter for the food, like a medieval Viking would.

Martin offers his deerskin, axe and three packs of cigarettes (a sign that he hasn’t completely left modern life behind) in exchange for the pile of groceries that he wants to get. He insists that this bargain can be made to a shocked young clerk named Petter (played by Jonas Strand Gravli), who tries in vain to explain to Martin that Martin can only get the groceries by paying with money. Martin gets loud and angry when insisting on having his way.

Eventually, the store manager (played by Ørjan Steinsvik) comes out of a back room to see what all the commotion is about near the store counter. Martin and the manager get into a physical brawl where Martin beats up the manager, takes the merchandise, and then goes back into hiding in the wooded area near the mountains. An elderly police captain named Øyvind (played by Bjørn Sundquist) later arrives to take a report about this robbery and assault. This easygoing police officer is also on the alert for three drug dealers who are believed to be in the area.

Meanwhile, those three drug dealers are traveling by car nearby and are talking about their latest smuggling job. Based on their conversation, Musa (played by Zaki Youssef), the car driver who is in his 40s, is the most experienced drug smuggler of the three. He’s reluctant to have his two younger cohorts/car passengers—Simon (played by Marco Ilsø) and Bashir (played by Jonas Bergen Rahmanzadeh)—along for this upcoming smuggling job on a ferry because he thinks three men together would look suspicious.

Suddenly, a reindeer appears on the road, and the car accidentally hits the deer, which plows through the windshield. It’s a bloody car wreck that leaves Simon and Bashir unconscious and a dazed Musa with a deep wound on his left leg. Musa stumbles out of the car and barely checks to see if Simon and Bashir are alive. Musa has a duffel bag full of cash that he takes with him as he stumbles into the woods.

It should come as no surprise that Martin ends up finding Musa. He treats Musa’s wound by stitching it up while Musa screams in agony. Martin tells Musa that he has a cell phone and a first-aid kit, which are more signs that Martin is not really ready to leave modern life completely behind. Martin isn’t curious to know why Musa doesn’t want to see a doctor for Musa’s leg wound. Musa doesn’t tell Martin right away that he’s a hashish smuggler or that Musa got into a car accident with two other people.

Instead, Musa lets Martin think that Musa is a hiker who got injured during a solo trip. Martin tells Musa that he wants to live as a reclusive Viking. Martin then eventually tells Musa that he robbed a grocery store and is hiding from police. And now, they both have a reason to help each other evade the law. Musa and Martin also bond over their national origin, since they are both originally from Denmark.

Eventually, more about Martin’s life is revealed. He’s a married father of two daughters: Sally (played by Katinka Evers-Jahnsen), who’s about 7 or 8 years old, and Luna (played by Thea Lundtoft Larsen), who’s about 5 or 6 years old. Martin has lied to his wife Anne (played by Sofie Gråbøl), by telling her that he’s away at a teambuilding seminar. Martin’s profession isn’t stated in the movie, but it’s mentioned that he has an office job that he thinks is boring and wants to quit. As part of his mid-life crisis, he wants to “drop out” of society.

Due to certain circumstances that won’t be revealed in this review, Anne is contacted by police and is shocked to find out that Martin is wanted for robbery and assault. Anne goes to this remote area to answer questions in the police investigation and to help in the search for Martin. Sally and Luna are also on this trip. None of this is spoiler information because it’s in the “Wild Men” trailer.

Martin and Musa eventually get into more trouble with the local police, so the two outlaws leave the area where they were camping. During their misadventures in evading capture, Martin and Musa go to a Viking village theme park led by a bombastic Viking enthusiast named Henrik (played by Rune Temte), who irritates Martin for bringing in modern elements to the theme park. For example, Martin can’t believe that the theme park serves processed bread and expects people to pay by money instead of bartering.

Meanwhile, Øyvind and two of his subordinates—middle-aged and cautious Eigil (played by Tommy Karlsen) and young and eager Tore (played by Håkon T. Nielsen)—are in hot pursuit of Martin and Musa. And let’s not forget Simon and Bashir, who were left unconscious in the car wreck. Once these two cronies find out that Musa has gone missing with the money, it’s not something they’re going to let go of easily.

“Wild Men” is not as cleverly written as a Joel and Ethan Coen movie about quirky outlaws on the run. “Wild Men” stumbles in the last third when about 25 cops suddenly show up as a search party team, but then are nowhere to be found during some crucial scenes. “Wild Men” never realistically explains why only three cops (Øyvind, Eigil and Tore) are doing the most of the chasing when more police officers are available. In other words, it’s a low-budget movie that couldn’t afford a larger number of cast members with speaking roles.

Musa eventually opens up to Martin about being an absentee father. Musa’s ex-girlfriend won’t let Musa see their son, who is almost 2 years old. Martin essentially wants to abandon his wife and children. The movie doesn’t glorify these irresponsible fathers but shows what happens when parents who are broken inside can’t really think of anyone else beyond their own immediate needs and emotional problems.

All of the cast members skillfully balance the comedy and drama of “Wild Men.” However, nothing about this movie is truly outstanding, and the story could have used more suspense. As soon as Martin stitches up Musa’s leg wound when they first meet, you just know how “Wild Men” will show the rest of their friendship. The movie is a lot like Martin and Musa: flawed, eccentrically engaging, and with a lot of room for improvement.

Samuel Goldwyn Films released “Wild Men” in select U.S. cinemas on June 17, 2022. The movie was released on digital and VOD on August 5, 2022. “Wild Men” was released in Italy in 2021.

Review: ‘The Innocents’ (2021), starring Rakel Lenora Fløttum, Alva Brynsmo Ramstad, Sam Ashraf, Mina Yasmin Bremseth Asheim, Ellen Dorrit Petersen, Morten Svartveit, Kadra Yusuf and Lisa Tønne

June 3, 2022

by Carla Hay

Rakel Lenora Fløttum and Sam Ashraf in “The Innocents” (Photo courtesy of IFC Films/IFC Midnight)

“The Innocents” (2021)

Directed by Eskil Vogt

Norwegian with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed city in Norway, the horror film “The Innocents” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with one black person, one multiracial person and a few people of Middle Eastern heritage) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Four children discover that they have psychic powers, and at least one of the children uses those powers for sinister and deadly reasons. 

Culture Audience: “The Innocents” will appeal primarily to people interested in watching creepy and disturbing horror movies about homicidal children.

Mina Yasmin Bremseth Asheim in “The Innocents” (Photo courtesy of IFC Films/IFC Midnight)

“The Innocents” sometimes falters with sluggish pacing, but this horror movie excels in immersing viewers in an atmosphere filled with deliberate torture and dread. A lot of the terror happens without a word being spoken. A warning to sensitive viewers: “The Innocents” is not the type of movie you will want to see if you get deeply disturbed by seeing on-screen depictions of fatal animal cruelty and children who murder people.

Written and directed by Eskil Vogt, “The Innocents” had its world premiere at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, which also world premiered “The Worst Person in the World,” a romantic comedy/drama co-written by Vogt. “The Worst Person In the World” (which received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay) has much better character development and more engaging pacing than “The Innocents,” but Vogt should be commended for writing two very different movies that are quite memorable.

“The Innocents,” which takes place during a summer in an unnamed city in Norway, begins with a middle-class family of four moving into a high-rise apartment building. As an example of how the adults in the movie are secondary to the kids in the story, the names of the parents in “The Innocents” are not mentioned. The adults in this movie also leave their underage kids without adult supervision for long stretches of time.

The family moving into the apartment complex has relocated because the father (played by Morten Svartveit) has gotten an unnamed job in the area. The mother (played by Ellen Dorrit Petersen) is a homemaker. These parents have two daughters: Anna (played by Alva Brynsmo Ramstad) and Ida (played by Rakel Lenora Fløttum), who have some problems in their relationship, but the two sisters mostly get along with each other.

Anna, who is 11 years old, has regressive autism. At 4 years old, she stopped speaking, although she can make sounds to express herself. Later in the movie, Anna begins speaking again, using limited vocabulary. Ida is about 7 or 8 years old. Ida is often tasked with looking after Anna, and it causes Ida to sometimes feel resentment toward Anna. Ida also feels that Anna gets too much attention from their parents.

Two other children who live in the apartment building will have their lives forever intertwined with Anna and Ida. Their names are Ben and Aisha. And all four children find out that they can connect with each other on a pyschic level. Because all of the children are on a summer break, there’s no mention of them going to school.

Ben (played by Sam Ashraf), who is about 9 or 10 years old, is a sullen loner who likes to say and do cruel things. Ben is an only child who lives with his single mother (played by Lisa Tønne), who often yells at him because she thinks he can’t do anything right. Ben’s father is not mentioned in the movie, which implies that this father is not in Ben’s life.

Aisha (played by Mina Yasmin Bremseth Asheim), who is about 7 or 8 years old, is also an only child. She lives with her mother (played by Kadra Yusuf), who seems to be recently divorced or separated. Pictures of Aisha’s father are in the household, and he’s talked about as if he’s still alive, but he is not living in the household. Unlike Ben, Aisha is a kind and empathetic child. When she sees her mother crying, she feels her mother’s emotional pain too. Aisha can also feel other people’s physical pain.

The apartment building where the children live has other apartment buildings nearby. There’s a playground at the center of these apartment buildings. It’s at this playground where Ben and Ida meet for the first time. There’s also a wooded area nearby where the kids play. The playground and the woods are the two areas where most of the kids’ activities happen in the movie.

Shortly after meeting in the playground, Ida and Ben walk into the nearby wooded area. He tells her that he used to live in a place where he would climb up in a tree and fire a slingshot at “people I think are mean.” It’s the first sign that Ben has a sadistic side to him. And if it isn’t obvious enough that Ben is going to be the biggest villain, there are multiple of scenes of Ida seeing Ben creepily looking at her and other kids from a distance.

Anna and Aisha are the first to show a psychic connection to each other. When Anna thinks something, Aisha often does it, and vice versa. They can also feel each other’s pain each time one of them gets an injury. At first, Anna and Aisha don’t understand what’s going on, until they meet each other and find out why they have an instant bond.

Ida and Ben also discover they have their own pyschic powers, but they find out at different times. Ben’s psychic power includes telekenisis and mind control, thereby making him much more threatening than the other three kids. At first, Ben keep his power a secret, but all four kids eventually find out about each other’s powers. How they all find out are among the best scenes in the movie.

When Ben and Ida start hanging out with each other, Ida thinks that Ben is rebellious but harmless. Ida believes she’s a rebellious loner too, so she’s at first happy to meet someone who seems to be like she is. Ida changes her mind about Ben being someone she can trust when Ben does something heinous to a cat. After witnessing this animal cruelty, Ida tries to avoid Ben, but Ida figures out that things often don’t end well for people who reject Ben.

A long stretch of the “The Innocents” is kind of a monotonous zone where not much happens after the killing starts, because it’s about the kids keeping their powers a secret from anyone else. They don’t tell any adults because they don’t think the adults will believe them. Or even worse: If they are believed, the kids think that they will be considered “freaks” and possibly taken away for scientific experiments.

Not that the adults seem to notice a lot of what these kids are doing anyway. If there’s any big flaw in the movie, it’s that the parents seem very neglectful and uncaring about what their pre-teen kids are doing when adults are not around. The parents seem vaguely aware that their kids are making new friends and hanging out at the playground, but they don’t seem to care to meet these new friends or the parents of these new friends.

Are there parents in real life who are this thoughtless? Absolutely. But it’s a convenient contrivance that all four of these children happen to have parents who don’t seem at all curious about what their kids or doing when the parents aren’t there, or concerned about the kids’ safety when trusted adults are not with children. Haven’t these parents heard that this type of neglect is how child abductions from strangers are most likely to happen?

But most of the horror in “The Innocents” wouldn’t be as impactful if the parents in this story acted like responsible and fully attentive parents. The movie seems to want to make the point that with these psychic powers, these children are more dangerous than adults who don’t these powers. A lot of horror movie viewers can take bloody scenes of adults killing each other, but there’s something particularly unsettling about a child committing first-degree murder.

The child actors in these roles are perfectly adequate, but all of the child characters except Ida have personalities that come close to being very hollow and two-dimensional. Ida is the only one who seems to have a complex personality, so Fløttum gives the best performance. Ben is a predictable sociopath and only seems to get emotionally hurt for selfish reasons. Aisha is the character that needed the most development.

The ending of “The Innocents” is not too surprising. But getting to that ending is a very uncomfortable ride for viewers. And since horror movies are supposed to make people feel uncomfortable, “The Innocents” certainly achieves that goal in an original story.

IFC Films/IFC Midnight released “The Innocents” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and VOD on May 13, 2022. The movie was released in Norway in 2021.

Review: ‘The Burning Sea,’ starring Kristine Kujath Thorp, Henrik Bjelland, Rolf Kristian Larsen, Anders Baasmo, and Bjørn Floberg and Anneke von der Lippe

March 11, 2022

by Carla Hay

Henrik Bjelland, Kristine Kujath Thorp and Rolf Kristian Larsen in “The Burning Sea” (Photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing)

“The Burning Sea”

Directed by John Andreas Andersen

Norwegian with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway, the action film “The Burning Sea” features an all-white cast representing the working-class and middle-class during an aquatic catastrophe.

Culture Clash: An offshore underwater robotics worker races against time to find out what’s causing the destruction of ships and oil rigs in the North Sea.

Culture Audience: “The Burning Sea” will appeal primarily to people who like watching predictable and mediocre disaster movies.

A scene from “The Burning Sea” (Photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing)

“The Burning Sea” is a formulaic disaster flick with no imagination or engaging personalities. Viewers can easily predict what happens and then quickly forget the movie. “The Burning Sea” tries to make social commentary about the dangers of pillaging the environment, but the movie’s environmental message is cheapened by too many stupid scenarios.

Directed by John Andreas Andersen and written by Harald Rosenløw-Eeg and Lars Gudmestad, “The Burning Sea” (which takes place in an unnamed part of Norway) is one of those disaster movies where viewers find out within the first 10 minutes who are supposed to be the “heroes” of the story. These “hero” characters are the ones that audiences are supposed to root for the most to survive the environmental catastrophe that takes place in the movie. Anderson also directed the 2018 disaster flick “The Quake,” which was written by Rosenløw-Eeg and John Kåre Raake, the screenwriting duo behind director Roar Uthaug’s 2015 tidal-wave disaster flick “The Wave.” All of three of these movies wallow in corny clichés instead of the creative realism that would make this type of disaster movie more riveting and impactful.

How do you know who’s going to survive in “The Burning Sea”? Let’s just say that certain people in the movie unrealistically escape death in the middle of explosions that kill other people. There’s also a scene that takes place deep underneath the North Sea, where no one is wearing the correct underwater gear to survive, but certain people survive anyway with no damage to their respiratory system. “The Burning Sea” is very careless with basic details.

This 104-minute movie wastes a lot of time in the first 20 minutes showing the somewhat dull routine of protagonist Sofia Hartman (played by Kristine Kujath Thorp) and her co-worker Arthur (played by Rolf Kristian Larsen), who work at Eelume Offshore Robotics, where they test and operate underwater robots. The robots are designed to perform tasks, such as go underwater for rescue missions or retrieve things in underwater places that might be too dangerous or inaccessible to people. Sofia and Arthur are platonic friends who respect each other.

Unfortunately, the personalities of all the people in “The Burning Sea” are incredibly generic. Sofia has been dating an oil-rig worker named Stian Helseth (played by Henrik Bjelland) for the past nine months. Stian is a single father to a son named Odin (played by Nils Elias Olsen), who’s about 5 or 6 years old. The movie doesn’t mention what happened to Odin’s mother, but it’s made clear that Odin’s mother is not in their lives.

Sofia and Stian are in a happy relationship, and she gets along well with Odin. However, Stian is more willing than Sofia to make the commitment of living together. At work, when Arthur and Sofia talk about her relationship with Stian, Arthur predicts that Sofia will eventually move in with Stian. Sofia says she wants to keep her independence: “I have my life, and he has his. Works like a charm.”

Stian and his brother Ronny Helseth (played by Anders Baasmo, also known as Anders Baasmo Christiansen) work together on an oil rig owned by a company called Hansen. Ronny is married to a woman named Vibeke (played by Mariann Rostøl), who appears briefly in the beginning of the film during a family get-together. The characters in “The Burning Sea” are so bland that the movie doesn’t bother to show anything unique about this family.

One day, Sofia and Arthur are called to bring their robots to the scene of an “accident” involving the oil-rigging M/5 Norman Maximum Subsea Supply Ship. An oil-rig emergency manager named William Lie (played by Bjørn Floberg) tells Sofia and Arthur why the ship is in danger: “A platform has gone down, most likely due to a local subsidence of the sea floor.”

There are people trapped inside, and the underwater robots are needed for the search and rescue. During this rescue mission, Sofia finds leaking gas. She correctly predicts that the ship will explode. At least eight people die during this tragedy.

The center of the movie’s disaster takes place an untold number of days later. It’s at an oil rig on a platform called Gullfaks A, which is located in the North Sea, about 220 kilometers (or 137 miles) from the coast of Norway. A massive explosion causes the oil rig to collapse and kill people who were on the rig. The explosion also ignites a raging fire that’s rapidly spreading across the North Sea. What really caused this explosion?

Meanwhile, William is also the liaison for the officials involved in this investigation, including Norway’s oil and energy minister Steiner Skagemo (played by Christoffer Staib) and a leader only identified as Gunn (played by Anneke von der Lippe), who works at Saga Stavenger, the headquarters of offshore operations. William tells people that the explosion on the supply ship was caused by gas leakage. However, Sofia thinks that it was more than just leaked gas that caused this catastrophe. And there’s a “race against time” to find out when the other explosion hits Gullfaks A.

William knows a lot more than he’s willing to tell certain people. A big clue about what he knows is in the movie’s opening scene, when he is shown saying this monologue: “I started working in the North Sea at 18. That was in ’71. The oil business paid well. We had no idea what we were getting involved with. Zero training. Just follow the Americans. If they said, “Go left,’ we went left.”

William continues, “I remember it was dangerous back then. But it was a risk we were willing to take … Everyone made money. But it’s like driving a car. Drive too fast for too long, and it will never end well. ‘A risk of undesirable incidents,’ we call it in the business.”

In a disaster movie with an environmental message about drilling in the sea for oil, you know exactly what all of this means and who will suffer from the consequences. The rest of “The Burning Sea” plays out exactly like other hackneyed disaster flicks where the government officials are inept, and it’s up to “everyday people” to be the heroes and save others. Because “The Burning Sea” follows this over-used formula too closely and has drab characters and uninteresting dialogue, there’s almost no suspense in watching this movie.

None of the acting is special. The directing is unremarkable. Everything in “The Burning Sea” is just a rehash of scenarios and story arcs from other disaster movies that have much better plots, characters and action scenes. “The Burning Sea” might be enjoyable to people who are bored or who have very low standards for what they think are exciting action movies. Everyone else can find plenty of more thrilling movies elsewhere.

Magnet Releasing released “The Burning Sea” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and VOD on February 25, 2022. The movie was released in Norway in 2021.

Review: ‘The Worst Person in the World,’ starring Renate Reinsve, Anders Danielsen Lie and Herbert Nordrum

February 14, 2022

by Carla Hay

Herbert Nordrum and Renate Reinsve in “The Worst Person in the World” (Photo by Verdens Verste Menneske/Oslo Pictures/Neon)

“The Worst Person in the World”

Directed by Joachim Trier

Norwegian with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in the Norwegian cities of Oslo and Hønefoss, the comedy/drama film “The Worst Person in the World” features an all-white cast of characters representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Over a period of about four years, a restless woman in her late 20s to early 30s is torn between two very different men who are her love interests.

Culture Audience: “The Worst Person in the World” will appeal mainly to people who like quirky European films with social commentaries on how women navigate society’s pressures and expectations when it comes to love, committed relationships, and if or when to have children.

Renate Reinsve and Anders Danielsen Lie in “The Worst Person in the World” (Photo by Kasper Tuxen/Oslo Pictures/Neon)

“The Worst Person in the World” centers on a female protagonist who actually isn’t a horrible and cruel person, but she often makes selfish and impulsive choices that hurt other people, including herself. It’s a sometimes-funny, sometimes-melancholy story about a free-spirited but complicated and insecure young woman who’s awkwardly trying to figure out who she is and what she wants in life. Some of this 127-minute movie tends to wander a bit too much, but the cast members’ intriguing performances and some bold filmmaker choices make “The Worst Person in the World” a fascinating film to experience.

Directed by Joachim Trier, “The Worst Person in the World” is Norway’s entry for the 2022 Academy Awards, where the movie was nominated for Best International Feature Film and Best Original Screenplay. Trier co-wrote the movie’s richly layered screenplay with Eskil Vogt. “The Worst Person in the World” made the rounds at several prestigious film festivals, including the 2021 Cannes Film Festival (where the movie had its world premiere), the 2021 Toronto International Film Festival, the 2021 New York Film Festival and the 2022 Sundance Film Festival.

The central character in “The Worst Person in the World” is Julie (played by Renate Reinsve), who turns 30 years old during the course of this movie’s story, which takes place over a period of about four years. Julie lives in Oslo, Norway, and it’s clear within the first 10 minutes of the film that’s she’s intelligent but very fickle. The movie (which has a prologue, 12 chapters and an epilogue) has occasional voiceover narration by an unidentified woman, who tells Julie’s story as an observer who knows Julie’s thoughts. Ine Janssen is the actress providing the voiceover narration.

Viewers first see Julie as a 29-year-old college student, who switches her major from biology to psychology to photography. All of these changes seem to happen within the space of a year. The narrator comments that Julie’s sudden switch in majors happened because “She felt trapped in the role of a model student.” It’s unclear if Julie ever graduates, because she is never shown in college again. She makes money working as a sales clerk/cashier at a bookstore called Norli, which is located on the university campus.

There’s a montage of Julie seeming to enjoy her part-time work as a photographer (she mostly does fashion-oriented portraits) and having meaningless flings with some of her male models. She’s on a date with one of these models at a nightclub/bar when she meets a man who will become her live-in boyfriend. Julie doesn’t think twice about ignoring her date when she finds herself attracted to another man.

The man who charms Julie is Aksel Willmann (played by Anders Danielsen Lie), a well-known artist whose specialty is adult-oriented graphic novels that he creates. Aksel, who’s 15 years older than Julie, is the proverbial life of the party who attracts attention almost everywhere he goes. Aksel’s most famous graphic novel character is a randy and rude cat called Bobcat, who is the star of Aksel’s successful “Bobcat” graphic novel series. Viewers later find out that Aksel uses Bobcat to be crude and sexist through a fictional character, in ways that Aksel wouldn’t be able to get away with in real life.

Aksel and Julie have an immediate attraction and flirtation at the party. It isn’t long before they hook up, and then she moves into his place. Shortly after becoming a couple, Julie finds out that the age difference between her and Aksel could be a problem. She doesn’t want to have children at this point in her life, but Aksel is ready to start a family. Not only does Julie feel that she’s not ready to become a mother, she’s also pretty certain that she never wants to have kids.

Julie and Aksel have some disagreements over this family planning issue, with Julie and Aksel both coming to a stalemate about how the other partner is handling the issue. Julie thinks Aksel is being overbearing and trying to bend Julie’s will into what Aksel wants. Aksel thinks Julie is making weak excuses because he tells her that no one is ever really ready to have kids, and people just figure out parenting as they go along.

There are other issues in Julie and Aksel’s relationship: Julie also doesn’t fit in very well with Aksel’s circle of friends, who are mostly in his age group. During get-togethers with Aksel’s friends, Julie often feels left out of the conversations. Askel’s friends are very sophisticated when it comes to art and literature. Julie often feels that her taste in the same things don’t really match the tastes of Aksel and his friends.

She also feels somewhat inadequate around Aksel and his friends because she has less life experience and can’t relate to some things that people in Aksel’s generation can relate to with each other. For example, Axsel can remember a time when the Internet and cell phones didn’t exist. He wistfully says that tangible objects are becoming less important to people’s memories, as technology has made more things go digital.

At a house party hosted by two of Aksel’s friends—a married couple named William (played by August Wilhelm Méd Brenner) and Karianne (played by Helene Bjørneby)—Julie gets interrogated by Karianne about when Julie plans to have a career and children. William mildly scolds Karianne for being so intrusive, but it’s a question that Julie tends to get from people in a way that makes her feel like they’re silently judging her for not saying that she’s looking forward to becoming a mother.

At the same time, Julie is judgmental too, because she seems to have a little disdain for people who think being a parent is the greatest thing that could ever happen to them. Over the course of the movie, Julie shows a pattern of being afraid of anything that would require a long-term commitment, whether it’s marriage, parenting, or sticking to one career choice. Some viewers might interpret it as being commitment-phobic, while Julie would describe as it wanting her freedom.

During a book launch party for Aksel, the discontent in his relationship with Julie becomes obvious. While Aksel is being fawned over by partygoers, Julie feels like an ignored and underappreciated sidekick. She spontaneously walks out of the party and wanders on the street until she impulsively walks in uninvited to a wedding reception where she doesn’t know anyone. It’s at this wedding reception that she meets Eivind (played by Herbert Nordrum), who’s about the same age as Julie. Eivind, who is at this wedding reception by himself, quietly observes Julie mingling with people at the party before he and Julie begin talking to each other.

As an example of the mischievous side of Julie’s personality, she strikes up a conversation with two women at the party and lies to them by saying that she’s a doctor. One of the women gushes about how happy she is to be a mother and how she loves to cuddle with her children. Julie then tells her that cuddling with kids can turn them into drug addicts. She lies and says there is medical research to prove it. When the woman expresses skepticism about this research, Julie insists that it’s true. Eivind watches this conversation with some amusement.

Julie and Eivind end up meeting each other and immediately begin flirting with each other. Eivind tells her that he overheard parts of the conversations that she was having, so he thinks that Julie really is a doctor. She doesn’t tell him the truth about what she really does for a living, but Julie does confess to Eivind that she doesn’t know anyone at this wedding reception. She tells him she crashed this party on a whim and that she has a live-in boyfriend.

Eivind tells Julie that he’s romantically involved with someone too, but he doesn’t go into details. He also says that he hates infidelity, because he’s been hurt by it before. However, because Eivind and Julie feel a noticeable attraction to each other, Eivind suggests that they can do things together that are “not cheating.”

This flirtation leads to one of the more memorable scenes in the movie, where Julie and Eivind play games with each other, by pushing the boundaries of intimacy without kissing or doing anything sexual. Julie starts off by telling Eivind, “Let me smell your sweat.” And he lets her. Julie and Eivind are both drinking alcohol during the party, so it explains why their inhibitions are lowered.

And during the party, they both go into a bathroom together and watch each other urinate. They have a laugh over it and laugh even more when Julie farts during this bathroom encounter. Later, when they’re both outside, Julie blows cigarette smoke in Eivind’s mouth. At the end of the night, Julie and Eivind part ways without telling each other any more personal information.

One day, Julie is working at the bookstore, when she’s shocked to see Eivind in the store. He’s there with his live-in girlfriend Sunniva (played by Maria Grazia Di Meo), who’s a yoga instructor looking for a specific yoga book, which she asks Julie to find in the store for her. Julie is at the cash register when Sunniva buys this book. It’s how Eivind finds out what Julie really does for a living.

Immediately after Eivind and Sunniva leave the store, he comes back by himself. Eivind tells Julie that he pretended to Sunniva that he left his sunglasses in the store, but that he really just wanted to come back to tell Julie that he can’t stop thinking about her, ever since they met at the wedding reception. Eivind tells Julie that he works as a server at bakery cafe called Apent Bakeri, and he invites her to come by and see him anytime that she wants. The rest of the movie follows Julie’s journey as she makes a decision on whether or not to choose to be with Aksel or with Eivind.

There’s also a subplot about how Julie’s family background has affected a lot of the insecurities she has about love, marriage and raising a family. Her parents are divorced and split up when Julie was a child. Julie has a tension-filled relationship with her father Harald (played by Vidar Sandem), who lives in the suburb of Hønefoss with his current wife Eva (played by Marianne Krogh) and their teenage daughter Nathalie (played by Sofia Schandy Bloch), a tennis player who competes in tournaments. Julie is annoyed that her father never wants to visit her, and she always has to visit him if she wants to see him. He also tends to forget Julie’s birthday. Julie has a polite but distant relationship with her stepmother and half-sister.

On her 30th birthday, Julie has a small get-together with Aksel, her mother Kathrine (played by Anna Dworak) and Kathrine’s mother Åse (played by Thea Stabell) at Kathrine’s home. It’s during this birthday scene that the movie has a montage (with voiceover narration) of family photos with the narrator listing what Julie’s mother, maternal grandmother and their mothers from previous generations were doing at age 30. The purpose of this montage is to show how Julie’s life at age 30 compares to the women on her mother’s side of the family in previous generations.

At this milestone age, Julie’s mother was divorced for two years and working as an accountant at a publishing house. Julie’s maternal grandmother was an actress who played Rebecca West in “Rosmer Sholm” at the National Theatre. Julie’s great-grandmother was a widow with four children. Julie’s great-great-grandmother was married and the mother of seven kids, two of whom died of tuberculosis. Julie’s great-great-great-grandmother had six kids and was in a loveless marriage.

With life expectancies getting longer in each generation, and with more planned parenthood options in a post-feminism world, women are feeling less pressure to get married and have kids by age 30. But the montage clearly shows that Julie hasn’t had many of the life experiences that other women in her family had by the time they reached 30 years old. Julie is still struggling with finding out what she thinks her purpose in life should be.

Because it isn’t entirely clear what career Julie wants to have, she dabbles in some writing. There’s a “chapter” in the movie called “Oral Sex in the Age of #MeToo,” which is also the name of a personal essay that Julie writes. She reads this sexually explicit essay to Axsel, and he’s very impressed. He tells her that she’s a very good writer. Julie ends up getting the essay published on a media website, where the essay goes viral.

But this moment of self-confidence is fleeting. Julie wonders if she’s letting life pass her by. And she worries that when she’s in a relationship, she will end up feeling pressured to do things that she doesn’t really want to do. During the scene where Julie and Aksel disagree about if or when she should start having kids, Julie says with frustration in her voice: “I feel like a spectator in my own life! I feel like I’m playing a supporting role in my own life!”

The movie has some unexpected whimsical moments too. During a turning point in Julie’s love life, she makes a decision that leads to a fantasy-like sequence that shows her being able to stop all movement by turning on the light switch in her kitchen. She walks through the streets of Oslo as everything around her is frozen in motion. It’s her way of making time stop to make a fantasy of hers come true.

After she fulfills her fantasy, she goes back to her home, switches off the kitchen light, and life goes on as if no one else knows that they were frozen in time. But Julie knows. And she knows what she did, which leads her to tell other people about the decision that she confirmed for herself when she fulfilled her fantasy. The light switch can be seen as symbolic of Julie having a moment of clarity in her life, illuminating what she wants to do, and giving herself permission to do it.

Most of the movie’s comedic scenes have to do with some of the witty banter that Julie exchanges with people. But there’s a laugh-out-loud funny scene where she takes psychedelic mushrooms during a house party and has inevitable hallucinations. It’s a peek into Julie’s subconscious mind. Not all of it is light-hearted, since there are a few images in this hallucination that some viewers might find vulgar and nauseating.

It’s easy to see why Reinsve won the Best Actress prize for “Worst Person in the World” at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival. Julie is full of contradictions, and that’s not easy to portray in an acting performance. Julie is unpredictable in many ways, but she’s predictable when it comes to feeling uncomfortable with stability that she thinks is boring. She wants to be seen as an independent woman, but she deliberately puts herself in situations where she is in a co-dependent, “arrested development” emotional state when it comes to her love life and career.

The two men who are the focus of Julie’s affections are also very different from each other. Aksel is self-assured with a successful career, but does he really accept Julie for who she is? Eivind is socially insecure with a dead-end job, but does he emotionally have what it takes to hold fickle Julie’s interest? These are some of the dilemmas faced by Julie, who has to come to terms with how much she wants a relationship to define her happiness, when she often struggles with her own self-esteem issues. Nordrum as Eivind and Lie as Aksel are very good in their roles, but their characters are not as complicated as Julie.

This movie is called “The Worst Person in the World” not because Julie is the worst person in the world, but she often thinks that she’s the worst person in the world when she knowingly does things to hurt people. The last third of the movie has the most tearjerking parts of the story. The movie’s ending might not be what a lot of viewers are expecting, but it’s a conclusion that’s an example of how “The Worst Person in the World” defies conventions in movies about self-identity and love relationships. Julie’s life is often messy by her own design, but it’s a mess that’s compelling to watch, no matter how everything turns out.

Neon released “The Worst Person in the World” in select U.S. cinemas on February 4, 2022. The movie was released in Norway and other countries in 2021.

Review: ‘Gunda,’ a documentary about farm life from the perspectives of animals

April 13, 2021

by Carla Hay

Gunda and one of her piglets in “Gunda” (Photo courtesy of Neon)


Directed by Victor Kosakovsky

Culture Representation: Taking place on a farm in an unnamed Norwegian city, the documentary film “Gunda” focuses on a sow (female pig) named Gunda, her piglets, a flock of chickens and a herd of cows.

Culture Clash: Farm life can be precarious for animals that are bred as meat for humans.

Culture Audience: “Gunda” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching a minimalist animal documentary, with no voiceover narration, captions or music.

Two of Gunda’s piglets in “Gunda” (Photo courtesy of Neon)

Neither brilliant nor mindless, the documentary film “Gunda” is a minimalist chronicle of animal life on a Norwegian farm in an unnamed city, from the perspectives of some of the animals. The movie was filmed in black and white, so it looks artsier than it really is. “Gunda is best enjoyed by people who are inclined to like animal documentaries.

Directed by Victor Kosakovsky, “Gunda” stands out from most other animal documentaries because it has no voiceover narration, captions or music. Therefore, whatever viewers get out of the movie will be exactly what’s shown on screen, not because the filmmakers are interpreting or explaining the animals’ actions. Any humans who are briefly shown in the documentary (to transport animals) do not speak in the movie.

A female pig named Gunda gets most of the screen time because it shows her from the moment she gives birth to a litter of about 11 pigs. (The documentary’s other animals don’t have names in the movie.) The first scene in the movie is of Gunda giving birth to this litter. Not long after she gives birth, Gunda accidentally steps on one of the piglets, which screams out in pain but is unharmed.

In addition to the pigs, the movie shows two cows and some chickens, with particular focus on a one-legged chicken. An example of a scene involving the chickens is when a chicken tentatively steps out of a cage, where it was confined with other chickens. There are closeups of the chicken’s feet as it steps on the grass. A visually striking scene with the cows is when at least 25 cows run outside of a barn, and this gallop is shown in slow-motion. The cows are also shown outside while it’s raining.

Viewers of “Gunda,” which was filmed for less than a year, get to see the piglets grow older. There are multiple scenes of Gunda nursing them. There’s a scene where the piglets go in an open field to play and rough house with each other. And there’s the inevitable scene of Gunda wallowing and resting in mud.

Because this movie takes place on a farm, not an animal sanctuary, these animals are being raised for one main reason: as meat for humans. One of the exceptions is an elderly female cow that’s shown in the documentary. Because there are no humans talking in the movie, it’s never explained why this female cow was lucky enough to survive and wasn’t killed for meat.

“Gunda” director Kosakovsky was inspired to make the film because of an experience he had in his childhood. He describes it in his director’s statement in the “Gunda” production notes: “Growing up I was very much a city kid, but at the age of 4, I spent a few months in a village in the countryside, where I met my best friend Vasya. He was much younger than me—just a few weeks old when we met—but over time he became my dearest friend and the times we spent together are some of the most cherished memories from my childhood. One day, when we were still young, Vasya was killed and served as pork cutlets for a New Year’s Eve dinner. I was devastated and immediately became (probably) the first vegetarian kid in the Soviet Union.”

It should be noted that Oscar-winning actor Joaquin Phoenix, who is a well-known vegan and animal rights activist, is an executive producer of “Gunda.” Is the movie a vegetarian/vegan propaganda film? No, because it doesn’t preach about how these animals should be treated. It just shows a “slice of life” view of what it was like for these particular animals on this particular farm.

In that sense, “Gunda” is like any other documentary about farm animals that will give people more thought about animals that are killed for human consumption. Almost every up-close documentary about animals will show that animals have emotions and form family bonds with each other. It’s not revelatory to anyone who’s seen a lot of animal documentaries or has experienced living with domesticated animals.

“Gunda” is at its best when it shows the relationship that Gunda has with her piglets. The cinematography brings an intimacy to how this relationship evolves as the piglets become more independent. The ending of the movie is not surprising, but it will still tug at people’s heartstrings.

If “Gunda” could be described in terms of independent cinema, it’s the type of movie that’s like a mumblecore documentary for farm animals. There’s no specific, exciting narrative, because viewers are basically watching farm animals live their lives. It’s the type of movie best appreciated if viewers have no distractions and can see the movie on the largest screen possible. It’s hard to imagine “Gunda” holding people’s interest for very long if they watch the movie on a phone.

“Gunda” also isn’t recommended for people who get irritated by constant sounds of pigs grunting and squealing. It’s sounds obvious that you’ll hear these noises when watching this movie, but without any music to drown out the animal sounds or to manipulate emotions, the sounds of pig grunts and squeals become even more pronounced. People will either tolerate it or be turned off by it.

As a technical feat, “Gunda” isn’t very mindblowing, but it gets the job done in all the right places. This is a movie that might bore people who prefer animal documentaries that were filmed in exotic and difficult-to-film locations. But for people who want an intimate look at the common ground between the emotions in animals and humans, “Gunda” offers an immersive experience that requires patience to watch the entire movie.

Neon released “Gunda” in select U.S. virtual cinemas on December 11, 2020. The movie goes into wider release on April 16, 2021.

Review: ‘Mortal,’ starring Nat Wolff and Priyanka Bose

November 8, 2020

by Carla Hay

Iben Akerlie and Nat Wolff in “Mortal” (Photo courtesy of Saban Films)


Directed by André Øvredal

Some language in Norwegian with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway, the sci-fi thriller “Mortal” features an almost all-white cast of characters (and one Indian) representing the middle-class.

Culture Clash: A mysterious young man is hunted by authorities because he has a lethal ability to conduct energy and electricity through his body.

Culture Audience: “Mortal” will appeal primarily to people who like formulaic sci-fi flicks that put more emphasis on visual effects than in crafting a good story.

Priyanka Bose in “Mortal” (Photo courtesy of Saban Films)

“Mortal” starts off as a run-of-the-mill sci-fi flick before it turns into a ludicrous off-the-rails story. Even before the plot twist is revealed in the last third of the movie, “Mortal” had too many weak links for it to be strengthened by the “surprise” ending. This plot twist actually makes the movie worse, because the ill-conceived, drastic turn in the story looks very tacked-on and rushed. It’s as if the filmmakers were desperate to come up with an ending to bring “Mortal” out its repetitive rut.

Directed by André Øvredal (who co-wrote the screenplay with Norman Lesperance and Geoff Bussetil), “Mortal” is essentially a sci-fi chase movie that doesn’t really go anywhere. The movie centers on an American man in his mid-20s named Eric Bergland (played by Nat Wolff), who is in Norway looking for his relatives. The details of his family aren’t revealed until toward the end of the movie, because it’s part of the plot twist.

And so, for almost the entire movie, viewers don’t know anything about Eric except that he’s homeless in Norway and he has a very strange and deadly power: He can conduct and transport energy (especially electrical energy) through his body, giving him the ability to start fires and cause electrical storms. In the beginning of the film, Eric is by himself, looking like he’s a dirty and disheveled vagrant who’s trying to hide from the world.

He trespasses into a home to steal some scissors, medicine, bandages and candy. He eats the candy as if he’s been starving for days. He uses the scissors to cut his hair. And he uses the medicine and bandages to treat a festering wound on his leg.

It’s revealed later in the movie that Eric can get burns on his body when he’s at his peak of energy-conducting power. Viewers will have to suspend disbelief that Eric can be burned everywhere on his body except his face, because nothing bad ever happens to his face except for the unfortunate straggly beard that Eric has at the beginning of the film.

At a gas station in the municipality of Odda, Eric catches the attention of four teenagers (three boys and a girl) in a car. A bullying guy named Ole (played by Arthur Hakalahti), who’s the leader of the group, taunts Eric for looking like the dirty transient that he is. The car then happens to follow Eric to an open field.

Ole gets out of the car, while the other teens follow him and Eric into the field. Ole continues to harass Eric, who warns Ole in an ominous voice: “If you touch me, you will burn.” But of course, Ole touches Eric. And when he does, Eric stares at Ole intensely, while Ole appears to be suffocating without Eric touching him. Ole then immediately collapses and dies.

Eric is quickly apprehended by authorities, who don’t find out much about Eric except for these three things: (1) He’s a backpacker from the United States, but he’s of Norwegian heritage; (2) He’s in Norway to look for his relatives; and (3) He was seen at a farmhouse in Årdal, a municipality in Norway’s Vestland county, where three years before, a fire killed five people at the house. Eric is suspected of starting the fire, but he’s not talking to law enforcement about what happened at that house.

The sheriff of Odda is Henrik Jondal (played by Per Frisch), who’s in charge of the investigation into the death of Ole. The police aren’t making any progress in interviewing Eric, because he refuses to say much to them, so Henrik has the idea to call someone who has experience counseling teenagers and other young people. The hope is that this counselor will be able to break through to Eric and get him to open up about the death of Ole.

The counselor’s name is Christine Aas (played by Iben Akerlie), and she looks like she’s approximately the same age as Eric. And as soon as she appears on screen, it’s easy to see that she’s going to be Eric’s love interest because she has the stereotypical physical appearance (young, blonde and pretty) of a love interest in a formulaic movie like this one.

Even though Christine looks young enough to only be a few years out of college, the movie has made her a whiz at diagnosing medical conditions because she figures out very quickly what Alex’s superpower is. Not long after Christine is put in a police interrogation room with Eric to ask him some questions, he goes from being mute to gasping remorsefully about Ole, “I tried to tell him not to touch me.”

Meanwhile, Henrik is in another section of the police station, where he’s dealing with the parents of Ole, who want answers about what caused Ole’s death. Ole’s father Bjørn (played by Per Egil Aske) is very angry because he knows that the police have Eric in custody as a suspect. (The arrest has been all over the news.) Bjørn demands to be in a room alone with Eric, but Henrik refuses. It’s pretty clear at this point that this won’t be the last we see of Bjørn, who might as well have worn a T-shirt that says “Vigilante Justice,” because that seems to be the only purpose for his character in this movie.

Back in the police interrogation room, Eric reaches for a glass of water, and Christine sees that he’s able to lift the water out of the glass, just by putting his hand above the glass. This gives him such electrical energy force throughout his body, that when Eric places his hands on the wooden table, it scorches the table. And then, Eric gets so upset, the entire room lights up with an electrical storm caused by Eric.

Christine tells Eric the obvious: The energy comes out when he’s experiencing negative emotions, such as fear, anger or anxiety. She tells him that he can control the energy if he just breathes and calms down and gets to a relaxed emotional state. Now that Little Miss Expert has diagnosed Eric’s problem in a matter of minutes, you almost expect her to say, “I’ll be right back. Let me get a yoga mat for you so we can do some breathing exercises.”

Henrik rushes in and witnesses the “electrical storm” in the room, and everyone rushes out before more damage can be caused. The authorities sedate Eric with medication. And a U.S. Embassy official named Cora Hathaway (played by Priyanka Bose) is summoned to take Eric by helicopter to a place that isn’t made clear in the movie because this movie’s screenplay is kind of a sloppy mess. However, viewers can assume that he’s going somewhere for scientific tests.

Eric is strapped to a gurney during the helicopter ride. But when he wakes up and sees that he’s essentially being imprisoned against his will, he goes crazy and creates such a big electrical storm that it causes the helicopter to crash into the ocean. Everyone on the plane dies except for Cora (who ends up in a hospital) and Eric, who has temporarily disappeared. Cora eventually gets released from the hospital and makes it her mission to track down Eric so he can be put back into the custody of the government.

Meanwhile, Eric shows up in the outdoor parking lot of the apartment building where Christine just happens to be at that moment. Somehow, in the short time that Christine and Eric have known each other, Eric has managed to find out where Christine lives. Viewers will have to assume that he was able to look up that information in between causing electrical storms, surviving a helicopter crash in the ocean, finding his way back to land, and then showing up at Christine’s place in the hopes that she’ll want to hang out with him while he’s a fugitive.

It turns out that Christine does want to hang out with Eric and help him elude capture by law enforcement. She tells him, “I’m going take you to my friend’s cabin, and we’re going to figure it out.” The rest of the movie is basically Eric and Christine going on the run together. There’s only one moment when Christine doubts her decision to help Eric, but she shows the kind of immediate loyalty to him that makes it obvious she’s romantically attracted to him. Eric and Christine’s inevitable “big moment” kiss comes later in the movie.

Wolff is serviceable in this poorly written role. He tries to infuse a “lost soul” persona into Eric’s character, but the character is so vague that it’s a wasted effort to try to bring gravitas to the role. The problem is that “Mortal” tells almost nothing about Eric and his background until toward the end of the film, which makes it hard for viewers to root for Eric while he tries to evade capture. The other actors in the film are mediocre, while Bose is just plain awful with her emotionless, wooden delivery of her lines.

And speaking of the U.S. Embassy official Cora, it doesn’t make sense that she would be heading up the task force to find Eric. Embassy officials are political diplomats, not law enforcement or part of a government’s military defense. Based on all the destruction that Eric causes in the movie, the Norwegian military would be the ones to take over if a seemingly crazy guy was out there causing electrical storms that are bad enough to burn bridges, roads, buildings and people.

Even though Cora has seen firsthand how dangerous Eric can be, she wears no protective gear the entire time that she’s trying to hunt him down. She’s dressed as if she’s about to go for a nature hike. And the only indication that she survived a traumatic plane crash in the ocean is that she has a small band-aid on her forehead. Yes, this movie is that stupid.

As for Eric’s big “secret” at the end of the movie, it looks like a blatant cash grab to latch on to the popularity of a certain blockbuster movie franchise. It’s too bad that the filmmakers of “Mortal” couldn’t come up with a more original story. The visual effects and cinematography in “Mortal” are fairly good, but because of the moronic way that this story is told, it doesn’t matter how good the movie’s visuals might look if the dialogue and basic storyline are of such low quality that it’s embarrassing. All the electrical storms and fires concocted for this movie still can’t ignite the film’s very dull and unimaginative plot.

Saban Films released “Mortal” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and VOD on November 6, 2020. The movie’s Blu-ray and DVD release date is November 10, 2020.

Review: ‘Centigrade,’ starring Genesis Rodriguez and Vincent Piazza

August 30, 2020

by Carla Hay

Genesis Rodriguez and Vincent Piazza in “Centigrade” (Photo courtesy of IFC Films/IFC Midnight)


Directed by Brendan Walsh

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway, the dramatic film “Centigrade” features a two-person cast (one Latina woman and one white man), portraying a middle-class, American married couple.

Culture Clash: The husband and the wife (who’s pregnant) are buried underneath snow in their SUV, which got trapped during a snowstorm, and they both disagree on how to get rescued.

Culture Audience: “Centigrade” will appeal mostly to people who have the patience to sit through a feature-length movie that’s not very well-written and drags out the story in some implausible ways.

Do you want to watch an 87-minute movie about two people trapped in their car during a snowstorm—and that’s all you see for almost the entire film? The answer to that question indicates how much you’re willing to tolerate watching “Centigrade,” a movie that is supposed to be a thriller but ends up being a disappointing snoozefest. The filmmakers of “Centigrade” have taken this “trapped in a car” concept, which should have been a short film, and stretched it out to a very boring slog where not a whole lot happens except some repetitive arguing between the couple who are trapped in the car.

Normally, a movie that’s entirely about people trapped in a small, enclosed space would be an ideal way to go deep into insightful character revelations or some fascinating dialogue. When people are trapped in a small space together, all they have are each other and their thoughts. A movie with these circumstances has to rely more heavily on character development than other movies that take place in various settings.

Unfortunately, director Brendan Walsh (who co-wrote the screenplay with Daley Nixon) makes this story so generic and dull, that it’s mind-boggling how anyone thought that this screenplay was good enough to be a feature-length film. At the end of “Centigrade” viewers will learn almost nothing insightful about the American married couple at the center of the story.

What is shown at the beginning of the movie (which takes place in 2002, before smartphones existed) is that the wife is named Naomi (played by Genesis Rodriguez), her husband is named Matt (played by Vincent Piazza), and she’s pregnant and in her pregnancy’s last trimester. They are the only characters who speak on camera for the entire movie. Despite Naomi being so close to giving birth, she and Matt foolishly decided to drive their SUV in a snowstorm in Norway, on the way to their hotel. Naomi and Matt are in Norway because she’s an author who is scheduled to do publicity appearances for her new novel.

Seriously, what woman who’s seven to nine months pregnant would willingly put herself in the potentially dangerous situation of traveling on a road for several miles during a big snowstorm? Naomi does. And her husband Matt (who’s the driver) is just as reckless to be part of this decision too.

The beginning of their car trip is not shown in the movie, but apparently, the snow got bad enough that Matt decided to pull over to the side of the deserted road. They’ve parked about 50 miles east of the hotel where they are supposed to be staying. It’s not shown in the movie how bad the snowstorm got for Matt to stop driving.

But at some point, he decided to pull over to the side of the road so he and Naomi could get some rest and wait for visibility on the road to get better. There are no flashbacks in this story, but viewers find out that this was the chain of events, because Matt and Naomi argue later about his decision that they should sleep on the side of a deserted road during a snowstorm.

The movie begins with Naomi and Matt waking up in the car and finding out that the car is completed buried in the snow, and they can’t get out. And for a long time, they can’t open the windows either, because all the windows are frozen shut. It must have been a very long nap for all that snow to accumulate so heavily that their SUV to be completely hidden under a mound of snow. Keep in mind, they weren’t in an avalanche.

And wouldn’t you know, of course they can’t get reception on their phones, except for a brief moment when something happens that doesn’t improve their chances of being rescued anyway. And, of course, being trapped for what turns out to be several days means that their phone batteries will eventually die. That’s not implausible.

What really makes this movie hard to take is that Matt insists on waiting in the car until help arrives, even though it’s obvious that the car is buried underneath so much snow that they’re trapped. Therefore, it’s very likely that their car won’t be able to be seen at all underneath the snow. And exterior shots in the movie show that’s exactly the case.

Naomi wants to break a window and try to escape, but Matt (in a very condescending way) tells her to calm down because someone will eventually pass on the road and rescue them. They argue about it, and this disagreement about how to solve their problem takes up a good deal of the first third of the movie. When Naomi asks why Matt doesn’t want to break a window and try to dig their way out of the snow, his reply is: “Because we don’t know what’s out there. At least we can stay warm in the car.”

Although some viewers might be infuriated that Naomi eventually goes along with Matt’s choice, there is somewhat of a plausible explanation for it: She’s pregnant and probably doesn’t want to do anything that could physically harm the baby. Had she not been pregnant, who knows if she would’ve disregarded what Matt wanted and tried to break a window and crawl out herself?

At any rate, Matt and Naomi decide to stay in the car, where they only have two bottles of water to drink. Naomi estimates that the food they have in the car can last maybe 12 days. Matt and Naomi also happen to have a candle and match in the car, so they light the candle to keep themselves warm. Naomi’s pregnancy isn’t mentioned very often in the movie, except during certain key moments when the pregnancy is used as a reason for a plot development. And there’s very little plot development overall in this sluggishly paced film.

As anyone with basic survival skills knows, water is much more important than food, so Matt is way too calm about their dire situation to make this a credible story. They might have enough food for 12 days, but not enough water. And since Matt doesn’t want to break any of the car windows, they can’t get to the snow as a source of water. “Once it’s broken, it’s broken!,” Matt lectures Naomi when she keeps going back to the idea of breaking a window to escape.

At some point, the issue of bodily functions has to be addressed in this story, but even that is handled in an unrealistic way. Naomi is grossed-out by the idea of urinating in the one towel that’s in the car (it’s Matt’s suggestion), but the movie doesn’t even acknowledge that defecation has to happen too. And when viewers find out by the end of the movie how many days the people were trapped in the car, the movie takes on a whole new level of stupidity by ignoring that an accumulation of defecation (which would happen in real life) would be a very real and dangerous health hazard, especially for a pregnant woman. It’s unpleasant to mention, but necessary for this movie’s credibility.

Even just a few days into the ordeal, there’s no sign that this very real bodily function has taken place in the car. That doesn’t mean that the movie had to show all the details, but there isn’t even any dialogue about Matt and Naomi being nauseated by the smell of their own defecation. It’s one of the many plot inconsistences in “Centigrade,” which went out of its way to show Naomi’s disgust over urinating into a towel, and yet overlooked the far unhealthier situation of being trapped in a car that is also being used as a place to defecate, with no way to open the doors and windows.

Since the movie doesn’t want to realistically acknowledge that Matt and Naomi’s car has essentially become their unflushable toilet too, are there any realistic scenes where they try to prevent themselves from getting hypothermia? No. Not surprisingly, the car heater doesn’t seem to be working.

And what about that lit candle in that tightly enclosed space? The movie never acknowledges how that lit candle can negatively affect oxygen levels. There are so many things that “Centigrade” lacks in realism that viewers will be rolling their eyes while watching this film, if they haven’t fallen asleep before it ends.

So with a lack of medical and scientific realism in this “trapped in a car” movie, that just leaves the dialogue to possibly save this movie. But “Centigrade” falls very short in that area too. There’s a lot of unnecessary filler dialogue that goes nowhere in “Centigrade.”

During their ordeal, Naomi rambles on about some stories she’s thinking about writing. One of the story ideas is about an elderly woman in Paris who lives alone and gets stuck in her bathroom. She starts clanging on the bathroom door to get help. Her neighbors hear the noise and complain about it, but they don’t go over to where the woman lives to see what’s wrong. And so, the woman doesn’t get rescued until the landlord comes over to collect his rent.

What is the point of this story? Nothing, except it’s a lead-in to this insipid dialogue: Matt says, “Who gets stuck in a bathroom?” Naomi replies, “The same idiots who get stuck in a blizzard.”

Matt also gets upset when Naomi announces that she’s already planning for their bodies to be found: “I think we should write a letter for when we’re discovered.” “Centigrade” also has a few predictable “false hope” scenes, where it looks like Naomi and Matt could be rescued, but then they’re not.

As the only two actors in the movie who speak on camera, Rodriguez and Piazza don’t have much to do with their dull and dreary roles, because most of the hollow dialogue gives no real insight into their personalities. Naomi spends more time talking about what she wants to write instead of talking about what’s going to happen to her unborn child. The movie is so out of touch with reality that it doesn’t really show that the biggest worry for expectant parents in this situation would be the fate of their child.

Piazza does a little bit of a better job in his role than Rodriguez does in hers, because it seems like she’s just reading some of her lines instead of acting. Rodriguez also has some unrealistic mannerisms throughout the first two-thirds of the movie that will make people forget that she’s supposed to playing a pregnant woman.

There’s no context in the movie about how Matt and Naomi met, how long they’ve been married, and why they fell in love with each other. This type of context would go a long way in getting the audience to root for Matt and Naomi to get rescued. Matt reveals a secret during the ordeal, but it’s not a secret that will change his relationship with Naomi.

You wouldn’t know that these spouses and their unborn child are in a life-and-death situation by the way that Matt and Naomi just slump in the car and listlessly talk about what they’re thinking, in between their unproductive arguments. There’s no real heart-pounding urgency to this story, no escalating tension over what their escape plan should be if no one comes to rescue them, no growing panic over whether or not their baby will survive. This badly written and tediously paced film not only has the characters buried in snow, but the movie also buries itself in substandard nonsense.

IFC Films/IFC Midnight released “Centigrade” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and VOD on August 28, 2020.

Review: ‘Out Stealing Horses,’ starring Stellan Skarsgård, Bjørn Floberg, Jon Ranes, Tobias Santelmann and Danica Curcic

August 13, 2020

by Carla Hay

Jon Ranes and Tobias Santelmann in “Out Stealing Horses” (Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures)

“Out Stealing Horses”

Directed by Hans Petter Moland

Norwegian and Swedish with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway and Sweden in three specific years (1948, 1956 and 1999), the dramatic film “Out Stealing Horses” features an all-white cast of characters representing the working-class.

Culture Clash: A reclusive 66-year-old man remembers a pivotal summer when he was 15 years old and when his family and a neighbor’s family experienced some turmoil that changed their lives forever.

Culture Audience: “Out Stealing Horses” will appeal primarily to fans of star Stellan Skarsgård and to people who like European arthouse films.

Stellan Skarsgård and Bjørn Floberg in “Out Stealing Horses” (Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures)

How does a person’s childhood define who that person is an adult? That question is posed in the dramatic film “Out Stealing Horses,” an often-morose character study that is partly a “coming of age” story and partly a “coming to terms” story, as one very reclusive man looks back on a turning point in his life.

Hans Petter Moland wrote and directed “Out Stealing Horses,” which is based on the Per Petterson novel of the same name. The beginning of the movie takes place in rural Norway in November 1999, when 66-year-old widowed retiree Trond Sander (played by Stellan Skarsgård) is settling in his isolated house during a snowy night. Trond says in a voiceover: “All my life I’ve dreamed of being in a place like this.”

Trond also says that he won’t be part of the village’s New Year’s Eve celebrations to usher in the new millennium, and that he’s looking forward to spending New Year’s Eve alone and drunk. Why is Trond so reclusive and seemingly depressed? Part of the reason is because his wife died three years earlier in a car accident in which Trond was driving the car and she was a passenger.

But there are other reasons why Trond doesn’t really like to be around other people. And those reasons are made clearer when Trond’s memories of a life-changing summer are triggered after he encounters a 61-year-old man named Lars Haug (played by Bjørn Floberg), who happens to be outside Trond’s home on that snowy November night.

Lars and Trond see each other because Lars has been out looking for his Border Collie dog Poker and calling the dog’s name. The dog eventually comes back to Lars, who introduces himself to Trond as one of the neighbors. There’s something a little mentally “off” about Lars, because while he was looking for his dog, he tells Trond an odd, random story about how when he was 19, he was forced to shoot a German Shepherd out of self-defense.

During the course of their conversation, Trond realizes that he knows Lars from when they were children, but they haven’t seen each other in decades. The movie then flashes back to the summer of 1948, when Trond was 15 years old and living as an only child with his parents in rural Norway. The parents in this story don’t have names, which is a symbolic
and psychological indication that Trond wants to block out some bad memories.

What happens in that flashback won’t be revealed here, but it’s enough to say that young Trond (played by Jon Ranes, in his film debut) and his stern, domineering father (played by Tobias Santelmann) have a tension-filled relationship. Trond’s mother (played by Beate Mostraumin) is loving but fairly passive.

Trond’s family is friendly with a neighbor family that includes a husband and wife (played by Pål Sverre Hagen and Danica Curcic); their 17-year-old son Jon (played by Sjur Vatne Brean); and their 10-year-old fraternal twin sons Lars (played by Torjus Hopland Vollan) and Odd. One day during that summer, when Jon and Trond go outside to steal some horses as a prank, Trond notices that Jon is acting very strangely. The lives of both families then become intertwined through a series of circumstances and choices.

Because the majority of the movie consists of the flashback scenes, Skarsgård isn’t in the movie has much as people might think he is. The heart of the movie really lies with young Trond, who has to grow up very quickly that summer, as he learns some harsh life lessons.

Ranes makes an impressive film debut in this role, since his character goes through the biggest transformation during his adolescence in the story. He perfectly captures the angst, vulnerability and bravado of a teenager going through some experiences that will impact him for the rest of his life.

As the older Trond looking back on his younger years, Skarsgård does a fine job as someone coming to terms with his past. By the end of the movie, it’s very clear why Trond has spent most of his life suppressing his emotions and why he has reached a point where he wants to become a recluse.

The movie’s direction, cinematography (by Rasmus Videbæk) and production design (by Jørgen Stangebye Larsen) expertly craft the emotional and physical contrasts of the worlds inhabited by young Trond and older Trond. The world of young Trond is brighter, bigger and filled with more hope and possibilities. The world of older Trond is cold, dark and lonely.

“Out Stealing Horses” is a solid movie that does a very good visual interpretation of the novel. Although the character of Trond is a specific person, the movie’s themes about family dynamics and childhood memories can resonate with many people.

Magnolia Pictures released “Out Stealing Horses” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and VOD on August 7, 2020. The movie was released in Europe in 2019.

Review: ‘The Painter and the Thief,’ starring Barbora Kysilkova and Karl-Bertil Nordland

May 22, 2020

by Carla Hay

Karl-Bertil Nordland and Barbora Kysilkova in “The Painter and the Thief” (Photo courtesy of Neon)

“The Painter and the Thief”

Directed by Benjamin Ree

English and Norwegian with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway, the documentary “The Painter and the Thief” has an all-white cast of characters representing the middle-class.

Culture Clash: A talented painter befriends a drug-addicted criminal after he stole two of her paintings, and their complicated relationship often causes friction in their lives.

Culture Audience: “The Painter and the Thief” will appeal mostly to people who are interested in unique, well-made documentaries about emotionally damaged adults.

Karl-Bertil Nordland in “The Painter and the Thief” (Photo courtesy of Neon)

By far one of the best documentaries of the year, “The Painter and the Thief” is not a celebrity profile, does not push a political agenda, and will not uncover scandalous information that’s meant to shock people. Instead, the documentary beautifully tells a story of two people who have formed an unexpectedly intense friendship because of an unlikely connection. The two people at the heart of the story—Barbora Kysilkova and Karl-Bertil Nordland—became close friends after he was arrested in 2015 for breaking into the Gallery Nobel in Oslo and stealing two valuable paintings that she made.

Kysilkova and Nordland, who were both in their 30s when this film was made, did not know each other prior to the crime. The break-in and theft were caught on surveillance video, which is why Nordland and his accomplice were quickly arrested. Nordland said in his court testimony and he told many other people (including Barbara) that he and the accomplice did not intend to steal any particular paintings. They just happened to like what they saw in Kysilkova’s paintings and they randomly stole them. The paintings were worth almost €20,000, according to a TV news report shown in the documentary.

Kysilkova felt compelled to strike up a conversation with Nordland while he was sitting alone during a waiting period in the courtroom proceedings. This brief encounter is presented in audio only and augmented by courtroom illustrations, since video cameras were not allowed inside the courtroom. And that’s how their friendship began, but then she did something unexpected: She asked Nordland if she could paint a portrait of him. And he agreed.

Kysilkova originally intended to talk to Nordland to find out what happened to her paintings, which had not been recovered by investigators. The documentary shows conversations that Kysilkova and Nordland had before and after he and his accomplice were each sentenced to 75 days in prison. It’s not the first time that Nordland went to prison and it wasn’t the last time either.

But the documentary shows that there’s more to this story than a compassionate woman who forgave someone who committed a crime against her. What started out as a conversation in a courtroom developed into a deep and complicated friendship that sometimes caused tension in Kysilkova’s relationship with her boyfriend Øystein Stene. Kysilkova and Nordland open up to each other about their past and present lives, which are also revealed in the documentary.

“The Painter and the Thief” does not have interviews with talking heads, animation or re-created scenes with actors. Instead, director Benjamin Ree skillfully lets the story unfold by just showing what happens. He and the other filmmakers got involved in the story when Ree heard that Kysilkova asked Nordland if she could paint his portrait. The early footage of the painter and the thief getting to know each other was actually filmed by a friend of Kysilkova’s who had been documenting her life as an artist.

Even though this documentary’s filmmakers were not there from the beginning of the story, it’s obvious that they did not know how the movie was going to end—and documentaries made without a pre-determined outcome are usually the best type of nonfiction. The film lets viewers go on the journey with the filmmakers to see what happens in this fascinating story.

It’s clear from the beginning of the film that Kysilkova, whose specialty is human portraits, is a very talented painter and a true artist. She’s the type of artist who needs to create every day and will shut herself off from the outside world if necessary when she’s in the midst of creating her art. She has a calm, usually optimistic demeanor, but the movie slowly unravels layers of her personality to show that she’s also attracted to dark subjects (she has a fascination with tragic deaths) and damaged individuals.

Kysilkova is a Czech Repubic native, who previously lived in Berlin before moving to Oslo. Viewers find out during the movie that she relocated to Oslo with her boyfriend Stene (who is several years older than Kysilkova) to escape from a previous relationship with an ex-boyfriend who allegedly physically and emotionally abused her. Stene also mentions that the ex-boyfriend stalked, threatened and harassed them, which is the main reason why they moved to another country. (In the documentary, Kysilkova sometimes refers to Stene as her “husband,” but it’s made clear in the film that they are not married.)

As a child, Kysilkova was a sensitive soul with a capacity for kindness and compassion that go beyond what an average person has. For example, when she was a child who visited the grave of a dead relative, she noticed that there was a grave of an unnamed Jewish girl that would never have any visitors, so Kysilkova would leave flowers on the grave too.

And throughout the film, Kysilkova is described as someone who doesn’t hesitate to help friends and other people who are down on their luck. She’s the type of person who, even if she’s struggling to pay for food for herself, won’t hesitate to buy a meal for someone who needs it. Kysilkova’s parents are not seen or mentioned in the film, so that part of her background remains a mystery in the documentary.

And how did Nordland become a drug addict and criminal? His troubled background gives some insight. He had a happy childhood living on a farm with his parents and his younger brother and sister. But when his parents divorced when he was 8, his life was thrown into chaos. His mother left with his two younger siblings, and he never had contact with any of them again.

His father raised him, but was frequently away because he worked a lot. (Nordland’s father is still in his son’s life, as shown by a few scenes in the documentary.) After high school, Nordland worked with special-needs kids and seemed to be on track to leading a productive life.

But somewhere along the way, he fell in with the wrong crowd, and he became a criminal and a drug addict. It’s apparent that the trauma of his childhood has led to his lifelong feelings of abandonment, loneliness and feeling inferior to other people. Nordland isn’t self-pitying, but it’s clear from the movie that he has a lot of inner turmoil.

“The Painter and the Thief” uses an unconventional tactic by not having all of this biographical information revealed from first-person interviews, but by having Kysilkova and Nordland reveal some of this information about each other’s lives in voiceover narration. It’s a way for viewers to discover what each person in the friendship confided to each other.

Nordland says in the movie that while it seemed like Kysilkova was the one studying him for their portrait sessions, he was also studying her. And the film sometimes switches back and forth from being told from Kysilkova’s perspective and Nordland’s perspective. Because of the documentary’s outstanding editing from Robert Stengеrd, these double perspectives work very well in the film.

At one point in the film, Kysilkova marvels in a voiceover narration about Norland being a fascinating dichotomy. She says that under different circumstances, he could have ended up as a terrorist or the prime minister of Norway. Norland also says in a separate voiceover that he’s also noticed two sides of Kysilkova, because although she has a sweet and kind nature, her fascination with death and dark subjects is reflected in some of art and her life choices.

From the beginning of his friendship with Kysilkova, Nordland admits that he’s a hardcore drug addict. He tells her that his drug addiction is why he doesn’t remember what happened to the stolen paintings, because he was strung out on meth and other drugs when he committed the crime. He says that the entire month of the theft was “a blur” to him. He tells her, “How can you understand that’s been awake for four days and using 20 grams of amphetamine and eating 100 pills?”

Nordland is also candid with Kysilkova about his criminal record. And during a portrait session, he opens up to her how most of the friends he knew when he was a rebellious teenager are now dead or in prison. Instead of being weekend partiers, “We liked to party from Wednesday to Wednesday,” he tells Kysilkova. Her response? “I like your sense of humor.”

Kysilkova’s non-judgmental approach to Nordland is one of the main reasons why their friendship was able to evolve into a deep and trusting bond. When she shows him the finished portrait, he bursts into tears in a way that someone cries when they have a lifetime of emotional pain to let out. It’s one of the most powerful scenes in the film. And it’s also a turning point in Norland and Kysilkova’s relationship, because it’s clear that Norland hasn’t been that open with someone in a very long time.

Soon after this emotional breakthrough, Kysilkova visits Nordland in his apartment that he shares with his girlfriend Samara, also known as Sammy, who isn’t there when Kysilkova comes to visit. Kysilkova compliments Nordland on how his apartment has many pictures on the wall, because she says she doesn’t really like minimalist interior design. It’s during this visit that Nordland presents her with an emotionally moving letter.

In yet another example of one friend saying what the other is feeling, he asks her to read the letter aloud. In the letter, he tells her: “You inspire and teach me so much in my sometime emotional life … Art isn’t just a painting, but so much more—all the feelings, tears. Nobody has ever seen me vulnerable like you [have]. True, pure friendship.”

Nordland says later in the film, “Because of my background, I’ve always been skeptical of strangers.” When he first met Kysilkova, he thought that she was trying to trick him or expose him. But when she showed that she genuinely wanted to be his friend, that’s when he decided to trust her.

But are they really just platonic friends? Throughout the film, there are signs that Norland and Kysilkova are also sexually attracted to each other and falling in love, by the way they look at each and make flirtatious remarks. She sometimes blushes and gets giggly in his presence. And he writes letters to her that sound a lot like love notes.

Do they act on this attraction? The documentary provides more insight, but Norland and Kysilkova’s deep bond doesn’t go unnoticed by Kysilkova’s boyfriend, who’s visibly uncomfortable with these two getting closer to each other. Kysilkova and Stene are in couples therapy, and the documentary includes footage from a therapy session. Kysilkova and Nordland are so close that she even confides to him that she doesn’t really like being in couples therapy.

The film also shows Stene and Kysilkova arguing about the ethics of her doing a close-up portrait of a wound that Norland has in the middle of his hand. It’s a puncture wound that people with religious knowledge might notice as being similar to a Christ-like stigmata wound, which might be one of the reasons why Kysilkova wants to do the portrait. Stene thinks it’s inappropriate for his girlfriend to do this portrait, while Kysilkova admits it might seem unethical, but it’s not unethical if the person who’s being painted doesn’t have a problem with it. It’s obvious from this argument that the real issue isn’t the portrait but the growing emotional intimacy between Kysilkova and Nordland.

As for Nordland’s girlfriend Sammy (an older lady whose tattooed personal style is reminiscent of a buzzcut Wendy O. Williams), she seems to be okay with the friendship between Kysilkova and Nordland. If Sammy had any jealousy issues, they’re not shown in the documentary. In fact, Kysilkova comes up with the idea to do an intimate portrait of Nordland and Sammy together, where they both are in a scantily clad, romantic embrace in a love seat. It’s a portrait idea that will have special significance at the end of the film.

Kysilkova and Nordland have a close friendship, but there are times when Kysilkova seems blissfully naïve or very much in denial about how Nordland’s drug addiction affects his behavior and their friendship. She can’t seem to understand why he disappears for long period of time. (There’s a scene of her leaving frustrated voice mail messages for him when he doesn’t call her back.)

And in another scene, a very unhealthy-looking and obviously strung-out Nordland (whose sunken face is an obvious sign of meth addiction) comes over to her place and seems in a daze and emotionally distant. And she wonders aloud why he’s acting that way.

In another scene, Nordland calls her while he’s clearly high on some illegal substance and starts rambling to her in an agitated state about how he’s going leave Oslo and to move to the country. Instead of being alarmed, she cheerfully responds, “Okay, talk to you later.” You don’t have to be a therapist to see these are classic signs of a co-dependent relationship. The question is if it’s destructive or healing.

Watching the film, viewers will also wonder who cares enough about Nordland to try to get him into rehab. That issue is addressed in the movie. And what happens after that also brings some twists and turns to the story that will take the audience on an emotional rollercoaster, as someone in the film experiences a major transformation.

In a world that’s often focused on how governments and societies affect people’s lives, “The Painter and the Thief” is a superb testimonial about how a relationship between two people can have an equally important impact on someone’s life. It’s also an example of how true friendship can come from unexpected places if someone is open to it. The very last image in the movie leaves no doubt about that.

Neon released “The Painter and the Thief” on Hulu, digital, VOD and in select U.S. virtual cinemas and drive-in theaters on May 22, 2020.

Copyright 2017-2024 Culture Mix