SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: First Discussion Thread! - Valhalla Rising (Here be spoilers!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guestx
  • Start date Start date
they were not trying to make an obscure film when that is exactly what they were doing

I've never said anything like that. In fact I belive the excact opposite. When I say "obscurism for obscurisms sake" I'm just refeering to the practice of making something mysterious just so that it'll be mysterious, without any thought of the symbolism that goes into it. And I do think that Refn made a movie that was meant to symbolise something (Odin and Hell and all that)

You take the supernatural aspect of the film and toss it over your shoulder like salt

I don't see myself doing that at all. I've talked about the supernatural aspects of the boat journey and One-Eyes supernatural powers and all that. I just disagree with certain interpretations you've made.
 
Assuming that the priest was talking about Norse Hel, then that sentance makes no sense. Warriors never went to Hel in Norse mythology -- they went to Valhalla. Hel in the Norse mythology was not assosiated with violence, it was assosiated with starvation, sickness and decay, none of which is represented in this movie. And One-Eye dies a violent death, preventing him from ever going to Hel when he dies.

Yeah, for this reason the boy saying he's from Hell/Hel and One-Eye disappearing under the water at the end at the most confusing parts for me. It doesn't make sense that Odin would be from Hell, Hel or North America obviously.

Frankly, I think that Refn considered much of this an aimless meditation. He had some ideas as his basis (One-Eye being Odin for instance) but other than that he abandoned logical structures and rationalities and instead just filmed something that just felt was "medative".

This is what I think as well, although I see something to the idea of fatalism as a theme too.
 
I've never said anything like that. In fact I belive the excact opposite. When I say "obscurism for obscurisms sake" I'm just refeering to the practice of making something mysterious just so that it'll be mysterious, without any thought of the symbolism that goes into it. And I do think that Refn made a movie that was meant to symbolise something (Odin and Hell and all that)



I don't see myself doing that at all. I've talked about the supernatural aspects of the boat journey and One-Eyes supernatural powers and all that. I just disagree with certain interpretations you've made.

Look, I don't really know what the author was thinking with this piece. I do know that it has been interpreted in many ways since its release and the arguments over it are all over the internet. I tend to believe that One-Eye was deity of some sort, Odin for example, the Christians thought he might be Satan, and Mad himself said they knew people would think he was Jesus or Satan.

So its not much of a jump for me if I assume that One-Eye was deity, that the Christians may have died on the battlefield and Odin, disguised as a warrior, escorted them through the mist and to the underworld. That sort of interpretation, for me, makes the movie understandable. It makes things work and make sense. I'm alright though with our disagreement here. I don't really know for sure anything. Its one of the most ambiguous movies I've ever seen and made that way on purpose.
 
Yeah, for this reason the boy saying he's from Hell/Hel and One-Eye disappearing under the water at the end at the most confusing parts for me. It doesn't make sense that Odin would be from Hell, Hel or North America obviously.



This is what I think as well, although I see something to the idea of fatalism as a theme too.

That puzzle can only go together correctly if you make assumptions.

The Pagan priest that was disemboweled on the rock told One-Eye, "when I die, you will go back to Hel."
The Boy said One-Eye was "brought up from Hel"
Meaning that One-Eye is not Odin, he was perhaps a great warrior that had an eye put out. Possibly the boy was Odin and he was escorting One-Eye back to Hel.

This is the sort of thing that makes europe pound the podium with a shoe because he will say its unsubstantiated, and it is, but you have to rectify what little dialogue we were given to work with and the Pagan Priest said One-Eye was going "back" to Hel, as in, he had already been there and was going back.The Boy corroborates this information by saying One-Eye was brought up from Hel.
 
Don't know if I missed this in the intro but where was this filmed? What parts of Scottland? The scenery is one of the best things about this movie.
 
* The "tripping balls" scene comes out of nowhere for me and I honestly can't tie it into the narrative in any meaningful fashion. They're like, okay, let's trip balls for no apparent reason, and then we've got One-Eye building some rock shit, another guy rapes his buddy in the ass, and some other dude is down in the mud stabbing the earth. It just seemed like weirdness for weirdness' sake.

Call it a stretch but I think it might be a homage to the 2011 San Fran Sherdog Meetup
 
Just wanted to point out some things that no one has mentioned yet.

According to the description on IMDB the movie takes place in the year 1000 AD.

There were many Viking settlements in Scotland during 1000 AD. Norwegian Vikings invaded and annexed the Orkney Islands in 875 AD.

Here's some facts about Europe in the year 1000.

  • This is considered to be the halfway point of the middle ages.
  • The reign of the Vikings lasted from roughly 790 - 1066 AD. The movie takes place towards the end of the Viking age. They could see the end coming
  • Christianity started to gain a foothold in the Scandanavian countries.
  • Iceland embraced Christianity in the year 1000
  • As you can see in the map below the Holy Roman Empire was on Denmark's foot-steps. This is partly why so many Vikings were setting up shop in Northern Scotland at the time
  • The Hungarian and Bulgarian empires were toppled by the Macedonians.
  • King Olaf Tryggvason (of Norway) was defeated by an alliance of his enemies, lead by Sweyn Forkbeard who was also the King of Denmark, and England. Sweyn was a Christian

Here's a map of the world in 1000 AD
map-europe-1000.jpg


It's very perplexing as to why One-eye seems to be representative of both Christianity and Norse Religion... The transition theory seems to make sense given these facts. Why did they pick a year? Why a year that symbolizes change?

The Norse Religion was stuck in the middle of a holy war, and they knew their Norse religion wasn't going to win the battle. They had to transition from Norse religion to Christianity... but they didn't want to change, and the change was against their nature, but they did it anyways... to save the boy (their boys & girls)

One-eye represents the Vikings (Norse religion / the old way) and the boy represents the future generations (Christianity). Why did the mighty Vikings, who were brave warriors give in to Christianity without a fight? To save their children who would've perished in the war with Christianity, to save their lands which would have been annexed and turned into Roman settlements, if the Norwegians didn't comply, and convert.

The madness represents the turmoil, the frustration of having to make the decision between your beliefs or your children.

Also apparently the boys name is "Are", which is the plural of "to be", as in "to be or not to be"
 
Last edited:
Because I don't think that was America. I think it was hell, or the underworld, purgatory, whatever you want to call it. They weren't in Kansas anymore.

I've got a new card to play here, my friend.

I found this interview here with Refn and his director of photography, Morten Soborg:

http://www.theasc.com/site/podcasts/valhalla-rising-nicolas-winding-refn-morten-soborg/

If you jump to about 44:40, Soborg says, "The story is that we start out in Scotland and we end up in America. And we had to make Scotland look like both America and Scotland."

I've certainly enjoyed your thoughts on this and think you've had some very fine subjective interpretations, but as far as the official story, I believe that seals it. They sail to North America.
 
Just watched it, very experiential film, feels like you get to understand the main character the more the movie floats along because he's quiet, most of the film's quiet and gloomy as you experience it... the silence is maddening... Had a real Apocalypse Now feel to it.

One cool thing I think Refn has as a director is trying to communicate an emotion not through plot logic or speech, but through visuals and music. Really good music and visual art, in my opinion, is something that tries to communicate an emotional state, sometimes complex, through means other than explanation. That's the mechanics behind use of metaphor. Something that isn't, but is.

The trick is to replicate the emotion in different circumstances that can be understood by someone who doesn't know or understand the original context. This can get really bogged down and confusing, though. Treating film as if it were music or a painting. That's what I think he's doing. Trying to simplify it, too, as much as possible.

Here's an article from a series I just started reading, it's from the Free Film School at craveonline.com, it's called Film as Ornamentation, and I think this film qualifies:

http://www.craveonline.com/culture/496383-free-film-school-98-film-as-ornamentation

I think he's going for something basic, a physical and primal sensation in viewing film, rather than a knowledge or wisdom of the world being communicated.

So I think his motive for this film is something about being in nature, outside of civilization. Not escaping civilization for nature, but how man in nature must have felt, as the incessant and addictive need for civilization crept up around him like a Mist. These days, we can only understand nature as a respite, somewhere we go to get away from civilization, as a contrast.

He wants us to get a glimpse of how a person lived before that civilization and morality stuff crept in and ruined us, have him go through it, as an outsider, a captured slave, a free man, and have him eventually accept his fate, no going back, unless you count death, the most universal and unanimous natural act.

If you think about it, before modern society, it must have been maddening, a deafening sort of boredom, having to survive as a wandering nomad, and the human mind seeks ways to explain why things are the way they are, via religion (let's join a crusade!) or superstition (it's the boy's fault! We're in hell, it's One Eye's Fault!) or power (I'm in it for the gold and riches), or even love (OneEye and the Boy, odd couple from way back!) by seeking and participating in civilization.

If anything, this is mankind's way of dealing with mind-numbing boredom, whereas before, we didn't know any better. One-Eye didn't know any better, and he got a taste, and now he wants to go back to before he knew, which is impossible, can't un-ring a bell. But it's addictive, being around people and forming relationships. He made a friend, the boy. He's infected. His ultimate undoing.

I think this guy One Eye is the opposite of those wanting, even needing civilization, seeking it out. He's the one who was before, and was cool with it, but he got caught and is kinda forced to participate. He's comfortable in an amoral Nature. He kills, he doesn't ask why, or start crying out of guilt or conquering out of greed or any of those newer emotions. It's like he was beyond emotions, or before emotions. That's what he wants to get back to, and this journey shows us the only way back is death via primordial Chuck-It Tennis Ball Launcher.

e4d644e2aa428da0c02aa24c08639b2e.1500


As is, it feels like a real good Mood Movie. Also felt like MMA back then was much more conclusive and satisfying. There were no decisions or draws or lay and pray. Finish rate 100%!


Really good post that brought some lulz. I don't have anything to add, but just wanted you to know that I read it and liked it. Plenty of good thoughts here.
 
This was my second time through Valhalla Rising and I guess I just lack the cultural education to really get beyond the surface elements of the film. It was visually interesting and well shot, the action was good, and story was as you said secondary. It felt really foreign and empty to me.

Do all the thoughts here about Odin etc give you a new perspective on it at all? Or increase its depth for you?
 
I've got a new card to play here, my friend.

I found this interview here with Refn and his director of photography, Morten Soborg:

http://www.theasc.com/site/podcasts/valhalla-rising-nicolas-winding-refn-morten-soborg/

If you jump to about 44:40, Soborg says, "The story is that we start out in Scotland and we end up in America. And we had to make Scotland look like both America and Scotland."

I've certainly enjoyed your thoughts on this and think you've had some very fine subjective interpretations, but as far as the official story, I believe that seals it. They sail to North America.

I would say completely unbelievable then. He goes out of his way to create supernatural events every inch of the way and then sums it up as, accidentally sailed across the Atlantic and killed by Indians, The End. Did he at least smirk when he said it?
 
I would say completely unbelievable then. He goes out of his way to create supernatural events every inch of the way and then sums it up as, accidentally sailed across the Atlantic and killed by Indians, The End. Did he at least smirk when he said it?

LOL, well the interview is all audio, but I detected no audible smirk. You can check it out for yourself, though.

As for it being unbelievable, you could, perhaps, just apply your supernatural theory them getting to America (One-Eye did it, the mist was supernatural, etc). Only that instead of sailing into the underworld, he brought them to North America. Why would he do that? I really don't know. Especially since they don't successfully build a settlement. This is what I meant earlier when I said that the movie raises more questions than it answers and that the necessary pieces of the puzzle are not actually in the movie to answer certain questions.

But again, as I said before, the underworld theory to me was a difficult one considering that One-Eye told the boy that he would build another boat and go home. Unless we're interpreting home as something non-terrestrial, or you think that there's going to be another supernatural mist to get the boy OUT of the underworld, then that part just doesn't make sense.
 
Just wanted to point out some things that no one has mentioned yet.

According to the description on IMDB the movie takes place in the year 1000 AD.

There were many Viking settlements in Scotland during 1000 AD. Norwegian Vikings invaded and annexed the Orkney Islands in 875 AD.

Here's some facts about Europe in the year 1000.

  • This is considered to be the halfway point of the middle ages.
  • The reign of the Vikings lasted from roughly 790 - 1066 AD. The movie takes place towards the end of the Viking age. They could see the end coming
  • Christianity started to gain a foothold in the Scandanavian countries.
  • Iceland embraced Christianity in the year 1000
  • As you can see in the map below the Holy Roman Empire was on Denmark's foot-steps. This is partly why so many Vikings were setting up shop in Northern Scotland at the time
  • The Hungarian and Bulgarian empires were toppled by the Macedonians.
  • King Olaf Tryggvason (of Norway) was defeated by an alliance of his enemies, lead by Sweyn Forkbeard who was also the King of Denmark, and England. Sweyn was a Christian

Here's a map of the world in 1000 AD
map-europe-1000.jpg


It's very perplexing as to why One-eye seems to be representative of both Christianity and Norse Religion... The transition theory seems to make sense given these facts. Why did they pick a year? Why a year that symbolizes change?

The Norse Religion was stuck in the middle of a holy war, and they knew their Norse religion wasn't going to win the battle. They had to transition from Norse religion to Christianity... but they didn't want to change, and the change was against their nature, but they did it anyways... to save the boy (their boys & girls)

One-eye represents the Vikings (Norse religion / the old way) and the boy represents the future generations (Christianity). Why did the mighty Vikings, who were brave warriors give in to Christianity without a fight? To save their children who would've perished in the war with Christianity, to save their lands which would have been annexed and turned into Roman settlements, if the Norwegians didn't comply, and convert.

The madness represents the turmoil, the frustration of having to make the decision between your beliefs or your children.

Also apparently the boys name is "Are", which is the plural of "to be", as in "to be or not to be"


Interesting post. Thanks.

And if you look at my last post to Muster, that confirms that the story does indeed take place IN Scotland rather than Scotland acting as some weird stand-in for Scandinavia.

Regarding the transition theory, I thought it was interesting when I first ran across it a few days ago and I still think so. Though it raises some questions: If this is supposed to symbolize the old Pagan way dying out and the rise to Christianity, why show all the Christians (who are supposedly rising to power in this idea) going crazy and dying themselves? And why not give some indication that boy adopts Christianity as his personal faith?
 
Just watched it, very experiential film, feels like you get to understand the main character the more the movie floats along because he's quiet, most of the film's quiet and gloomy as you experience it... the silence is maddening... Had a real Apocalypse Now feel to it.

Your entire analysis was impressive but this comparison here, I will be using to describe the movie to people from now on.
 
Do all the thoughts here about Odin etc give you a new perspective on it at all? Or increase its depth for you?

It opens me up to the depth of the film but the mythology is still foreign to me. I guess the real question is whether or not I'm willing to learn Odin's story, Ragnarök, and how it would apply to this film and then rewatching the film to look for those references. I would have to of really really enjoyed it to become that invested in learning the material.

I'm horrible with symbolism though. When I was a kid we read The Grapes of Wrath for English class and there's a scene early in the book where a woman goes far out of her way to avoid running over a turtle and then a man goes out of his way to run it over. The metaphor behind that was completely lost on me after the first read through and even after it was pointed out in class I dismissed it. I unconsciously accept things at their face value all too often.
 
2. The more I think about it the more I think the Commander was a mad man. He wasn't devout. The only devout one among them was the man the Commander stabbed, Kare.

Well the commander was clearly crazy. There's no doubt about that, or at least he was driven crazy as the film goes on. But I don't think that means he wasn't sincere in his faith. I'd say you can be crazy while also being crazily sincere.

You're right about the priest, though. He was truly devout in his faith and also the most likable among the Christians.


3. The trip part does have some meaning I think. If you look across religions and time periods it is not unusual to see holy men take some sort of hallucinogen or drug to try to contact the spirit world, or God. What did they do? They prayed, stared into the water at the self, one of them committed a rape because maybe he was reliving his sins, maybe they all were. If they were is some sort of purgatory or hel or hell then they were doing exactly what people in hell would do. They were calling out to God for help. One-Eye built a tower of rocks called a Cairn which is a monument, like a tombstone. He was marking the place as a grave. He was telling you this is the grave, or maybe he was foreshadowing his own grave but it still fits in with the theory that they had gone to the underworld.

th

Interesting about the cairn.

As for the rest of the scene, I just don't know. I'm sure Refn had some kind of purpose for it but I don't see it. You say that it's been common throughout cultures to use hallucinogenics to contact the spirit world, which I understand, but that's never really been part of the CHRISTIAN tradition. Perhaps Refn was playing loose with the facts here, but it doesn't line up historically (unless Viking Christians specifically had some weird tradition of doing this that I'm not familiar with).


4. As far as the Boy going home. If you remember, when One-Eye and the boy met the Christians on the battlefield, which is where I think they died, they asked him where his home was and he said I don't know. The boy didn't know where his home was, he was unable to say and this was only a days travel from the location where he was with the Pagan's. That was not his home.

I did catch that bit about the boy saying "dunno" in answer to the question about home. But I wasn't clear on if the boy was saying that about HIS home or One-Eye's home (since no one really knows anything about One-Eye).

If it's about the boy not knowing where home is, how is he going to know where to sail? And how does he know he found it once he gets there?
 
The General was a great character and had some memorable lines such as "The boy said he was from Hell. Maybe that's where we're going." and "You'll be spiritual advisor of my new Jerusalem." and the Lost One just laughs at him.

Agreed on this. Good actor who turned in a memorable performance for sure.

"My lifelong friend, will you now turn your back on me? . . . Well go on then."

Great delivery.

The kid also turns in a great performance that I didn't fully appreciate until the second time around.


And that thing Refn said about originally having a spaceship picking One-Eye up has me seriously confused, even more so that he said it would be to easy too interpret. That would have been a serious WTF moment and honestly probably would have hurt the movie drastically for me.

Yeah, I am exactly where you are with this. I'd have been like . . . . Wha--? . . . What the fuck was THAT?
 
I'm horrible with symbolism though. When I was a kid we read The Grapes of Wrath for English class and there's a scene early in the book where a woman goes far out of her way to avoid running over a turtle and then a man goes out of his way to run it over. The metaphor behind that was completely lost on me after the first read through and even after it was pointed out in class I dismissed it. I unconsciously accept things at their face value all too often.


Dude, I'm actually right there with you. I love movies but I'm pretty bad about missing things that are obvious in retrospect.

Even with this movie, something simple as the trip balls scene, I didn't make the connection between them taking a drink and all the weird shit that came afterward.

I should have. The way the jug was very deliberately handed to the priest and the priest reluctantly accepts it, and then we get the close ups on everyone drinking, it should've clicked immediately. But since they never make any mention of carrying a hallucinogen with them, and also since there was the big deal made about fresh water on the boat, I naturally assumed it was water. And then everything that came after was just some weird NWR shit.
 
Yeah, I am exactly where you are with this. I'd have been like . . . . Wha--? . . . What the fuck was THAT?

It removes the surface chance of realism but I think suspending disbelief is required anyway. Perfect example being there's been a theory floated in this very thread about the new world actually being the christian Hell, assuming they crossed an ocean in that boat, etc. If it is about the transition to Christianity from Paganism maybe 'the New World' is a just a euphemism for a post pagan christian society.

Where does a space ship bring our logical conclusion about this movie? Not occurring within reality? (Hell fits that billing) Aliens? (We're already accepting him as a god, why not?) Beyond the initial shock of it all, what changes on the realism front?

Dude, I'm actually right there with you. I love movies but I'm pretty bad about missing things that are obvious in retrospect.

Even with this movie, something simple as the trip balls scene, I didn't make the connection between them taking a drink and all the weird shit that came afterward.

I should have. The way the jug was very deliberately handed to the priest and the priest reluctantly accepts it, and then we get the close ups on everyone drinking, it should've clicked immediately. But since they never make any mention of carrying a hallucinogen with them, and also since there was the big deal made about fresh water on the boat, I naturally assumed it was water. And then everything that came after was just some weird NWR shit.

It's a bit rough with movies because I've trained myself to just turn off and enjoy the experience; but that's dangerous and I just can't seem to shake it. But then again I miss things constantly in my everyday life as well.
 
It removes the surface chance of realism but I think suspending disbelief is required anyway. Perfect example being there's been a theory floated in this very thread about the new world actually being the christian Hell, assuming they crossed an ocean in that boat, etc. If it is about the transition to Christianity from Paganism maybe 'the New World' is a just a euphemism for a post pagan christian society.

Where does a space ship bring our logical conclusion about this movie? Not occurring within reality? (Hell fits that billing) Aliens? (We're already accepting him as a god, why not?) Beyond the initial shock of it all, what changes on the realism front?


I think the issue is that it would just be SO out of place. I mean, Lord of the Rings is a fantasy movie, and in fantasy movies anything could happen, but seeing a spaceship in Fellowship would be equally as disconcerting.

So even with fantastic story ideas, there usually still has to be some level of consistency.
 
Back
Top