Kristin Lavransdatter (Long Version)

However, I must say my daughter in law, who does not know the novels, enjoyed this greatly. If you like Bergman, buy the film. If you like Undset, forget it.


A much flatter, if beautiful, version of a masterpiece   November 21, 2005
Marjorie (Randolph, NJ)
28 out of 31 found this review helpful

There are pros and cons to this adaptation of the _Kristin Lavransdatter_ trilogy. As I believe that it does not matter what darkness there is if what you read ends in light (which is, of course, the theme of the trilogy), I will say the cons first.

The most obvious con is that it is NOT of the _Kristin Lavransdatter_ trilogy, but is taken almost entirely from the first volume. One might cite time constraints, but that is not the real issue here-- anyone who views the movie quickly finds that Ullman's apparent purpose in sharing the tale is not that of Undset, whose literary and spiritual vision of the novel only begins with the tumultuous love affair. To simply tell the tale of _The Wreath_ and leave it at that would be, to Undset's mind, "churning up the mire in the bottom" of the layers of love (divine and human), as Erlend's brother Gunnulf, a character introduced in the second volume, says. The story starts with erotic passion and is brought through life to, at the end, find only the title of both the last volume and the last section of the last volume: The Cross, which is to say, the ultimate and perfect expression of the love which we search for in our passions, infatuations, obsessions. Ullman's movie, however, is very modern-- a tale of the Scary Middle Ages (TM) repressing Passionate Love (TM.) It's cliched and flat. To give an example, in the book Fru Aashild remarks to Kristin that she has never asked God for mercy, and also never complained to God for what He gave her in return. This is a characteristic statement for the novel-- a rather open-ended, weighty statement about man's relationship to God. In the movie, it is changed to a remark about never asking God's mercy, because 'love makes its own laws,' so clearly what she did in the name of love was totally fine, but for the intervention of the Evil Patriarchy. The actress then smiles knowingly at young Kristin, who is just beginning to learn that her passion must, of course, supersede rules and regulations. Focusing on these rules would drive you to neurosis, clearly, such as in the case of the character of Helga, who was completely made up for the movie. The religious themes in general are downplayed (though of course there is a strong religious backdrop)-- we are not introduced to Lavrans's deep piety, nor Kristin's own inner torment and slavery to her own desires. The movie consistently edits out anything pertaining to this inner struggle. In the book, Kristin's war with herself is introduced far before Erlend enters into the narrative. A good example is, after seeing her beautiful and crippled little sister collapse, discussing with herself the possibility of entering a convent so that God might heal Ulvhild. She realizes-- she cannot do it, she cannot give up herself, 'take up her cross' for her sister. It is this and the great sorrow she has over this realization that foreshadow her complex relation to her own sins with Erlend-- her readiness to forget everything for her own desires, and her overwhelming, overpowering sense of guilt (to which, of course, Erlend seems immune.) In the movie, there is mention made of Kristin's wanting to enter a convent to help Ulvhild, but no mention is made of her realization that she could not do it. In fact, the convent is not seen as the ultimate denial of self, but where Kristin wants to run away and hide from the much more demanding world. I'm going on too long with this but my point is that reducing one of the world's great psychological novels to a sordid love story with feminist undertones is akin to turning _The Brothers Karamazov_ into a story about a love triangle (oh, never mind, they already did that in the American movie version.)

Other major con-- casting. Obviously. Kristin Lavransdatter is supposed to be beautiful, young-looking, supple, sweet, full of life. Instead she looks weary, thin, sad. The whole point is in this sweetness of life, there is a darker battle between the beauties of paradise (even on this earth) and the pleasures of this world-- but we do not see that in this plain and serious-looking Kristin. Erlend looks too old and melancholy as well; this is not the handsome lord of Husaby we meet in Undset's works. The major exception to this sad trend is the casting of Eline Ormsdatter-- the actress hired for this is perfect in every way (in my opinion) for the character. In fact, I feel that I got more out of the book character simply from watching her in the movie.

Okay, so pros now. The movie is, of course, visually stunning, which can be expected of someone like Ullman. The visual scope of the film is so impressive-- from the mountains to the water to the church. There is also a very authentic and not at all pretentious feel to the 'medievalness' of the movie, something that is shared with the book, which is remarkable in that it is so concerned with being about the captivating story and very human characters that the novelty of a 14th century setting does not stand out noticeably. It does not feel as if you are reading a historical novel, though everything in the book is authentic and astoundingly researched. It simply feels as if you live in the 14th century, and these are certain people from whom we can learn something.

The acting itself is very good in almost all cases. This to some extent is the novelty of an American watching a foreign film-- 'oh my, that's real emotion' and 'my God, they are all crying on cue!' What's more, apart from the two main characters, almost all of the actors seemed to get across something fundamental about the people they were portraying.

Finally, the film is moving. Very, actually. The mixture of Ullman's technique and Undset's words (when they are not altered) create a very stirring, if not always internally consistent, atmosphere. To watch it, apart from dissecting the themes separated from their original design, is to be emotionally and spiritually affected. This in and of itself was worth buying the DVD.

To summarize-- the film in and of itself is good. Very good, actually. If I had not read the book, this would be one of my favorite movies. Having read the book, however, and having been brought into the depths of its discussion of human nature as it slowly and painfully climbs the mountains to the King, I cannot give this adaptation more than 3 stars. The presentation of Undset's masterpiece is flattened and streamlined, edited and sculpted to a message that passion is good, love affairs are also, and institutions and parents need to get over themselves and realize that young people are right. What happens in the first volume of the trilogy is only planted seeds-- it takes about 800 more pages to see Kristin's soul and the environment which she has altered grow and evolve. Perhaps a film trilogy a la LOTR is in order-- but a director would have to have both the talent of Ullman and a heightened spiritual vision. In any case, I am waiting.


Not To Be Missed   July 12, 2000
Octoberflybaby (Massachusetts USA)
21 out of 22 found this review helpful

You might think, "what, three hours for a movie set in medieval times, how boring!"... Don't let that keep you from seeing this masterpiece, you will be drawn into the life of the characters, especially if you've enjoyed reading the books (I read them every year). Unfortunately, Liv Ullman had tremendous trouble with the distributors of this film, and they forced her to cut many scenes and events, and she vowed she would not film the sequels. What a shame, because the characters develop in such a profound way in the books, including Simon, Kristin's first fiance, who is barely present in the movie. So do see the movie, but you'll get more out of the movie if you also read the unforgettable book on which the movie is based.


A Sad Disappointment   March 17, 2001
Liz Frost (Issaquah, WA USA)
17 out of 22 found this review helpful

The Norwegian landscapes are beautiful in this movie. Other than that, I don't have much good to say about it. If I hadn't already read the books, I would have found this movie utterly impossible to follow. Characters were not developed in the slightest, and key details were omitted, making it difficult to understand what all the fuss and scandal is about. For instance, Kristin's fiance is furious because her lover takes her to a brothel. However, the average viewer would not know why Simon is so angry that Erlend took her to this particular house. The movie never says what it is. Every so often a random scene is thrown in with no explanation, adding to the confusion. Luckily, I watched the movie with my friend who had also read the book, and has spent a year in Norway. We spent the 2 1/2 hours making fun of the silly translations, the overly dramatic acting style, and the fact that Erlend looks like Chuck Norris with dark shaggy hair. Skip the movie. Spend the money buying the book and then hope that somebody makes a better version of this one.


The film captures the essence of Undset and medieval Norway.   July 8, 1999
12 out of 13 found this review helpful

The 1995 International award winning film, Kristin Lavransdatter, captures the essence of Nobel prize winner Sigrid Undset's awesome depiction of medieval Norway during the struggle between paganism and Christianity. Director Ullman, the actors, and the photographers, remove the barriers between the llth century and modern viewers. Every range of human emotion is movingly experienced. The film became even more powerful for me traveling through the beautiful Gulbrandensdalen Valley in Norway, walking through the house and the Nidadros Cathedral film settings, and finally touching the exquisite and richly colored fabrics of the costumes on permanent display. I ordered videos for gifts to hometown libraries.