I could have given this review many titles, but this statement really needs pointing out.
The other thing that needs pointing out is that "faithful adaptation of the Hamsun novel" is code for "you should know what to expect".
Well, if you don't, the film's plot is akin to the plot of "Shaun of the Dead", in other words, irrelevant, a mere contrivance to have the.protagonists do something, while the only thing that matters is what their personal perspectives are doing it. Actually, the parallel to "Shaun of the Dead" doesn't stop there. The films are even about the same subject: a man trying to find happiness with a woman, and they make even somewhat similar observations, both have the craved beauty and both have the down to earth practical one. But "Mysteries" is not a comedy. I wouldn't call it a drama either, the films main intent is to provoke, although that's in the source material, the film's handling of it doesn't try to add any extra provocativeness, in other words: if you don't ponder the film like you would ponder a book, you may not feel provoked at all.
Hamsun's main lines of provocation are: Life's a joke - yes? No? (does nicely for "Shaun of the Dead" as well - again) Is man free to live his own egotistic dreams instead of paying attention to the moment? (Here it departs from "Shaun of the Dead": although that film makes it very obvious that Shaun's dreams are egotistic, there is no question that he is within his rights) Is man made to live by the standard of what he himself can understand to be the right thing? Here it gets very ugly and I will not repeat Hamsun's reasoning, something along the lines of "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:"
The beautiful thing about Hauer's acting is that he's not Hauer for once, but just an actor playing a role. And in this role there is one scene, just a couple of seconds, that contains the rest of his acting career, namely when he stares at the dog, which got him the casting for "Blade Runner" no doubt.
As opposed to "Shaun of the Dead" the film doesn't point out how to understand it by being absurd on the surface, but it does something similar, it uses surreal dream sequences and melodrama that doesn't quite ring true, managing reasonably well to get the viewer into a distanced mindset, although there are some scenes where it fails and only huge deviations from the style of the novel would not, owing to the differences between a novel and a film.
Well, and that's my rather lengthy review of this film.
The other thing that needs pointing out is that "faithful adaptation of the Hamsun novel" is code for "you should know what to expect".
Well, if you don't, the film's plot is akin to the plot of "Shaun of the Dead", in other words, irrelevant, a mere contrivance to have the.protagonists do something, while the only thing that matters is what their personal perspectives are doing it. Actually, the parallel to "Shaun of the Dead" doesn't stop there. The films are even about the same subject: a man trying to find happiness with a woman, and they make even somewhat similar observations, both have the craved beauty and both have the down to earth practical one. But "Mysteries" is not a comedy. I wouldn't call it a drama either, the films main intent is to provoke, although that's in the source material, the film's handling of it doesn't try to add any extra provocativeness, in other words: if you don't ponder the film like you would ponder a book, you may not feel provoked at all.
Hamsun's main lines of provocation are: Life's a joke - yes? No? (does nicely for "Shaun of the Dead" as well - again) Is man free to live his own egotistic dreams instead of paying attention to the moment? (Here it departs from "Shaun of the Dead": although that film makes it very obvious that Shaun's dreams are egotistic, there is no question that he is within his rights) Is man made to live by the standard of what he himself can understand to be the right thing? Here it gets very ugly and I will not repeat Hamsun's reasoning, something along the lines of "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:"
The beautiful thing about Hauer's acting is that he's not Hauer for once, but just an actor playing a role. And in this role there is one scene, just a couple of seconds, that contains the rest of his acting career, namely when he stares at the dog, which got him the casting for "Blade Runner" no doubt.
As opposed to "Shaun of the Dead" the film doesn't point out how to understand it by being absurd on the surface, but it does something similar, it uses surreal dream sequences and melodrama that doesn't quite ring true, managing reasonably well to get the viewer into a distanced mindset, although there are some scenes where it fails and only huge deviations from the style of the novel would not, owing to the differences between a novel and a film.
Well, and that's my rather lengthy review of this film.