Well, yes, it's true there are no car chases or explosions in this movie and it wasn't boffo at the box office, but it does pack an emotional punch. Although The Wild Duck is not as well known in the Anglo world as some of Ibsen's other plays, it's considered his masterpiece in Scandinavia, and the writers do a very good job of adapting it for the screen. There are even a few gunshots, and the last one is as wrenching an experience as I've had in a long time. The film is dark in more than theme however, as the lighting seemed unnecessarily dim. The cast is mostly good, especially Liv Ullmann as earth mother Gina, but the usually excellent Jeremy Irons is miscast as the main character Hjalmar (here called Harold)-- he's just too lean and hungry to play the complacent, pleasure loving blow hard. Sorry it wasn't another "Mad Max" but as long as people can't find a local production of plays by hacks like Chekov and Ibsen, film makers are doing the public a service by bringing them well crafted adaptations like this.
5 Reviews
your bill, sir...
ptb-814 February 2005
Dark was the word in 1984 for this tough Ibsen drama filmed in the wilds of the huge Sydney nature reserve called Centennial Park in Sydney
Released in the 'empty cinema' years of the Australian video boom, this 'important piece of theatre' on film was avoided and forgotten, but today might seem a better prospect given the impeccable theatre and tech credentials that went into its creation. . No doubt inspired by someone's serious homage to Ibsen and with a serious faced cast dressed in brown clothes, all concerned and cold and permanently in a quandary THE WILD DUCK sadly then did not ever pay its way at the box office. It is almost completely forgotten today, in fact until today. In fact until right now. However in a new sparkling 35mm print and with some serious re focus in appreciating the talent and the effort it might just play a lot better today than in 1984. Probably the only film Liv Ullman might ever make in Australia it is a curiosity piece for theatre buffs and cineastes who appreciate Scandanavian emotions.
Released in the 'empty cinema' years of the Australian video boom, this 'important piece of theatre' on film was avoided and forgotten, but today might seem a better prospect given the impeccable theatre and tech credentials that went into its creation. . No doubt inspired by someone's serious homage to Ibsen and with a serious faced cast dressed in brown clothes, all concerned and cold and permanently in a quandary THE WILD DUCK sadly then did not ever pay its way at the box office. It is almost completely forgotten today, in fact until today. In fact until right now. However in a new sparkling 35mm print and with some serious re focus in appreciating the talent and the effort it might just play a lot better today than in 1984. Probably the only film Liv Ullman might ever make in Australia it is a curiosity piece for theatre buffs and cineastes who appreciate Scandanavian emotions.
Dark secrets
TheLittleSongbird25 September 2019
Henrik Ibsen in my mind deserves his reputation of being one of the great playwrights/dramatists, his work being very poetic and profound, as well as remarkably realistic. One can totally see as to why he was considered a big influence over other great and important playwrights/dramatists, very important in his time (ahead of it perhaps as well) and by some the "father of realism". Know him best though for 'Peer Gynt' (Edvard Grieg plays some part in this) and 'Hedda Gabler'.
'The Wild Duck' though is a highly fascinating and moving work and shows perfectly why Ibsen's reputation was so well deserved, Ibsen's style is unmistakable and with the brooding atmosphere and the moving realism of the story and characters 'The Wild Duck' is very much distinctive of him. This early 80s film version is not very well known and not easily available, but even if there are better film adaptations of Ibsen's work it is worth tracking down and watching. As well as it being a major work by a great dramatist, it was difficult to resist watching being a fan of both its two leads Liv Ullman and Jeremy Irons.
It's a good looking film. The photography is both beautiful to look at and rich in atmosphere, the costumes and settings fit the relocated period evocatively (also very attractive while also uncompromising when needed) and the use of the staircases is effective. What is most striking though is the lighting, the shifts between light and dark mirroring the shifts in mood constantly changing. The music at least an appealing listen, is appropriately placed and fits the moods well without over-emphasising. The script is terse and has a lot of meaning even in scenes with less dialogue, classic Ibsen and captured well in the film. The story handles the different moods in a way that charms, touches and shocks, the brooding atmosphere and structure are intact and the characters are mostly as compellingly real as they are in the play.
As a play, it is heavily symbolic. So is the film and the symbolism is obvious and clearly presented, while just about avoiding being laid on too thick, a big danger with symbolism especially when there is a lot of it. There are a lot of themes (such as human weakness and guilt), explored tensely and poignantly without being sketchy or overdone. It is all credibly directed, and the performances are mostly strong. For me, the best performance came from Ullman on dignified and poignant form with a very expressive face. Arthur Dignam's pomposity is a good and not overdone contrast and Lucinda Jones and John Meillon are similarly strong.
Don't think 'The Wild Duck' is perfect. As good as the film looks, didn't see the point of the setting being relocated to early 20th century Australia especially when not an awful lot is done with it. Despite being a big fan of Irons, this is not one of his best performances, found him uncharacteristically bland and uncomfortable and he does struggle to not make Harold too unsympathetic.
Like the play, the ending is shocking. If anybody says that it is very melodramatic as well they are right, again like the play. Even for what happens for my tastes the melodrama got somewhat too over-heated that it veers on a little too overwrought, wouldn't go as far as calling it grotesque but this is the one point of the film where it felt on the heavy-handed side.
Overall though, well done and worth tracking down. 7/10
'The Wild Duck' though is a highly fascinating and moving work and shows perfectly why Ibsen's reputation was so well deserved, Ibsen's style is unmistakable and with the brooding atmosphere and the moving realism of the story and characters 'The Wild Duck' is very much distinctive of him. This early 80s film version is not very well known and not easily available, but even if there are better film adaptations of Ibsen's work it is worth tracking down and watching. As well as it being a major work by a great dramatist, it was difficult to resist watching being a fan of both its two leads Liv Ullman and Jeremy Irons.
It's a good looking film. The photography is both beautiful to look at and rich in atmosphere, the costumes and settings fit the relocated period evocatively (also very attractive while also uncompromising when needed) and the use of the staircases is effective. What is most striking though is the lighting, the shifts between light and dark mirroring the shifts in mood constantly changing. The music at least an appealing listen, is appropriately placed and fits the moods well without over-emphasising. The script is terse and has a lot of meaning even in scenes with less dialogue, classic Ibsen and captured well in the film. The story handles the different moods in a way that charms, touches and shocks, the brooding atmosphere and structure are intact and the characters are mostly as compellingly real as they are in the play.
As a play, it is heavily symbolic. So is the film and the symbolism is obvious and clearly presented, while just about avoiding being laid on too thick, a big danger with symbolism especially when there is a lot of it. There are a lot of themes (such as human weakness and guilt), explored tensely and poignantly without being sketchy or overdone. It is all credibly directed, and the performances are mostly strong. For me, the best performance came from Ullman on dignified and poignant form with a very expressive face. Arthur Dignam's pomposity is a good and not overdone contrast and Lucinda Jones and John Meillon are similarly strong.
Don't think 'The Wild Duck' is perfect. As good as the film looks, didn't see the point of the setting being relocated to early 20th century Australia especially when not an awful lot is done with it. Despite being a big fan of Irons, this is not one of his best performances, found him uncharacteristically bland and uncomfortable and he does struggle to not make Harold too unsympathetic.
Like the play, the ending is shocking. If anybody says that it is very melodramatic as well they are right, again like the play. Even for what happens for my tastes the melodrama got somewhat too over-heated that it veers on a little too overwrought, wouldn't go as far as calling it grotesque but this is the one point of the film where it felt on the heavy-handed side.
Overall though, well done and worth tracking down. 7/10
The Wild Duck? sheesh, give me some of that "Famous Grouse!"
uds312 November 2001
THE benchmark in boring movies. Not the 'worst movie' ever made, simply the slowest!
Ultimately lethargic and snooze-inducing rendition of the famed Henry Ibsen play. Basically two days in the life of the Ackland family around the turn of the century. Humorless Harold Ackland (Irons) can barely countenance his blind and illegitimate daughter, who totally starved of love and affection, bestows all her feelings on a pet wild duck. This is hardly the basis for a life-affirming and uplifting drama to begin with.
Now, IF one is truly dedicated to producing an ultimately depressing and charismaticless flick, Jeremy Irons and Liv Ullman would be the first two on your casting list. Henri Safran obviously thought so too. The actors, most of them in fact, are just on auto-pilot and about the only likely beneficiaries of this screen disaster would be students of the work of Henry Ibsen.
Ultimately lethargic and snooze-inducing rendition of the famed Henry Ibsen play. Basically two days in the life of the Ackland family around the turn of the century. Humorless Harold Ackland (Irons) can barely countenance his blind and illegitimate daughter, who totally starved of love and affection, bestows all her feelings on a pet wild duck. This is hardly the basis for a life-affirming and uplifting drama to begin with.
Now, IF one is truly dedicated to producing an ultimately depressing and charismaticless flick, Jeremy Irons and Liv Ullman would be the first two on your casting list. Henri Safran obviously thought so too. The actors, most of them in fact, are just on auto-pilot and about the only likely beneficiaries of this screen disaster would be students of the work of Henry Ibsen.
Waste of great talent and fine visuals.
davidsontrent13 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Visually stunning & grandiose period drama that starts off commanding a lot of the viewer's interest particularly in the performance's and the setting up of the story but ends up ultimately in Danielle Steele soap opera melodrama without the romance, with an overuse of obscure metaphors making adding some confusion to the mix. A first-rate cast is wasted is here but Jones as the tragic daughter & Mellion as Iron's father stand out with Iron's character being far to unsympathetic to be likable.
Though the direction was definitely more suited to a stage play than a feature film, Is it still possible something was lost when translated from the original Norwegian text?
Though the direction was definitely more suited to a stage play than a feature film, Is it still possible something was lost when translated from the original Norwegian text?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
