Regie:
Paul GreengrassDrehbuch:
Paul GreengrassKamera:
Pål Ulvik RoksethMusik:
Sune MartinBesetzung:
Jonas Strand Gravli, Thorbjørn Harr, Anders Danielsen Lie, Seda Witt, Lars Arentz-Hansen, Jon Øigarden, Anneke von der Lippe, Øystein Martinsen (mehr)Streaming (1)
Inhalte(1)
Basierend auf wahren Ereignissen wird erzählt, wie Überlebende, Trauernde und ganz Norwegen nach dem verheerenden Terroranschlag Gerechtigkeit und Heilung suchen. (Netflix)
Kritiken (10)
Greengrass’s simple interpretation of a terrorist attack and the subsequent events holds a hidden message involving fear of what the world is coming to. Instead of Breivik, it focuses more on a boy, Viljar, riddled with gunshot wounds, his gradual recovery and return to life. The confrontation in court is powerful, with no unnecessary ideological frills. Precise acting performances, powerful supporting scenes (the brain surgery, fitting glass eyes, the final farewell with the lawyer) and the effort to capture reality as precisely as possible are the main highlights of this movie. On the other hand, the endeavor to give every aspect sufficient space means that it lacks a certain complexity. If it weren’t for the excessive length, I would give it a full five-star rating.
()
Die Attacke wird in der ersten halben Stunde erledigt und sie ist nicht so hinreißend, wie man erwartetet. Der Rest des Films zeigt die Gesellschaft, wie sie sich damit auseinandersetzt. Ein überlebender Junge mit einem Trauma und seine Familie, Breiviks Anwalt und seine Familie, Breivik selbst und der Gerichtsprozess. Für den Meister Greengrass ein überraschend mechanisches, langweiliges Erzählen, das sich auf den Kontrast von der Tiefe des Leidens eines traumatisierten Jungen und der schockierenden Ruhe des Mörders (die durch seine politische Überzeugung bestärkt wird) verlässt. Im Film gibt es ein paar Gedanken von Greengrass und als informative Aussage ist der Film verdienstvoll. Was aber das Zuschauererlebnis und die Vermittlung des Schreckens betrifft – da ist Utøya 22. Juli von Erik Poppe besser.
()
Zuerst dachte ich, wieso lässt man diese Geschichte zweimal drehen und dazu noch in einem Jahr… aber dann las ich den Namen des Regisseurs und es wurde mir alles klar – Paul Greengrass. Das Thema haargenau auf ihn geschnitten. Ich würde den Film sogar besser bewerten, wenn ich nicht den ursprünglichen gesehen hätte, der genug schockierend und vor allem, was die künstlerische Seite angeht, total ausgezeichnet war. Aber ich dachte, um die Ehre dem Regisseur zu erweisen, probiere ich es. Und ja, ein paar Kritikpunkte hätte ich. Vor allem der Angriff, der ist sehr einfach und ohne Mühe gemacht. Weil er aber nur ungefähr ein Drittel des Films einnimmt, können die zwei anderen Drittel fesseln. Es ist eine richtige Gefühlsschleuder, weil der Film die Gedankenwelt von Breivik, welche schockiert jedes Mal, wen sie auf der Leinwand erscheint, abbildet. Er zeigt aber auch junge Leute, die seinen Amoklauf überlebt haben, und zwar mit allen Folgen. Zum Nachdenken sicherlich gut, aber am besten ist eigentlich der Schluss, der das Opfer-Kapitel mit einer Gerichtsverhandlung abschließt. Die Laufzeit konnte ruhig um eine halbe Stunde kürzer sein, aber andererseits ist es ein typischer Greengrass, also wird alles so zivil sein, inklusive der Kamera, dass ihr den Eindruck bekommt, das alles betrifft auch euch persönlich.
()
Paul Greengrass ist ein Meister der hinreißenden Stimmung und mit diesem Film hat er das wieder bestätigt. Falls jemandem die Szene von dem völlig verrückten Massaker nachlässig und nicht fesselnd vorkommt, tut er mir wirklich leid (und es kann ruhig der Gründer von FilmBooster sein). Ich habe nämlich lange nichts Abstoßenderes gesehen. Außer Greengrass ist es auch das Verdienst des Darstellers von Breivik, der furchteinflößend wirkt. Und je länger er im Film zu sehen ist und wenn aus seiner ursprünglich stummen Figur ein beredter Psychopath wird, desto größer wird die Angst. Außer Breivik sehen wir aber auch die Folgen seiner Tat, mit denen eine der betroffenen Familien kämpfen muss. Wir lernen auch seinen Anwalt kennen und spüren den Druck auf den norwegischen Ministerpräsidenten… Es scheint mir, dass in diesem Film wirklich alles war. Ich behaupte nicht, dass der Film angenehm ist. Es war aber ein unvergessliches Erlebnis. Ungefähr so wie… Ja, so wie der Film Flug 93 von Greengrass.
()
I am reluctant to use the word “complex”, which for me means a film that offers numerous opposing perspectives and ambivalent impressions, which is not the case in Greengrass’s factually concise docudramatic reconstruction, in which he constructs two relatively unambiguous ideological positions (similar to Bloody Sunday), which he pits against each other so that he can offer the intended political statement in the end (threats against Lippestad only bring shades of grey into the narrative, but they are not laid out in greater detail and can also be seen as a means of supporting the argument for the power of democracy, which, regardless of the possible risks, cannot serve only those who deserve it, but everyone). ___ Good versus evil, love versus hate, a deranged individual versus a community which, thanks to mutual support and cooperation following the trauma, can get back on its feet and face evil. With his movements, cold-blooded thinking and belief in his own infallibility, Breivik is reminiscent of a machine. If we learn anything about his motives, it is from his mother’s statement, which the attorney needs because of the trial, or thanks to the fact that he has become a research subject for psychologists. In the scenes from the prison with a predominance of cold colours, he is aggressively set apart from his surroundings by his red shirt. Conversely, through flashbacks and subjective sounds, we “see into the mind” of the traumatised, insecure and vulnerable Viljar and get to know him in a number of situations with his supportive loved ones in which he gives expression to his emotions. We not only observe him, but we experience who he is. Instead of a “traitor”, a “Marxist” or a “member of the elite”, as Breivik blanketly labels his victims, we get to know an actual person and his story. As we are shown through numerous parallels in the way the two figures are depicted, Viljar is not from a certain moment most at risk from the wounds that he suffered, but rather from the possibility that he, like Breivik, is starting to become isolated from others and will stop seeing himself as a member of the broader community.___ The rhythm of the smoothly flowing narrative is masterfully set by the large number of viewpoints between which Greengrass cuts. After the dynamic beginning, which offers a broad variety of rapidly alternating viewpoints, a calming occurs and we watch only Breivik and Viljar for a moment. If the narrative jumps to another character, thanks to the prologue we are already familiar with them and we know what role they play in the web of relationships and what element of Norwegian society they represent. After this slowing down and narrowing of focus, the film also transitions from individual actions, recorded step by step almost in real time, to their more general sociological and political implications. Of course, they still serve mainly to support the arguments employed in the final trial. The whole film is a textbook example of how to apply dialectical logic in practice. It does not try to depict the reality of polarised Europe in all its complexity, but rather as a clash of two principles, which it succeeds in doing in a very factual and extremely suggestive manner. 85%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
Greengrass’s adaptation is as compelling as Seierstad's book. It is a pity, perhaps, only the absence of Norwegian, the fragmentation of individual motives and themes, or the cutting of the opening third of the book about Breivik himself to focus only on the procedural passage of the attack and the trial.
()
Paul Greengrass serves up a dense psychological drama about the July 22, 2011 terrorist attack in Norway that killed 77 people, and he perfectly captures the horror everyone there experienced. There was another attempt this year, from Norway, Utøya: July 22, but that one didn't work very well from my point of view, it's presented in an overly documentary and boring way, no one dies and they don't even show Breivik himself. Greengrass, in contrast, describes in detail how everything took place and literally draws the viewer into the film. The opening explosion and the subsequent merciless murder of the students on the island is excellent (here the director could have spent more time than 15 minutes, but emotionally and psychologically it affected me just the same). I also praise the performance of one of the survivors, Viljar, who survived five gunshot wounds and still has to live with lifelong consequences. The film culminates in a dense trial where emotions are not spared and the hatred towards Breivik is spot on. Solid stuff. 75%
()
In the end it turned out that holding off watching it for fear of being completely shredded when it was over was altogether unnecessary. This time Paul Greengrass didn’t focus so much on the brutality of the attack as on the victims coming to terms with what happened. And also on the absurdity of how the attacker is treated. That's probably what hurt the most in the end. As a drama, it was good, everyone tried hard, but in the end it struck me – I don't know why – as rather superficial. 3.5 stars.
()
22 July is a smart and suggestive portrayal of an awful human act that attacks the roots of democracy, but that also shows the madness of those who violently try to undermine it. Though it pushes the viewer to only one correct interpretation, its complex approach forces you to think about where humankind is heading and all of what we are capable of. Despite being impossible to get into the minds of the characters, this is an intense experience that, through the traumatising initial disaster, shows an unflattering face of a Europe that today is divided and living in fear. This is despite the fact that it has an inevitable tendency to generalize problems.
()
The final interpretation is admittedly pretty one-sided, but on the other hand it's probably fair to admit that Greengrass’ hands were tied in this respect – by which I mean the "political tone" of his adaptation. It bothered me that it didn't go more in depth in the second half, and that the whole courtroom part served primarily to rehabilitate survivors and victims. In short, I feel that such a serious subject deserved a much deeper analysis of the political and social aspects. The opening in Oslo and then the scenes in Utøya are very intense; the rest of the film is unfortunately a bit one-sided. 4 stars by the skin of its teeth. [70%]
()
Werbung