Posts

Showing posts with the label Skarsgård (Stellan)

1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 88: Insomnia

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
(John 3:19)

I should admit, I fell asleep a few times while watching Insomnia. Not that it’s ever boring; I was just tired. Stellan Skarsgård’s portrayal of an even wearier sinner is very entertaining. (The story was transplanted to Alaska five years later, in 2002, by Christopher Nolan, with Al Pacino in Skarsgård’s role; I prefer the Nordic version.)

Skarsgård is Engström, an accomplished Swedish homicide cop banished to Norway because of “improprieties” done with/to witnesses. He travels north of the Arctic Circle to investigate a young woman’s killing. He’s chronically sleepless, and the sun-pierced evenings don’t help; even so, he quickly figures out how to lure the killer into a trap. But during the “sting” the killer wounds a policeman and escapes into a dense fog. Engström pursues and shoots, killing a colleague by mistake.

He tells the other police that the killer fired the shot. Now the killer knows that he’s a killer.

He’s forced to truce with the killer, deceive his colleagues, and pin the blame on someone else.

Forced? Why not just tell his colleagues what really happened? It was an accident, after all. But Engström can no longer think of himself as not guilty. He knows his own depravity. In the Arctic, he continues – compulsively – to engage in the kind of “impropriety” that landed him in exile. And he habitually lies to cover his tracks.

All of this takes its toll. There’s a remarkable scene in which Engström waits near a busy sidewalk. Folk stare accusatorily as they pass by. Engström withers under their view. They’re all judging him. The judgment probably is all in his head. You’d think he was the crim, not the cop. When he meets the real crim, he can’t help looking away, can’t help shrinking, as if he were the guilty party.


It’s like a Poe story. The doubling. The paranoia. The sinning rushed into, to relieve the misery of previous sinning.

Decent people surround Engström. Vik, his southern colleague – the man he accidentally kills – offers wry, bleak comfort, even a sort of affection, while alive; in death, he appears in Engström’s daydreams, alarming but not unfriendly. Less disturbing, almost angelic, is a friendly and pretty hotel clerk; Engström makes a hash of that relationship, too. The local police conduct themselves with sympathy and professionalism. One of them, tasked with looking into Vik’s shooting, treats Engström curteously even as she notes inconsistencies in his statement. Engström can’t look her in the eye.


This isn’t a subtle movie. That’s all right. Sometimes, a glaring metaphor – in this case, harsh, inescapable daylight – is what’s required.

One more metaphor: a highway tunnel, the only truly dark place in the movie. This image is more enigmatic. What does it mean when Engström sees the light at the end of this tunnel? Significance aside, is he fit to drive?

1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 16: Breaking the waves

Opening lines:

BESS: “His name is Jan.”

MINISTER: “I do not know him.”

BESS: “He’s from the lake.”

MINISTER: “You know we do not favor matrimony with outsiders.”

ELDER: “Can you even tell us what matrimony is?”

BESS: “It’s when two people are joined in God.”

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The plot of this 160-minute parable is so simple that were I to recount it, your viewing would be spoiled.

And yet, it’d be negligent not to discuss this movie. Roger Ebert and Martin Scorsese both list it among the decade’s ten best. It’s not as good as that, though it’s certainly a landmark of the period – and of the career of the director, Lars von Trier.

In his review, Ebert provides an interpretation of the movie that is very close to my own – at the cost of spoiling almost every plot point. A reader of his website comments: “Nobody ever gave away entire movie plots as proficiently as did Ebert.” But that’s not quite fair. How else could this most skeletal of movies have been analyzed?

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

In bleak, windswept Scotland, village lass Bess (Emily Watson) marries oilman Jan (Stellan Skarsgård). Gentle and easygoing, Jan is indifferent to religion. Bess is profoundly pious (and maybe a bit mad). Her church is ruled by stern elders.

As newlyweds, Bess and Jan are blissful, even ecstatic. Then a brutal hardship, which I’ll not describe, befalls them, and they must make sacrifices to prop each other up – indeed, to save each other. The logic is basically that of an O. Henry story such as “The Gift of the Magi” or “The Last Leaf.”

It’s a tiny chewing-gum morsel of a story, stretched out to near-ridiculous length. Now add this: the hardships and sacrifices that Bess and Jan undergo are grotesque, verging on inhuman. So, the story turns horrific. (Imagine the wife in “The Gift of the Magi” resorting to the vilest prostitution.)

All of this takes place on cliffs and moors and oil rigs over a cold ocean.

Scene by scene, it’s tension-filled, compelling. The handheld camera jerks us into the middle of the action.

But we’re also constantly reminded of the movie’s artificiality. “Chapters” are announced with gorgeous, dream-like title cards set to rock music of the 1970s.


For whatever reason, I was much less affected by Breaking the Waves than by two of von Trier’s other movies, Dancer in the Dark and Melancholia. But if you like those movies, you’ll probably like Breaking the Waves. All three are grimly humorous; all are grainy and naturalistic, with occasional, highly stylized interruptions.

All have stunning conclusions.