Henning Carlsen's adaptation of a famous Knut Hamsun novel is rightly remembered today for Per Oscarsson's performance as Pontus, a starving writer,looking for work, who doesn't want to admit to others (or to himself) how desperate he is and instead puts on airs, There is some precedent for such a character in film, in Louis Jouvet's downtrodden aristocrat in the Jean Renoir version of Maxim Gorky's The Lower Depths. In a key scene, Pontus sees himself getting down on all fours on a cobbled street to challenge a big black dog for a meat bone. As Pontus walks up and down the Christiana quarter, he keeps running into people. He's also obsessed with an attractive blonde (Gunnel Lindblom) and stalks her and her companion. When she actually invites him in to her place (he has been asked to leave his flat) the story, such as it is ( actually more of a character study) slows down somewhat, and the idea that such a genteel lady would accept a man who is basically a bum as her sexual partner seems more like something out of the 1960s than the 1890s, the film's period.Nonetheless the film doesn't sentimentalize the sad situation and all elements contribute effectively to the convincing atmosphere: the music, by Roman Polanski composer Krzysztof Komeda; the set design; the black and white lensing (though the occasional zoom shot, also a 1960s artifact, is distracting) I would like to compare "Hunger" with other screen versions of Hamsun.
Review of Hunger
