Demanding, but brilliant.

"Edvard Munch, in Watkin's subjective documentary setting, is one of the penultimate cultural crusaders, a relic of a dying era in which individualism could, apparently, still conceivably be intuitive and not reactionary." - Eric Henderson

It requires your patience, but this very different take on the artist biopic by Peter Watkins is both one of the only films to successfully convey crafting a work of art of any type, and is one of the tentpoles of his filmography, using his traditional meta documentary style combined with period scenes, and shifts into the past and future through rapid editing, that successfully works.

The clever-clever approach to portraying this story is original, but raises a barricade against any engagement we can have with any of the characters, namely the title one. But what keeps one watching this very long saga is the massive wealth of information on Munch's art-work and the best possible explanations as to why he created them and what or who inspired him.

Peter Watkins sinemayi degistirmis haberimiz yok. Dokumenter kamera yabanciligini yitirdikce biyolojik goze donusuyor ve zaman ve mekan hafiza araciligiyla Munch'un opusen insanlarinin suratlari gibi birbirine kayniyor (Tarkovski solda sifir kalir). Hem zeki, hem politik, hem de sanat pesinde kosan filmlerden cok daha sanatsal.

I don't know much about Munch himself, but what I really like about this film is how it shows the development of an artist in his world -- how the environment, circumstances of history, spirit of the age, all interact together with the individual's own personal relationships, psychological makeup & artistic drive.

one of the best biopics ever, watkins finds a totally unique style and tone.

Watkins' technique of using a documentary style proves to be an excellent method for a biopic. Through narration, interviews and recreations we get an astonishingly complete portrait of the man. I feel quite educated about him and his work, and without ever having been overwhelmed by the information. Poetic touches like quick, repeated flashbacks to childhood traumas or lost loves. A superb, engaging and sometimes beautiful film, easily my favorite by Watkins so far.

Wow, what an impassioned film! Distinctly inquisitive and presumptuously impulsive yet seemingly carefully structured... Sometimes there's as if Watkins seeks to "imitate" (or at least follow up on) Munch's distinctive, impressionistic sensibility, the frames becoming somewhat blurry and painterly at times, entrapping a withdrawn Munch (stirring somewhat nervously into the camera) in a foggy and somehow mystical landscape.

"...images of sensuality captured like birth on film."

Utterly kaleidescopic in the denseness of it's editing, enough to make even Nicholas Roeg blush. More of a Terrence Malick film than Malick himself was making in the '70s.

Much better than usual for a TV biopic. Munch did original, bizarre paintings, so, fittingly, Watkins has made an original, bizarre biography of him. Between the usage of Munch's own diaries, the nonprofessional cast, and the frequent addressing of the camera by the supporting players as if they were being interviewed, it feels like Watkins and his crew travelled back in time to 19th-century Norway, somehow explained to a terrified Munch and family who they were, and filmed a documentary there

Absolutely jaw-dropping in its treatment of the man, his work, environment, and the technique in which the filmmaker conveys this all. I cannot get these uncomfortable, despondent stares out of my mind. The editing is especially phenomenal.

Unusual and original biopic about the great expressionistic painter Edvard Munch and his trials and tribulations. The non-actor cast members do a better job with the parts that are supposed to be a documentary, and not quite as well with the more dramatized parts. Although the movie justified its nearly 3 hours of runtime well, the pacing sometimes felt a bit off.