BA Thesis in History Relocating Filmmaker Reynir Oddsson

BA Thesis in History

Relocating Filmmaker Reynir Oddsson Interpreting the First Icelandic Compilation Film

Veronika Guðmundsdóttir Jónsson

Supervisor Valur Ingimundarson May 2020

University of Iceland School of Humanities History

Relocating Filmmaker Reynir Oddsson

Interpreting the First Icelandic Compilation Film

BA Thesis

Veronika Guðmundsdóttir Jónsson National ID: 271097-3799

Supervisor: Valur Ingimundarson May 2020

Abstract

Despite gaining significant recognition for his narrative film Murder Story (1979), the filmmaker Reynir Oddsson has largely been overlooked in Icelandic film historiography because of the tendency to gloss over the “transition years” 1966–1977—following the first televised broadcast of the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RÚV) and before the creation of the Icelandic Film Fund. This thesis is an attempt to correct this gap and to “relocate” Oddsson by focusing on his documentaries The Occupation Years 1940–1945, Part I (1967) and Part II (1968) about Iceland during World War II. These documentaries, which were the first of their kind in Iceland, will be analyzed through a theoretical framework developed by Bill Nichols, a leading documentary film theorist. In addition, The Occupation Years will be put within a political contemporary context and evaluated as a contribution to Icelandic film history. The purpose is to explore Oddsson’s role as an innovator in Icelandic film history, to gauge the motives behind his documentaries, and to show how they were received in Iceland. It will be shown that as part of the historical compilation film genre, The Occupation Years are defined by Oddsson’s use of editing and sound mixing, which underscores a “politically correct” interpretation of this significant historical event in the sense that it accorded with the “official” version.

Ágrip

Þrátt fyrir að hafa fengið ákveðna viðurkenningu fyrir gerð frásagnarmyndarinnar Morðsögu árið 1979 hefur kvikmyndaframleiðandinn Reynir Oddsson í raun gleymst í íslenskri kvikmyndasögu. Þessi ritgerð er tilraun til þess að fylla upp í það skarð með því að endurmeta stöðu hans með sérstöku tilliti til hinna lítt þekktu heimildamynda Hernámsárin I (1967) og II (1968), en þær hafa þá sérstöðu að vera fyrstar sinnar tegundar á Íslandi. Við greininguna er stuðst við aðferð sem sett var fram af einum helsta kenningarsmiði heimildamyndagreiningar, Bill Nichols. Að auki verða heimildamyndirnar settar í pólitískt samhengi þess tíma sem þær voru gerðar og lagt mat á hlutverk þeirra í kvikmyndasögu Íslands. Markmiðið er að skoða Reyni Oddson sem frumkvöðul í íslenskri kvikmyndagerð, meta tilgang þess að heimildarmyndirnar voru framleiddar og hverjar viðtökurnar urðu á Íslandi. Færð verða rök fyrir því að Reynir hafi beitt ákveðinni aðferð í klipppingu og hljóðblöndun til að draga upp mynd af hernámi Íslands sem undirstrikaði þá pólitísk túlkun sem lá heimildarmyndunum til grundvallar og rímaði við afstöðu stjórnvalda.

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 1 Ágrip ...... 2 Introduction ...... 4 Historicizing the Icelandic Documentary ...... 6

Iceland-films: Education and Promotion ...... 8 Who Is Reynir Oddsson? ...... 10

Theorizing The Occupation Years ...... 12

The First Icelandic Compilation Film ...... 15 The “Voice” of The Occupation Years ...... 17

Reynir Oddsson and the Expectations of a Nation ...... 19

“A Disreputable Film”: Film Critics on The Occupation Years ...... 20 The Director’s Response ...... 22 (Re)Locating Reynir Oddsson: Where Are the Historical Documentaries? ...... 24

Conclusion ...... 25 Bibliography ...... 27

Introduction

As much as Icelanders themselves were taken by surprise by a fleet of British soldiers on May 10, 1940, the viewers of Reynir Oddsson’s two-part documentary The Occupation Years I (1967) and II (1968)1 are blasted with images of the rise of the Nazi regime in the early 1930s.2 A demure image of the Icelandic countryside showing the island nation’s poverty is quickly interrupted with newsreels of Europe at the start of a world war. A narrator recounts the first years of the British occupation of Iceland, all the while giving us a glimpse into the lives of Icelandic citizens under occupation. However, the bulk of the narrative focuses on the antics of the occupying forces themselves, not the experiences of Icelanders. It was a fact that did not go unnoticed by the Icelandic viewing public in the late 1960s. With The Occupation Years, Oddsson—an independent documentary filmmaker— had decided to take on a seminal event in Icelandic history. What was more, it coincided, in 1967, with a continued foreign military presence in Iceland, which was rooted in the controversial 1951 U.S.-Icelandic Defense Agreement. By selecting such a hot topic, Oddsson’s documentaries assume a dual role. On the one hand, it is a straight-edged historical documentary on the first occupation years with the use of interviews and borrowed newsreel footage. On the other hand, The Occupation Years is also a testimony to the state of the Icelandic film industry in a period when it was mostly inactive.3 The films are in a way “stuck between the two poles of history and fiction”4—or at the intersection of history and entertainment.5 Not much has been written about Icelandic film history, let alone the history of Icelandic documentaries. In his introduction to the 2019 fall issue of Ritið journal, Björn Þór Vilhjálmsson acknowledges the gap in the historiography of Icelandic film.6 In 1999, Guðni

1 Hernámsárin I and II, directed by Reynir Oddsson (Reykjavík: United Motion Pictures, 1967/68). Henceforth, the films will be referred to as a whole The Occupation Years unless otherwise specified as Part I or Part II. A shortened combined version of the film is available for viewing at the National Film Archives of Iceland. However, it is unknown when this version was premiered or where it may have been shown and as such will not be analyzed here. 2 Donald E. Nuechterlein, Iceland: Reluctant Ally (New York: Cornell University Press, 1961), 23. 3 Björn Þór Vilhjálmsson, “Frá sveitabænum að stafrænu byltingunni: Inngangur að þema,” Ritið 19, no. 2 (2019): 1. 4 Þorsteinn Helgason, “Sagan á skjánum,” Saga XL, no. 2 (2002): 45. 5 Þorsteinn Helgason, 42. 6 Björn Þór Vilhjálmsson, “Frá sveitabænum að stafrænu byltingunni,” 1–3.

Elísson edited the colossal (1,009 page) Heimur kvikmynda,7 which remains the only comprehensive collection of academic writing on Icelandic film history. Only a portion of it, however, is dedicated to Icelandic film. What is more, no academic works focus solely on this “transition period” in Icelandic film history, spanning the years from the late 1950s to the late 1970s.8 The breadth of research has been dedicated to the earliest beginnings of Icelandic cinema and so-called “Iceland-films” (Ice. Íslandsmyndir) while some light has been cast on the history and ramifications of the cinematic “spring” (Ice. kvikmyndavorið) in 1980 in the wake of the founding of the Icelandic Film Fund.9 With regards to the documentary form of filmmaking, Icelandic film historiography gets even thinner, mostly concentrating on documentaries made for television, not for theatre release, as historian Þorsteinn Helgason has pointed out.10 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð has recently tried to shed light on a resurgence of Icelandic produced documentaries in the new millennium, but, again, little attention is devoted to the years in which Reynir Oddsson was most active despite the relative scarcity of Icelandic filmmakers in general.11 There is no doubt that Oddsson and his documentary films are uncharted territory in terms of Icelandic film historiography. How then, can we configure Oddsson and The Occupation Years into Icelandic film history and, more importantly, what was his intent behind its production? In this thesis, I will attempt to fill in this historical gap by “relocating” Oddsson in Icelandic film history, sketching out his impact on Icelandic film history by focusing, in particular, on the production of The Occupation Years. Before analyzing Oddsson’s work, I will try to contextualize it by looking at the state of Icelandic film history and its development. One problem is, however, that there is no consensus as to when one film “movement” ends, and another begins. Research conducted by film historians Norðfjörð, Erlendur Sveinsson, and Íris Ellenberger give us an idea of why creating a timeline for

7 Guðni Elísson. Introduction to Heimur Kvikmynda. Edited by Guðni Elísson, xi–xiii. Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999: xi. 8 Guðni Elísson, x. 9 For examples of histories written on the early years of Icelandic cinema: Íris Ellenberger, Íslandskvikmyndir 1916–1966: Ímyndir, sjálfsmynd og vald (Reykjavík: Sagnfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands, 2007); Eggert Þór Bernharðsson, “Landnám lifandi mynda,“ Heimur Kvikmynda, edited by Guðni Elísson, 803–831 (Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999.) For examples of histories from 1979 to the present: Huldar Breiðfjörð, “Skrítna Ísland. Um íslenskar vegamyndir,“ Heimur Kvikmynda, edited by Guðni Elísson, 962–968 (Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999); Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Einsleit endurreisn. Íslenskar heimildamyndir á nýrri öld,“ Saga XLVI, no. 2 (2008): 114–149. 10 Þorsteinn Helgason, “Sagan á skjánum,“ 41. 11 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Einsleit endurreisn,“ 114.

Icelandic film history is so difficult.12 During the first half of the twentieth century, a type of short film known as “Iceland-films” dominated the Icelandic film landscape.13 Despite being, in essence, an umbrella term, these films were the precursors to the Icelandic documentary. In general, there is widespread agreement on the enormous influence of television on the Icelandic film industry and, in particular, on the production of documentaries. But Oddsson’s documentaries were made before the new medium rose to prominence. The main focus of the thesis will be on analyzing The Occupation Years from a theoretical perspective and exploring its reception. I will use a theoretical framework developed by Bill Nichols, a leading documentary film theorist, to deconstruct the documentaries. The overall purpose is to assess Oddsson’s role as an innovator, discern the motives behind the documentaries and how they were interpreted by critics. Utilizing a completely new form of documentary filmmaking—the compilation film—Oddsson set out to create a documentary he believed would entertain all generations of Icelanders for different reasons. Yet, he has never been credited with this role in Icelandic film history.

Historicizing the Icelandic Documentary

In 1991, the Icelandic Film Fund (Ice. Kvikmyndasjóður Íslands) published a short guide on Icelandic documentaries from 1966 to 1991. In the foreword, Svavar Gestsson, the Minister of Culture and Educations, writes that “today, perhaps more than ever before, preserving documentary account on film of both its society and the world of nature is especially important to Icelanders.“14 As a type of film, documentaries have played an integral role in the evolution of the Icelandic film industry. Mirroring the earliest beginnings of filmmaking in Europe, early “Icelandic” films were made entirely by foreign filmmakers (mostly from Denmark) and would be classified as actualities of Icelandic nature at the turn of the century.15 These actualities are the forerunners to the modern documentary, as they were most often not acted out and did not contain a narrative in the sense of a narrative film.

12 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Einsleit endurreisn,” 114–149; Erlendur Sveinsson, “Árin tólf fyrir daga Sjónvarps og Kvikmyndasjóðs,” Heimur Kvikmynda, edited by Guðni Elísson (Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999), 868–873; Íris Ellenberger, Íslandskvikmyndir 1916–1966, 11. 13 Íris Ellenberger, Íslandskvikmyndir 1916–1966, 10–13. 14 Icelandic Documentaries: Shorts and animated films, edited by Eiríkur Thorsteinsson (Reykjavík: Icelandic Film Fund, 1991), 5. 15 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Ljós í myrkri: Saga kvikmyndunar á Íslandi,” Ritið 19, no. 2 (2019): 21.

The first documentaries were filmed in and about Iceland in the years 1901–1903.16 Since these first documentarians were not from Iceland, they usually do not “count” as representing the beginning of the “Icelandic documentary.” This begs the question of when the age of the Icelandic documentary actually started? Interestingly, this is something historians have yet to agree upon. Björn Ægir Norðfjörð demarcates the beginning of the Icelandic documentary with the showing of Loftur Guðmundsson’s Iceland in Living Picture (Ice. Ísland í lifandi myndum)17 in 1925, arguing that this film clearly checks all of the requirements of an “Iceland-films”. Guðmundsson’s film is the first “full-length” film made in Iceland and featured Icelandic people and nature as its main focus, which became one of the defining traits of an “Iceland-film.”18 Erlendur Sveinsson dubs the years 1944–1949 as the “The Five Documentary Years” in Icelandic film history. He cuts off his discussion at the establishment of Icelandic television and the creation of the Icelandic Film Fund, which implies that certain documentaries do not count towards his definition of a “documentary age.” This is a simplification on his part, as we know that there were, indeed, other documentaries produced after these five years and before the creation of the Icelandic Film Fund in 1978 and were not made for the television market. A case in point is Oddsson’s The Occupation Years.19 Sveinsson’s reasoning behind his classification is that Iceland became a Republic in 1944 and following World War II, foreign filmmakers stopped venturing to Iceland to make films. What sounded like a death sentence for the Icelandic film industry turned into a blessing in disguise. As Sveinsson puts it: “In the five-year period following the Independence of Iceland there was an incredible number of news films and documentaries being produced, probably around 30 films. And what is even more interesting is that during this period there were no less than 17 premiers for news films and documentaries in movie theaters.”20 In context, thirty films are a lot for a small country such as Iceland. The subject matter of these films ranged from the establishment of the Icelandic republic to the eruption of mountain Hekla in 1947. The filmmakers themselves consisted of not only those who had already tried their

16 Íris Ellenberger, ‚Islandskvikmyndir 1916–1966, 7; Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Ljós í myrkri,” 21. 17 Ísland í lifandi myndum, directed by Loftur Guðmundsson, (Reykjavík: Nordisk Film Kompagni, 1925). 18 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Ljós í myrkri,” 22. 19 Erlendur Sveinsson, “Árin tólf fyrir daga Sjónvarps og Kvikmyndasjóðs,“ 868. 20 Erlendur Sveinsson, 868. Translated: “Á fimm ára tímabili eftir lýðveldisstofnunina varð til ótrúlegur fjöldi frétta- og heimildarmynda, sennilega hátt í 30 myndir. Og það sem vekur enn meiri athygli er að á þessum fimm árum urðu frumsýningar á frétta- og heimildarmyndum í kvikmyndahúsum ekki færri en 17 talsins.”

hand at filmmaking, such as Loftur Guðmundsson, but also newcomers, such as Ósvaldur Knudsen, Kjartan Ó. Bjarnason, and Óskar Gíslason, to name a few. Many of these newcomers would then move on from the documentary film genre and become the “fathers” of the Icelandic narrative film a couple of years later. Unsurprisingly, all of these filmmakers got their start in documentary filmmaking one way or the other.21 Demarcating a beginning to a historical age is a difficult task, for if there is a “beginning” there must also be an “end” at some point. Sveinsson chooses to give the documentary age five years to blossom before narrative films completely take over, while Norðfjörð does not put an end date and simply moves on to the beginnings of the Icelandic narrative film.22 Both historians gloss over later documentaries unless they were sponsored and shown by National Radio Broadcasting Service of Iceland (RÚV), which was established in 1966. If Reynir Oddsson is mentioned at all it is in connection to his later narrative work rather than his documentaries such as The Occupation Years, which was made in direct competition with RÚV in 1967.23 In 2008, Norðfjörð published an article entitled “A Homogeneous Renaissance: Icelandic documentaries in the 21st century,” detailing the resurgence in documentaries, including historical ones, in the new millennium.24 The use of the word “renaissance” or “re- birth” suggests that there must have first been some sort of “death” in Icelandic documentaries. Did the Icelandic documentary really “die”, or did it simply fall out of favor to the more marketable, narrative film? The latter seems to be more likely, for even with the advent of television, documentaries were still being produced. However few they may have been, Icelandic documentaries did not “die” in the midst of the golden age of Icelandic narrative film; they merely moved to a new home on television with the odd exception of the film The Occupation Years.

Iceland-films: Education and Promotion From the big to the small screen, television has played a vital role in the history of the Icelandic documentary. This makes me more inclined towards the way historian Íris Ellenberger defines the outer boundaries of the “age” of the Icelandic documentary. There is

21 Erlendur Sveinsson, 868–869. 22 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Ljós í myrkri,” 23–24. 23 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, 24; Oddný Sen, “Sjónvarpsbyltingin á Íslandi,” Heimur Kvikmynda, edited by Guðni Elísson (Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999), 933–934. 24 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Einsleit endurreisn,” 114–149.

no doubt that the early history of the Icelandic documentary was heavily influenced by the “Iceland-films” produced by foreign filmmakers and, as such, many of the films produced by Icelanders inherited the name. Íris Ellenberger names the year 1919 as the cardinal point in early Icelandic film history, when the first acted scenes in the Danish-produced narrative film Sons of the Soil (Ice. Saga borgarættarinnar, 1921)25 were shot and several documentaries began production. Yet, Ellenberger decides to begin her research in 1916 since the earliest film preserved by the National Film Archive is from that year.26 She justified this starting point by pointing out that her research is primarily concerned with the analysis of “images, self-images, and power” in these early Icelandic films, a goal that cannot be achieved unless one has access to the primary source itself.27 Her end date of 1966 is simply defined—the year when RÚV began television broadcasting. However, fifty years is a long period of time to cover. Ellenberger solves this problem by breaking the period up in two parts with the division lying between the years 1935 and 1939, not due to any specific event but to a mixture of happenings both domestic and foreign, with World War II playing a defining role. Few Icelandic films were made during the war due to the fact that the majority of films before the war were produced by Germans and such production ended the moment the British invaded in 1940 as well as the fact that Icelanders seem to have been reluctant to take over the reins themselves during the war. Consequently, when filmmakers began filming again the atmosphere had changed dramatically.28 But what kind of films were these “Iceland-films”? Ellenberger views each film as being as different as night and day, but believes that they hold onto some kind of an “Icelandic” ideal, both nature and nation. Though the majority of the “Iceland-films” are educational and promotional films, they also include travel and news themes. She argues that with the advent of the sound-on-film, assembly houses such as theaters, schools and television studios “received the educational films with open arms.”29 The last subgenre under the umbrella of “Iceland-films” would be the ones meant for advertising Icelandic products. Yet, Ellenberger does not dwell on these in her book. All of these films, however, somehow fall under the category of documentaries in one way or the other as they are, in general, not narrative films but, rather, closer to the actualities of the Lumiere brothers, which were often

25 Saga borgarættarinnar, directed by Gunnar Sommerferldt (Reykjavík: Nordisk Film Kompagni, 1921). 26 Íris Ellenberger, Íslandskvikmyndir 1916–1966, 29. 27 Íris Ellenberger, 7–16. 28 Íris Ellenberger, 11, 67. 29 Íris Ellenberger, 10.

short films that depicted daily life or focused on the magnificence of nature.30 However, Ellenberger ends her analysis in 1966 as most other Icelandic historians do. These years surrounding RÚV’s first broadcast on September 30, 1966 are virtually untouched in the history of the Icelandic documentary. It makes the premiere of Reynir Oddsson’s documentaries, which were not made for television, all the more intriguing. Did television kill the documentary? Although the differing opinions of Icelandic film historians on how to categorize certain time periods may suggest that the Icelandic documentary seems to have disappeared and then reappeared out of thin air, the answer to this question is a tentative “no.” The twenty-first century has seen a resurgence in the feature length documentary made for release in theaters, not for television.31 This indicates that the lack of documentaries made for theatrical release in the mid-twentieth century might not have had as much to do with the start of a national television broadcast but rather the disinterest in documentaries in general. One reason for this may be, according to Norðfjörð, that once RÚV started television broadcasting, it became the forefront of Icelandic filmmaking until the creation of the Icelandic Film Fund. Thus, most of the cutting edge of Icelandic filmmaking took place on the small screen.32 However, the majority of those who participated in this revitalization in Icelandic filmmaking did not come from the “school” of filmmakers of the pre-television years.33 The answer the question of whether or not television was the reason for the lull in the Icelandic film industry as a whole is complicated. As Oddný Sen states, there really was no Icelandic “industry”, as one might associate with the American film industry, but rather a group of amateur filmmakers.34 The reason seems to be a mixture of multiple events: the start of television broadcasting, an audience with higher expectations on cinematic entertainment, and most importantly, the “aging out” of Iceland’s first filmmakers. Reynir Oddsson, unfortunately, falls in between the gaps.

Who Is Reynir Oddsson? In the hearts and minds of the Icelandic public, Reynir Oddsson is most well-known for his pioneering effort in the crime/thriller genre of narrative films, even though he has produced

30 Eric Barnouw, Documentary: a history of the non-fiction film (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 9–11. 31 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Einsleit Endurreisn,“ 114. 32 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Ljós í myrkri,” 26. 33 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, 27. 34 Oddný Sen, “Sjónvarpsbyltingin á Íslandi,” 926.

far more documentary films than narrative during his lifetime. His movie Murder Story (Ice. Morðsaga),35 which premiered in 1979, occupies a unique position in Icelandic film history. Created on the cusp of the creation of the Icelandic Film Fund, Morðsaga is considered by some the true beginning of the Icelandic cinematic spring.36 It may seem to the average researcher that Oddsson came out of nowhere in the late 1970s with his first full-length narrative film due to the fact that he often goes unmentioned in overviews of the history of Icelandic film. However, Oddsson was, in fact, one of the more active filmmakers at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century.37 After studying to become an actor in London and in California at the Pasadena Playhouse, Reynir moved back and forth between Iceland and France. While in France, he worked as an assistant director for a number of different French directors such as Michelle Deville and Andre Cayett.38 After gaining first-hand experience at filmmaking, he moved back to Iceland to produce a number of small (but inventive) documentaries. The first of these, Accident (Ice. Slys),39 which he produced in 1962, even gained international recognition at the International Film Festival in Cork, Ireland.40 Following Slys, Oddsson sought to bring the cutting edge of European cinematic technique to his home country. In 1963 he produced and directed a so-called “Iceland-film” whose main purpose was to be used as tourist promotion called Distant in an Eternal Ocean (Ice. Fjærst í eilífðar útsæ).41 Funded by the National Educational Film Archives of Iceland, Distant in an Eternal Ocean had no need to be anything more than a run-of-the-mill promotional film. Oddsson, however, took this opportunity to incorporate the knowledge and skills acquired overseas and embarked on making an impressionist film to show Iceland’s unique natural beauty. Cinematographer William Lubtchansky (who would then go on to work for some of cinema’s greatest directors such as Jean-Luc Godard and Jacques Rivette) was brought on board during production,

35 Morðsaga, directed by Reynir Oddsson (Reykjavík: Borg-film, 1979). 36 Ásgrímur Sverrisson, “Viðhorf: Hin rammíslenska en alþjóðlega ‘Morðsaga’,” Klapptré, last modified November 3, 2016, https://klapptre.is/2016/11/03/vidhorf-hin-rammislenska-en-althjodlega- mordsaga/. 37Ásgrímur Sverrisson, “Vorboði íslenskrar kvikyndasögu: Ásgrímur spjallar við Reyni Oddsson, handritshöfundog leikstjóra,” Land og Synir, November 11, 1997: 6. 38 Guðgeir Magnússon. “’Ljótur Andarungi’: Viðtal við Reyni Oddsson, kvikmyndaleikstjóra.” Þjóðviljinn, December 24, 1963: 79. 39 Slys, directed by Reynir Oddsson (Reykjavík: Fræðslumyndasafn ríkisins/Slysavarnarfélag Íslands, 1962). 40 Guðgeir Magnússon, 3–8. 41 Fjærst í eilífðar útsæ, directed by Reynir Oddsson (Reykjavík: Geysir Films, 1963).

while Oddsson quickly established himself as a capable filmmaker with his sights set on the future of cinema.42 After receiving recognition as a documentary filmmaker Oddsson embarked upon another pioneering project, a documentary documenting the Icelandic band Hljómar on tour in 1965 called Umbarumbamba (1966).43 This film showcases innovative filmmaking that we would now classify as a “rockumentary,” something that had never been done before in Icelandic film history. In fact, rockumentaries were still a relatively new form of documentary filmmaking in general.44 Umbarumbamba is, thus, further proof of Oddsson’s creativity as a filmmaker apart from his pioneering contribution to the Icelandic documentary film scene. His next documentary film was The Occupation Years, which was also a highly ambitious, innovative, and costly project, which he produced under difficult circumstances. Despite the shortcomings of the two-part film, it is another example of an important, if unrecognized, part in Iceland’s film history.

Theorizing The Occupation Years

The “Voice“ of Reynir Oddsson The most important step in relocating Reynir Oddsson in Icelandic film historiography is to undertake a close analysis of The Occupations Years 1940–1945. To do so, I use Bill Nichols’s influential theoretical framework, which is based on what he terms “six modes” of documentary films: poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, and performative. Each individual mode is not a blueprint for a time in history; rather, it revolves around how a documentary presents its distinct “voice.” Modes utilize specific conventions to create a “loose framework” in which audience expectations may be fulfilled in an independent way by filmmakers.45 A filmmaker’s individuality makes it so that no single expression of a mode can be copied directly and that a film identified with a specific mode does not need to be so entirely.46

42 Ásgrímur Sverrisson, “Vorboði íslenskrar kvikmyndasögu,” 6. 43 Umbarumbamba, directed by Reynir Oddsson (Keflavík: Hljómar, 1966); Dr. Gunni, “Hljómar- mania,” Reykjavik Grapevine, June 5, 2009: 32. 44 Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2001), 111. 45 Nichols, 99. 46 Nichols, 100.

In a nutshell, Oddsson’s documentaries are a compilation of newsreels edited together with a handful of reenactments thrown in and accompanied by a narration of one of the most influential events in recent Icelandic history. One can discern elements of both the expository mode and the participatory mode in his approach. The expository mode hinges on assembling “fragments of the historical world into a more rhetorical or argumentative frame.” This mode may address the viewer directly through a “voice-of-god commentary,” in which the speaker is heard, but never seen in order to “propose a perspective, advance an argument, or recount history.”47 Here we see a direct connection to Oddsson’s documentaries as we know from the director himself that his intention was to portray a specific part of history to the Icelandic public.48 The expository mode also emphasizes “the impression of objectivity and well supported argument,” in which the “voice-of-god” is above any action happening on screen.49 The “voice-of-god” is evident, but somewhat baffling in The Occupation Years. Instead of having only one commentator, Oddsson includes five credited ones: throughout both films are the voices of Helga Bachmann, Helgi Skúlason, Ævar R. Kvaran, Thorolf Smith, and Oddsson himself. Having five different voices seems peculiar and may confuse audiences, especially since none of the commentators are introduced; one takes over the next throughout The Occupation Years. However, having some form of a “voice-of-god” does provide the audience with a voice of authority on the subject at hand. The audience is meant to believe that the commentary of the five commentators is factual. An example of how this voice of authority is played straight can be seen at the start of Part I when the commentator relates that the occupation of the British forces improved the economy by offering new job opportunities. This commentary is accompanied by filmed scenes of presumably Icelandic men hard at work for the occupying forces, showcasing a relatively positive relationship. An expository documentary will in most cases “add to our stockpile of knowledge but not challenge or subvert the categories by which such knowledge gets organized.”50 This is exactly what Reynir Oddsson was trying to accomplish in making The Occupation Years. In an interview in connection with the premiere of the first film, he states that his main goal was to allow those who lived through the years 1940–1945 to reminisce as well as educate the

47 Nichols, 105. 48 Reynir Oddsson, “’Það var ekki hægt að taka allt með’: Viðtal við Reyni Oddsson,” Morgunblaðið, October 27, 1968: 10. 49 Nichols, 107. 50 Nichols, 109.

younger generation on this influential time in Icelandic history.51 Oddsson is careful not to challenge the policy line of the Icelandic National Unity Government, which was in power from 1939 to 1942, especially when it comes to his brief summary of what is known as the “Situation” (Ice. ástandið) in Icelandic history, or the fraternization between Icelandic women and foreign soldiers.52 Instead, the filmmaker does his best to create a narrative that keeps an air of ambiguity as to who “seduced” whom. In one of the few scripted scenes, a soldier is seen (but not heard) getting a young woman into bed. This scene, however, is preceded by an interview with the journalist Sveinn Sæmundsson, who recounts his experience of U.S. soldiers in Reykjavik by emphasizing his “confusion” about the “willingness” of the Icelandic female population to fraternize with the occupying forces.53 Shortly afterwards, the audience hears the only female interviewee give an account of how “irresistible” the American soldiers were.54 The set-up of this specific interview, however, is problematic. As the audience’s only female perspective of the “Situation,” our understanding hinges on this lone interview. The woman being interviewed (presumably by Oddsson himself) is covered by a shadow, most likely to hide her identity from the audience. What stands out as most troubling by this interview set-up is that the woman seems to be smoking and visibly intoxicated. In comparison to the interview given by Sæmundsson, which was shot in a well-lit office overlooking Reykjavík, the visual and audio cues presented by Oddsson during the interview with the woman gives an air of untrustworthiness. If she is inebriated during the interview and, thus, in a compromised mental and physical state, how can she give us an accurate account of the female perspective? Unfortunately, a discourse of untrustworthiness in regard to the female public was in line with what government officials emphasized with their anti-fraternization policies during the “Situation.” Women were just as, if not more, at fault for their moral degradation than the occupying forces.55 By not rocking the boat,

51 Reynir Oddsson, “’Það var ekki hægt að taka allt með’: Viðtal við Reyni Oddsson,” Morgunblaðið, October 27, 1968: 10. 52 In short, the “Situation“ is the name commonly given to a time in Icelandic history in which the government reacted harshly to the growing relations between Icelandic women and the occupying forces. This topic is still to this day taboo and as such is difficult to summarize. It is important to note, however, that even in 1967 there was debate on the negative handling of the “Situation“ by the government. 53 The Occupation Years Part II, 00:49:00. 54 The Occupation Years Part II, 00:54:00. 55 Hafdís Erla Hafsteinsdóttir, “Hún var með eldrauðar neglur og varir, en að öðru leyti ekkert athugaverð í útliti,” Saga LV, no. 2 (2017): 53.

Oddsson seems to fall neatly into Nichols’s definition of an expository documentary, a film that adds to pre-existing knowledge and does not challenge the foundation of that knowledge. However, “in a reversal of the traditional emphasis in film, images serve a supporting role. They [expository documentaries] illustrate, illuminate, evoke, or act in counterpoint to what is said.”56 For this reason as well as the inclusion of direct interviews, I believe that Oddsson’s documentaries cannot be fully pigeonholed into the expository mode. The films are, in fact, far more visually than narratively focused. They are, in construction, a compilation of archival footage accompanied by a handful of scripted scenes and interviews with Icelandic citizens that give an idea of what society was like during the occupation. The participatory mode of documentary is classified first and foremost by the participation of the filmmaker; this includes the conducting of interviews.57 Although the interviews are conducted as if each interviewee were talking to Oddsson himself, the audience never sees or hears this participation, which makes it difficult to say that The Occupation Years is purely a participatory documentary. The feeling of “participation” of the filmmaker is absent. However, as Nichols notes, “filmmakers who seek to represent their own direct encounter with their surrounding world and those who seek to represent broad social issues and historical perspectives through interviews and compilation footage constitute two large components of the participatory mode.”58 Therefore, we can deduce that, in its essence, The Occupation Years also represents the participatory mode of documentary filmmaking. Although Oddsson does not necessarily seek to represent his own “direct encounter,” he successfully represents the “accepted” historical perspective of the occupation years, as can, for example, be seen in his handling of the “Situation”.

The First Icelandic Compilation Film Another aspect of participation is the collection of archival footage in order to build a narrative and support the filmmakers own distinct “voice.”59 The Occupation Years documentaries were the first Icelandic example of what is called a compilation film. This fact alone show’s Oddsson’s importance in Icelandic film history. However, as noted, Oddsson is mostly absent in the historiography. Þorsteinn Helgason hardly mentions Oddsson in an article solely focused on Icelandic historical documentaries. It is all the more troubling since

56 Nichols, 107. 57 Nichols, 122. 58 Nichols, 123. 59 Nichols, 122.

Oddsson’s documentaries are, in fact, the only Icelandic-produced compilation films, focusing on the first years of occupation.60 Unfortunately, the compilation film has not only been ignored in Icelandic film history but also in documentary film theory in general.61 The use of archival footage in the 1960s ushered in an age of compilation films.62 However, this new way of presenting history “as it happened” was not as straightforward as it may sound. In its essence, a compilation documentary is a montage of shorter films, each film with a unique “voice” created by each director.63 As Nichols clarifies, “Old documentary footage, already associated with reality in one way, becomes associated with reality in a new way. New meanings and insights become possible. New tonalities and emotional states arise.”64 Editing together a number of different directorial “voices” to construct one narrative is a difficult feat by itself. Once we take into account the compilation director’s own “voice,” the job of a compilation filmmaker becomes much more intricate. The way in which a documentary filmmaker achieves this is through his manipulation (editing) of each piece of archival footage, and by doing so, he creates an entirely new piece of film. This is why the inclusion of interviews and the participatory element is of great importance in compilation filmmaking, as Oddsson shows. As lone commentary accompanied by archival footage runs the risk of turning the archival footage into a secondary character, the participation of the filmmaker with the archival footage through interviews is vital.65 Using archival footage gathered from government agencies in the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany, and Norway—as well as a few films gathered from private companies in Iceland and the United States such as Flugfélag Íslands (Air Iceland) and 20th Century Fox, respectively—Oddsson attempts to capture the years 1940–1945 not only locally but also on a global scale. Both films focus predominantly on the events unfolding in Europe during World War II; hence, not much time is relegated to the “pure” Icelandic experience of the occupation. This is certainly a drawback in both films, which did not go

60 Þorsteinn Helgason, “Sagan á skjánum,” 75; Kvikmyndamiðstöð Íslands. “Heimildamyndir.” Kvikmyndavefurinn. Last modified March 15, 2020. https://www.kvikmyndavefurinn.is/films/bytype/gd/genre/documentary. 61 Bill Nichols, Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary (California: University of California Press, 2016), 131. 62 Nichols, 133. 63 Nichols, 132. 64 Nichols, 133. 65 Nichols, 135.

unnoticed by the viewing public in 1967 and 1968.66 However, the usage of such archival footage (largely available after the end of the war) had never been attempted by an Icelandic filmmaker before. Oddsson was a pioneer in this usage of archival footage for this very reason. Whether his usage was commercially successful is a different question, but may shed light on why his efforts in documentary filmmaking have largely been ignored by Icelandic film historians.

The “Voice” of The Occupation Years The “voice” of a compilation documentary is created by means of a montage of multiple differing directorial voices. The voice can also give us the insight needed to be able to discern the filmmaker’s true intent with a film regardless of what has been stated by the filmmaker himself. The voice of a film cannot be hidden because it is the essence of the film itself. So far, we have briefly discussed the impression given by an example of the interviews conducted by Oddsson and presented in The Occupation Years. This gives us a peek into what has been referred to as the voice of a documentary. As Nichols puts it:

The fact that documentaries are not a reproduction of reality gives them a voice of their own. They are a representation of the world, and this representation stands for a particular view of the world. The voice of a documentary, then, is the means by which this particular point of view or perspective becomes known to us.67

The “means” of the documentary can include everything between the selection and arrangement of sound and the image on screen. The main elements that create the voice of a documentary are the following: 1) when to edit and what to juxtapose; 2) whether to record synchronous sound or add additional sound; 3) whether to adhere to chronology or rearrange events to support a point; 4) whether to use footage shot by other people or only the filmmakers own; and 5) which mode of representation to rely on to organize the film.68 The fifth element has already been covered above; so now we must investigate the preceding four elements in order to fully understand the intent behind Oddsson’s The Occupation Years. Editing and sound mixing is one of the few elements the director can fully control. An example of how Oddsson uses editing and the arrangement of certain archival footage juxtaposed with the inclusion of scripted scenes can be seen in the first few minutes of Part I.

66 Ólafur Sigurðsson, “Nýja Bíó Hernámsárin, ‘1940–1945’ 67, 68,” Morgunblaðið, October 17, 1968: 17. 67 Nichols, Introduction to Documentary, 43. 68 Nichols, 46.

The film opens with (presumably scripted) scenes of the Icelandic countryside. The scenes, accompanied by a voice over of Oddsson himself giving a summary of the history of Iceland up until 1940, emphasize the country’s relative poverty.69 Shots of aluminum and iron debris are edited into a montage of livestock and other images of country life. Quickly, the film cuts over to archival footage of the rise of Nazism in Germany, while the voice over is meant to drive home the point how tumultuous the 1930s were elsewhere in Europe as well. Here we can see how Oddsson uses not only the first element of the documentary voice but also the second, third, and fourth. The director’s decisions add up to create the perspective of a poor country in danger of being captured by the evils of Nazism. It gives the audience a sense that Icelanders were in no way prepared if the war came to Iceland’s shores. There is a need for outside intervention before the Nazis have the chance to take over Iceland. The commentator then warns of an alternate history if Germany had successfully occupied Iceland during World War II; the dangers of Nazism are highlighted in this sequence. What follows is a ten-minute sequence detailing the first years of the war, with an emphasis on Germany’s 1940 occupation of Denmark, with which Iceland was at that time still associated in a personal union with the Danish King.70 When the British are shown to arrive, the music overplays the mysteriousness of the sighting of the first warships. The scenes that follow this ominous introduction of the British are far more uplifting. Locals are seen helping the soldiers unload their supplies, while the voice over (not Oddsson this time) recounts the usage of Icelandic cars for the transportation of the British soldiers. A lively song about the impression of the occupying forces on the female population is played, giving the scene an even more jovial tone.71 Here we have Oddsson at work creating a positive representation of the British soldiers for the audience. This positivity was neither universal during the first years of the occupation nor during the 1960s, Oddsson’s contemporary society. Yet, the Icelandic government was keen on projecting the military presence of British and later U.S. soldiers in World War II and during the Cold War as being friendly. It also gives us a clue about what perspective Oddsson is trying to portray.72 Through this documentary voice, Oddsson’s intention was obviously not to go against the grain, but to create, instead, a documentary that intentionally agreed with the official stance of the Icelandic government. To sum up, Oddsson’s attempt at a historical compilation

69 The Occupation Years Part I, 00:00:00–00:05:00. 70 The Occupation Years Part I, 00:08:00–00:17:00. 71 The Occupation Years Part I, 00:18:05–00:25:00. 72 Donald E. Nuechterlein, Iceland: Reluctant Ally (New York: Cornell University Press, 1961), 23.

film is defined by his use of editing and sound mixing in order to portray a “politically correct” (which the government of Iceland would agree upon) version of this significant historical event.

Reynir Oddsson and the Expectations of a Nation

“The Occupation Years 1940–45 cost 3 million Icelandic Króna. ‘Gala’-night at the University Cinema tonight” reads the title of a column on the front page of the Vísir daily on November 14, 1967.73 The column goes on to emphasize the immensity of a project this documentary had been for Reynir Oddsson. Three million was, in fact, a huge sum of money for a film such as this one, which is equivalent to about 47,200,000 Króna (ISK) today. Around 30,000 to 40,000 Icelanders would have to buy tickets for each part of the film in order to break even. However, before the premiere of his documentaries, Oddsson was optimistic that this need would be met due to the fact that just a few years earlier the narrative film The Girl Gogo (Ice. 79 af stöðinni)74—based on a novel of the same name by Indriði G. Þorsteinsson—was successful in drawing an audience of 60,000 Icelanders nationwide. A couple of days later, on November 16, Vísir published photos of the “gala” premiere of the first part of The Occupation Years. These photos are of particular interest as they give us an insight into the guest list.75 In attendance, in the order presented by Vísir, were the following politicians and ambassadors: Geir Hallgrímsson, Mayor of Reykjavík; Bjarni Benediktsson, Prime Minister; Gylfi Þ. Gíslason, Minister of Culture and Education; Nikolay Vazhnov, Ambassador of the USSR; Karl Rolvang, Ambassador of the USA; and Halford McLeod, Ambassador of the UK. Since these films presented an overview of World War II from a handful of archival footage sourced from the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Germany, it seems fitting that the ambassadors to these countries would be invited to the premiere. Oddsson had also tried to gain access to the vast collection of Soviet archival footage but was unable to do so due to imperfect paperwork.76 Since the Soviet

73 “Hernámsárin 1940–45 kostuðu 3. Millj. Króna. ‘Gala’-kvöld í Háskólabíó í kvöld,” Vísir, November 14, 1967: 1. 74 79 af stöðinni, directed by Erik Balling (Reykjavík: Edda Film, 1962). 75 “Á frumsýningu: ‘Hernámsárin 1940–45’,” Vísir, November 16, 1967: 3. 76 Reynir Oddsson, 10.

Union was an ally during World War II before turning into a Cold War adversary, it was only fitting that the Soviet Ambassador would also be invited. When asked in an interview whether tickets would be more expensive than usual Oddsson revealed that they will be and that the films were made “only for the domestic market.” One last statement made by Oddsson in this interview gives us an idea as to whom these films were made for. As he observed: “… I expect that Icelanders will enjoy reliving this time in our history, and that the younger generation who do not remember these events enjoy it as well. I have spoken to many young people and they all seem enthusiastic about this and look forward to the release.”77 From this, we can gather that Oddsson does not seem to have any specific demographic in mind more so than the entire country. By making two feature length historical documentaries, what Oddsson want to accomplish was to educate the younger generation on a time that shaped the nation, while also letting those who lived it reminisce.

“A Disreputable Film”: Film Critics on The Occupation Years Since Reynir Oddsson’s films deals with seminal, if politically controversial times, in Icelandic history it does not seem surprising that the reaction was mixed. All the critics agree that Oddsson could have devoted more time to Icelandic experiences of the war and occupation instead of focusing so much on the “enemy.” This thread of criticism can be seen from the most positive to the most critical reviews of the two documentaries. Film critic Ólafur Sigurðsson wrote about the first installment of The Occupation Years days after its premiere in 1967 in the conservative and pro-Western newspaper, Morgunblaðið: “I thought the film was quite entertaining despite its flaws. The source material is interesting and, as time goes on, the film might become a valuable historical source. I believe there is definite cause to investigate the film’s educational value for future history students.”78 Although Sigurðsson ends his criticism on a high note, he points out some of the inherent flaws of a compilation films such as this. He believes that despite being clear and concise with the narration, due to the fact that there are a number of different narrators in the 1967 film, there are some redundancies that show a lack of cohesiveness that courses throughout the film. The narration tends to lack educational substance in parts and instead relies on elegant prose.

77 “’Hernámsárin 1940–1945’ kosta ekki undir 3 milljónum.” Morgunblaðið, October 25, 1967: 19, 28. 78 Ólafur Sigurðsson, 8.

Even if the documentaries included much archival footage of the European theatre of war, Sigurðsson lamented the lack of footage on Iceland during this period. He was also critical of other points such as the editing, citing the setup of the interviews: “The camera is simply setup right in front of the interviewee, and they are made to tell us their story.” Yet, Sigurðsson found the interviews interesting but perhaps not necessary in a film such as this.79 A year later, Sigurðsson updated his critique of Oddsson’s documentaries once he has viewed the second part, which he found much more enjoyable than the first installment.80 Other critics who wrote on the documentaries in Icelandic newspapers agreed with Sigurðsson’s assessment of the lack of pure Icelandic content and the unnecessary amount of time devoted to the general history of World War II.81 Sigurðsson underlines, however, the importance of the interview with the unnamed woman who gives a first-hand account of the “Situation” and wished that he had given more information. Rumors that Oddsson’s second installment would include the “Situation” drove expectation and Sigurðsson concluded that this film did not disappoint. Coupled with the invaluable archival footage of the founding of the Icelandic republic at Þingvellir in 1944, this interview presented a case for the purchase of Oddsson’s films by the Icelandic government (or at least funding for an edited version) due to its educational merit.82 Sigurðsson ended his critique on a positive note, arguing that what these films could teach future Icelanders and the invaluable source material collected by Oddsson greatly outshone any problems with the production. A review in the Socialist newspaper Þjóðviljinn is much less forgiving in its criticism of the second installment of Oddsson’s documentary. In an article titled “’The Occupation Years’ – A disreputable film”, author “Þ.S.” critiques Oddsson’s documentary technique and calls The Occupation Years a “cunning propaganda film.”83 In line with the newspaper’s critical stance toward the Western powers, the reviewer believes that Oddsson does the Icelandic public a disservice by “only focusing on the positivity of the occupation” and not on the numerous problems that the Icelandic people faced during these times. The author explains that, for instance, plenty of space is given to the battles between Nazi Germany and Britain, while a tragedy that befell hundreds of Icelandic seamen who drowned in one of

79 Ólafur Sigurðsson, 8. 80 Ólafur Sigurðsson, “Nýja Bíó Hernámsárin, ‘1940–1945’ 67, 68,” Morgunblaðið, October 17, 1968: 17. 81 Anna K. Brynjarsdóttir, “Setið við sjónvarp,” Tíminn, May 15, 1970: 5; Þráinn Bertelsson, “Kvikmyndir: Hernámsárin 1940–1945 og 1967–68,” Vísir, October 16, 1968: 10. 82 Ólafur Sigurðsson, 17. 83 Þ. S., “’Hernámsárin’– óheiðarleg mynd,” Þjóðviljinn, October 20, 1968: 5.

these battles is not even mentioned. He also finds faults with what he sees as Oddsson’s gross negligence when it comes to the presentation of the struggle against too close relations with occupying forces and argues that filmmaker draws up a far too favorable picture of their impact on Icelandic society and economy. “Þ.S.” then lists the four learning outcomes he believes the film offers at the expense of the viewer:

1. The British and Americans saved Iceland from Hitler from the pure goodness of their hearts; 2. The foundation of the republic is thanks to the protection provided by the Americans; 3. The only resistance to close relations with the occupying forces was Pétur Hoffmans [one of the few men mentioned in the film by name] heroism and the insistence of Icelandic youth to hold onto their girlfriends; 4. The whole ordeal was super exciting and fun [according to the teenagers at the end].84

The author then goes on to condemn a column (which he believes to be authored by Prime Minister Bjarni Benediktsson himself), appearing after the premiere of The Occupation Years Part I in 1967, in which the latter praises the film’s educational merit, suggesting that students should get free access to it in order to learn about this trying time in Icelandic history. “Þ.S.” believes that a “documentary” (his emphasis) such as this is perfectly in line with the official stance on the occupation years themselves and, as such, cannot be seen as a truly unbiased documentary and is instead a clever use of propaganda.85

The Director’s Response In October 1968, Oddsson gave an interview to Morgunblaðið, which he used to respond to his critics. He noted that many believed that since his films were just a compilation of other films, no real work had been done on his end of the cutting room floor. Oddsson quickly set the record straight, giving a short lesson on the complexity of cutting together archival footage, which may or may not be even shot on the same type of film. He detailed his experience on editing the footage of the foundation of the republic of Iceland (which many had praised) as a nightmare in production. Oddsson’s account gives us an interesting peek at the difficulties surrounding the production of a compilation film. It is exactly what Nichols points out as being one of the hardest parts of the production of a compilation film.86

84 Þ. S., 5. 85 Þ. S., 5. 86 Reynir Oddsson, “Það var ekki hægt að taka allt með,” Morgunblaðið, October 27, 1968: 10; Nichols, Speaking Truths with Film, 133.

In the interview, Oddsson recounts the reasons for his decision to create these documentaries in the first place. While abroad he came across a vast amount of archival footage on World War II, some of which involved Iceland, and became interested in creating a single film in case Icelanders back home shared his interest in this period of history. The quantity of sources quickly became overwhelming. Hence, he decided that in order to include as much footage as possible, two movies had to be produced. He emphasized that his initial intent behind the creation of The Occupation Years, was simple: he wanted to create a single source for the Icelandic public on a significant time in world history in order to educate the youth and to entertain the older generation through memory.87 Right here we get the answer to part of our question as to Oddsson’s intent, that is, education. Additionally, if his goals were to educate and entertain the majority of Icelanders (old and young) it may shed light on his relative political conformity. The best way to reach a wide audience is to be as “acceptable” by society’s standard as possible. Oddsson may also have made the conscious decision to favor the official stance of the Icelandic government in order to avoid a backlash. Yet, the lack of pure Icelandic footage seems to have been the viewers’ biggest concern, especially if these films were to be used for educational purposes. In response to this criticism, Oddsson pointed out that the sources on this subject were few and far between and that he included everything he had access to at the time. While he could have staged certain events in regard to the experience of Icelanders, this would have added an unprecedented expense to an already expensive film. When he embarked on the production, he had no idea what the final cost would be. Oddsson did not receive funding from any governmental agencies despite an application submitted to the Ministry of Education. Oddsson concluded that perhaps if he had been granted funding for the production from the Icelandic government, he would have been able to include everything his critics believed he lacked.88 Although this statement may have been truthful, we never know whether more funding would have changed the outcome. Ultimately, it seems that combined with a lack of source material of interest to the average Icelandic viewer, the lack of funding was Oddsson’s downfall in regard to documentary filmmaking. The Occupation Years are, however, still to this day the only films of its caliber in Icelandic film history. No filmmaker has since attempted to produce a three-hour long compilation film on Iceland in World War II.

87 Reynir Oddsson, “Það var ekki hægt að taka allt með,” 10. 88 Reynir Oddsson, “Það var ekki hægt að taka allt með,” 21.

(Re)Locating Reynir Oddsson: Where Are the Historical Documentaries? Three years after the premiere of Part I, on the thirtieth anniversary of the occupation, RÚV bought the rights to Oddsson’s films in order to commemorate this time in Icelandic history. As stated above, critics seem to agree that despite its flaws The Occupation Years provides an invaluable historical source due not to its narrative, rather to its construction. More specifically, unseen archival footage all put together in one place. However, where does the evolution in Icelandic filmmaking leave Oddsson himself? The Occupation Years occupy a special place in Icelandic film history. They were produced during the first years of Icelandic television, a time that was shaped by innovation in film on television but were not made for a home audience. These two documentaries were produced for the silver screen and were premiered at the largest movie theater in Reykjavik, University Cinema (Ice. Háskólabíó), to as we have seen, an audience of diplomats and invitees as well as a few members of the general public who had purchased tickets.89 Oddný Sen names Reynir Oddsson as one of the very few innovators of independent film in the age of television (the other being Þorgeir Þorgeirson).90 She also mentions, however, that the competition with the National Television was steep and that Oddsson was further hampered financially due to poor audience turnout at traditional movie theaters.91 One thing is clear: the theater release of Oddsson’s two historical documentaries could not have come at a worse time for these reasons. Yet, one can also ask whether it was perhaps not only the timing that may have been off but also the type of film. Are historical films, in general, more suited for television broadcast and, as such, should Oddsson have cooperated with the emerging television audience if his goal was to break even financially? Although Norðfjörð’s article on the renaissance of the Icelandic documentary focuses primarily on the resurgence in documentaries made for theatrical release, he points out the main stylistic differences in television and theater. He states that although “it may be risky to generalize, television generally hinges on education as a guiding light while theatrical films tend to put more focus on stylistic choices” and as such, television is better suited for the historical documentary.92 The most extensive research on documentaries for Icelandic television has been done by

89 “Á frumsýningu: ‘Hernámsárin 1940–45’,” Vísir, November 16, 1967: 3. 90 Oddný Sen, “Sjónvarpsbyltingin á Íslandi,” 933. 91 Oddný Sen, 932. 92 Björn Ægir Norðfjörð, “Einsleit endurreisn,” 115.

Þorsteinn Helgason. In his article “History on the Screen,”93 he is concerned with what makes a historical documentary and how it differs from other forms of historical narratives.94 As he makes clear, historical documentaries have by no means been left out in the revolution of television; in fact, some of the nation’s greatest debates on television are concerned with historical documentaries. Here, Helgason references the shockwaves sent by the airing of the historical docuseries A Nation Bounded by its Mentality (Ice. Þjóð í hlekkjum hugarfarsins)95 by Baldur Hermannsson that challenged the accepted view of an agriculturally dependent society by implying that it was this dependency that impeded progress and aided poverty in Iceland for hundreds of years. Perhaps if Reynir Oddsson had waited a couple of years to release his documentary, then in collaboration with RÚV instead of in direct competition with it, his documentary films might have had more influence than they had.

Conclusion A quick glance at the history of Icelandic film gives us an insight into the important role played by documentaries and documentarians. Most, if not all, of Iceland’s so-called “fathers” of narrative film got their start producing “Iceland-films,” which were, more often than not, short form documentaries. In fact, what typifies these films are their mutual emphasis on Icelandic nature and Icelandic people as they were. Icelandic film history is a relatively new and unexplored field and not much in-depth research has been conducted on specific “ages” or “eras”. However, while the breadth of focus has been so far given to the two opposite ends of its history, a twenty-year gap has been created in which most historians seem to have come to a consensus that nothing much happened due to the advent of Icelandic national television. We now know, however, that this is far from the truth. We need to look no further than the “voice” of a documentary in order to answer the questions of where we can place Reynir Oddsson and The Occupation Years into Icelandic film history and, more importantly, what his intent was behind its production. Oddsson’s “voice” is heard loud and clear throughout the documentaries in an attempt to recount a tumultuous time in Icelandic history. His pioneering efforts in relation to what we know as “a compilation film” are exemplars of the expository and participatory modes of documentary. Oddsson does not take a controversial political stance, which angered some viewers in the

93 Þorsteinn Helgason, “Sagan á skjánum,” 41–78. 94 Þorsteinn Helgason, 60–68. 95 Þjóð í hlekkjum hugarfarsins, Baldur Hermannsson (Reykjavík: RÚV, 1993).

late 1960s. Instead, he presents a “politically correct” view of Icelandic history. We can gather from the handful of interviews given by Oddsson over the years that his true intentions were never hidden. He simply gained access to a vast array of source material that he believed Icelanders, old and young, might enjoy as much as he did. However, his overestimation of the demand for documentaries on the wartime experience coupled with his underestimation of the production costs led to a commercial failure. This failure, in my opinion, clouds modern day historian’s perception of Oddsson as an innovative filmmaker. Not only does his earlier work with experimental documentary show this. The fact that The Occupation Years is still to this day the only “true” Icelandic compilation film is a testimony to his impact on Icelandic film history.

Bibliography

Published Material Barnouw, Eric. Documentary: a history of the non-fiction film. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Björn Ægir Norðfjörð. “Einsleit endurreisn. Íslenskar heimildamyndir á nýrri öld“, Saga XLVI, no. 2 (2008): 114–149.

Björn Ægir Norðfjörð. “Ljós í myrkri: Saga kvikmyndunar á Íslandi.” Ritið 19, no. 2 (2019): 19–42.

Björn Þór Vilhjálmsson. “Frá sveitabænum að stafrænu byltingunni: Inngangur að þema.” Ritið 19, no. 2 (2019): 1–18.

Eggert Þór Bernharðsson, “Landnám lifandi mynda,“ Heimur Kvikmynda. Edited by Guðni Elísson, 803–831. Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999.

Erlendur Sveinsson. “Árin tólf fyrir daga Sjónvarps og Kvikmyndasjóðs.” Heimur Kvikmynda. Edited by Guðni Elísson, 868–873. Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999.

Guðni Elísson. Introduction to Heimur Kvikmynda. Edited by Guðni Elísson, xi–xiii. Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999.

Hafdís Erla Hafsteinsdóttir. “Hún var með eldrauðar neglur og varir, en að öðru leyti ekkert athugaverð í útliti.” Saga LV, no. 2 (2017): 53–86.

Huldar Breiðfjörð, “Skrítna Ísland. Um íslenskar vegamyndir,“ Heimur Kvikmynda. Edited by Guðni Elísson, 962–968. Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999.

Icelandic Documentaries: Shorts and animated films. Edited by Eiríkur Thorsteinsson. Reykjavík: Icelandic Film Fund, 1991.

Íris Ellenberger. Íslandskvikmyndir 1916–1966: Ímyndir, sjálfsmynd og vald. Reykjavík: Sagnfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands, 2007.

Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2001.

Nichols, Bill. Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary. California: University of California Press, 2016.

Nuechterlein, Donald E. Iceland: Reluctant Ally. New York: Cornell University Press, 1961.

Oddný Sen. “Sjónvarpsbyltingin á Íslandi.” Heimur Kvikmynda. Edited by Guðni Elísson, 927–936. Reykjavík: Forlagið, 1999.

Þorsteinn Helgason. “Sagan á skjánum.” Saga XL, no. 2 (2002): 41–78.

Web Sources

Ásgrímur Sverrisson. “Viðhorf: Hin rammíslenska en alþjóðlega ‘Morðsaga’.” Klapptré. Last modified November 3, 2016. https://klapptre.is/2016/11/03/vidhorf-hin- rammislenska-en-althjodlega-mordsaga/.

Kvikmyndamiðstöð Íslands. “Heimildamyndir.” Kvikmyndavefurinn. Last modified March 15, 2020. https://www.kvikmyndavefurinn.is/films/bytype/gd/genre/documentary.

Print Media

“’Hernámsárin 1940–1945’ kosta ekki undir 3 milljónum.” Morgunblaðið, October 25, 1967: 19, 28.

“Á frumsýningu: ‘Hernámsárin 1940–45’.” Vísir, November 16, 1967: 3.

“Hernámsárin 1940–45 kostuðu 3. Millj. Króna. ‘Gala’-kvöld í Háskólabíó í kvöld.” Vísir, November 14, 1967: 1.

“Taprekstur á ´Hernámsárum’.” Vísir, November 26, 1968: 16.

Anna K. Brynjarsdóttir. “Setið við sjónvarp.” Tíminn, May 15, 1970: 5.

Ásgrímur Sverrisson. “Vorboði íslenskrar kvikyndasögu: Ásgrímur spjallar við Reyni Oddsson, handritshöfundog leikstjóra.” Land og Synir, November 11, 1997: 6.

Dr. Gunni. “Hljómar-mania”. Reykjavik Grapevine, June 5, 2009: 32.

Guðgeir Magnússon. “’Ljótur Andarungi’: Viðtal við Reyni Oddsson, kvikmyndaleikstjóra.” Þjóðviljinn, December 24, 1963: 3–8, 66, 78–79.

Gylfi Gröndal. “Hernám á filmu.” Vísir, May 13, 1970: 7.

Ólafur Sigurðsson. “Hernámsárin 1940–1945.” Morgunblaðið, November 16, 1967: 8.

Ólafur Sigurðsson. “Nýja Bíó Hernámsárin, ‘1940–1945’ 67, 68.” Morgunblaðið, October 17, 1968: 17.

Reynir Oddsson. “’Það var ekki hægt að taka allt með’: Viðtal við Reyni Oddsson.” Morgunblaðið, October 27, 1968: 10.

Þ. S. “’Hernámsárin’– óheiðarleg mynd.” Þjóðviljinn, October 20, 1968: 5.

Þráinn Bertelsson. “Kvikmyndir: Hernámsárin 1940–1945 og 1967–68.” Vísir, October 16, 1968: 10.

Film Media

79 af stöðinni. Directed by Erik Balling. Reykjavík: Edda Film, 1962.

Fjærst í eilífðar útsæ. Directed by Reynir Oddsson. Reykjavík: Geysir Films, 1963.

Hernámsárin I and II. Directed by Reynir Oddsson. Reykjavík: United Motion Pictures, 1967/68.

Ísland í lifandi myndum. Directed by Loftur Guðmundsson. Reykjavík: Nordisk Film Kompagni, 1925.

Morðsaga. Directed by Reynir Oddsson. Reykjavík: Borg-film, 1979.

Saga borgarættarinnar. Directed by Gunnar Sommerferldt. Reykjavík: Nordisk Film Kompagni, 1921.

Slys. Directed by Reynir Oddsson. Reykjavík: Fræðslumyndasafn ríkisins/Slysavarnarfélag Íslands, 1962.

Umbarumbamba. Directed by Reynir Oddsson. Keflavík: Hljómar, 1966.

Þjóð í hlekkjum hugarfarsins. Directed by Baldur Hermannsson. Reykjavík: RÚV, 1993.