Norwegian artist Edvard Munch is no doubt famous for "The Screaming Man" and other such incredible artwork, and in order to tell the unique story of this man from 1884-1894, who better than who I think the most underrated and overlooked filmmaker of all time, Peter Watkins. And Watkins with what he has, in 1974, was able to create one of the most memorable and unique movies of all time. In my opinion, this is easily the greatest TV movie, and the greatest biopic of all time. This mesmerizing 3 hrs, 30 mins is without a single doubt one of the greatest masterpieces of art house cinema.
"Well," you might ask, "what departs this film from others of its kind?" Well, the fact is, Peter Watkins has a unique style. All of his films are shown in a documentary style. Completely blurring the line of documentary and drama, this genius creates films that provide very interesting experiences for the audience watching. Weather it's pure fiction like "Punishment Park" or "The War Game", or based on a true story like "La Commune" and of course this film, all of them share that documentary feel and style.
And that is why this movie is able to be so different from others like it. The film uses a narrator to explain many of the events that occur in the film, and uses actors and sets to recreate the time period, but also to provide interviews, of course ones that never happened, however playing off as if they did happen.
The movie explains all the major things to happen to this interesting man from 1884-1894, all the loss and struggle, praise and criticism he went through, and showing how it was reflected in the art he made.
And instead of chronicling his entire life like most biopics do, this one only takes one part of his life and expands upon it. I mean, if the film is already 3 hours, well how long would it have been if it chronicled his whole life? The movie would be endless.
Anyway, it's also an amazing TV movie. There are no obvious commercial breaks, no obvious low production value. If you showed me this movie, and I didn't know what it was, I would think it got a theatrical release.
As an art house film, it also succeeds, giving the audience an experience, being a film that's more along the lines of an art piece, rather than anything else. The movie transcends the walls and barriers that separate genre, and by the end, completely tears them down. It's so incredibly made.
When I saw the 8.3/10 rating this movie had on IMDb, I was a little skeptical. "Really, the same rating as 'Citizen Kane'?" I ask myself. And discovering the 3 and a half hour runtime, I was more questioning.
However, when I found the film on YouTube, I watched it. And it changed my perspective on how films can be made. I looked up the director of the film, and I found his other films, I loved them as well. But "Edvard Munch" probably stands out the most to me.
Now, Peter Watkins is one of my favorite film directors, and "Edvard Munch" is one of my favorite films. I adore the work of Watkins and Munch, but I feel Watkins is more of an underdog. He never got as much recognition as I feel he deserves. Take this seriously when I say it, Watkins is easily comparable to Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa.
Please, watch the film, the full thing can be found on Youtube with English subtitles. Sure, it's 3 hrs, 30 mins; but it's more than worth it. I hope it changes your ideas on film like it did for me.
"Well," you might ask, "what departs this film from others of its kind?" Well, the fact is, Peter Watkins has a unique style. All of his films are shown in a documentary style. Completely blurring the line of documentary and drama, this genius creates films that provide very interesting experiences for the audience watching. Weather it's pure fiction like "Punishment Park" or "The War Game", or based on a true story like "La Commune" and of course this film, all of them share that documentary feel and style.
And that is why this movie is able to be so different from others like it. The film uses a narrator to explain many of the events that occur in the film, and uses actors and sets to recreate the time period, but also to provide interviews, of course ones that never happened, however playing off as if they did happen.
The movie explains all the major things to happen to this interesting man from 1884-1894, all the loss and struggle, praise and criticism he went through, and showing how it was reflected in the art he made.
And instead of chronicling his entire life like most biopics do, this one only takes one part of his life and expands upon it. I mean, if the film is already 3 hours, well how long would it have been if it chronicled his whole life? The movie would be endless.
Anyway, it's also an amazing TV movie. There are no obvious commercial breaks, no obvious low production value. If you showed me this movie, and I didn't know what it was, I would think it got a theatrical release.
As an art house film, it also succeeds, giving the audience an experience, being a film that's more along the lines of an art piece, rather than anything else. The movie transcends the walls and barriers that separate genre, and by the end, completely tears them down. It's so incredibly made.
When I saw the 8.3/10 rating this movie had on IMDb, I was a little skeptical. "Really, the same rating as 'Citizen Kane'?" I ask myself. And discovering the 3 and a half hour runtime, I was more questioning.
However, when I found the film on YouTube, I watched it. And it changed my perspective on how films can be made. I looked up the director of the film, and I found his other films, I loved them as well. But "Edvard Munch" probably stands out the most to me.
Now, Peter Watkins is one of my favorite film directors, and "Edvard Munch" is one of my favorite films. I adore the work of Watkins and Munch, but I feel Watkins is more of an underdog. He never got as much recognition as I feel he deserves. Take this seriously when I say it, Watkins is easily comparable to Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa.
Please, watch the film, the full thing can be found on Youtube with English subtitles. Sure, it's 3 hrs, 30 mins; but it's more than worth it. I hope it changes your ideas on film like it did for me.