Report a comment as inappropriate

You are reporting the following comment by Technoguy on this page.

"The film is both historic and subjective in it's treatment by the film maker Peter Watkins.He breaks down the old rigid hierarchies of film making used in tv,sitcom,documentary,also in films depicting the lives and works of major artists.This film is also like a mirror he holds up to his own life and struggles and rejection by his own society. Truly remarkable in that it is mounted like a documentary(with recreations of course)of the creative process,how Munch's personal life affected his art and how the changes in society also impinge.We get the influence of his personal memories in flash back.We get his family or friends staring out at us or answering questions about their attitudes to Munch or their views on sexuality.He utilises a dialectical process between sound layers and montages of image.We see his relationships with women developing-anguish,reticence,anger,longing and how they are depicted in his art.The two major paintings that are shown are The Sick Child(showing him attacking and slashing at the canvas) and The Scream with a few Vampires and The Dance of Life in between.Also the various techniques like etching and wood-cutting that he translates his paintings into.We see the various receptions of his work in Scandinavia and Germany.The most remarkable facts are his use of non-actors and how he came to make this film of 3.5 hrs.running time in Norway using only local technicians and people who only spoke Norwegian.This is a monumental piece of artistry and deserves to be better known and distributed.This is sensitive artistry."

Please state your reason

Reason *
* mandatory fields