The Northman Is a Bloody, Brutal, Brilliant Viking Revenge Epic
No moral judgment, just Viking honor, pagan ritual, and inevitable death.

To understand The Northman, a bloody, brilliant, brutally bonkers Viking revenge epic based on the Icelandic folktale that inspired Hamlet, it is worth reflecting briefly on the world of journalism.
For the last several years, the news media has debated a question of both professional ethics and practice: Should journalists offer judgment on their subjects? Or should they seek to portray those subjects as they see themselves, allowing readers insight into their subjects' mindsets and motivations, and leave the judgments to others?
The most resounding call for judgment came from Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Wesley Lowery, who has pushed news media to write with what he calls "moral clarity" in contrast to "neutral objectivity," which, he argued in 2020, "trips over itself to find ways to avoid telling the truth." Lowery is a sharp reporter whose work has benefited the public; his Pulitzer was for an innovative project tracking police shootings. There is much to admire in his crusade against the pretense of journalistic neutrality, an impossible standard even when attempted earnestly. But too often the quest for moral clarity has merely led to dull and predictable editorializing in the midst of articles that purport to be straight news.
Something similar has been happening in Hollywood, arguably even before it became a debate in journalism, particularly with movies and TV shows that take place in the past. There is a tendency not only to see previous eras through the lens of today's cultural and political debates, but to moralize and speechify about the sins of the past, often by applying contemporary standards and values to times and places that would not have understood them. The lesson is almost always the same, and it is almost always smug and self-satisfied: The past was full of sin and callousness; thank goodness today's enlightened moderns know better.
That's fair enough, in some ways: Just-so stories have always been used for moral instruction, and there's no way to truly escape the tyrannical perspective of one's own present. Lots of people (though not me) seem to enjoy a stirringly righteous monologue in which a wrongdoer is made to understand the error of his ways, even if its content or existence makes no historical sense.
But one thing that fiction—movies, novels, television shows, and so forth—can do is help readers and viewers understand the mindset of primitive eras by attempting to portray the practices of those eras as they were understood at the time rather than as we understand them now. In this approach to storytelling, the goal is to avoid casting judgment or imprinting modern values onto historical societies. It is to portray another time, another place, another people not as we might see them now, but as they saw themselves.
Hence, The Northman, director Robert Eggers' tale of Viking revenge. Eggers' 2015 debut, The Witch, was an intensely realistic, historically accurate horror fable that brought viewers into the lives of 1600s New England settlers who understood the world as a dark and mystical place filled with magic and menace. Mysticism was not some elaborate quasi-technological overlay on top of nature, like a Dungeons & Dragons spell; it was simply part of nature, like birds or flowers or clouds or volcanoes. And thus a very different moral universe applied.
In The Northman, Eggers once again delivers the same sort of obsessively researched period detail, but this time as a far grander spectacle, as he burrows into the bloody, spirit-haunted world of pre-modern Viking culture.
It's a mystical and barbarous world of gods and demons, in which nature is a source of awe and mystery that can only be understood as an enchanted force with a personality of its own. Raucous, bizarre, often violent rituals, many of which Eggers stages with painstakingly accurate detail, are a source of interpersonal ties and a method of attempting to control nature's fiendish mysteries. Kin and clan relationships are all-consuming. And life is short and expendable, especially to Viking warriors, who view themselves as beasts as much as men. Thus they are subject to the same natural law, which means killing and pillaging and otherwise taking by force for glory, necessity, and amusement, sometimes all at once.
It is brutal and abominable and appalling. Yet while the movie depicts scenes of abject horror—at one point, following a raid on a town, the protagonist's band of warriors set fire to a hut locked full of townsfolk—it offers no judgment, no lecture, no wink to modern mores, no inevitable comeuppance for the perpetrators. They did not see themselves as abominations committing atrocities, but as a pack of man-wolves with just as much right as any wolf pack to prey on the weak. The movie shows them as they saw themselves.
The Northman, then, is a movie that lacks what you might call moral clarity. Is it truly neutral and objective? Probably not. How could it be? But it renders no obvious judgment on Viking horrors except the judgment that the Viking warriors rendered on themselves.
And it's not only a better movie for it, it's a more truthful one—or at the very least, a more useful one. For The Northman attempts to engage us with a culture and mindset we don't already know, one that's difficult and strange and alien and abhorrent, rather than comfort us with what's familiar.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The call to abandon "neutral objectivity" in journalism goes a lot further back than 2020. I date it to the rise of the Columbia school of journalism. And it was as wrong then as it is now.
Yes, objectivity is hard. Maybe even impossible. That's not a good reason to simply abandon it as a journalistic goal.
On the contrary -- objective neutrality (reversing the two words is stupid) is impossible, and it fails in news reporting because its practitioners have to go to such great lengths to cloak their biases that they end up with BOAF SIDES. I'd much rather their biases were out front, well-known. Same reason anti-racism laws are stupid -- all it does is push the racism behind the scenes, leading to government-mandated affirmative racism, loss of freedom of association, and a confused public who no longer knows what racism is. Much better to allow diners, hotels, etc to be as racist as they want and their public can tolerate, so they have to make the clear choice between profit and feelingz. We'd be a much less racist, more tolerant society now if government hadn't switched from mandated segregation to mandated integration.
It's another thing entirely for government to be racist. Government employees don't get freedom of association in who they deal with, any more than waitresses at racist diners get to defy their boss.
Well said. I agree that everyone should wear their biases out front and honestly.
The real problem with today's press is that modern establishment-left journalismers (including the Reasonistas);
1. Lie about the views and positions of others
2. Advocate the suppression of opposing viewpoints and harass dissenters
3. See themselves as defenders of establishment power rather than its inquisitors.
Lie about the views and positions of others
Many "progressive" news and opinion pieces are entirely mind-reading of people they disapprove of, as if the writers were telepaths. Putting thoughts and feelings in people's heads is beyond the arrogance of merely putting words in their mouths.
Now You can earn Up To from 30,000$ A Month! There are no limitations, Be Your Own Boss, (bhu42) it All depends on you And how much you want to earn each day. This is a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn a huge sum of money at home.
.
Join this right… https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
What is interesting to me is the cohort of true believers who actually respond to the lies. Like, regular folks who see the propaganda (I include everything from press to internet trolls here) and repeat it, internalize it, believe it.
One of the reasons I gave up in facebook many years ago was how many people, friends of friends, would tell us all the horrible reasons people were not voting for Hillary or believed things they believed. Vile things. And they were talking about me. I have VERY nuanced political perspectives with many reasons for my choices and none of them are that I'm stupid or a racist.
At that point I realized that it was always a feminist woman spouting about Toxic Masculinity, always a very ardent progressive journalist on NPR telling me republicans only vote for candidates based on racism (specifically, this was Mara Liason). If the press added a "conservative" viewpoint, it was never someone I'd trust to express my views. And the regular folks who thought these journalists were fair or balanced repeated this like it was truth.
Really, getting a progressive to explain conservatism is like getting a 13 year old boy to explain menstruation. They may have read about it in a book, or know a thing from what someone told them, but the truth is they don't understand it and have absolutely no practical experience.
Whatever, propaganda works. It's all obviously manipulated, yet those facebookers -- real people, many I had met personally -- proved that the masses are easily manipulable by it.
I wouldn't mind lying about others so much; there are always differences of opinion, and as long as everyone has access to all sides, the lies just discredit the liars in the long term.
It's your other points which are so scary; the calls for censorship, with them in charge.
> It's your other points which are so scary; the calls for censorship, with them in charge
+1
And, with anyone in charge. Because sauce for the goose is sauce for whoever wins the next election too.
Yes. Too many people either have no or malleable or forgettable principles.
For the last several years, the news media has debated a question of both professional ethics and practice:"
Really they have? Because all I remember is a bunch of trash subhuman saying that it's okay to lie in order to get trump or non progressives or anybody that called out progressives
But, they have to work together to counter program disinformation on Fox News!
by attempting to portray the practices of those eras as they were understood at the time rather than as we understand them now.
Why stop there? Portray as they were in all aspects. Of course the movie would suck. The men would be short, diseased, malnourished They would stink like shit. The weapons would suck. The men would have zero charisma. Rotten teeth etc.
You're wrong. Short, diseased, malnourished people with rotten teeth quickly died. Only the physically superior survived much into adulthood then. Viking weapons were among the best in Europe.
Short, diseased, malnourished people with rotten teeth quickly died.
^
As a matter of fact, lacking refined sugars to suck on like later Europeans did, medieval people tended to die with full sets of nearly perfect teeth.
Absolutely. The Vikings perfected metal smithing to the point that can rarely be duplicated today.
"The men would be short, diseased, malnourished They would stink like shit. The weapons would suck. "
This is how you know Shrike got his education from received wisdom, Ancient Aliens specials and memes, rather than actual history books.
Ahmad ibn Fadlan in the 10th Century:
That is one of few contemporary written sources of a Norse culture near the Viking age. However, the Rus had already been picking up the local Slavic culture, so it is difficult to say how much the culture described was applicable to Norse culture in Scandinavia.
Yeah, but genetically they still would have been pretty close to their Varangian roots.
You never seem to disappoint with your retardation, I appreciate consistency.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find that stoozle has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Shut up and go away, clown.
Saw it last night. Loved it. Nice bit of counterprogramming to all the children's entertainment (Fantastic Beasts, Sonic the Hedgehog, Morbius) currently dominating multiplexes. Eggers is no Herzog, and The Northman is no Aguirre, but there's definitely something otherworldly about the movie. It's nice to see a film this weird attract a fairly sizable audience.
On another note, does anybody else think that Anya Taylor-Joy's nude scene towards the end was shot using a body double? Sure, we kind of see her face, but it could've been a look-alike. After all, they shot her from the side. And we see her exit the shot before re-entering it without any pants.
Dang now I need to watch the movie
She did apparently use a "butt double" with Eggers directing in "The Witch", so the reasonable guess would be that was done again in this movie as well. The blocking did keep her pretty well covered in the other scenes, and I'd bet the mortgage that there was a merkin used for the scene in the barn.
whose morals?
also I'm probably in but I didn't see the Winnick chick anywhere
Somehow they never have any bright sunny days in these movies.
For some reason movies about this period tend to be shot in Ireland where they don't get many bright sunny days.
Probably tax incentives and more liberal regulations than Scandinavia.
Skol Vikings!
I would rather read journalists falling short of objectivity than flagrantly stating their opinions as fact. They've over-corrected.
Somebody needs cancel-ling!
I frequent some history groups on Facebook where the topic of slavery often comes up. When the top of imposing todays morals on slavery in the past comes up someone always mentions that there more slaves today than at any time in the past. When mention is made of slaves in the US's past it is noted that the US only imported around 3% of the total number of slaves brought to the New World.
To some extent I understand the claim that current 'morals' are different (not sure I would call it better) than in the past but it should be obvious that there are still plenty of evil, wicked, mean, and nasty peeps to day; something that has not changed over thousands of years and I see no reason to think it will be different in the future.
plenty of evil, wicked, mean, and nasty peeps to day;
plenty of evil, wicked, mean, and nasty failed cultures to celebrate today
Should journalists offer judgment on their subjects? Or should they seek to portray those subjects as they see themselves,...
I have a wild idea. How about neither? How about offering a comprehensive recitation of all the relevant facts and letting the reader make a judgement independent of the journalist of the subject?
Wesley Lowery, who has pushed news media to write with what he calls "moral clarity" in contrast to "neutral objectivity," which, he argued in 2020, "trips over itself to find ways to avoid telling the truth."
Sounds like a really roundabout way to go about justifying writing propaganda, rather than the news.
Intrigued by this movie.... Though I'm just questioning how it is allowed to be shown within a 100 mile radius of any college!
But perhaps this is just an oversight, similar to FaceBook streaming a live murder while their moderators are scurrying over realtime post for pronoun violence....
All things in time my friends.
There is a school of thought that portraying Norse culture like this, without judgement - "Yet while the movie depicts scenes of abject horror—at one point, following a raid on a town, the protagonist's band of warriors set fire to a hut locked full of townsfolk—it offers no judgment, no lecture, no wink to modern mores, no inevitable comeuppance for the perpetrators. They did not see themselves as abominations committing atrocities, but as a pack of man-wolves with just as much right as any wolf pack to prey on the weak." - feeds into a white supremacist mythos, which is why this movie seems against the currnt grain of Hollywood.
Which is confusing, as I'm not sure how it is a positive portrayal to show them acting as animals. But then apparently a lot of black people also felt Black Panther was quite flattering. So who the fuck knows what people are going to latch onto and laud as supportive of their culture.
Posting this a little late but it offers a totally different analysis.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/the-northman-aimed-to-reclaim-viking-history-from-white-supremacists-forgetting-white-supremacists-are-not-that-smart/ar-AAWzKHf?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f668fa0c7955490993fc06b4ce053cc5
Without having seen the movie, will it depict the "blood eagle"?
And if you don't know what that is look it up.
Totally disgusting.
But was it really true?