Review: 22 July

22 July (2018): Written and directed by Paul Greengrass.  Starring: Anders Danielsen Lie, Jon Oigarden, and Jonas Strand Gravli.  Running Time: 143 minutes.  Based on the book One Of Us, by Asne Seierstad. 

Rating: 3/4

            The filmmakers of the two (!) major films coming out this year about the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway have done future filmgoers no favors by giving their movies nearly identical names; U – 22 July was the Norwegian production by Erik Poppe, released earlier this year, while the newer Netflix release helmed by Paul Greengrass goes by 22 July.  Such similarities of name and the fact that they both tackle the same event belie how fundamentally different both films are from each other.  Poppe’s was by far the more technically and thematically ambitious, a brutally immersive single-shot achievement, laser-focused on the immediate experiences of the victims to the exclusion of all else. 

            Greengrass, established veteran of similar faux-docu-films like Flight 93 and Captain Phillips, takes a far more standard approach.  Most of the first act does cover the attacks themselves, but the rest is devoted to examining the bigger picture of what led up to the attacks and what the various kinds of fallout in Norwegian society were.  It tries to strike a balance between micro-details about the attacks, the attacker, and the victims, with a macro, bird’s-eye view of a society struggling to reconcile the ideals of representative and free society with the capacity of people to abuse that openness to commit horrific acts.  It mostly succeeds, but not entirely, though even its missteps are well-intentioned ones. 

            The main thrust of the narrative compares the views and life of the attacker and Viljar, one of the survivors (unlike the Poppe film, whose characters were fictional amalgamations, all the named characters in the Greengrass film are real people).  Both Viljar and his brother survived the attack, although Viljar did not escape physically unharmed- he just barely survives five different gunshot wounds leaving him partially paralyzed and blind in one eye, with a few remaining fragments just deep enough that they can’t be removed and are, to this day, a constantly present threat of death if they shift too much.  The combined physical and psychological scars tear at him and his family, and the burden of trying to overcome them to regain some semblance of a normal life is passionately conveyed by Jonas Strand Gravli’s performance, easily one of the film’s finest. 

            The attacker, meanwhile, is focused on manipulating his trial and defense strategy so as to use it as a platform to further broadcast his heinous ideology- he starts right off with a Nazi salute before he’s said his first word in court, in case anyone missed the subtle signs of what his ilk really are.  This sparks a fierce (and very much justified) debate within Norwegian society whether or not this is proper, and to what extent the courtesies of free speech can and should extend to criminals and proponents of genocide, but for Viljar, the fact that the attacker is getting his own platform gives him and other survivors a determination to create their own , and his recovery efforts are lent an added urgency as his date to testify approaches. 

            The film is at its absolute best when it engages directly with Viljar, his struggles, and the conflict over free speech around the trial.  It stumbles when it tries to aim higher and provide a 360-degree look at the issue, including showing how the attacker’s defense lawyer (required by law to take the case) is also harassed and discriminated against even though he’s literally following the law, but this is never fully developed or established enough in the narrative to have much effect; he gets a big line in a final scene about beating evil, but it feels rather forced and unearned, which puts it at great odds with Viljar’s court scene, which very much is earned. 

            The Prime Minister of Norway also pops in and out, but like with the lawyer, what was clearly meant to be a broader-view-including side story ends up feeling too disconnected from the rest of the narrative to justify its inclusion.  I understand that Greengrass wanted extra scope to give the film greater length, but a more concentrated focus on Viljar and a few other survivors would have made for a much more impactful and lasting film. 

            Nonetheless, this is a remarkable film, and definitely merits viewing and careful discussion every bit as much as Poppe’s film does.  If only a movie about these crimes didn’t have to feel so painfully prescient and relevant to our society today.  If only. 

-Noah Franc