Narvik is one of those battles you might just have heard about but maybe like me have overlooked. I imagine that in Norway where the battle of Narvik took place, it probably has a significantly higher profile. It is often seen as 'Hitler's first defeat' although in reality it only temporarily delayed the defeat of the allies in Norway. It is a complicated battle as well, with naval, air and ground battles taking place in a relatively short space of time during 1940. It also has a mixture of French, Polish, British, and of course the Norwegians themselves involved in bitter fighting with the Germans.
Therefore any film on this subject has to be assured in its handling of such complex material. The success of this film also depends on how it relates the nature of the battle to another key story in the film. It is that of a personal one, a mother who does a deal with the Nazi Germans, to treat her dangerously ill child, injured by ironically enough, British shelling. The mother's story is also complicated by the fact her husband is a respected fighter in the Norwegian army. This is the setting of a story which also deals with collaboration, and the potential fall out because of it. She betrays two English agents to secure the treatment of her child, which makes her actions treacherous. This she justifies as a way to save her child. The film does pose complicated questions about what you would do to save your child, or whether you should have looked at the wider implications of those actions. You are actually serving a ruthless enemy by that treachery, and that enemy after all has invaded your country. Shouldn't sacrificing your child be part of the greater good?
Naturally, these are not easy questions, and prick what you might assume we consider to be normal moral certainties. It is obviously better not to be unwillingly placed in that position, and Hitler's invasion of Norway means that she has become a complicated victim of the war. She has been placed in that invidious position by the health of her son, and yet we tend to judge people most when they are under extreme pressure. In what we perhaps might unfairly consider to be their 'true nature' There are therefore definitely interesting undercurrents in this film, but I'm not sure the film is entirely successful. It doesn't quite work for me, and what should be a searing experience, doesn't quite land any real emotional punches. It feels like it circles the difficult subjects raised in this film, but doesn't quite have the scalpel's edge to cut through to the centre of them.
It may also suffer from a lack of focus, due to exploring many different aspects raised by the film. The film I should say however is well made, and the plotting, pacing, and narrative arc are easy to follow, which certainly should not be considered a given. The lack of focus is one of an emotional clarity, about the film perhaps not taking a firm moral position itself on the issue it raises. It doesn't evoke enough sympathy for the mother, or enough anger from those aware of her collaboration. It doesn't follow the fate of the English spies, even though we know they were most likely tortured and then shot. The film attempts a complex portrayal of twisting loyalties, but doesn't really show the true cost of what the decisions undertaken by the mother actually mean.
Kristine Hartgen does do excellent work as the mother of the young boy and Carl Martin Eggesbø is good in the role of her husband Gunnar Tofte. So the problems I think lie more with the script rather than the acting. I feel the moments of emotional power are softened too much. The end scene where the husband and wife are reconciled after the husbands initial anger feels like a pat one. It doesn't feel convincing because there seems to be such a short space of time between his first reaction to her treachery and that final scene. The anger directed at the mother by Narvik's population seem to take the form of just standard insults; that appear to lack any of the expected venom. I imagine in Norway collaboration, whatever your feelings about the mother's decision, is still a subject still requiring considerable sensitivity. It feels like the film is quite nervous about what the attitudes to the mother might be; perhaps due to most of the population, not knowing the exigencies of her situation. It comes across as milder, perhaps more distant film because of the emotional softening; deliberate or otherwise. I also detected a faint trace of anti-British sentiment in it, which was perhaps in danger of equalising the illegal invasion of Nazi Germany, with the British involvement in Narvik.
It is a shame this film doesn't quite handle some of the more complicated material as well as it could have done. The war scenes themselves are well done and are tense. An attack on a bridge is very well handled; as is the landing of Norwegian and French troops as a prelude to capturing a mountain top containing a hidden cannon. There is a cliché but nearly always a useful one where a Norwegian soldier looks at the picture of girlfriend of the young soldier he has just shot, and is shocked at the youth of the man he has killed. Any war film at this moment is tempered by the horrible contemporary truth of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is always important to be reminded that war or the threat of it never seems to quite ever go away. There will be the inevitable matters arising of who have been seen to collaborate in Ukraine with the Russians. Those issues will probably have to await years before they are properly explored and resolved. Narvik does provide a reminder of the cost of war; one which of course is never not worth remembering. The film is ambitious, and just about works well enough. My difficulty with it comes with its lack of emotional clarity, and a softening of the issues it explores. There is not enough of that jolting, cold, angry, bitter, callous indifference of war. Narvik does slightly fluff its lines: not enough to stop it being a film well worth watching, but one that of promise that is not quite fulfilled or overly satisfactory.
Therefore any film on this subject has to be assured in its handling of such complex material. The success of this film also depends on how it relates the nature of the battle to another key story in the film. It is that of a personal one, a mother who does a deal with the Nazi Germans, to treat her dangerously ill child, injured by ironically enough, British shelling. The mother's story is also complicated by the fact her husband is a respected fighter in the Norwegian army. This is the setting of a story which also deals with collaboration, and the potential fall out because of it. She betrays two English agents to secure the treatment of her child, which makes her actions treacherous. This she justifies as a way to save her child. The film does pose complicated questions about what you would do to save your child, or whether you should have looked at the wider implications of those actions. You are actually serving a ruthless enemy by that treachery, and that enemy after all has invaded your country. Shouldn't sacrificing your child be part of the greater good?
Naturally, these are not easy questions, and prick what you might assume we consider to be normal moral certainties. It is obviously better not to be unwillingly placed in that position, and Hitler's invasion of Norway means that she has become a complicated victim of the war. She has been placed in that invidious position by the health of her son, and yet we tend to judge people most when they are under extreme pressure. In what we perhaps might unfairly consider to be their 'true nature' There are therefore definitely interesting undercurrents in this film, but I'm not sure the film is entirely successful. It doesn't quite work for me, and what should be a searing experience, doesn't quite land any real emotional punches. It feels like it circles the difficult subjects raised in this film, but doesn't quite have the scalpel's edge to cut through to the centre of them.
It may also suffer from a lack of focus, due to exploring many different aspects raised by the film. The film I should say however is well made, and the plotting, pacing, and narrative arc are easy to follow, which certainly should not be considered a given. The lack of focus is one of an emotional clarity, about the film perhaps not taking a firm moral position itself on the issue it raises. It doesn't evoke enough sympathy for the mother, or enough anger from those aware of her collaboration. It doesn't follow the fate of the English spies, even though we know they were most likely tortured and then shot. The film attempts a complex portrayal of twisting loyalties, but doesn't really show the true cost of what the decisions undertaken by the mother actually mean.
Kristine Hartgen does do excellent work as the mother of the young boy and Carl Martin Eggesbø is good in the role of her husband Gunnar Tofte. So the problems I think lie more with the script rather than the acting. I feel the moments of emotional power are softened too much. The end scene where the husband and wife are reconciled after the husbands initial anger feels like a pat one. It doesn't feel convincing because there seems to be such a short space of time between his first reaction to her treachery and that final scene. The anger directed at the mother by Narvik's population seem to take the form of just standard insults; that appear to lack any of the expected venom. I imagine in Norway collaboration, whatever your feelings about the mother's decision, is still a subject still requiring considerable sensitivity. It feels like the film is quite nervous about what the attitudes to the mother might be; perhaps due to most of the population, not knowing the exigencies of her situation. It comes across as milder, perhaps more distant film because of the emotional softening; deliberate or otherwise. I also detected a faint trace of anti-British sentiment in it, which was perhaps in danger of equalising the illegal invasion of Nazi Germany, with the British involvement in Narvik.
It is a shame this film doesn't quite handle some of the more complicated material as well as it could have done. The war scenes themselves are well done and are tense. An attack on a bridge is very well handled; as is the landing of Norwegian and French troops as a prelude to capturing a mountain top containing a hidden cannon. There is a cliché but nearly always a useful one where a Norwegian soldier looks at the picture of girlfriend of the young soldier he has just shot, and is shocked at the youth of the man he has killed. Any war film at this moment is tempered by the horrible contemporary truth of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is always important to be reminded that war or the threat of it never seems to quite ever go away. There will be the inevitable matters arising of who have been seen to collaborate in Ukraine with the Russians. Those issues will probably have to await years before they are properly explored and resolved. Narvik does provide a reminder of the cost of war; one which of course is never not worth remembering. The film is ambitious, and just about works well enough. My difficulty with it comes with its lack of emotional clarity, and a softening of the issues it explores. There is not enough of that jolting, cold, angry, bitter, callous indifference of war. Narvik does slightly fluff its lines: not enough to stop it being a film well worth watching, but one that of promise that is not quite fulfilled or overly satisfactory.