Paul Greengrass's '22 July' review

Greengrass delivers yet another moving and tense factual drama, asking us to question ourselves and humanity in what is an exceptionally well-made depiction of 2011's tragic events. 

Jonas Strand Gravli in '22 July' (Netflix)

by Jack Linsdell

Today saw the debut of Paul Greengrass's latest film '22 July' on both the streaming-giant Netflix and in limited theatres across the country. Depicting the true events surrounding 22 July 2011, where the far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik first detonated a car bomb in Central Oslo - killing 8 and injuring 209 people - and then travelled to the island of Utoya where he carried out a mass shooting at the youth camp there, claiming 69 lives and wounding 33 others. The docu-drama's opening first-act depicts the horrific brutality of both attacks, but then focusses heavily on the aftermath - following the recovery of one victim Viljar Hanssen (Jonas Strand Gravli), and then Breivik's trial through the perspectives of the terrorist and his lawyer, Gier Lippestad. As Greengrass himself has commented, "the film's not really about the attacks. It's a story about how Norway fought for her democracy".

Now, as regular readers will know, Greengrass is my favourite filmmaker and I have been long anticipating the release of his latest film. However, although I studied the film objectively, I have managed to find no 'true' criticism, other than to call it a masterpiece in-line with the tone and style of his previous works, but feeling refreshingly different at the same time. '22 July' is, as the credits note, truly "a Paul Greengrass film" with the British filmmaker being writer, director and producer, and bringing him back to his journalism roots, telling true stories. However, this is his first low-budget movie since his shocking-but-exceptional 9/11 drama 'United 93' with his filmography since then telling true stories but with a more Hollywood production ('Captain Phillips' starring Tom Hanks) or grounding fictional stories in the real world ('Green Zone' and 'Jason Bourne' - both starring his close friend Matt Damon). So, it's a real testament that after 12 years, he has not only gone back to his roots despite having the option for so many Hollywood productions, but even more impressive is that after evolving his style to bigger-budget, (semi) fictional works, he can still absolutely nail the indie-budget based on a true story drama.

Now, Greengrass's decision to make the film with a complete Norwegian cast and crew is an excellent one as it grounds the story in Norway and makes it seem really authentic. This is the first time he has not worked with his regular American collaborators in-front of and behind the camera - so credit to him for that. Although, his decision to have the screenplay in English he has justified by the fact that he "doesn't speak Norwegian", and has come under criticism from some, I do believe it doesn't detract from it's authenticity. Yes, if he had of done it in the country's native-tongue then the film may have been even more 'documentary' like, but it does allow the story to be more universally accessible (from an English speaker myself) and does distinguish it from the recent Norwegian-language film 'Utoya - July 22' (see the next post for a comparison between the two films). Either way, when dealing with true events like these, everyone has their own opinion (and rightly so), meaning that with the general consensus being overwhelmingly positive, it's either an element you liked or didn't.

When judging the film on it's performances, it's outstanding. Literally because the pressure on these relatively unknown (especially to Western countries) Norwegian actors to play characters that are actually real people is enormous but they all more than carry the responsibility; they steal the screen.

The protagonist of the drama, the student-turned-survivor Viljar Hanssen, is expressed so well by Jonas Strand Gravli, who has such versatility and emotional-depth to his performance, you really believe in his character's struggle to recovery. His innocence, yet constant battles with the person he has become in the aftermath are really associable with young people (like myself) and only increase the sympathy I felt for the horrendous effects he suffered on his physical and mental health. Meanwhile, the villain of the piece (arguably, although Greengrass does tell the story very objectively) is subtly played by Anders Danielsen Lie, who depicts a cold, unremorseful killer who with every pause and silence feels like his politically-crazed mind is judging characters and leaving his opinions hanging in the air for the audience to feel. I can imagine this was a hard role to play, but he does allow us an insight into Breivik's mind and why he committed such brutal acts and that gives the film a whole greater depth. These performances, including the rest of the cast who are all brilliant, come to a dramatic conclusion in the climatic court-room scene where Greengrass lets these performances shine by just letting us sit back and watch. 

The scale of '22 July' is also incredible - giving us multiple main characters who travel through a variety of locales, making it feel very different to the constricted outlook of 'United 93'. But, what amazes me is how this scale and the Greengrass 'in camera and for real' mantra have been executed on only a $20 million budget. For comparison, Clint Eastwood's recent based-on-true-story drama 'The 15:17 to Paris' felt much smaller scale than this film and that was made for $30 million. But, Greengrass's style does elevate the film, and it's noticeable that he has taken the roughness out of his cinematography and camera work, combining elegant-sweeping aerial shots (the opening one is superb) with the shakier, tightly zoomed-in hand-held camera work that has become the trademark of his style. However, as ever, this allows our focus to be on the horrific and at times disturbing events and the performances, both of which are more important than impressing the audience with fancy camera/lighting work. 

An example of where his style is so effectively utilised is the island massacre sequence in which he drops you right into the middle of the action, as the audience are literally running with the terrified students away from Breivik. This scene - part of an excellent and tense first act - is so well balanced, forcing emotion, fear and shock out of the audience but doing so through, at times, blunt but not graphic violence. Indeed, when some of the students were running for their lives and then, suddenly, went down after being shot, the bluntness and brutality of the violence committed by Breivik is so shocking that these images have stayed with me long after the film had finished. When Breivik finds our protagonist and his friends hiding on a cliff-edge (literally, they're hanging off) and starts shooting at them, the action of them leaping from such a great height onto the beach below is so hard-hitting that I felt so invested into the shock and repulsion those teenagers must have felt on that fateful afternoon, that  it proves how well-made the film truly is.

Although the massacre sequence is a stand-out action beat (if you can really call it that), the film also works well on the smaller-scale, dialogue heavy scenes in offices, homes, hospitals and courtrooms. The screenplay poses so many questions to the audience as they are watching it, with Greengrass making us question ourselves and humanity as a whole. Shockingly, the right-wing views that Breivik advocated based around nationalism and a hatred for immigration and multi-culturalism are shared by thousands across Europe today and feel very relevant to our times (think Brexit, for example). Questions that came to me during the film included: is violence/terrorism the key to instigating political/social change?; why is it right to take innocent lives because you disagree with the domestic policies of your country?; should a guilty criminal have the same rights of defence? (this plot strand felt very reminiscent of my favourite film 'Bridge of Spies'); when faced with horrific challenges how strong are we? and finally, should we live our lives like everyday could be our last? My point is that the film provoked so many questions that it became an interesting debate and reflection of ourselves and the world we live in. Indeed, at several points I found myself speaking aloud my views and getting 'involved' in the film's discussions. When the lawyer claims that Breivik shouldn't be deemed insane as others share the same views as him, I found myself claiming that it isn't necessarily because of his views that the case is an issue, but the way in which he chose to promote them (killing hundreds of innocent people) being the problem. And, in that sense, the film acts as more than just being an emotionally-shocking and well made drama but something which forces people to discuss issues and ideas that are more than relevant to our world today.

For some, the films 144-minute run-time will be too long, or the pace too slow, or the movie too 'realistic' or the brutality and violence 'too-hard' to watch. However, although '22 July' is extremely hard-hitting, thought provoking and an emotional rollercoaster, Greengrass has told an important story and discusses very crucial and relevant themes and ideas about the politics of our times and about humanity, to the extent that I think it's something everyone should aim to see. From a foreign perspective, I also learned so much about Norway as a country, which is important as it's a part of Europe which is often skipped over in favour of Russia or Turkey (border to the middle east). And, hopefully young people like myself will get something from it and that being on Netflix will increase the viewership of that demographic, and achieve Greengrass's aims. Indeed, I think '22 July' is another masterpiece from a filmmaker who can't seem to ever put a foot wrong (I'm not one of those who thought his recent return to the Bourne franchise was poor). If this doesn't at least get acknowledged at the awards ceremonies (especially the BAFTA's), then I think a truly great piece of cinema would have been unfairly missed.

5/5 STARS