by Joseph Davis, Contributing Writer
Some time ago, I was scrolling through YouTube looking for movie scenes that I felt would be good for a quiz I was assembling for some friends. One category I had thought of was one where you watch part of a film scene, then have to describe what you think happens next. One scene I found was from a Norwegian movie that I had never heard of titled, The King’s Choice. As I have stated many times before, I’m always interested in seeing films set in a historical setting; thus, I was intrigued to see a movie based on the Norwegian response to being invaded by the Germans in the Second World War. Usually when I find a movie like this, it tends to be difficult to find, as is the case for some newer releases of from outside the United States. Though in this case, I was lucky and happy to find that this movie was streaming through Amazon Prime. So for the first Out of Market of 2023, I felt like it would be worthwhile to take a look at Kongens Nei, or The King’s Choice.
First off, I do want to talk about the overarching story. It may not be an often talked about aspect of the Second World War here in the States, but the invasion of Norway was a massive moment for the people there, and this movie definitely shows this. It hadn’t truly been on its own for several hundred years when King Haakon VII accepted the throne (having been in a union with Sweden for nearly 100 years before 1905, and with Denmark for nearly three times as long), and this was probably the biggest threat to its existence since he had taken the throne. This is something you can feel with the performance by Jesper Christensen as King Haakon. He is playing someone who is undergoing the most stressful situation he and everyone in his Kingdom have had to, and the pain he feels both as king and as himself as he tries to make what he thinks is the best decision for Norway in a truly awful time. It’s a great work of character acting with the role, trying to stick with his ideals, while his son and heir tries to push him to accept the reality of his situation and his place in it. Ultimately, once he is in the position to confront the German attaché who is sent to negotiate peace, you can see just how the past few hours have weighed on him into making the choice he does in the end.
Next, I want to talk a bit about some of the more minor characters of the film. They can truly help make a movie go a long way in terms of how good a film can be, and here it works great. On the one hand you have Curt Bräuer (Karl Markovics) trying to find a peaceful solution, while his superiors in Germany, and the German military, follow their own orders and machinations. It helps to show just how quickly the situation itself changed, while also showing the villains side of the situation. Comparatively, you have characters such as Colonel Eriksen (Erik Hivju) making the crucial decision to open fire on the Blücher in the early hours of the invasion, likely allowing for his king to escape, along with Guardsman Seeberg later on, who fights with the Norwegian armed forces to hold back the German army for as long as possible. While I wish what Eriksen had actually said had been used in the film, having stated, “Either I will be decorated or I will be court-martialed,” it shows the determination that the Norwegian people had in the events after German soldiers first landed. Finally, even when you don’t see Vidkun Quisling, his notorious radio coup and its effect shows the attitudes of the war and how the decision made both by the king and by Norway’s people were influenced by the timeframe given.
The final things I want to talk about here are both a plus and a minus. The first is a plus: Normally I would have an issue with the film telling us the time and location of an area in the film, but I actually think in this case it helps show the audience just how quickly things deteriorated. It helps add to the gravity of the situation and how quickly the government had to make a decision. The aspect I don’t like, however, is that I believe in the beginning of the movie they could have leaned just a little more into the triggering causes of the invasion. Justified or not, I’d have liked to see the movie discuss things such as the Altmark incident or the mining or Norwegian waters by the Royal Navy, mostly to help hammer home just how precarious the situation was and the pressures against the kingdom of Norway from all sides of the conflict. Both the United Kingdom and German saw Norway as a crucial aspect of the war, and while ultimately I firmly believe that even if neither of those incidents had occurred that Germany would have still invaded, it would have made the film and the character of King Haakon even deeper, while also helping to feed the conflict between his son and heir and himself that is shown.
Ultimately, I want to do more than just recommend this movie to you, dear reader. I actually think it is one that would make a good double feature film. Specifically, I feel like Darkest Hour is a natural pairing. Admittedly, though I find Churchill to be a more problematic historical figure than Haakon, the time period, rapid development of the situation surrounding the cast, and the final act of defiance against one of history’s most notorious enemies makes both of these films work well with each other. Both men inspired their country to fight on in their own way during one of the most tumultuous and horrific wars we have ever seen.
You can follow Joseph Davis on Twitter and Letterboxd