Film Review: ‘The King’s Choice’

'The King's Choice' Review: Norway's Best
Courtesy of Norwegian Films

Norway's Oscar contender for Best Foreign Language Film is a World War II movie that dramatizes a celebrated act of defiance.

“The King’s Choice” is a World War II drama, and as soon as you hear that — well, okay, as soon as I heard it — the reaction it inspires may be something along the lines of: Really? Again? Yet the movie, which is Norway’s short-listed Oscar contender for Best Foreign Language Film (it’s actually a co-production of Norway and Ireland), is nothing if not original. It has a few traumatic and bedazzling scenes of combat, but mostly it’s about the backroom bureaucratic gamesmanship of war. It re-enacts a celebrated moment of national defiance, and the vision it puts forth is at once ennobling and, frankly, a little eccentric. Outside of Norway, where it has already opened, the prospects look limited, though a pinch of Oscar love could always help its chances.

The movie is set over the course of three days in April 1940, and everything that happens during those three days could, theoretically, be summed up in a one-sentence intertitle: “Hitler’s forces sweep through Norway, securing all major cities.” The Nazis v. Norway: Not much suspense to that outcome. And not much need for heavy artillery either. In “The King’s Choice,” the Norwegians — sovereign, peace-loving, officially neutral — don’t begin to have the military strength to stand up to their invaders. They’re such a courtly, civilized nation that they don’t just lack the firepower; they lack the ability to even understand what they’re up against. Of course, it makes sense that one might not have a full apprehension of that in 1940, when Hitler’s barbarism was just getting rolling.

In “The King’s Choice,” the Germans present themselves like the Mob, offering “protection” for Norway (they claim that the British have mined the local waters). But what Hitler is really after is the nation’s strategic coastline, and its reserves of iron ore. Most countries, placed in Norway’s position, would be hammering out the politics of surrender, trying to save as many lives as possible. But King Haakon VII (Jesper Christensen), the monarch of Norway since 1905 (though officially only a figurehead), finds himself possessed by a moral quandary: Should he hand over his country to the Nazis on a silver platter of “peace,” allowing Norway to be ruled by an odious collaborator named — with poetic perfection — Quisling? Or should he continue to push back against the invasion, even if it’s not entirely clear what pushing back actually means?

“The King’s Choice” is a talky movie with a spark of propulsion to it. Early on, there’s a stunning combat sequence in which a German battleship approaches, and a Norwegian general, looking like he’s still fighting World War I, orders the cannon fire to begin. The Norwegians actually sink the German ship, but what we sense — and what the Norwegians apparently don’t — is that a dozen more battleships are coming. By not giving in peacefully, the Norwegians have “stood their ground,” but really, they’ve only enflamed the Nazis’ will to conquer.

Part of the historical fascination — and the stiff-upper-lip, head-in-the-sand Scandinavian flintiness — of “The King’s Choice” is that the film spends nearly every one of its 133 minutes presuming that King Haakon had some honest sway in his country’s destiny. It’s an idea that has been woven into Norwegian mythology. They would not go softly into that good night! (The movie could have been called “Surrender Hard.”) Erik Poppe, the Norwegian music video, commercial, and documentary veteran who directed the film, has told a story designed to stoke the patriotic passion of its targeted national audience. “The King’s Choice” is intricately told, and it’s certainly got an Oscar-friendly title, yet for those outside of Norway it may prove a dislocating experience: a war drama built entirely around a symbolic gesture. The Danish actor Jesper Christensen, who is one of the film’s producers, plays Haakon with stalwart precision: craggy and reserved, unsmiling beneath his sodden Victorian mustache, gentle with his grandchildren, always with the weight of Norway on his shoulders. Yet the film never pushes very far past his politician’s façade.

The most interesting character in “The King’s Choice” is the man appointed to deal with him: Kurt Braüer, a Nazi envoy who turns out to have torn loyalties. Karl Markovics, with his haunted face (he’s like a neurotically severe Christoph Waltz), plays him as a conflicted occupier who actually wants to preserve Norwegian “neutrality.” He’s a German who doesn’t seem to fully grasp what his country is up to, that they’re trying to take over the world — even when, in a scene that jolts the audience, he is speaking on the phone to his superior in Berlin, and another voice comes on the phone: It’s Hitler, barking orders about how he wants this invasion to go (with no more fuss). It’s as if Braüer were being chewed out by his CEO, yet he’s the kind of weasel who wants to please everyone, even the people he’s capturing.

“The King’s Choice” plays fast and loose with some of the information it gives us. It implies that any delay in surrendering will bring on massive casualties — yet despite the King’s delays, and the whole obstinate honor of his nature, the bloodbath remains mercifully limited. An end title informs us that Haakon’s actions became a defining moment for the Norwegian spirit. Yet it’s not at all clear how those three days in 1940 represented anything more than a way for a country that was being steamrolled by brutes to convince itself it had saved face. The Norwegians weren’t willing collaborators, but that was the whole horror of their predicament: They never did have a choice.

Film Review: 'The King's Choice'

Reviewed at Magno 1, New York City, January 9, 2017. (In Palm Springs Film Festival.) Running time: 133 MIN.


A Nordisk Film Distribusjon release of a Paradox Films production. Producers: Finn Gjerdrum, Stein B. Kvae. Executive producers: Jesper Christensen, Peter Garde, Henrik Zein.


Director: Erik Poppe. Screenplay: Harald Rosenløw-Eeg, Jan Trygve Røyneland. Camera (color, widescreen): John Christian Rosenlund. Editor: Einar Egeland.


Jesper Christensen, Anders Baasmo Christiansen, Karl Markovics, Juliane Köhler, Rolf Kristian Larsen, Andreas Lust, Tuva Novotny, Katharina Shüttler.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Henriette says:

    “allowing Norway to be ruled by an odious collaborator named — with poetic perfection — Quisling?”

    An interesting fact: the word quisling in the dictionary is actually derived from the man Vidkun Quisling. It entered common usage in Europe during 1940 because of Quisling’s actions in Norway. So it’s not poetic perfection in a self-fulfilling kind of way, but rather in that it shows what kind of profound effect Quisling’s attempt at a coup d’état had on Allied discourse in WW2 – and beyond.

    Also, Quisling did not exactly rule Norway during Germany’s occupation. The real power lay with a German named Josef Terboven. Quisling was more of a puppet than a true leader of the government. Additionally, the Norwegian resistance in those early days was not insignificant, as one of the other commentators also point out. It allowed the royal family, the democratically elected government *and* vast gold reserves of the national bank to escape and join the Allied cause. (Along with the merchant fleet.) Without those, the war efforts after April 1940 might have looked very different, for instance in the Atlantic.

    The more critic-worthy actions of the exiled Norwegian government, however, is how they handled the war efforts around Narvik, which was the port that accepted iron ore from Sweden and shipped it on to Germany, as well as the other war efforts in the north. This part has often been under-communicated in Norwegian history books and popular culture, and the irony is that more people abroad knows about what happened there than many Norwegians do.

  2. Strange to se a review by Owen Gleiberman calling him self “Chief Film Critic” with so many errors. It is to much to go through them all, but just one major error, “But what Hitler is really after is the nation’s strategic coastline, and its reserves of iron ore”. What’s wrong here … well, well it was Swedens iron ore they where after. Not Norways … maybe Variety need someone competent to do their reviews?

  3. John says:

    Your critic clearly does not appreciate the history. King Haakon found himself in a unique position. Constitutionally only he could “recognize” a new government, yet could he accept a new “Quisling” government that was selected by Hitler and not the Norwegian people?

    While the struggle in Norway in 1940 was pretty insignificant, the 1000-ship Norwegian merchant fleet joined the Allied cause prior to the life-and-death struggle of the Battle of the Atlantic. Also Nazi Germany kept a strong garrison in Norway for the duration.

    We now often fail to understand how close we came to a German victory in 1940-41.

    More than that, anytime a weak person refuses to cooperate and be intimidated by a powerful evil it is worth noting.

    ” The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”

More Film News from Variety