I’m wondering if Refn wants to explore the way male aggression can be used for good purposes. Or maybe the film is about the way men can find redemption.
Yeah, but sometimes homocentricity is just an identity riff a young male audience will buy into.
The female read on male aggression might go something like this:
I will lean into you
And you can be the wind
I will open up my mouth
And you can come rushing in
You can rush in so hard
And make it so I can’t breathe
I breathe too much anyway
I can do that anyday
© Ani DiFranco
Manliness
Speaking of which, have you seen BRONSON yet Jazz?
@Ben
Well, if it’s just about manliness, why the subplot involving crusaders and bringing God to others? Why North America and Native Americans?
I haven’t seen Bronson. You think I should?
@Robert
homocentricity? identity riff?
lol. i have a friend who believes this film is evil, simply because it makes u believe it’s very profound and that u just don’t get it
It is a film about science fiction in the sense of mental fiction. not technology. Refn dwelled on this in my interview I did with him http://rocknrollghost.com/2011/09/15/film-interview-nicolas-winding-refn-drive-filmdistrict
Bronson is a much better film than Valhalla Rising. It’s very reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange in tone if you’re into that.
i liked bronson even less. at least valhalla was beautiful to look at
I certainly got through more of BRONSON than VALHALLA RISING. I would check it out as it is just so masculine’d out, it’s bonkers. I left it feeling cold, with no emotional connection to anything in the movie deeper than its style, but at least I didn’t resort to fastforwarding through any of it (see: VALHALLA RISING…I know, I know…that could get me banned from here), and the main actor is shockingly good as Bronson, employing a variety of acting styles to convey the facets of the man.
tom hardy is good in it, no doubt. did it remind anyone of chopper? which was a lot more fun btw.
i think valhalla rising made a great post-rock music video :) i sincerely hope drive is better
Yeah. Or if Sleep had provided a wall-to-wall soundtrack to cover the entire film.
LOL YES ^ perfect!
I don’t know what Valhalla Rising was about. By the end of watching it I didn’t care; I just wanted it to be over.
I think its a revenge tale by Odin on christianity. Maybe the boy will pave the way for the norse gods to return, and for christianity to die.
@Ben D
It’s very reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange in tone if you’re into that.
Covers same terrain, huh? That’s not enticing me.
@Ben S
Thanks for the response—although it doesn’t really tempt me too much, either. I will thinking about it as it may offer more clues to understanding Refn’s films.
@Ruby
i have a friend who believes this film is evil, simply because it makes u believe it’s very profound and that u just don’t get it
Here’s the thing. I’ve had similar experiences where the film seems to suggest something meaningful and profound but I have no idea what. Sometimes I do find meaning; sometimes I do not. So far the response indicate one of two things for me: a) people discovered the meaning of the film; b) there is no meaning.
(And I’m sort of taking JisJ’s interpretation as a facetious.)
@Nathan
I liked the filmmaking—the comic book compositions, the sparse quality—both in terms of images and dialogue—and I do think there could an underlying meaning that I just didn’t get. But I can understand why you’d want to move on.
“And I’m sort of taking JisJ’s interpretation as a facetious”
I am being serious.
The main character is named One-Eye, hence the Odin comparison. Apart from that, Odin is a god of war and death. It is no secret of christianity’s eradication of what is now considered to be Norse Mythology. The christians, One-Eye…Valhalla Rising. I’m definitely being serious. However, there is some abstraction to all of this. The ability to foresee on the part of One-Eye, may imply how the gods foresaw the future of their religion, thus sending One-Eye to save a boy that may (or may not) play a bigger part in bringing the gods back to the minds of men and women. A supernatural revenge tale? Religion vs religion? Maybe, maybe not, but I figure the key here is Norse Mythology. The film may also be a free adaptation on one of the many poems on Odin, which tells of his past and tragic future. Or it may be simply war and death represented by a man that represents Odin. In the film we can understand that two wars are taking place: war between vikings and christians and war between christians and indigenous people. Odin dies, but he may live on with the boy. Never ending wars? They live on to this day. Maybe they pass from boy to boy. ;)
I’m being serious! :) You should investigate Norse mythology and its history and draw connections with the film.
@JJ
Oh, OK. Sorry about that. (People so often respond wiht irony and snark, that I assumed that was your attitude, too.) I think your theory is interesting and has some merit. (I forgot that Odin was one-eyed, and I didn’t realize Odin was the god of war and death). It’s certainly better than anything that has been offered so far! Let’s examine it more closely.
At the very least, I think the film gives the Warrior the traits associated with Odin to establish and enhance his character. It also does give meaning to the title and you’re reading that it is the return or revenge of the gods on Christianity is somewhat compelling—as it all fits.
Where the reading gets shaky is the sacrifice of the Warrior to save the boy (how does the boy become Odin or keep the Norse spirit alive? The film doesn’t seem to suggest this. The boy just seems to be someone innocent and vulnerable.) and the introduction of the Native Americans as well as the film moving to North America. (Is this an indication that the Norse myths will become/or is part of a New World? Why Native Americans?)
How about this? Suppose the film isn’t about Norse mythology versus Christianity, but secularism (including paganism) versus Christianity? The film has the Christians in the film to mock and attack Christianity—it’s hypocrisy, venality, irrationality, etc. When they’re lost at sea, the Christians behave foolishly and reprehensibly—they try to kill the boy thinking he’s the cause of their predicament. The secular warrior saves the boy and remains calm.
North America—the New World—might represent any novel idea or situation (which can be frightening). (Maybe this explains the scene when everyone—including the Warrior—seem to lose their minds. What do you make of the Warrior stacking those rocks?) It could simply represent a trial or test—one that the Christians and secularist has to face. The Christians behave badly (either going mad or betraying each other).
The Native Americans could just be part of this trial—an unknown threat. Or perhaps they represent the force of nature (and maybe North America, as it is untamed, also represents this. This reading might have more force if the Viking lands were more civilized, which would contrast the North American lands.) Again, Christians (Christianity) fails in dealing with this force of nature/new threatening situation. Only the secular Warrior with his courage and self-sacrifice saves the boy (who might represent the future). The Warrior’s death appeases the force of nature—doing an end around of Christianity and stealing its thunder.
(I’m not totally sold on the above, but let me throw it out there for us to examine.)
I haven’t seen this since the theater (which was over a year ago?) so I don’t remember much about the plot. I just remember Mads, Vikings, and a lot of violence (what more do you need in a movie? lol). It had a nice look and style to it and it’s a nice precursor for people before seeing Drive but I don’t think Valhalla Rising is all that special. Bronson was much better; still lacking in story but the style was much more compelling to me. Bronson reminded me of A Clockwork Orange in a lot of ways, at least in terms of the use of slow motion brutal violence contrasted with synthy pop music.
@Santino
If you have time (and the interest) read through the OP, as I recap the film. That might jog your memory of it. And then read the exchange between myself and JisJ. I’d be interested in what you think.
I agree the style is very similar to Drive and in that way serves as a good precursor.
(Do you agree that both films have a comic book quality?)
No, I don’t see the comic book quality. I think what Valhalla did for me was create a mood that was very palpable and ominous and I think that was helpful to know that Refn was capable of this when I went to see Drive. A lot of people were shocked at the violence in Drive but because I had seen Bronson and Valhalla Rising, it wasn’t so shocking b/c I knew what Refn was capable of. I actually think it enhanced my enjoyment of Drive because when it does get violent (particularly the scene in the hotel room), I was happy that finally the action and brutality were finally here.
Also, I think seeing Bronson and Valhalla Rising made me appreciate Drive more because in comparison, there’s so much more going on in Drive than in these two other films. Mainstream audiences might complain that Drive is too boring and not much happens and my response to that is compared to Bronson and Valhalla Rising, a LOT goes on in Drive.
@Santino
I’m thinking about the framing, composition of some of the scenes—the sparse look in some of them; the head-and-shoulder shots. To me, you could take stills from this film and Drive and make them into a graphic novel.
Hmm…I don’t know. I’d have to watch them again with this in mind. I honestly didn’t notice it (or was reminded of a comic book).
Drive was like this, too. (The head-and-shoulder shots were often to the extreme left or right of the screen.)
I’m glad you find the analysis of some merit. ;)
“Where the reading gets shaky is the sacrifice of the Warrior to save the boy (how does the boy become Odin or keep the Norse spirit alive? The film doesn’t seem to suggest this. The boy just seems to be someone innocent and vulnerable.)”
This is something I was thinking as well. I remember that the boy leaves the scene, and then shots of nature (of a cliff or waterfall?) and the face of One-Eye in said cliff or waterfall.
To connect to the aforementioned, I found this on Wikipedia (I know, but it has an okay rating by users and apparently it is sourced by book that many other people in other web sites seem to know of its existence and have used)
“In late 19th century Danish folklore, an account of Odin as having hid in a cliff of Møen (modern Møn, Denmark) where his residence there is “still pointed out.” At this time, he was referred to as the “Jætte (giant) from Uppsala” but “is now called Jön Upsal” and from this latter name comes the expression “Men jötten dog!” as opposed to the expression “Men Jös dog!” (“By Jesus!”). Outside his doorway a green spot is described on the otherwise white cliff; this is where he “goes out on behalf of nature”
I propose something else:
Everything that happens in the film, Odin is present or near. He shapes and molds the fate of his companions. When they reach The New World, that power of nature is not due to Odin, but what that led them there certainly is. Odin has overseen every war, colonization and whathaveyou on the planet. He is in the hearts of men and women. His body is killed, but his spirit lives on. Look at all of the wars that are still taking place around the world. All of the murder. It his doing. Yet the compassion for the boy lives with Odin as well, and I think with us. Those two sides of the equation that is the human species, who create gods and religion. Ultimately, I think this is what Refn wanted; a representation of that dark time, and the war and death amongst human beings being watched (and sometimes helped) by a human manifestation of Odin, which imply the aforementioned.
What do you think?
@JJ
Was the purpose of the wiki entry to cite another bit of evidence of the connection between One-Eye and Odin?
As for your proposal, I’m confused about several things:
1. What is the basis for saying that One-Eye (Odin) “shapes the fate of his companions?”
2. How does the film support the notion that Odin “has overseen every war, colonization and whathaveyou on the planet?” I’m not clear about the reason you’re saying this, too.
3. Why does Odin have to sacrifice himself? (And why select the Native Americans and the New World?)
4. What’s the function of the Christians in the film?
DP
Yes, I was a bit obscure with my words.
“Was the purpose of the wiki entry to cite another bit of evidence of the connection between One-Eye and Odin?”
In a way yes, but more so a connection with the ending, in which it suggests that Odin lives on. I am more interested in what Odin represents, what he stands for. Think of it as a spirit that for some reason is embodied in human flesh, yet his “power”, what defines him, is everywhere, especially in the hearts of human beings even after his death.
1- “Shapes the fate of his companions” not so much, but in the sense that what Odin represents is in the hearts of men. They choose to do the things they do because of Odin, or, because of wanting conflict, violence, murder, war and death.
2- Yes, this wasn’t very clear. I meant Odin, the symbol, not the character in the film. Considering the ending, and considering what Odin represents, I wrote that.
3- To represent that dual side of humanity, which he is embodying. That side of violence which he stands for, and that side of compassion which humans also stand for. He may be Odin, but he is also a human, for a brief time anyway.
4- That time which is vital to Norse mythology and which warrants the use of a god such as Odin. Maybe the change from one region to the other represents how war and death is everywhere, always following; how Odin is everywhere.
I can sort of buy that One-Eye is Odin incarnate, but then the idea that film suggests that Odin spirit is in all people seems a bit incongruous. Maybe my Christianity is getting in the way, here. Jesus is God incarnate and in some ways God can dwell in all people. But Jesus is spirit is different from our own—i.e., human nature is sinful, while Jesus’ spirit is holy.
I also think choosing Christians(Crusaders) and the setting of the New World has a greater meaning a significance.
Jazzaloha
I became interested in this after I saw Drive. The filmmaking seems similar as well as some of the themes. I really can’t judge the film as I don’t really have a good grasp of it—specifically what the film is really about. So that’s what I really want to discuss—I’d like to ask others to help me put the film together to understand this. (The film’s details are quickly fading from my memory, which is one of the reasons I want to start this thread.)
The film is broken into five chapters:
Part 1: Wrath
Part 2: Silent Warrior
Part 3: Men of God
Part 4 Hell
Part 5: Sacrifice
OK, let me run through the more superficial elements of the film quickly. A clan of Vikings (I thought they were Scottish clan at first) has men fight against each other for sport (presumably against their will). One of the men (Mikkelsen) breaks free and kills the man (men?) who held him captive. In the process, he preserves the life of the boy who fed him regularly and the boy accompanies him throughout the film. The Warrior then runs into some Christians who having been proselytizing the Vikings (or slaughtering them) and joins them on a crusade to the Holy Land. They go off course and end in in North America. At first they think they’re in the Holy Land (although later they realize that they’re not there, but it doesn’t matter.) They get picked off by Native Americans—and at one point, all of them seem to go mad (what was that all about?) In a all of this, the Warrior seems to be a kind of seer. In one of his visions, he sees someone getting killed by the Native American tribe. As we discover, he is that person, and he does this, ostensibly, to protect the boy that follows him.
What does this all mean? I’m assuming that there is some larger meaning and point to the film besides what I described above.
Here’s some rambling thoughts off the top of my head:
>The film might be critiquing Christianity or Refn might have placed Christianity as a contrast or an indication of the film’s meaning. To wit, the Warrior becomes a kind of Christ figure—willingly sacrificing his life, knowing that it will save the boy. What is the film saying about Christianity or what was the point of including this element in the film? (Is the film saying something about America??)
>Along similar lines as Drive, I’m wondering if Refn wants to explore the way male aggression can be used for good purposes. Or maybe the film is about the way men can find redemption—i.e., by protecting and sacrificing themselves for children (or family or helpless individuals). (But then what about the Crusaders in the film? Why land in North America?)