Hunger

Knut Hamsun's novel 'Hunger' is one of the better known books of the "outsider" canon. It's a great book, but one that must have been difficult to adapt into 'Sult'. It's written in first person, and has a dreamlike and rambling feel as the starving writer battles to write a masterpiece and raise enough money for a meal.

'Sult' starts worryingly. Carlsen's opening shots of the streets of Christiania (Oslo) in 1890 - with wacky carnival music for the theme tune - are reminiscent of a student film. The movie rapidly improves though... as soon as Per Oscarsson starts to act.

Oscarsson genuinely looks starved and near death, with hollow eyes and a teetering walk in the wind. Yet he also captures Pontus' showy arrogance and refusal to admit to anyone that he is starving. Oscarsson walks that line perfectly, and there's enough in his looks and movement to gradually draw sympathy. I found myself willing for Pontus to just ask for help... to the point I wanted to shake him... but he ploughs resolutely on, convinced he'll write something that will blow people's minds.

The film has also been criticised for portraying a stereotype of a starving artist. The counter argument is 'Sult' was one of the first literary portrayals of this stereotype. And even if Pontus isn't as much of a surprise as he would have been 40 - or 100 - years ago, the character is easily interesting enough to maintain attention. There's also plenty of black comedy in the scenes where Pontus visits the pawnbroker and offers ludicrous things for sale, while he still desperately tries to come across as moneyed and intellectual.

I think Carlsen did a superb job of capturing the spirit of 'Hunger', without following it slavishly enough to hurt the visual flow. The film doesn't use lengthy voice-overs, and prefers to let the acting and the situations show Pontus' complex mental state. For that reason, 'Sult' should play for both fans of 'Hunger' and for viewers interested in outsider folks fighting to exist. Sure, the cinematography lacks flair and the movie will be too slow for some, but it's a rewarding and thought provoking movie.

Superficially, this is a collection of tableaux concerning a writer who is so caught up in the identity of a writer that he cannot write, and therefore is starving, both in terms of food, and in terms of the written product. Its actually pretty satisfying at this level. We get it. The character within gets no such nourishment but we as viewers do.

So there's a sort of twist built into the thing, we see a tubelocked artist and depend on an efficient artist to receive the art that conveys this. That means the manner of the way it is constructed matters, and that's why you may want to see this. Because its a complex calculation that the filmmaker has to make. There's a balance here between art that escapes the artist and art that doesn't.

I don't know the book, but presume it is rooted in internal dialog, noted here in a few spots with muted tones and the appearance of our artist as listener for his ramblings. But it is an afterthought in the film. The real center here is in the antiseptic stance we are placed in as viewers. We see but cannot touch. We always find ourselves just a bit beyond the perimeter of this man's artistic reach. Its us that cannot reach him, not he that has trouble reaching us.

Oddly, this reversal works. It may be just me and my deep obsessions with narrative agency, but I think a deliberate decision was made here as sort of role reversal and symmetric reflection at the same time. Its characteristic of Scandanavian film problemsolving.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This adaptation of Knut Hamsun's classic 1890 novel "Hunger" is an agony to watch, but it's a very well made film, and Per Oscarsson is magnificent in the proud, deluded, starving and increasingly insane lead role. There has perhaps never been a better depiction of of the self-destructive irrationality of a human being, in this case attempting to remain civilised and 'respectable' in the face of starvation and death. It's a little like watching a car crash in slow-motion, but as a mirror of ordinary madness, it's got a lot to show.

If you enjoy beautiful, Black and White films, HUNGER is one for you to enjoy. The film captures the look and feel of 1890 Oslo to perfection. According to the commentary, in 1966 this picturesque area of the city still existed, and the film was shot on location. Another compelling aspect of this film is the depiction of 'madness'. Per Oscarsson's portrayal really allows the viewer to inhabit his skewed paranoid world.

Dozens of films have demonstrated insanity caused by drugs, alcohol, and sexual obsession. However, in this movie the protagonist is pushed over the edge by sheer force of will.

His unyielding and rigid moral code will not allow him to take even the most reasonable course of action. The movie is bleak and somber, yet one is able to empathize with the character. In fact, the last scene in the film-the last expression on Pontus's face-leaves the viewer with a wide range of possible interpretations. Is the character embracing a new and hopeful turn of events, or is he under the spell of a new obsession?

In 1890, in Christiania, the penniless aspirant writer Pontus (Per Oscarsson) is unemployed and starved, and near to be evicted from his poor room in a low-budget boarding house. The lonely Pontus has written an article and his hope is that the editor of the local newspaper buys his literary composition to raise money to have a meal and pay his debts to his landlord. However, Pontus is too proud and arrogant to accept any charity or money in advance and despite his poor appearance, he insists to tell other people that he does not need any alms. Further, his honesty does not allow him to keep a change wrongly given to him. The hunger Pontus is becoming delusional and having daydreams due to the lack of food. When the weirdo Pontus sees the gorgeous Ylajali (Gunnel Lindblom) walking on the street with her sister, he flirts with her. Sooner the editor asks him to rewrite his article in an appropriate language of newspaper and Ylajali dates him, and it seems that his dreams will finally come true.

"Sult" is an impressive, depressive and heartbreaking character study of one of the most complex characters I have ever seen. The viewer does not have information about the past of Pontus, but his behavior indicates that he was from the aristocracy of the upper-classes that has moved to Norway expecting to become a successful writer but that is actually a loser. Or that he feels superior to the other people and also inferior, at the same time. His personality is contradictory since even under a deep starvation,he keeps his self-esteem, pride and arrogance, capable to hock his jacket to give a handout to a beggar.

Pontus does not give-up and only when he indirectly receives money from Ylajali, he is capable to return to his country. I have never read the novel of Knut Hamsun, but it certainly might be a depressing story. Per Oscarsson has one of the best performances I gave ever seen and participates in every scene through his presence, his visions or his feelings. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Fome" ("Hunger")