Very interesting! I loved The Northman and all of their attention to detail. It's so great to listen to more behind-the-scenes info. I hope there is more!
@@JoinMeInDeathBaby it's definitely NOT for everyone. Some people are going to hate it but that's the way all Robert Eggers movies are. Personally I loved it.
The use of a 6th century Migration-era ring-sword and armour stood out to me for the draugr. A really cool touch. These were heavily traded with the Vendel-era scandinavians. I like the idea that some early vikings got standed on Iceland and gave their chief a ship burial there before dying off, so Iceland would not have been "discovered" as they never returned.
It's not entirely true that the movie has gone unnoticed in Norway. It has sparked some debate in the media about why Norway doesn't try to capitalize on making movies like this. The truth is there have been some attempts, just not very successful ones. Hopefully with the success of The Northman and the model it provides we will see more Viking themed movies that actually make use of the primary sources and material culture, rather than the very shallow and generic portrayals we're used to. As anywhere else in the world most people in Norway don't care about the vikings or medieval history because they won't spend a lot of time and effort on something that doesn't lead to getting a bigger house.
Honestly while I like the northman better, it kind of reminded me of Apocalypto. The Northman like Apocalypto didn't shy away from hard truths or the reality of violence of the Era and had religious and mystical undertones. Both of these films also demonstrated how little human life meant at the time and how many if not all societies of the time operated on a slave economy. I wish we could see more movies like this of varying cultures. I also think the makers of Netflix vikings should learn from this. People don't want diverse fictionalized 'history' shows. If you want to include other people don't do it in a viking show make the show about those people's (Egypt, Aztecs, etc)
Regardless how historically accurate it was or wasn't, it was a phenomenal film. It felt like real people living in a real world. And it was a good story. Probably the first film I've seen that made Vikings look like actual people instead of tropes.
@@dreyri2736 not rly, only part was when they got "berserker" which is probably not accurate. but the clothing was accurate, so was the buildings. Everything is tropes nowadays lol, even ancient romans loved to portray their own past with tropes.
I felt the film tried to honor the cultural context of the mythos, to give it some reasonable grounding as they took up the mantle of a mythic/legendary story teller. As with any art, especially one funded by "hollywood", there are points to quibble over (for me the worst was holding the sword stupidly backwards to look 'cool'). That said, I wish more films would hire experts in the field when trying breathing life into historically and/or culturally grounded films. Loved the film, btw!
I loved this movie. I think that a lot of people need to have a plot explained to them within the movie and have a hard time just enjoying it. This movie was entertaining start to finish. As Dr. Crawford has explained before, the sagas have a dreamlike qualities and they don't always make perfect sense in the moment and what modern audiences consider "plot holes" aren't actually important to the overall story.
I felt that the movie had a lot of potential, but that it lost momentum about halfway through and became more tedious than enjoyable. The sets were amazing as were the costumes and props.
I'm kinda surprised given the textual reference point, Saxo's Amleth, is also the basis for Hamlet, one of the most well-read Shakespeare plays... which is essentially an OTT, angsty, revenge-story.
The final credits for the film under the consultation section mentions a consultant for Old Ukranian, which I assume is what is used for all of Olga's lines and some of the dialogue used in the raid scene.
It's strange they used Old Ukrainian, as that is Ukrainian dialect Old East Slavic from around the 11th to 14th century. In 895 CE, all Slavic languages should still be more or less still something which looks like Old Church Slavonic, with leanings towards some of the later language splits, since that is right around when Old Church Slavonic was first written. Additionally, Old Church Slavonic has much more material as a language than Old East Slavic, so it would be easier to write for OCS. Very strange. Maybe they didn't have another specialist on hand?
More likely is something that Jackson touched on in a seperate video: In the regions of the Kyvian Rus they'd be more likely speaking Old East Norse. Plus, given how Old Church Slavonic inherently has more in common with later southern Slavic languages. And even though it's the "oldest attested Slavic language", I think it's plausible to suggest that the expert in question felt like Old Ukrainian may have been a more geographically sensitive choice.
@@Nikelaos_Khristianos Sure, but the local Slavic population would still speak Common Slavic. I mean, Old Ukrainian might be 'geographically sensitive' (whatever that means, I don't know that it's explicitly stated where the depicted Slavs live), but also around 300-400 years out-of-date. For time comparison, you might as well have had all the English dialog actually in Shakespearean English, or made all the runes Proto-Norse. That last one is a normal flaw of films, but if they went to the effort to get the runes and the Old Norse right, it would have been at least as much effort to find someone to do an Early Medieval Slavic language.
For me as a Dane I found my fascination with viking history and pre-historic scandinavia due to globalism. I know that sounds really vague, but globalism as a phenomenon is just like this big fish swallowing up the world in a meaningless gulp and viking history is my attempt at rooting things in something that makes sense. Something that I can identify with on a personal and even spiritual level - Although I'm not practising or subscribing to the Ase beliefs. In Denmark, I've noticed people are becoming very americanized, myself included, to a point where we care for niche political subjects of that part of the world and people replace not just words, but entire sentences with English. I dislike seeing my own home nation being reduced to another state in America. Getting in touch and educating myself on my distant ancestry helps in providing meaning to the world and its future for me. Generally, I find history fascinating, even on seemingly mundane subjects such as how people dealt with boredom. It's a gold mine for me.
@@royalwayne7244 No it's more like replacing a full sentence between punctuation. I understand them just fine, but it's a weird phenomenon. I use english words in my speech all the time, but I never replace entire sentences. Also, words like "passion" is just straight up used now. Even though we have the latin basis for the word, it sounds off when you have a perfectly functioning danish word "lidenskab" to do the job. In talk shows they just straight up say "shitstorm" and "agenda". Agenda also has a perfectly fine, danish word "dagsorden" but you'll hear people say "agenda" nowadays far more often. It's not just the young either. It's trendy among older, middle-aged people too. Another really aggravating thing about this is that it's still said with a thick danish accent more often than not so it's incredibly jarring to listen to.
Interesting but yes the European union when it was formed was the great plan by America go Americanize most of Europe and cemented by belonging to NATO , which gave America the chance to put thousands to troops in Europe .
I’m always amazed by how many internet discussions on American politics and social issues are populated by Europeans. Sure everyone’s going to have an opinion and a reaction to world events but it seems more personal than that to some.
@@dingdingdingding5544 I don't know what you mean by "Europeans" because we are not a nation like the USA. The scandinavian countries have a lot of things in common, but compared to France, Germany, Italy, Spain and so forth, it's very different. Scandinavia has a larger population of people with more time on their hands. Our life quality on average is very good. Because of this we have more time for global affairs and the news sections are very much aware. A lot of the news are focused on US politics and our politicans are very pro-USA. An example could be how Obama is having some bizarre rockstar tour where he will visit Denmark to talk about... Obama things I guess? The tickets are 425 a pop. People consume american brands and in general, the presence of the USA is inescapable here. It's really not at all weird that you get Danish, Swedish and Norwegian people talking about the USA and related politics.
I find it interesting to compare the modern Scandinavian attitudes towards their popular historical culture against the attitudes of modern Italians and Greeks, who by contrast tend to be quite proud of their respective nations' ancient histories. Although, I have met many who literally will run away from a conversation or discussion about those histories or Ancient Greek/Ancient Latin; I think it's an aspect of personal taste, not everyone finds those topics interesting (I roll my eyes incredibly hard when someone tries to talk at me about the history of South Africa, for example, my home country). Instead, and this is a generalisation of the experiences I've had, but I find they're more interested in suggesting where you should go in their countries because they're generally quite happy to send people to parts that are beautiful but also maybe not as well known. Sometimes based on expressed historical interest. But also generally, and I think this is a point of national pride, but many Greeks and Italians I've met are quite joyous when they meet foreigners who are genuinely interested in the culture and history of their countries, it's like "Oh great! You're not just here for the weather, amazing!".
Odin's 8 legged horse. It now has twin heads. Made from human body parts. Crashed 9/11 style against the face of a building. 'Could it be the Christian swines'.
Not from a necessarily Norse perspective, but just general anthropologically speaking, I think it makes sense for the underground ritual to be led by a man. Unlike the other, public acts of magic, it was an initiation ceremony bringing the boy into manhood--I think such a thing would be male-exclusive and kept secret, especially from women (and likewise there are probably female exlusive initiation rituals that the men don't know about). Also such a thing wouldn't be written about publically in sagas, giving the filmmakers artistic license to speculate.
In many cultures the process of puberty, menstruation, marriage and childbirth stand as these rituals you hypothesize for women. These transformations are obvious and deeply profound. Nothing more was necessary.
One thing thats plays well into the discussion about this by the experts in the video is that fact that priest/shaman wears elements of women’s clothing (i.e. the big brooches worn on the shoulder straps of dresses) at least in the passage in Iceland. (Edit:further along in the video now and they end up talking about this scene more)
I really appreciate the hell outta this thought. As someone who has immensely enjoyed the psychological writings of Joseph Campbell, especially regarding masculine initiation rituals, I'm so happy someone clocked this.
do you have the feeling that the representation of the viking world is becoming more accurate over time due to the public interest + accurate selection of consultants or is this just an isolated case?
I feel like all this feminist perspective about trying to decipher minute details and filling in the gaps with conjecture is more often than not just wishful thinking and relies on theorycrafting which can be easily dismissed with equipollent arguments. Guess I'm more of an empiricist Regarding the woman who could have divorced her husband and where she would have gone, propably her family unless she was birthed from the mud. Regarding the movie. I think that on it's own it's dirt and its sole appeal is the period, as if its designed in a lab specifically to cater to viking fans. It's no wonder that Eggers only ever talked about how he consulted with historians on the movie instead of anything else
Dr. Friðriksdóttir, you are one of my favorite authors about Viking women! I have used your book in two different essays for my university studies (study Old Norse religion and Gender science right now and want to continue with my bachelor in Literatur this autumn) and have gone back to the book constantly during my studies.Thank you for writing it! ❤
Great interview. It has been interesting to hear some of the details that went into the movie. There is so much details and layers of things that they threw in there that I feel like I could watch it multiple times over and not catch everything.
Denmark here! My interest in the Vikings stems from the fact that they were so absurdly violent, compared to our present society, where you can get fined if you carry a pocket knife. I find it mindboogling that our present extremely peaceloving and easygoing populations, both in Denmark and in Norway, are the offspring of so bloodthirsty ancestors. The general lack of interest in the history of the Vikings, I believe, is caused by the fact, that we learned Viking history as school kids. For the average Dane there is nothing new here. And the reason why dr. Crawfords translations are so popular in Scandinavia is due to the fact that they are very well written. Also, we know from school that Viking culture was a form of organized hooliganism, so many of us are repelled by the glorification and heroification we see in the movies, because we know that it is simply not true. Which again explains why so many of us follow dr. Crawfords video lectures, where we are told "wie es eigentlich gewesen".
Thank you for this talk and the transcript to go back to! Interesting information from you both. I am interested in knowing where the plate comes from that has the imagery of the wolf headdress and helmet?
In terms of movies that might be accurate, there are some icelandic adaptations of sagas and the Raven trilogy. I can't judge of the actual accurateness but they seemed convincing to me at a time I was reading lots of sagas.
@@Schizopantheist I'm thinking of the Raven trilogy, in particular (from wikipedia): When the Raven Flies (1984) - (original Icelandic title: Hrafninn flýgur) - usually known as simply The Raven or Revenge of the Barbarians. In The Shadow of the Raven (1987) - (original Icelandic title: Í skugga hrafnsins). Embla (2007) - (original Icelandic title: Hvíti víkingurinn) - the directors cut of The White Viking. And also Utlaginn, an adaptation of a saga
Hi, Jackson! I heard the viking horned helmet was a Hollywood invention but at 25:11 that looks very much like one of those helmets. What's up with that?
Regarding the oath / mantra that Amleth repeats (mentioned at 15:55), does anyone know what he is saying? The subtitles seem to be: "I will avenge you. I will honour our blood. I will cut the thread of Fate." but from what Dr. Friðriksdóttir says here, the Norse lines are different. The first spoken line is "Ek strengi þess heit" and then in the last line there is something about being a niðingr. The lines might be of a similar meaning to the subtitles, but it seems to be far from a direct translation.
@@nancydachaudamour1166 I believe you are wrong. "Ek strengi þess heit" translates into "I swear/say this oath", and "niðingr" is also an authentic Norse word. What do you base your assumption on?
Still all the dimwits think that his uncle is the 'bad guy'. Bollocks. His uncle is only another brainwashed victim/facade so that his mother can play queen. All she does is keep brainwashing his uncle and then she tries to brainwash him as well but he is too 'noble' to hump her. Either she will dream up a trap to get rid of one 'king' to get another 'king' or she will try to seduce the strongest guy who then has to kill the other one plus his kids who are also her kids. Doesn't matter who it is.
In my experience, swedes have a tendency to focus on the House of Vasa and the Swedish Empire instead of the viking age. I can't recall that we even had that much about the viking age in school growing up.
Interesting. That period of Swedish history is cool though, and I think Sweden’s importance at this time is often overlooked in the US and Western Europe.
Dr.Johanna, your awesome and super knowledgeable and you aught to recognize your worth and awesomeness, your humble demeanor is admirable but you deserve to know how well you do what you do! The movie would not be as successful as it is if it were not for your consultation, that is a fact. Anyone who is asked to help in the manner you did is integral to the most important part of the film to the director and Alex, and that’s authenticity. You rock! Is what I’m tryna say lol. Good job! Positive self talk positive reinforcement!
Hi, baby archaeologist here. On the question of why Americans and UK citizens are hyper interested in Norse/Viking media products, Dr. Crawford isnt wrong when he points to LOTR fandom in the 1970s as an origin point. But Dr Jóhanna is way closer to the mark when she talks about National identity and the usefulness of a great and glorious past as evidence to support why a nation should exist. Here in the US, "great and glorious " pasts are utilized to provide a historical or mythological backing for white nationalism, and the uptick of interest in recent years can be tied to the rise of anti-racism activism and the rebuttal of white nationalists through rallies, recruitment for hate groups, and violence against non-white people. I hate to be a johnny rain cloud about it, but its a consistent pattern here in the US. Before Vikings, it was 300, Gladiator, Alexander, and Troy with the whitest people you know. Then archaeologists, historians, and literature experts soundly critiqued these films and pointed out the white washing. Then it became crusaders, Robin Hood, and Camelot, and once again, medievalists, archies and more had to reiterate that the medieval world was more nuanced and diverse than some films portrayed, and when Hollywood adjusted, there went the interest. Before all that it was LOTR, and while in retrospect we can all enjoy the films and simultaneously understand that Tolkiens perspective about linguistic features and more was very influenced by his white as paper upbringing, in the context of the 70s it played very well with stoking the interest of white people. Honestly, Dr. Jeb Card has explored this in much more detail in his book "Spooky Archaeology " and I highly recommend it. All that aside, I have to say my favorite parts of the Northman were the seidr and ritual scenes and the Draugr. I guess to me they were all more interesting because they explored the Norse perpective of what is magic....but I was extremely bored by the rest of the plot. I guess Im Hamletted out.
Does the question of why is the valkyrie in the movie wearing braces on her teeth, get answered in this talk? I may watch this whole thing if I have an hour. Seeing as there are no time stamps, I needed to ask here about the braces.
It’s actually not braces, but a groove filed into the teeth. As far as I remember there is actually historical evidence for this practice so it was cool to see this little detail (though I agree, at first glance I saw it as braces as well!)
@James Gordley it's documented. Research online: YT doesn't permit link sharing. "Viking warriors filed deep grooves in their teeth, and they probably had to smile broadly to show them off, according to new finds in four major Viking Age cemeteries in Sweden. Caroline Arcini of Sweden's National Heritage Board and colleagues analysed 557 skeletons of men, women and children from 800 to 1050 AD. She discovered that 22 of the men bore deep, horizontal grooves across the upper front teeth. "The marks are traces of deliberate dental modifications ... they are so well-made that most likely they were filed by a person of great skill," Arcini writes in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, a journal of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists."
It’s a shame because I loved all of the attention to detail from Eggers but damn the plot just fell completely flat for me.. everyone just felt so two dimensional. It helped for me to tell myself that the film was an adaptation of a saga-like story and so we see tropes not real fleshed our characters, but it still didn’t really help much. While parts were really good, I just left scratching my head at the ultimate vision and plot arc.
@@rentfree8841 Thank you, like the thing is that I really love all of Egger’s other movies. I really think the pressure of the studio to make it a box office hit was the issue with the movie. The details and mythological themes were amazing and almost unprecedented in a Viking Age film, but at the end of the day I just didn’t find myself caring for Amleth or anyone really at all. The only hint of character development for Amleth is his mother plot twist towards the end, and this notion of resisting fate but even those I felt were sort of weak. The film was on the longer end but I absolutely felt it needed more time somehow or just a different plot structure. We got immediately thrust into his boyhood initiation and then straight to trauma and then straight to his warrior revenge arc with no intervening private moments or even so much as a damned training montage. The whiplash was a lot and even though I understand it’s based on Shakespeare, his constant revenge chant was cheesy to me. Plus the constant screaming and roaring and howling had me rolling my eyes a bit. While I do appreciate the mythological aspects, they really should have only done this in a scene or two but it felt like it was in a ton of scenes. Ultimately, I was sort of hoping for something like The Witch. I want a film in which the details and life of the medieval Norse peoples are sort of background noise and flavor while the people are sympathetic and feel real. This movie sort of felt like “look how much Norse signifiers I can cram into two hours”.. it was a lot of showing us cool stuff and not so much developing on the actual plot. A film where Amleth runs off into the Norwegian forests and sort of lives a rough life among the peasantry and slowly but surely grows up and takes a conflicted but ultimately satisfying revenge might be better. The huge scope of scenes and peoples and locations just felt like he was trying to cram as much big showy stuff into the scenes as possible. But again, I can sort of understand the vision by telling myself it’s supposed to be based on a legendary saga and not something quite simple and mundane like the characters of the Witch or the Lighthouse. Maybe I was just hoping for a different Eggers, and I definitely liked parts of it, but that’s my extended 2 cents if anyone cares.
The northman stands out more for having an archaic Norse style story instead of a more modern structure. If all stories are told in the same way with the same characters then fiction begins to lose its flavor and diversity.
@@dingdingdingding5544 Frankly, the Witch and the Lighthouse had unique plot structures and I enjoyed them because they were slow burn horrors and it suited them very well. For a blockbuster action film though? I think this didn’t not work very well at all even though I see what he was intending to do.
@@Condobius It would be a mistake to try and cram a Norse saga into a Hollywood blockbuster action mold. One of the reason why Eggers and his films are such great pieces of art is that they carry with them the elements of the stories from which they derive. The lighthouse for example is a very New England story. The Northman is no different.
How much of the dark & gritty world-view is a projection: A projection of modern arthouse sensibilities on the Viking age? Or even a projection of Medieval times on the Viking age? The reviews of The Northman are quite interesting. A lot of people hail this movie as the bringer of "realism" in terms of historical accuracy. But how realistic is THE STORY if this was to represent the entirety of the Viking era?
That was the ONE part of the movie that was the least accurate. There was an OBVIOUS bias towards portraying the Vikings as EXTREMELY violent and savage..... which is non-sense. Just because they were good warriors, doesn't mean they were any more violent as a culture than any one else in the world. An interview with their leading Historian/Archeologist, he literally says "It's important to know how violent these raids were", when talking about the village raid scene in the movie. So he basically admits that he's projecting his modern world-view and bias into the movie. No legit Scientist should EVER say something like that. They basically made the raid as violent as possible, and tried to pass that off as the norm. They also exaggerated the bad treatment of the slaves....... making their bias even more obvious. This is was also shown by the woman in this interview, they're not being Scientific, they're basically just assuming the slaves were treated like trash because that's what they've been taught all their lives growing up about slaves in general. Which makes absolutely NO SENSE, why would they beat and treat slaves like trash when they're the most expensive/valuable "things" they have? I'm sure they blew half their wealth on buying a slave, then beat them and let them die in the winter...... sure. Also, this interview has shown me they also seemed to have a sort of obsession with gender(Whamen, Whamen , whamen), although to be fair, that IS this Woman's specialty. I still find it bizarre to be SO obsessed with gender though. Again, they did a decent job of not letting themselves get too carried away with it in the movie, which I'm sure took a lot of restraint from these type of people lol. At this point their modern Political ideology is becoming obvious and starting to leak into the movie.... although overall they did a really good job of not letting it affect the accuracy of the movie, except for in those two respects. When it comes to the Architecture, the swords/armor, the cast, the mythology, the rituals....... they did a fantastic job. It sounds like I hated the movie lol, but I actually loved it. Visuals and Soundtrack were amazing, must be seen on the big screen for the full experience. They did a great job of making you feel like you were transported back in time to the Viking age, specifically with the mystical aspects.
167 +VLFBERHT+ swords were found. 9th to 11th century. Viking to medieval knight period. AD895. 895+167=2291-1229=1229-167. Hamlet 1229 Amleth 2291. Devil's bible Codex Gigas 1229 Bohemia. Queen Christine took it to Sweden.
The earliest Medieval source is from Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum. The story of Amleth is not from the Poetic or Prose Eddas. Icelandic versions of the story actually appeared much later than Saxo's.
Yeah plenty. There's no end to it and it all fits together. Every saga is built into it but twisted and turned inside out and upside down and calculated.
Dry rot; cut Pinocchio's 'wooden' nose off; no lies. No nose lies when Amleth escapes. 'He drowned in the sea'. Rotten to the core; Odin's tree. 'Tree of kings'.
Loki's daughter Hel and Loki's great serpent. Same stuff as in the bible. Dry rot trees. 9 worlds of Odin. 1229 'rotten trinity'; [122x9]+122+9=1229; year Codex Gigas written. Devil's bible. Twin 1229; [1x2x29]+1229=1/0.000777000777000.... Shiva bound by the number 7. Loki's 'bound' snake and wolf. Plenty wolf howling then that dog goes funny and then comes that dog heart thing. How do you know it's your son's heart.
Very interesting! I loved The Northman and all of their attention to detail. It's so great to listen to more behind-the-scenes info. I hope there is more!
I adored this movie, wish more people were talking about it.
Same here. It’s my new favorite movie. Oddly enough my “old favorite movie “ was gross pointe blank. So that should say a lot lol
Where can I watch it?
@@jamie5mauser a movie theatre
Is it really that good?
@@JoinMeInDeathBaby it's definitely NOT for everyone. Some people are going to hate it but that's the way all Robert Eggers movies are. Personally I loved it.
I much enjoyed this one. The wanton cruelty and darkness went overboard though.
I'm interested in the old norse spoken in the film. Is there a way to have transcriptions of the texts?
25:25 ULFHEDNAR ALL THE WAY!!!! HOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWL!
The use of a 6th century Migration-era ring-sword and armour stood out to me for the draugr. A really cool touch. These were heavily traded with the Vendel-era scandinavians. I like the idea that some early vikings got standed on Iceland and gave their chief a ship burial there before dying off, so Iceland would not have been "discovered" as they never returned.
It's not entirely true that the movie has gone unnoticed in Norway. It has sparked some debate in the media about why Norway doesn't try to capitalize on making movies like this. The truth is there have been some attempts, just not very successful ones. Hopefully with the success of The Northman and the model it provides we will see more Viking themed movies that actually make use of the primary sources and material culture, rather than the very shallow and generic portrayals we're used to.
As anywhere else in the world most people in Norway don't care about the vikings or medieval history because they won't spend a lot of time and effort on something that doesn't lead to getting a bigger house.
Honestly while I like the northman better, it kind of reminded me of Apocalypto. The Northman like Apocalypto didn't shy away from hard truths or the reality of violence of the Era and had religious and mystical undertones. Both of these films also demonstrated how little human life meant at the time and how many if not all societies of the time operated on a slave economy. I wish we could see more movies like this of varying cultures. I also think the makers of Netflix vikings should learn from this. People don't want diverse fictionalized 'history' shows. If you want to include other people don't do it in a viking show make the show about those people's (Egypt, Aztecs, etc)
Regardless how historically accurate it was or wasn't, it was a phenomenal film. It felt like real people living in a real world. And it was a good story. Probably the first film I've seen that made Vikings look like actual people instead of tropes.
They still look like tropes
@@dreyri2736 not rly, only part was when they got "berserker" which is probably not accurate. but the clothing was accurate, so was the buildings. Everything is tropes nowadays lol, even ancient romans loved to portray their own past with tropes.
I felt the film tried to honor the cultural context of the mythos, to give it some reasonable grounding as they took up the mantle of a mythic/legendary story teller. As with any art, especially one funded by "hollywood", there are points to quibble over (for me the worst was holding the sword stupidly backwards to look 'cool'). That said, I wish more films would hire experts in the field when trying breathing life into historically and/or culturally grounded films.
Loved the film, btw!
I loved this movie. I think that a lot of people need to have a plot explained to them within the movie and have a hard time just enjoying it. This movie was entertaining start to finish. As Dr. Crawford has explained before, the sagas have a dreamlike qualities and they don't always make perfect sense in the moment and what modern audiences consider "plot holes" aren't actually important to the overall story.
I felt that the movie had a lot of potential, but that it lost momentum about halfway through and became more tedious than enjoyable. The sets were amazing as were the costumes and props.
I'm kinda surprised given the textual reference point, Saxo's Amleth, is also the basis for Hamlet, one of the most well-read Shakespeare plays... which is essentially an OTT, angsty, revenge-story.
The movie was a trainwreck. Don´t even compare it to a Saga. That´s an insult!
@@MrKorton Go back to netflix.
@@MrKorton This movie was NOT a train wreck. You may not have liked it, but it was a well crafted piece of art.
The Northman is the best movie, by far, I’ve seen in many years.
Check out the director’s other films! He’s definitely someone I will automatically watch every project of.
Hell yeah, was waiting for this one. I loved the Northman a lot
Fantastic movie. Seen it twice.
The final credits for the film under the consultation section mentions a consultant for Old Ukranian, which I assume is what is used for all of Olga's lines and some of the dialogue used in the raid scene.
It's strange they used Old Ukrainian, as that is Ukrainian dialect Old East Slavic from around the 11th to 14th century. In 895 CE, all Slavic languages should still be more or less still something which looks like Old Church Slavonic, with leanings towards some of the later language splits, since that is right around when Old Church Slavonic was first written. Additionally, Old Church Slavonic has much more material as a language than Old East Slavic, so it would be easier to write for OCS. Very strange. Maybe they didn't have another specialist on hand?
@The Rat They probably just didn’t know you were available
@@hadeskiller1 I'm not
More likely is something that Jackson touched on in a seperate video: In the regions of the Kyvian Rus they'd be more likely speaking Old East Norse. Plus, given how Old Church Slavonic inherently has more in common with later southern Slavic languages. And even though it's the "oldest attested Slavic language", I think it's plausible to suggest that the expert in question felt like Old Ukrainian may have been a more geographically sensitive choice.
@@Nikelaos_Khristianos Sure, but the local Slavic population would still speak Common Slavic. I mean, Old Ukrainian might be 'geographically sensitive' (whatever that means, I don't know that it's explicitly stated where the depicted Slavs live), but also around 300-400 years out-of-date. For time comparison, you might as well have had all the English dialog actually in Shakespearean English, or made all the runes Proto-Norse. That last one is a normal flaw of films, but if they went to the effort to get the runes and the Old Norse right, it would have been at least as much effort to find someone to do an Early Medieval Slavic language.
For me as a Dane I found my fascination with viking history and pre-historic scandinavia due to globalism. I know that sounds really vague, but globalism as a phenomenon is just like this big fish swallowing up the world in a meaningless gulp and viking history is my attempt at rooting things in something that makes sense. Something that I can identify with on a personal and even spiritual level - Although I'm not practising or subscribing to the Ase beliefs.
In Denmark, I've noticed people are becoming very americanized, myself included, to a point where we care for niche political subjects of that part of the world and people replace not just words, but entire sentences with English. I dislike seeing my own home nation being reduced to another state in America. Getting in touch and educating myself on my distant ancestry helps in providing meaning to the world and its future for me. Generally, I find history fascinating, even on seemingly mundane subjects such as how people dealt with boredom. It's a gold mine for me.
So they just speak in English to talk about specific things?
@@royalwayne7244 No it's more like replacing a full sentence between punctuation. I understand them just fine, but it's a weird phenomenon. I use english words in my speech all the time, but I never replace entire sentences. Also, words like "passion" is just straight up used now. Even though we have the latin basis for the word, it sounds off when you have a perfectly functioning danish word "lidenskab" to do the job.
In talk shows they just straight up say "shitstorm" and "agenda". Agenda also has a perfectly fine, danish word "dagsorden" but you'll hear people say "agenda" nowadays far more often.
It's not just the young either. It's trendy among older, middle-aged people too.
Another really aggravating thing about this is that it's still said with a thick danish accent more often than not so it's incredibly jarring to listen to.
Interesting but yes the European union when it was formed was the great plan by America go Americanize most of Europe and cemented by belonging to NATO , which gave America the chance to put thousands to troops in Europe .
I’m always amazed by how many internet discussions on American politics and social issues are populated by Europeans. Sure everyone’s going to have an opinion and a reaction to world events but it seems more personal than that to some.
@@dingdingdingding5544 I don't know what you mean by "Europeans" because we are not a nation like the USA. The scandinavian countries have a lot of things in common, but compared to France, Germany, Italy, Spain and so forth, it's very different.
Scandinavia has a larger population of people with more time on their hands. Our life quality on average is very good. Because of this we have more time for global affairs and the news sections are very much aware. A lot of the news are focused on US politics and our politicans are very pro-USA. An example could be how Obama is having some bizarre rockstar tour where he will visit Denmark to talk about... Obama things I guess? The tickets are 425 a pop.
People consume american brands and in general, the presence of the USA is inescapable here.
It's really not at all weird that you get Danish, Swedish and Norwegian people talking about the USA and related politics.
Watched on demand with subtitles. Olga was speaking an old Slavic language, you nailed it
Absolutely loved this movie, it's great to hear 2 experts discussing it!
I find it interesting to compare the modern Scandinavian attitudes towards their popular historical culture against the attitudes of modern Italians and Greeks, who by contrast tend to be quite proud of their respective nations' ancient histories. Although, I have met many who literally will run away from a conversation or discussion about those histories or Ancient Greek/Ancient Latin; I think it's an aspect of personal taste, not everyone finds those topics interesting (I roll my eyes incredibly hard when someone tries to talk at me about the history of South Africa, for example, my home country). Instead, and this is a generalisation of the experiences I've had, but I find they're more interested in suggesting where you should go in their countries because they're generally quite happy to send people to parts that are beautiful but also maybe not as well known. Sometimes based on expressed historical interest. But also generally, and I think this is a point of national pride, but many Greeks and Italians I've met are quite joyous when they meet foreigners who are genuinely interested in the culture and history of their countries, it's like "Oh great! You're not just here for the weather, amazing!".
For some reason they kept referring to "The gates of Hel" as a fiery place not a bitter frost bitten plane
Hel is Loki's daughter. Odin's horse is Loki's child. Horse porn.
Odin's 8 legged horse. It now has twin heads. Made from human body parts. Crashed 9/11 style against the face of a building. 'Could it be the Christian swines'.
How much of that 'movie' crap do you need.
Not from a necessarily Norse perspective, but just general anthropologically speaking, I think it makes sense for the underground ritual to be led by a man. Unlike the other, public acts of magic, it was an initiation ceremony bringing the boy into manhood--I think such a thing would be male-exclusive and kept secret, especially from women (and likewise there are probably female exlusive initiation rituals that the men don't know about). Also such a thing wouldn't be written about publically in sagas, giving the filmmakers artistic license to speculate.
In many cultures the process of puberty, menstruation, marriage and childbirth stand as these rituals you hypothesize for women.
These transformations are obvious and deeply profound. Nothing more was necessary.
In norse tradition magic (seidr) was almost exclusively a feminie art practiced by the seeress (volva) with Odin being an exception
One thing thats plays well into the discussion about this by the experts in the video is that fact that priest/shaman wears elements of women’s clothing (i.e. the big brooches worn on the shoulder straps of dresses) at least in the passage in Iceland. (Edit:further along in the video now and they end up talking about this scene more)
@@toddfarrington19 Seiđr wasn't exclusive, it was just considered negative and unmanly to practice it as a man in Old Norse Society.
I really appreciate the hell outta this thought. As someone who has immensely enjoyed the psychological writings of Joseph Campbell, especially regarding masculine initiation rituals, I'm so happy someone clocked this.
It was interesting to hear the discussion about how this material is not as popular in Norway as it is in the US and UK.
A discussion between generous people. About where academia and Hollywood intersect.
53:48 - I can attest to that I think most of the translations available in Sweden are either very old or not very good.
do you have the feeling that the representation of the viking world is becoming more accurate over time due to the public interest + accurate selection of consultants or is this just an isolated case?
The Norsemen show on Netflix is indeed hilarious. It's a shame it was so underwatched.
Great movie great videos from you Doc. Thank you.
I feel like all this feminist perspective about trying to decipher minute details and filling in the gaps with conjecture is more often than not just wishful thinking and relies on theorycrafting which can be easily dismissed with equipollent arguments. Guess I'm more of an empiricist
Regarding the woman who could have divorced her husband and where she would have gone, propably her family unless she was birthed from the mud.
Regarding the movie. I think that on it's own it's dirt and its sole appeal is the period, as if its designed in a lab specifically to cater to viking fans. It's no wonder that Eggers only ever talked about how he consulted with historians on the movie instead of anything else
The chapter starting at about 8 and a half minutes is titled "Multiple Giraffes". I wish this A.I. had directed the film - for me it lacked something.
Dr. Friðriksdóttir, you are one of my favorite authors about Viking women! I have used your book in two different essays for my university studies (study Old Norse religion and Gender science right now and want to continue with my bachelor in Literatur this autumn) and have gone back to the book constantly during my studies.Thank you for writing it! ❤
@Jóhanna Katrín Friðriksdóttir I bought your book!
A delightful conversation about an excellent movie.
Just a small nitpick. Norway is not a republic, but a constitutional monarchy.
Great interview. It has been interesting to hear some of the details that went into the movie. There is so much details and layers of things that they threw in there that I feel like I could watch it multiple times over and not catch everything.
Denmark here! My interest in the Vikings stems from the fact that they were so absurdly violent, compared to our present society, where you can get fined if you carry a pocket knife. I find it mindboogling that our present extremely peaceloving and easygoing populations, both in Denmark and in Norway, are the offspring of so bloodthirsty ancestors. The general lack of interest in the history of the Vikings, I believe, is caused by the fact, that we learned Viking history as school kids. For the average Dane there is nothing new here. And the reason why dr. Crawfords translations are so popular in Scandinavia is due to the fact that they are very well written. Also, we know from school that Viking culture was a form of organized hooliganism, so many of us are repelled by the glorification and heroification we see in the movies, because we know that it is simply not true. Which again explains why so many of us follow dr. Crawfords video lectures, where we are told "wie es eigentlich gewesen".
VERY interesting interview - thanks for your time Docs !
48:58 What does the Viking media have to say about the movie?
Thank you for this talk and the transcript to go back to! Interesting information from you both. I am interested in knowing where the plate comes from that has the imagery of the wolf headdress and helmet?
Well, that was exciting ! Thank you so much for this interview
Yes our Nicole was great in it.Everything is great in it
In terms of movies that might be accurate, there are some icelandic adaptations of sagas and the Raven trilogy. I can't judge of the actual accurateness but they seemed convincing to me at a time I was reading lots of sagas.
Thanks. Could you name some of these movies?
@@Schizopantheist I'm thinking of the Raven trilogy, in particular (from wikipedia):
When the Raven Flies (1984) - (original Icelandic title: Hrafninn flýgur) - usually known as simply The Raven or Revenge of the Barbarians.
In The Shadow of the Raven (1987) - (original Icelandic title: Í skugga hrafnsins).
Embla (2007) - (original Icelandic title: Hvíti víkingurinn) - the directors cut of The White Viking.
And also Utlaginn, an adaptation of a saga
Hi, Jackson! I heard the viking horned helmet was a Hollywood invention but at 25:11 that looks very much like one of those helmets. What's up with that?
Unintentional ASMR
"Poor Yorrick"
Regarding the oath / mantra that Amleth repeats (mentioned at 15:55), does anyone know what he is saying? The subtitles seem to be: "I will avenge you. I will honour our blood. I will cut the thread of Fate." but from what Dr. Friðriksdóttir says here, the Norse lines are different. The first spoken line is "Ek strengi þess heit" and then in the last line there is something about being a niðingr. The lines might be of a similar meaning to the subtitles, but it seems to be far from a direct translation.
It's a load of bollocks.
@@nancydachaudamour1166 What do you mean?
It's a load of bollocks. The only thing that makes sense is his name. Hamlet Amleth first last bible thing.
@@nancydachaudamour1166 I believe you are wrong. "Ek strengi þess heit" translates into "I swear/say this oath", and "niðingr" is also an authentic Norse word. What do you base your assumption on?
Still all the dimwits think that his uncle is the 'bad guy'. Bollocks. His uncle is only another brainwashed victim/facade so that his mother can play queen. All she does is keep brainwashing his uncle and then she tries to brainwash him as well but he is too 'noble' to hump her. Either she will dream up a trap to get rid of one 'king' to get another 'king' or she will try to seduce the strongest guy who then has to kill the other one plus his kids who are also her kids. Doesn't matter who it is.
In my experience, swedes have a tendency to focus on the House of Vasa and the Swedish Empire instead of the viking age. I can't recall that we even had that much about the viking age in school growing up.
Interesting. That period of Swedish history is cool though, and I think Sweden’s importance at this time is often overlooked in the US and Western Europe.
Amleth should eat more Wasa knackbrot and knock his mother up. Amleth is a softie.
A son loves his mother. No he doesn't.
I loved the movie, I'm curious to your view on the movie.
Это забавно. Когда я смотрел этот фильм, я думал о том, сделал ли ты анализ его целостности.
Very informative. It's nice to see so much effort going into movie.
Saw you on Stegosaurus day, and now here you are.
Thank you so much!
nice you got one of the people working on the film
I'm little shocked people related to Norse wasn't that too excited. people should never forget about their ancestors either the good or the bad.
👍
Dr.Johanna, your awesome and super knowledgeable and you aught to recognize your worth and awesomeness, your humble demeanor is admirable but you deserve to know how well you do what you do! The movie would not be as successful as it is if it were not for your consultation, that is a fact. Anyone who is asked to help in the manner you did is integral to the most important part of the film to the director and Alex, and that’s authenticity. You rock! Is what I’m tryna say lol. Good job! Positive self talk positive reinforcement!
Hi, baby archaeologist here. On the question of why Americans and UK citizens are hyper interested in Norse/Viking media products, Dr. Crawford isnt wrong when he points to LOTR fandom in the 1970s as an origin point. But Dr Jóhanna is way closer to the mark when she talks about National identity and the usefulness of a great and glorious past as evidence to support why a nation should exist. Here in the US, "great and glorious " pasts are utilized to provide a historical or mythological backing for white nationalism, and the uptick of interest in recent years can be tied to the rise of anti-racism activism and the rebuttal of white nationalists through rallies, recruitment for hate groups, and violence against non-white people. I hate to be a johnny rain cloud about it, but its a consistent pattern here in the US. Before Vikings, it was 300, Gladiator, Alexander, and Troy with the whitest people you know. Then archaeologists, historians, and literature experts soundly critiqued these films and pointed out the white washing. Then it became crusaders, Robin Hood, and Camelot, and once again, medievalists, archies and more had to reiterate that the medieval world was more nuanced and diverse than some films portrayed, and when Hollywood adjusted, there went the interest. Before all that it was LOTR, and while in retrospect we can all enjoy the films and simultaneously understand that Tolkiens perspective about linguistic features and more was very influenced by his white as paper upbringing, in the context of the 70s it played very well with stoking the interest of white people. Honestly, Dr. Jeb Card has explored this in much more detail in his book "Spooky Archaeology " and I highly recommend it.
All that aside, I have to say my favorite parts of the Northman were the seidr and ritual scenes and the Draugr. I guess to me they were all more interesting because they explored the Norse perpective of what is magic....but I was extremely bored by the rest of the plot. I guess Im Hamletted out.
Does the question of why is the valkyrie in the movie wearing braces on her teeth, get answered in this talk?
I may watch this whole thing if I have an hour. Seeing as there are no time stamps, I needed to ask here about the braces.
It’s actually not braces, but a groove filed into the teeth. As far as I remember there is actually historical evidence for this practice so it was cool to see this little detail (though I agree, at first glance I saw it as braces as well!)
@@nuketeacup
Aha!!! Thank you for that. It was really weirding me out. :)
Was that covered in this video, or did you find this out somewhere else?
@James Gordley it's documented. Research online: YT doesn't permit link sharing.
"Viking warriors filed deep grooves in their teeth, and they probably had to smile broadly to show them off, according to new finds in four major Viking Age cemeteries in Sweden.
Caroline Arcini of Sweden's National Heritage Board and colleagues analysed 557 skeletons of men, women and children from 800 to 1050 AD.
She discovered that 22 of the men bore deep, horizontal grooves across the upper front teeth.
"The marks are traces of deliberate dental modifications ... they are so well-made that most likely they were filed by a person of great skill," Arcini writes in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, a journal of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists."
It’s a shame because I loved all of the attention to detail from Eggers but damn the plot just fell completely flat for me.. everyone just felt so two dimensional. It helped for me to tell myself that the film was an adaptation of a saga-like story and so we see tropes not real fleshed our characters, but it still didn’t really help much. While parts were really good, I just left scratching my head at the ultimate vision and plot arc.
Of all the criticism I've seen, yours was the fairest. 👍
@@rentfree8841 Thank you, like the thing is that I really love all of Egger’s other movies. I really think the pressure of the studio to make it a box office hit was the issue with the movie. The details and mythological themes were amazing and almost unprecedented in a Viking Age film, but at the end of the day I just didn’t find myself caring for Amleth or anyone really at all.
The only hint of character development for Amleth is his mother plot twist towards the end, and this notion of resisting fate but even those I felt were sort of weak.
The film was on the longer end but I absolutely felt it needed more time somehow or just a different plot structure. We got immediately thrust into his boyhood initiation and then straight to trauma and then straight to his warrior revenge arc with no intervening private moments or even so much as a damned training montage. The whiplash was a lot and even though I understand it’s based on Shakespeare, his constant revenge chant was cheesy to me.
Plus the constant screaming and roaring and howling had me rolling my eyes a bit. While I do appreciate the mythological aspects, they really should have only done this in a scene or two but it felt like it was in a ton of scenes.
Ultimately, I was sort of hoping for something like The Witch. I want a film in which the details and life of the medieval Norse peoples are sort of background noise and flavor while the people are sympathetic and feel real. This movie sort of felt like “look how much Norse signifiers I can cram into two hours”.. it was a lot of showing us cool stuff and not so much developing on the actual plot. A film where Amleth runs off into the Norwegian forests and sort of lives a rough life among the peasantry and slowly but surely grows up and takes a conflicted but ultimately satisfying revenge might be better. The huge scope of scenes and peoples and locations just felt like he was trying to cram as much big showy stuff into the scenes as possible. But again, I can sort of understand the vision by telling myself it’s supposed to be based on a legendary saga and not something quite simple and mundane like the characters of the Witch or the Lighthouse.
Maybe I was just hoping for a different Eggers, and I definitely liked parts of it, but that’s my extended 2 cents if anyone cares.
The northman stands out more for having an archaic Norse style story instead of a more modern structure. If all stories are told in the same way with the same characters then fiction begins to lose its flavor and diversity.
@@dingdingdingding5544 Frankly, the Witch and the Lighthouse had unique plot structures and I enjoyed them because they were slow burn horrors and it suited them very well. For a blockbuster action film though? I think this didn’t not work very well at all even though I see what he was intending to do.
@@Condobius It would be a mistake to try and cram a Norse saga into a Hollywood blockbuster action mold. One of the reason why Eggers and his films are such great pieces of art is that they carry with them the elements of the stories from which they derive. The lighthouse for example is a very New England story. The Northman is no different.
I share your Videos to my Group on MeWe, called, Brothers and Sisters of Asgard.
How much of the dark & gritty world-view is a projection:
A projection of modern arthouse sensibilities on the Viking age?
Or even a projection of Medieval times on the Viking age?
The reviews of The Northman are quite interesting. A lot of people hail this movie as the bringer of "realism" in terms of historical accuracy. But how realistic is THE STORY if this was to represent the entirety of the Viking era?
That was the ONE part of the movie that was the least accurate. There was an OBVIOUS bias towards portraying the Vikings as EXTREMELY violent and savage..... which is non-sense. Just because they were good warriors, doesn't mean they were any more violent as a culture than any one else in the world.
An interview with their leading Historian/Archeologist, he literally says "It's important to know how violent these raids were", when talking about the village raid scene in the movie. So he basically admits that he's projecting his modern world-view and bias into the movie. No legit Scientist should EVER say something like that. They basically made the raid as violent as possible, and tried to pass that off as the norm. They also exaggerated the bad treatment of the slaves....... making their bias even more obvious. This is was also shown by the woman in this interview, they're not being Scientific, they're basically just assuming the slaves were treated like trash because that's what they've been taught all their lives growing up about slaves in general. Which makes absolutely NO SENSE, why would they beat and treat slaves like trash when they're the most expensive/valuable "things" they have? I'm sure they blew half their wealth on buying a slave, then beat them and let them die in the winter...... sure. Also, this interview has shown me they also seemed to have a sort of obsession with gender(Whamen, Whamen , whamen), although to be fair, that IS this Woman's specialty. I still find it bizarre to be SO obsessed with gender though. Again, they did a decent job of not letting themselves get too carried away with it in the movie, which I'm sure took a lot of restraint from these type of people lol.
At this point their modern Political ideology is becoming obvious and starting to leak into the movie.... although overall they did a really good job of not letting it affect the accuracy of the movie, except for in those two respects.
When it comes to the Architecture, the swords/armor, the cast, the mythology, the rituals....... they did a fantastic job. It sounds like I hated the movie lol, but I actually loved it. Visuals and Soundtrack were amazing, must be seen on the big screen for the full experience. They did a great job of making you feel like you were transported back in time to the Viking age, specifically with the mystical aspects.
167 +VLFBERHT+ swords were found. 9th to 11th century. Viking to medieval knight period. AD895. 895+167=2291-1229=1229-167. Hamlet 1229 Amleth 2291. Devil's bible Codex Gigas 1229 Bohemia. Queen Christine took it to Sweden.
It's just another 9/11 style devil film made by the devil played by Kidman.
The mythical parts seemed very Christinized. Was this baded on poetic eda?
The earliest Medieval source is from Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum. The story of Amleth is not from the Poetic or Prose Eddas. Icelandic versions of the story actually appeared much later than Saxo's.
Vikings brought Christianty to Viking land. The church became more powerful than the king.
The producers of this movie sacrificed plot for visual effects. Looks like a bunch of unconnected stories mixed together.
Yeah plenty. There's no end to it and it all fits together. Every saga is built into it but twisted and turned inside out and upside down and calculated.
The whole bible is in it, every saga, anything you can read or dream up.
Dry rot; cut Pinocchio's 'wooden' nose off; no lies. No nose lies when Amleth escapes. 'He drowned in the sea'. Rotten to the core; Odin's tree. 'Tree of kings'.
Loki's daughter Hel and Loki's great serpent. Same stuff as in the bible. Dry rot trees. 9 worlds of Odin. 1229 'rotten trinity'; [122x9]+122+9=1229; year Codex Gigas written. Devil's bible. Twin 1229; [1x2x29]+1229=1/0.000777000777000.... Shiva bound by the number 7. Loki's 'bound' snake and wolf. Plenty wolf howling then that dog goes funny and then comes that dog heart thing. How do you know it's your son's heart.
This was a terrible movie. Sorry.
Honestly, I don't care about the Northman. Her expert opinion, is very interesting. Would be nice if she would talk longer and about her wisdom.