Just out of curiosity, where did you see it? I didn’t know this was shown anywhere else!

I didn’t enjoy it as much as the reviewer, I’m afraid, although it was memorable for its starkness and had some beautiful landscape cinematography. I didn’t really know what to make of either the grittiness or the silliness, however. Watching them build shelter, fish salmon and then eat it was fair enough, but the obsession with “authenticity” (almost to the point of a Dogme film) was undermined by how badly they were doing these things. Was I meant to be amused by this? To sympathise with the characters for being a bit useless? Or just cringe? What about the infamous defecation scene? I can’t say I was offended by it, but why is it in there? If ancient Norsemen shat differently to us, I must have missed the subtleties of Tony Stone’s performance because I didn’t notice any difference.

Similarly, was I wrong to roll my eyes at the wooden delivery of the Old Norse lines and the amusing anachronisms in the subtitles? At the fact that the two Vikings are pagans despite the date of Karlsefni’s expedition, and that the main character worships Odinn rather than a more popular god like Thorr or Freyr, presumably simply because Tony Stone finds that god more interesting? Are these genuine aesthetic objections or just a specialist’s pedantry? Does it matter that Stone’s “recreation” of Viking life has more to do with American neo-paganism than with medieval history?

Nor was I sure how to react to the headbanging, the heavy metal soundtrack and other departures from the gritty seriousness of most of the film. Normally I’d be inclined to laugh things like that off as the filmmaker’s self-deprecating mockery of his geeky fondness for his subject matter – a signal to the audience that he doesn’t take himself too seriously. But they take the rest of the film so seriously that I’m not sure at all if these heavy metal interludes were intended to be humorous – I just found them a little embarassing myself.

What I found most fascinating about it all was not what the film itself but the reaction of the Leeds judges to it. I spent about half an hour chatting with them, trying to understand why they gave this the top prize. Their response was: “A film about being an epic Viking hero would’ve been nothing new. A film about failing to be an epic Viking hero, while more original, has also been done. But a film about failing to be an epic Viking hero and drawing attention to and revelling in this failure redefines the representation of self on film and pushes the boundaries of cinema.” (Apparently.) I decided to take that as a comment on indie cinema’s predilection to being used as a vehicle for narcissism rather than try to explain the historical context of Karlsefni’s expedition to the judge in question.