For those of you who aren’t familiar with Insomnia, it started as a Swedish/Norwegian crime thriller directed by Erik Skjoldbjærg in 1997. The film starred Stellan Skarsgård and Bjørn Floberg, both of whom were praised for their performances. In 2002, young filmmaker Christopher Nolan adapted the story into a film of his own, this time starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams. Both films are extremely strong, effective, and even disturbing, but the question still remains. Who did it better?
I’ve decided to break the film down into 5 aspects to compare to each other and determine which one did it the best. (This is all subjective of course.)
The protagonist (Jonas Engström vs Will Dormer)
In the original, Stellan Skarsgård plays a detective who is sharp and clever, but also deeply flawed. He seems to sometimes lose sight of the task at hand, but regrets this upon realization. Al Pacino plays a detective who is undoubtedly a good man, and wants to do the right thing. Both detectives are put in a situation where they must make a difficult choice: tell the truth and lose their job, or lie and keep it. This choice burdens both of them greatly, which is seen in the performances by Pacino and Skarsgård. As a viewer, the choice to lie seems more natural to a character like Jonas Engström, whereas you would expect Will Dormer to tell the truth no matter what. The remorse and regret Dormer feels is on full display, thanks in large part to Pacino’s acting. It’s very easy to see that he is almost sickened by the idea of constantly lying in order to save himself. While this performance is truly incredible and easily one of Pacino’s best, the idea that our “hero” is a deeply flawed man adds a whole other level to the already brilliant story in the original. Skarsgård’s performance presents a character that, while smart, is not strong psychologically, leaving him vulnerable and open to manipulation. In my opinion, this unreliable protagonist is more interesting to watch deteriorate and unravel mentally, so the winner in this category goes to the original.
The antagonist (Jon Holt vs Walter Finch)
The other side of the coin is our villain, played in the original by Bjørn Floberg, and the remake by Robin Williams. Williams is known mostly for his hilarious comedic roles and masterful stand-up comedy. What audiences were not prepared for however was to see the man they all knew and love become a dark, cold, calculated character in a disturbing psychological mystery. Walter Finch comes across initially as a good man with a kind heart, but becomes darker and darker as the film progresses. William’s revolutionized his career with this role, and his performance is truly phenomenal. Having said that, is Insomnia Williams’ best villainous role? It is certainly brilliant, but his full antagonistic range of acting is shown even more in a film called One Hour Photo. Bjørn Floberg also does an excellent job playing a cold, unsettling villain, which balances nicely with Skarsgård’s performance. What the original version lacks however is the full range seen in the remake. Floberg never shows a false good side, and his character is presented more as a physical embodiment of Engström’s bad conscience. Both performances are incredible, but the clear winner in this category is the remake.
The story
The story is essentially the same in both films: a detective is brought to a small town in Norway to solve the mystery of a teenage girl who has been murdered. While trying to ambush the suspect, the detective accidentally shoots his partner. Does he tell the truth and face the consequences, or lie and protect his reputation? The remake of Insomnia is about an hour longer than the original, therefore it has more time to flesh out and explain the elements of the story. In the original version, the audience is left on their own to piece together everything that is going on. I personally enjoy films being left up to audience interpretation, but it’s easy to see why most audiences would not. Another thing I like about the original is that it is more focused on the story at hand, whereas the remake spends some of its time on flashbacks, random symbolism, etc. This is all well and good, but the more concise, to the point way of storytelling seems to work better for a story of this nature. Personally, I would proclaim the original as the winner here. However, for those who are unfamiliar with the story, the remake should probably be watched first, in order to understand what is really going on. Therefore, the winner in this category is the remake.
The ending
Obviously I’m not going to tell what the ending is to either film, but what I can say is that they do not end the same. One feels more like a satisfying conclusion, while the other is more abrupt and open-ended. In Europe, these seemingly unsatisfying endings are more common, while in America audiences want a gratifying resolution where all the problems are solved. This predictable formula does become old after a while, but it works somewhat well in the remake of Insomnia. However, the original film as a whole is darker and more unnerving, and an unfulfilling ending ties into that aspect beautifully. The winner in this category for me is the original.
The technical aspects
If you’ve been keeping track so far, you will know that this category is the tie-breaker. Both films have excellent editing, camera work, lighting, cinematography, etc. Despite this, the remake doesn’t do anything unique with these aspects. There are a couple of exceptions, but the film is played very safe. The original however, through its shot composition and editing, tricks the audience during tense scenes to add even more to the unsettling atmosphere of the film. For its originality and sheer boldness, the winner is the original.
In conclusion, the story of Insomnia is smart, calculated, and even frightening, and both films tell it very well. They both feature great acting, writing, and directing, making for memorable, exciting mystery films. Both are definitely worth a watch, but at the end of the day, the original is my personal favorite.
