... but you wouldn't know it. The spectrum of religious belief explored through the eyes of rural Danish families in 1925 - a tricky birth, falling for the wrong girl and a son who thinks he's Jesus sets the scene. Nothing to make you smile, except for the end which, depending on your own dogma, may allow you a brief smirk.
82 Reviews
Demanding melodrama which may reward concentration.
the red duchess21 December 2000
Warning: Spoilers
'Ordet', even by Dreyer standards, is a gruelling experience, but in a different way from 'the Passion of Joan of Arc', which, with almost sadistic intensity, thrust the viewer into a visceral pummelling, dragging the spiritual out of us. 'Ordet' is more typically Scandanavian, based on a play by Kaj Munk, a cleric-playwright murdered by the Gestapo during the Nazi Occupation of Denmark.
Its austerity and rigour are reminiscent of Bergman, without that director's lapses (i.e. Audience-friendly gestures) into sensation. Like Bergman, Dreyer makes no attempts to hide the theatrical origins of his material - most of the action takes place in austere interiors that even look like sets in their oppressive spaciousness, just as you can hear the boards being trod. There are no harrowing close ups a la 'Passion' here; the camera keeps an unblinking distance throughout, as if we were watching a play in the theatre. The performances make no concessions to film acting, keeping a stern solemnity as they utter their tersely simple dialogue.
So why would Dreyer, one of the five greatest film directors of all time, make such a seemingly uncinematic picture? Part of the answer probably derives from the film's theme, that of faith and miracles. Although the film is as restrained and grim as you would expect from a Scandanavian work, the content is actually full of barely suppressed passion.
The situation and plots are straight out of classic 19th century realist literature - a stubbornly proud landowner refuses to let his youngest son marry a wealthy neighbour because of religious differences; his eldest son goes mad from studying too much theology, hoping to fulfil his father's messianic dreams, under the delusion that he is Jesus, with beard too match, although a joyless, Old-Testament kind of prophet-Jesus; another son has renounced his faith, disgusted with the daily evidence of God's indifference; his pious wife loses her baby in childbirth.
Material ripe for hothouse treatment. And yet Dreyer's reticence never lets it descend into 'Elmer Gantry'isms. The film works as a study in loneliness, in the limited options open to people in isolated outposts made rigid by tradition, religion, culture etc. Dreyer makes a virtue of the theatrical material: his use of doorways, his patterning of entries and exits, his positioning of characters, his calm yet insistent panning all created this sense of something being held in, ready to burst.
The film opens with a brilliantly orchestrated sequence, which introduces the characters, their dilemmas and their milieu, with a simple, yet intricate pattern, as each family member searches for the missing mad brother, a man linked to nature, the light and the dunes. His strictures are hard to take, and yet he is the one with the special knowledge and the miraculous power.
I'm not averse to miracles in cinema. I just found this one a little hard to take (it would certainly never have been produced in a Catholic country - Mother surviving baby? An outrage!). I prefer the way Dreyer turns the rare modern intrusions in the film, the doctor's car for instance, into a scary, almost medieval vision of death in motion; or the chillingly glum view of village life, in a film that keeps implicating the social only to drive it out. I guess you've got to have some knowledge of the theological background.
Its austerity and rigour are reminiscent of Bergman, without that director's lapses (i.e. Audience-friendly gestures) into sensation. Like Bergman, Dreyer makes no attempts to hide the theatrical origins of his material - most of the action takes place in austere interiors that even look like sets in their oppressive spaciousness, just as you can hear the boards being trod. There are no harrowing close ups a la 'Passion' here; the camera keeps an unblinking distance throughout, as if we were watching a play in the theatre. The performances make no concessions to film acting, keeping a stern solemnity as they utter their tersely simple dialogue.
So why would Dreyer, one of the five greatest film directors of all time, make such a seemingly uncinematic picture? Part of the answer probably derives from the film's theme, that of faith and miracles. Although the film is as restrained and grim as you would expect from a Scandanavian work, the content is actually full of barely suppressed passion.
The situation and plots are straight out of classic 19th century realist literature - a stubbornly proud landowner refuses to let his youngest son marry a wealthy neighbour because of religious differences; his eldest son goes mad from studying too much theology, hoping to fulfil his father's messianic dreams, under the delusion that he is Jesus, with beard too match, although a joyless, Old-Testament kind of prophet-Jesus; another son has renounced his faith, disgusted with the daily evidence of God's indifference; his pious wife loses her baby in childbirth.
Material ripe for hothouse treatment. And yet Dreyer's reticence never lets it descend into 'Elmer Gantry'isms. The film works as a study in loneliness, in the limited options open to people in isolated outposts made rigid by tradition, religion, culture etc. Dreyer makes a virtue of the theatrical material: his use of doorways, his patterning of entries and exits, his positioning of characters, his calm yet insistent panning all created this sense of something being held in, ready to burst.
The film opens with a brilliantly orchestrated sequence, which introduces the characters, their dilemmas and their milieu, with a simple, yet intricate pattern, as each family member searches for the missing mad brother, a man linked to nature, the light and the dunes. His strictures are hard to take, and yet he is the one with the special knowledge and the miraculous power.
I'm not averse to miracles in cinema. I just found this one a little hard to take (it would certainly never have been produced in a Catholic country - Mother surviving baby? An outrage!). I prefer the way Dreyer turns the rare modern intrusions in the film, the doctor's car for instance, into a scary, almost medieval vision of death in motion; or the chillingly glum view of village life, in a film that keeps implicating the social only to drive it out. I guess you've got to have some knowledge of the theological background.
Slow but well made...
planktonrules13 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Up until late in the film, I was rather bored by this film. However, I am glad I stuck with it, as I really enjoyed the way the film concluded.
The film is set on a farm in Denmark and involves the Borgen family. They are in some ways a traditional family with traditional Danish religious values. The biggest non-traditional aspect of the family is John--the seemingly crazy member of the family. He happens to think he's Jesus!! Yet, despite this, his family loves him and they have no intention of placing him in an institution--and he seems harmless.
Several plot twists arise in the film. The first is a conflict between the more orthodox Borgens and the Peterson family, who are closer to charismatics in their Christian beliefs. When one of the Borgen boys wants to marry a Peterson girl, their families come into conflict--especially as the Peterson parents consider the Borgens to be damned for not sharing their exact beliefs. The other major twist is death and what happens next. I'd like to say more but can't as it would spoil the film. However, I was impressed how in an increasingly cynical world when it comes to religion that director Dreyer makes a film that is unashamedly religious and creates A LOT to talk about once the film has completed.
Overall, a very slow film but one that's worth watching. The acting is very good and the plot is just bizarre and creative--and, as I said, it makes you think. Odd but satisfying on so many levels.
The film is set on a farm in Denmark and involves the Borgen family. They are in some ways a traditional family with traditional Danish religious values. The biggest non-traditional aspect of the family is John--the seemingly crazy member of the family. He happens to think he's Jesus!! Yet, despite this, his family loves him and they have no intention of placing him in an institution--and he seems harmless.
Several plot twists arise in the film. The first is a conflict between the more orthodox Borgens and the Peterson family, who are closer to charismatics in their Christian beliefs. When one of the Borgen boys wants to marry a Peterson girl, their families come into conflict--especially as the Peterson parents consider the Borgens to be damned for not sharing their exact beliefs. The other major twist is death and what happens next. I'd like to say more but can't as it would spoil the film. However, I was impressed how in an increasingly cynical world when it comes to religion that director Dreyer makes a film that is unashamedly religious and creates A LOT to talk about once the film has completed.
Overall, a very slow film but one that's worth watching. The acting is very good and the plot is just bizarre and creative--and, as I said, it makes you think. Odd but satisfying on so many levels.
A harrowing excursion into the miraculous.
terry-6022 February 1999
Warning: Spoilers
Ordet is about faith. It may be the most breathtaking exploration of religious experience ever filmed.
The story is simple, like an old tale. Borgen is a farmer. His son Anders loves Pedersen the tailor's daughter. But Borgen and Pedersen profess different faiths; Pedersen adheres to an austere fundamentalist belief while Borgen believes in an earthier, less metaphysical Christianity. While cordial to each other, both fathers oppose their children's wish to marry.
Borgen has two other sons, a cheerful agnostic named Michel, and Johannes, who studied to be a parson and who now has gone insane pondering the imponderables of faith and doubt. Johannes wanders out in the middle of the night to preach to the wind, and he declares to anyone who will listen that he is the risen Christ.
Michel's wife Inger is the key figure in the drama. She is a radiant, simple, hard-working wife and mother. She honors old Borgen, her father-in-law, and he clearly adores her. Michel and Inger have a frankly carnal love for one another; she is pregnant with their third child. She has the most elemental kind of Christian faith, and trusts that her husband's essential goodness of heart will lead him back to the fold.
All these characters and forces come together in a terrible crisis when Inger goes into premature labor. I'll not divulge the climax, for you should have the same experience of wonder and gratitude I--and probably most moviegoers who've ever seen it--had as it ended.
Two important notes: All this Christianity stuff may turn you off, may make you think Ordet is some gloomy Scandinavian meditation. Banish that thought. While slow-moving, the movie is not boring. The pace is perfect for the subject, and as the crisis comes and the film relentlessly heads toward climax, you cannot take your eyes off it, and your heart pounds in fear and anticipation of what will happen next. Nor is the picture especially intellectual. It is, rather, beautiful, and its themes are articulated in the language of cinema, not the categories of Kierkegaard.
That language, finally, is Carl Dreyer's. His unmistakable film grammar--the hauntingly lit intereriors, the long pans from place to place in the same room, the slightly detached yet intense performances, the most purely photographed exteriors in cinema, echoing the Danish pictorial tradition of Hammershoi, Pedersen, and others who worked a modest magic with the windswept elements of Denmark's hard land--this fiercely personal vision is put to the service of something rare in the movie business (or any other business): love.
The story is simple, like an old tale. Borgen is a farmer. His son Anders loves Pedersen the tailor's daughter. But Borgen and Pedersen profess different faiths; Pedersen adheres to an austere fundamentalist belief while Borgen believes in an earthier, less metaphysical Christianity. While cordial to each other, both fathers oppose their children's wish to marry.
Borgen has two other sons, a cheerful agnostic named Michel, and Johannes, who studied to be a parson and who now has gone insane pondering the imponderables of faith and doubt. Johannes wanders out in the middle of the night to preach to the wind, and he declares to anyone who will listen that he is the risen Christ.
Michel's wife Inger is the key figure in the drama. She is a radiant, simple, hard-working wife and mother. She honors old Borgen, her father-in-law, and he clearly adores her. Michel and Inger have a frankly carnal love for one another; she is pregnant with their third child. She has the most elemental kind of Christian faith, and trusts that her husband's essential goodness of heart will lead him back to the fold.
All these characters and forces come together in a terrible crisis when Inger goes into premature labor. I'll not divulge the climax, for you should have the same experience of wonder and gratitude I--and probably most moviegoers who've ever seen it--had as it ended.
Two important notes: All this Christianity stuff may turn you off, may make you think Ordet is some gloomy Scandinavian meditation. Banish that thought. While slow-moving, the movie is not boring. The pace is perfect for the subject, and as the crisis comes and the film relentlessly heads toward climax, you cannot take your eyes off it, and your heart pounds in fear and anticipation of what will happen next. Nor is the picture especially intellectual. It is, rather, beautiful, and its themes are articulated in the language of cinema, not the categories of Kierkegaard.
That language, finally, is Carl Dreyer's. His unmistakable film grammar--the hauntingly lit intereriors, the long pans from place to place in the same room, the slightly detached yet intense performances, the most purely photographed exteriors in cinema, echoing the Danish pictorial tradition of Hammershoi, Pedersen, and others who worked a modest magic with the windswept elements of Denmark's hard land--this fiercely personal vision is put to the service of something rare in the movie business (or any other business): love.
A totally sincere, deeply moving, and unforgettable work of art.
howard.schumann6 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Since I first saw this film when I was 18, Ordet (The Word) has remained as one of my top five favorites.
Ordet is an allegory about the power of simple, direct faith to produce results when every other means fail. Based on a 1944 play by a Danish priest who was killed by the Nazis, the great Danish Director Carl Dreyer dramatizes this faith in the form of a Christian miracle which provides healing for an entire family in crisis.
The transformation, when it occurs, takes place through the purity and innocence of a child, the direct personal experience of God, and the redemptive power of love. Ordet is almost Bressonian in its depiction of grace through suffering (Balthazar) and purity (Diary of a Country Priest). Dreyer shows two families, one steeped in a fundamentalist faith, the other with a Christian faith that lacks real power or conviction. Dreyer creates a moody, atmospheric, almost dreamlike rural setting, using light and shadow to contrast a life-affirming attitude with one that denies joy.
Mikkel Borgen, one of three brothers, whose wife Inger is giving birth to their third child, has denied faith completely. Another brother, Anders, is in love with and wants to marry the daughter of Peter the tailor, a fundamentalist preacher who refuses the relationship because of Anders' religion. Peter goes so far as to wish that Inger would die giving birth if it will teach the family a lesson. The third brother, Johannes, has "lost his mind" studying Kierkegaard and believes he is Christ reincarnated.
The movie has a long and very slow, almost agonizing buildup until the final scene which, when it comes, is one of the most moving and powerful climaxes in cinema. Whether or not you adhere to the message of Ordet from a strictly religious point of view or not, Ordet, for me, is a truly religious experience. Do I think the power of intention and love can bring someone back from the dead? No, probably not. There is too much of an inexorable quality about the final transition.
I think that the film is best viewed as an allegory contrasting people who live in their mind and not their experience and feel powerless to change their lives, with people who know that they have the ability to transform the quality of their life and the lives of those around them.
Ordet, ultimately, is about the difference between looking for God through a belief system while failing to see God within you and around you. How did Johannes achieve this power? He simply asks. Johannes remembers that Christ said, "Ask and you shall receive", and asks with a profound faith in the outcome. The others, so caught up in their "beliefs", simply forget to ask. How often does the opportunity to make a difference seem so far from our grasp that we don't bother to ask?
Ordet, for me, is a totally sincere, deeply moving, and unforgettable work of art.
Ordet is an allegory about the power of simple, direct faith to produce results when every other means fail. Based on a 1944 play by a Danish priest who was killed by the Nazis, the great Danish Director Carl Dreyer dramatizes this faith in the form of a Christian miracle which provides healing for an entire family in crisis.
The transformation, when it occurs, takes place through the purity and innocence of a child, the direct personal experience of God, and the redemptive power of love. Ordet is almost Bressonian in its depiction of grace through suffering (Balthazar) and purity (Diary of a Country Priest). Dreyer shows two families, one steeped in a fundamentalist faith, the other with a Christian faith that lacks real power or conviction. Dreyer creates a moody, atmospheric, almost dreamlike rural setting, using light and shadow to contrast a life-affirming attitude with one that denies joy.
Mikkel Borgen, one of three brothers, whose wife Inger is giving birth to their third child, has denied faith completely. Another brother, Anders, is in love with and wants to marry the daughter of Peter the tailor, a fundamentalist preacher who refuses the relationship because of Anders' religion. Peter goes so far as to wish that Inger would die giving birth if it will teach the family a lesson. The third brother, Johannes, has "lost his mind" studying Kierkegaard and believes he is Christ reincarnated.
The movie has a long and very slow, almost agonizing buildup until the final scene which, when it comes, is one of the most moving and powerful climaxes in cinema. Whether or not you adhere to the message of Ordet from a strictly religious point of view or not, Ordet, for me, is a truly religious experience. Do I think the power of intention and love can bring someone back from the dead? No, probably not. There is too much of an inexorable quality about the final transition.
I think that the film is best viewed as an allegory contrasting people who live in their mind and not their experience and feel powerless to change their lives, with people who know that they have the ability to transform the quality of their life and the lives of those around them.
Ordet, ultimately, is about the difference between looking for God through a belief system while failing to see God within you and around you. How did Johannes achieve this power? He simply asks. Johannes remembers that Christ said, "Ask and you shall receive", and asks with a profound faith in the outcome. The others, so caught up in their "beliefs", simply forget to ask. How often does the opportunity to make a difference seem so far from our grasp that we don't bother to ask?
Ordet, for me, is a totally sincere, deeply moving, and unforgettable work of art.
A Haunting and Beautiful Film
andrewnerger28 March 2006
Before watching 'Ordet' I was not familiar with Carl Theodore Dreyer's sound films. Having previously watched his beautiful 'La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc', I knew what kind of motifs and themes were going to be prevalent - the strong female character and the emphasis on religion. However as soon as 'Ordet' started and until its conclusion, I was mesmerised and it personally hit me much more effectively than 'Passion'. What has been called by many as Dreyer's masterpiece is also my definition of a perfect piece of cinema. The relatively slow pace of the narrative and the lack of much of Kaj Munk's original dialogue may put some off, but if anything it enhances not only the emotive performances, but also the sense of uneasiness; of lost faith and of lost loved ones. In theory, the ending of this film shouldn't work, but it somehow manages to pull off the surprising and still be effective. By the conclusion of 'Ordet' you can believe that miracles can happen. Dreyer enables us to witness a miracle using a display of his faith combined with his stunning Mise en scène. I may not be sure about God, but this film made you think about the possibilities without preaching any kind of sentimentality and that in my opinion warrants a 10 rating. Essential viewing!
Living a film
inilopez4 October 2004
First, I must say I don't write in English very well. I study English, a little bit, in the school. I speak and write usually in Spanish and Basque. Well, I think this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Johannes is a magnificent character and two scenes with Johannes and his nephew, talking about nephew's mother... are great. The story is about life, dead, love, faith and a lot of "people's problems" At the end, is a story about the meaning of life. I like movies. Love stories, westerns, "film noir", adventures films... but occasionally you can see a movie like this that makes you love this art too much. You're not seeing a film, you're living the film. Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful.
A miracle!
lucien_de_peiro16 March 2005
What is a miracle? A fantastic event created by a supernatural entity? The hallucination of a person with a strong belief? or simply an inexplicable wonder? This absolutely wonderful movie speaks about that from the complicated side of contemplation. After watching it everything is possible, every answer, every reason, every justification. The facts, are related with an enviable sense of modesty. Even a stauncher atheist would find miraculous this Dreyer's masterpiece. Obviously, the development of the story line is slow, determined and thoughtful. This movie requires full attention, full involvement from the audience who will give the answers: don't wait for them in this perfect example of cinema beyond our daily human way of life. By the way, this is not a religious movie as many people think.
Magical to say the least
karl_consiglio9 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Look I don't know how much the average person can watch this. They are bound to sleep through it as the apostles did as they waited for Christ to finish praying in the olive garden. Personally I watched it twice so far and am bound to watch it again. Every crook and cranny of this film is well studied. For me this is up there with Kubrick's 2001, believe it or not. To the average person it can tend to look boring lest one know how to read between the lines, and yet its so simple and beautiful, I've witnessed the ultimate skeptics(regarding God and religion) get engulfed in this film and enjoy it. I don't need to start bragging on about this film and mention every detail you can find in other very good critiques when you search about this film online, its the ultimate to me and definitely files in my Top 10. I seriously recommend this film to those truly searching meaning in life. This beats any trip to India at the end of the day, if only you had the patience to watch it through. Not only that you are going to need a spiritual microscope. Yes believe the truth can be told, for it to be understood it must be believed.
All about faith
pultzat6 December 2006
This is one of the most moving pictures (no pun intended) that I have ever seen. The beauty of the cinematography and acting is complimented by a story that is about Faith. This is demonstrated through religion, although you do not have to be religious or understand anything about Christianity to get the more universal message. For some people, watching this movie can be seen as an article of faith due to the slowness - I happen to love slower movies, but some people are turned off by this. If you watch this through in one sitting and just let it carry you along you will be amply rewarded with a fantastic life experience!
An atheist's take
bandw1 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
If other atheists than myself react to this movie as I did, they will find its story of academic interest in the everlasting quest to understand the role that religion plays in human behavior, but they will have a hard time identifying with the motivations for the behaviors of many of the characters. The story concentrates on a Danish farming family in 1925. The main characters are: the father Henrik, a member of a liberal Christian sect; Mikkel, a son who has lost his faith; Inger, Mikkel's wife; Johannes, a son who believes himself to be Jesus Christ; and Anders, a third son. Also, there is Peter, a tailor who is a member of a conservative Christian sect.
The characters we get to know well are Henrik and Mikkel. The only notable thing revealed about Anders is that he has fallen in love with Peter's daughter Anne, precipitating a proxy religious war between the two Christian factions. Johannes emerges from time to time spouting quotes from the Bible and other moral admonitions--that is all we know about him, and all we need to know, outside of his having been driven to his madness by studying Kierkegaard. As far as I am concerned the movie could have done with a lot less of Johannes. One takeaway for me was to witness yet once again the power of religion to cause much grief. If religion were removed from the equation here, then I think all of these people would have been much happier.
The movie is clearly based on a stage play and it has not been opened up much to make it more than the filming of a play.
Given the language barrier for me and the fact that I could not identify with most of the characters, I did not find the acting to rise above average. The women are not given much to go on. Mikkel's wife presents a pleasant, beatific presence and Anders' girlfriend is treated by Peter like property.
The birth scene I found excruciatingly painful. Not much was actually shown, but the offstage sound effects and final outcome were horrific.
Movies like this leave me in a quandary. I can recognize the quality of the production, but the main message (the value of pure faith to accomplish miracles) is something that I reject. Could any homophobe ever be enthusiastic about "Brokeback Mountain?"
I would be less critical of this movie if it had ended with Anne's becoming part of Henrik's family. Instead the movie presses on to a resurrection scene that I found to offer an unsatisfying and quite unbelievable resolution.
The characters we get to know well are Henrik and Mikkel. The only notable thing revealed about Anders is that he has fallen in love with Peter's daughter Anne, precipitating a proxy religious war between the two Christian factions. Johannes emerges from time to time spouting quotes from the Bible and other moral admonitions--that is all we know about him, and all we need to know, outside of his having been driven to his madness by studying Kierkegaard. As far as I am concerned the movie could have done with a lot less of Johannes. One takeaway for me was to witness yet once again the power of religion to cause much grief. If religion were removed from the equation here, then I think all of these people would have been much happier.
The movie is clearly based on a stage play and it has not been opened up much to make it more than the filming of a play.
Given the language barrier for me and the fact that I could not identify with most of the characters, I did not find the acting to rise above average. The women are not given much to go on. Mikkel's wife presents a pleasant, beatific presence and Anders' girlfriend is treated by Peter like property.
The birth scene I found excruciatingly painful. Not much was actually shown, but the offstage sound effects and final outcome were horrific.
Movies like this leave me in a quandary. I can recognize the quality of the production, but the main message (the value of pure faith to accomplish miracles) is something that I reject. Could any homophobe ever be enthusiastic about "Brokeback Mountain?"
I would be less critical of this movie if it had ended with Anne's becoming part of Henrik's family. Instead the movie presses on to a resurrection scene that I found to offer an unsatisfying and quite unbelievable resolution.
oh my goodness what a film
georg-wachberger16 August 2007
very strong early pictures, followed by a slow build up of the plot. introducing character after character. each one played very carefully without the slightest overacting. strong faces, intense voices. the visuals show a black and white with some soft sand tone in between, at least it seemed like that. wonderful cinematography, very careful and precise lights.
there is almost no editing. there are minute long scenes without a cut. the set is most of the time studio and the acting happens like in a play, wit the audience at the position of the camera. yet miraculously it never feels ... staged. very careful small pieces are set in between to illustrate characters, like the end, when the doctor slightly touches the arm of the priest, following their earlier conversation and contrasting their social position.
an amazing piece. very late i realized that most of it was without any music, building up the auditive experience by rhythm of words ... or of breath. as in the givingBirth sequence when the breathing of the woman is somehow intense, yet not loud at all, very different from more modern versions of givingBirth in movies. not necessarily realistic in sound, but totally in the intensity.
what a film. and i had never heard of it until a friend put the DVD in my hand ...
there is almost no editing. there are minute long scenes without a cut. the set is most of the time studio and the acting happens like in a play, wit the audience at the position of the camera. yet miraculously it never feels ... staged. very careful small pieces are set in between to illustrate characters, like the end, when the doctor slightly touches the arm of the priest, following their earlier conversation and contrasting their social position.
an amazing piece. very late i realized that most of it was without any music, building up the auditive experience by rhythm of words ... or of breath. as in the givingBirth sequence when the breathing of the woman is somehow intense, yet not loud at all, very different from more modern versions of givingBirth in movies. not necessarily realistic in sound, but totally in the intensity.
what a film. and i had never heard of it until a friend put the DVD in my hand ...
Ordet review
JoeytheBrit3 July 2020
Weighty tale of religious conflict and Scandinavian angst from a revered director which provides a big target for those seeking to parody self-consciously significant tracts. Everyone moves slowly and rarely looks at the person they are talking to, choosing instead to gaze meaningfully into the middle-distance, while veiled insults are traded with excessive politeness. Deluded son Johannes, who believes he is Jesus Christ returned to earth, comes dangerously close to becoming an unintentionally comical figure.
Jesus facepalm.
yodathecat198530 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Ordet is the second Dreyers film I've seen - the first being The Passion of Joan of Arc which at the time both amazed and scared me with its dark, brooding and sinister camera work and acting. I can only wonder what happened in between this and Ordet (I will soon find out though), but the latter surely makes a few steps backward in terms of almost everything I've seen in the Passion.
I'm not a religious person and I can understand that this film may have a great appeal on a Christian (or, as someone else has put it, a quaker). It deals with Christianity, faith, doubt, god and two different ways how to approach it - one represents the "happy Christianity" of Morten, the father and per se the head chief of the Borgen family. The other one is the opposite, a very outdated, medieval way of embracing god through guilt and fear-of-burning-in-hell view of the other family, led by Peter the Tailor. The two views antagonize themselves, causing a conflict. There's something else though - Morten's son Johannes, who thinks is Jesus Christ and ultimately makes the two branches merge together and embrace each other's differences.
The plot includes turning points that trigger and motivate some of the internal thoughts and actions of the protagonists. But as the plot progresses, it really does very little or nothing ,in fact, for the viewer, because everything here is really predictable. It makes sense that the movie is based on a play - the actors themselves look like they're in a play. Which would be good, if their acting wasn't so dull. I mean, really - they have the same exspression from start to finish (the film lasts more than 2 hours, mind you), they move from room to room like they are chained animals in a cage, they are empty, conveying the dialog in such a tiresome and dragged manner, that one can only wonder what the hell was Dreyer doing with them in the first place. The material of the dialog is also tiresome - I could just go read the Bible directly if I wanted endless usage of Christian terms all over. And the worse part of it is that it doesn't really lead anywhere - the praised-by-critics finale is anticipated a couple of times before - the resurrection is just the final nail in the coffin in the form of this movie. Its banality and ethereal pathos just shows you how bad the director is trying to get across the "point", that if you believe in god strong enough and you pray every day, then miracles will happen (including dead people raising back to life). Well, if that's the only thing that this movie can convey across, then it's really shallow, outdated and bizarre at most.
Some folks can argue that it's allegoric, metaphoric and transcends the general conception of Christian religion, meaning of life and death. Not good enough for me. It has been done so much better and in a lesser self indulgent way in so many other films - somebody here mentions Bergman's Winter Light and I agree completely. The latter is an original, intelligent and non pretentious movie that deals with pretty much the same themes as Ordet, but with a whole new prospective and deep interest in the matter. Ordet is just pale in comparison, on all levels. The other one being Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev, though its main theme is the artist and the movie is set in the 12th century, it doesn't poke the viewer with endless talk about Christian guilt and morality as Ordet does. Some may also argue that the views expressed in Ordet are just reflections of that time and so it cannot be condemned or viewed as useless or/and outdated. Well, recently I saw Fritz Lang's M, which was made 24 years before Ordet and it didn't even crossed my mind to think it was outdated at any rate. So yeah, Ordet is the "problem", not the time it was made or the topic it deals with.
When I see a movie where the lead protagonist talks to a little girl whose mother is on the death bed and says to her that it's better that her mother is in heaven (meaning is earthly dead), because that means she will always watch over her from a distant, undefined "above", than here on Earth with her, I just feel insulted and very, very sorry for the little girl. At times it really seems like the film is trying to sell some sort of medieval Christian brainwash/phantasmagoric fantasy to the viewer and that's something I cannot digest.
It's still an art film though - the lighting and filming are still very good, at moments even amazing. But the acting and overall ridicule views expressed within (that drag for two hours), make this film a cheap try at finding the meaning of life, death, god, faith and doubt. May be good or even excellent for some people, but I'm pretty much out of this club.
I'm not a religious person and I can understand that this film may have a great appeal on a Christian (or, as someone else has put it, a quaker). It deals with Christianity, faith, doubt, god and two different ways how to approach it - one represents the "happy Christianity" of Morten, the father and per se the head chief of the Borgen family. The other one is the opposite, a very outdated, medieval way of embracing god through guilt and fear-of-burning-in-hell view of the other family, led by Peter the Tailor. The two views antagonize themselves, causing a conflict. There's something else though - Morten's son Johannes, who thinks is Jesus Christ and ultimately makes the two branches merge together and embrace each other's differences.
The plot includes turning points that trigger and motivate some of the internal thoughts and actions of the protagonists. But as the plot progresses, it really does very little or nothing ,in fact, for the viewer, because everything here is really predictable. It makes sense that the movie is based on a play - the actors themselves look like they're in a play. Which would be good, if their acting wasn't so dull. I mean, really - they have the same exspression from start to finish (the film lasts more than 2 hours, mind you), they move from room to room like they are chained animals in a cage, they are empty, conveying the dialog in such a tiresome and dragged manner, that one can only wonder what the hell was Dreyer doing with them in the first place. The material of the dialog is also tiresome - I could just go read the Bible directly if I wanted endless usage of Christian terms all over. And the worse part of it is that it doesn't really lead anywhere - the praised-by-critics finale is anticipated a couple of times before - the resurrection is just the final nail in the coffin in the form of this movie. Its banality and ethereal pathos just shows you how bad the director is trying to get across the "point", that if you believe in god strong enough and you pray every day, then miracles will happen (including dead people raising back to life). Well, if that's the only thing that this movie can convey across, then it's really shallow, outdated and bizarre at most.
Some folks can argue that it's allegoric, metaphoric and transcends the general conception of Christian religion, meaning of life and death. Not good enough for me. It has been done so much better and in a lesser self indulgent way in so many other films - somebody here mentions Bergman's Winter Light and I agree completely. The latter is an original, intelligent and non pretentious movie that deals with pretty much the same themes as Ordet, but with a whole new prospective and deep interest in the matter. Ordet is just pale in comparison, on all levels. The other one being Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev, though its main theme is the artist and the movie is set in the 12th century, it doesn't poke the viewer with endless talk about Christian guilt and morality as Ordet does. Some may also argue that the views expressed in Ordet are just reflections of that time and so it cannot be condemned or viewed as useless or/and outdated. Well, recently I saw Fritz Lang's M, which was made 24 years before Ordet and it didn't even crossed my mind to think it was outdated at any rate. So yeah, Ordet is the "problem", not the time it was made or the topic it deals with.
When I see a movie where the lead protagonist talks to a little girl whose mother is on the death bed and says to her that it's better that her mother is in heaven (meaning is earthly dead), because that means she will always watch over her from a distant, undefined "above", than here on Earth with her, I just feel insulted and very, very sorry for the little girl. At times it really seems like the film is trying to sell some sort of medieval Christian brainwash/phantasmagoric fantasy to the viewer and that's something I cannot digest.
It's still an art film though - the lighting and filming are still very good, at moments even amazing. But the acting and overall ridicule views expressed within (that drag for two hours), make this film a cheap try at finding the meaning of life, death, god, faith and doubt. May be good or even excellent for some people, but I'm pretty much out of this club.
Not only brilliant, but truly engaging
Ben79 September 2002
Others have reviewed this picture in a more scholarly and contextual manner than I can, so I will only endeavor to add the following:
I have a particular interest in the nature of faith, and undertook to view Ordet as something "good for me," but probably arduous. Wrong! I also grew up in an area heavily populated by Scandinavians, and knew immigrants who were contemporaries of the oldest characters in the picture.
Ordet, set in 1925, is a dead-on take of old-school Scandinavian culture, suffused with both the most intense dramatic elements imaginable and moments of comic relief as well. The action moves right along without help of special effects or a distracting musical score.
This picture at least alludes to the seldom-asked question, "Why do people believe?" Is it merely for the rewards of faithfulness, or something more?
The final scene, utterly devoid of effects or music, has a dramatic power unexcelled in the ensuing 47 years of cinema to date. It is very long, but uses its duration in service of the tension of the story. Nobody is yelling, fighting or firing weapons, despite the fact they are enduring emotional torment that is as painful as it gets.
In an oblique way, the scene reminded me of the part of Jim Jarmusch's "Down By Law" where Tom Waits and Co. are sitting in the clink in real time, and time passes glacially in one very long scene, illustrating the sheer boredom of incarcerated life. Here real time is used to illustrate the unrelenting nature of grief. In both cases we see what happens long after the scene would have changed in nearly any other picture. The pace conforms plausibly with real life, and in so doing serves the dramatic tension.
One negative review alludes to the final shot and the expression in a character's eyes. I would defend that as an insight that no blessing is unmixed.
As others have noted, one needn't hold a Christian point of view to enjoy this film and be given much to ponder. See it.
I have a particular interest in the nature of faith, and undertook to view Ordet as something "good for me," but probably arduous. Wrong! I also grew up in an area heavily populated by Scandinavians, and knew immigrants who were contemporaries of the oldest characters in the picture.
Ordet, set in 1925, is a dead-on take of old-school Scandinavian culture, suffused with both the most intense dramatic elements imaginable and moments of comic relief as well. The action moves right along without help of special effects or a distracting musical score.
This picture at least alludes to the seldom-asked question, "Why do people believe?" Is it merely for the rewards of faithfulness, or something more?
The final scene, utterly devoid of effects or music, has a dramatic power unexcelled in the ensuing 47 years of cinema to date. It is very long, but uses its duration in service of the tension of the story. Nobody is yelling, fighting or firing weapons, despite the fact they are enduring emotional torment that is as painful as it gets.
In an oblique way, the scene reminded me of the part of Jim Jarmusch's "Down By Law" where Tom Waits and Co. are sitting in the clink in real time, and time passes glacially in one very long scene, illustrating the sheer boredom of incarcerated life. Here real time is used to illustrate the unrelenting nature of grief. In both cases we see what happens long after the scene would have changed in nearly any other picture. The pace conforms plausibly with real life, and in so doing serves the dramatic tension.
One negative review alludes to the final shot and the expression in a character's eyes. I would defend that as an insight that no blessing is unmixed.
As others have noted, one needn't hold a Christian point of view to enjoy this film and be given much to ponder. See it.
A Frightening and Powerful Vision from One of the Cinema's True Visionaries
zetes7 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I've attempted to write this review for three days now, probably around five times, unsuccessful every time. Hopefully this time I will fare better.
What can you really say about Ordet? At the beginning, it seems quite normal, except for Johannes, although he's not too difficult to accept. But by the end, I was shaking with fear and weeping with strong emotions. Really, I don't know of any other film that is so bizarre and so oddly affecting. It's the kind of film that, the second you are done watching it, you are eager to watch it for a second time in order to better understand it. However, it is equally the kind of film that is so unsettling that you dread watching it for the second time. I don't know if anyone else felt this way, but the overall mood and especially the ending were really disturbing to me. Inger's kisses on Mikkel's cheek frightened me a lot more than they comforted me. The ending, on the surface, seems happy, but it really isn't - or, at least, there's the suggestion that it might not be. As Inger turns away from Mikkel after she has kissed his cheek, there is a string of saliva which hangs from her lower lip that is still attached to Mikkel's face. And her eyes! You can find a similar stare on a woman's face in Dreyer's Vampyr. In fact, this film seems to me much more like Vampyr than it does The Passion of Joan of Arc, Day of Wrath, or Gertrud.
What can you really say about Ordet? At the beginning, it seems quite normal, except for Johannes, although he's not too difficult to accept. But by the end, I was shaking with fear and weeping with strong emotions. Really, I don't know of any other film that is so bizarre and so oddly affecting. It's the kind of film that, the second you are done watching it, you are eager to watch it for a second time in order to better understand it. However, it is equally the kind of film that is so unsettling that you dread watching it for the second time. I don't know if anyone else felt this way, but the overall mood and especially the ending were really disturbing to me. Inger's kisses on Mikkel's cheek frightened me a lot more than they comforted me. The ending, on the surface, seems happy, but it really isn't - or, at least, there's the suggestion that it might not be. As Inger turns away from Mikkel after she has kissed his cheek, there is a string of saliva which hangs from her lower lip that is still attached to Mikkel's face. And her eyes! You can find a similar stare on a woman's face in Dreyer's Vampyr. In fact, this film seems to me much more like Vampyr than it does The Passion of Joan of Arc, Day of Wrath, or Gertrud.
Sublimely Affecting Film
aroth1524 September 2006
Well, I grew up in a religious home, and I was religious until around 22. I've been an atheist since then, and I had a very hard struggle to leave the religious world. I generally have very little patience with people who really believe in God and other such nonsense and fairy tales. But this film left me breathless, and I don't know why. Interestingly enough, when I heard all the quotes that Windfoot mentions, I wasn't very impressed with them, because they are all basically platitudes, trite expressions and homilies that every kid learns to parrot, religious or not. I felt that all those commonplace ideas like goodness, and kindness, and ethics are ordinary human values, which even a person who is not religious believes. But miracles, revelation, and such are, of course, completely different. The ending of the film was so affecting to me. Partly I think it is because the direction and stylization of the miracle is so honest and unencumbered by the juvenile and silly "special effects" that we have come to expect so often. The way that Dreyer presents the lives of these people--simple, honest, genuine, is so different from most everything we see today. True--there was primitive inhumanity displayed, in the refusal of both fathers to agree to a genuine love match between their children. This was very upsetting. All I could think was--"What would Jesus Christ have said to these two old unfeeling men, who were refusing to allow their children to marry--in the name of a religion based supposedly on love??" Only after Inger dies do they both realize how important love is, in a world callous and unfeeling. The film could conceivably have ended at that point, and it would have been a beautiful, albeit somewhat hackneyed story. Don't forget that the point of the miracle is to illustrate what Johannes (John) claims: That everyone there claims they are religious, but they don't really believe. If they would, they could bring Inger back to life. I am rambling....I really do not understand why this film had such an impact on me. I think it took courage for a filmmaker to go the way he did. Everyone, I suspect, would be tempted to laugh at the ending. I honestly don't know why I didn't. Maybe because it was presented so honestly, without all the trappings of wealth and power that accompany most religious culture, whether Jewish or Christian. But I do think that the film must have a very different meaning for someone who is really religious, believes in God, from the one it had for me. I'm still thinking about what it meant for me, and trying to figure it out. I just saw the film for the first time (Thank you, TCM). More comments maybe later.
Miracles don't happen anymore?
sol-kay31 July 2005
(Some Spoilers) Simple but powerful film about faith and how it can not only bring two warring families together but even bring someone back from the dead. If the belief in God by those close to him is strong enough.
Having lost his faith in God a long time ago Morten Borgen, Henrik Malberg,attends church services more out of tradition then belief. Morten also seems to have influenced his older son Mikkel,Emil Hass Christensen, over the years with his semi-agnostic ideas as well. Being married to Inger, Brigitte Fedenspiel, Mikkel is a sweet and loving husband and father to both Inger and their little daughter Maren, Anne Elisabeth. Still he gets very up tight when talk about religion comes up at home. Mikkel also very upset and embarrassed about his younger brother John, Preben Leerdorff Rey,who's suffering from burn-out. That resulted from his time in college studying religion writings and theories.
John has become convinced over time that he's Jesus Christ and goes around the house and countryside quoting phrases from the Bibel like an Old, or New, Testament prophet. Morten's youngest son Anders Cay Krisiansen, has fallen in love with the local Tailor's Peter Skraedder, Ejner Federspiel,daughter Anne, Greda Nielson. With the help of Morten's daughter-in-law Inger there's a meeting arranged between the two fathers to get Peter's permission to have Anne marry Anders. the meeting turns into a total disaster with Peter wanting nothing to do with Morten and his son Anders.
The two, Peter and Morten, have been having sharp differences on religious issues for years and they really came into focus later on in the movie with Inger who was pregnant at the time. With Morten at his home Peter gets a call from Mikkel about Inger being very ill as she's about to give birth. Peter starts to feel that now his friend Morten will be tested by God like the Biblical Job. By having Inger die and having him accept what happens to her without any show of anger on his part to show his complete faith in God's work which is to test Morten.This unfeeling statement by Peter causes an angry and outraged Morten to almost clobber, and end up on nonspeaking terms with, him and end their friendship. At first Inger seems to be coming out of danger but later, after losing her baby, she just closes her eyes and stops breathing and peacefully passes away.
Inger's death causes Peter to feel a deep guilt by practically telling Morten that he hoped that she'd dies. At the same time Peter leaves Morten so depressed in almost wanting to die himself. Mikkel also is at the point of having an emotional breakdown at Inger's wake not wanting to leave her side and preventing her coffin to be closed so sher could be buried in her eternal resting place.
John, who was gone all this time, appears and with only young Meren believing him in his assertion that faith in God is the only force that can bring Inger back to life. If those who are now grieving for her showed that faith during her illness, instead of faith in modern medicine, this tragedy would not have happened. John then not only does the impossible but shows everyone there that he wasn't the unstable and irrational parson that they all thought that he was all these years. In fact he was a man of deep faith and conviction in God who never wavered in his strong and unshakable beliefs. No matter how hard they were tested by the events spinning around him.
Slow paced film that has an underlying and invisible force to it that doesn't really show itself until well into the movie. John who we all thought was somewhat mad is the person brings everyone in the movie together by making them realize that there is a God and the real proof of his existence is all around us. If we just take the time and effort to look.
Having lost his faith in God a long time ago Morten Borgen, Henrik Malberg,attends church services more out of tradition then belief. Morten also seems to have influenced his older son Mikkel,Emil Hass Christensen, over the years with his semi-agnostic ideas as well. Being married to Inger, Brigitte Fedenspiel, Mikkel is a sweet and loving husband and father to both Inger and their little daughter Maren, Anne Elisabeth. Still he gets very up tight when talk about religion comes up at home. Mikkel also very upset and embarrassed about his younger brother John, Preben Leerdorff Rey,who's suffering from burn-out. That resulted from his time in college studying religion writings and theories.
John has become convinced over time that he's Jesus Christ and goes around the house and countryside quoting phrases from the Bibel like an Old, or New, Testament prophet. Morten's youngest son Anders Cay Krisiansen, has fallen in love with the local Tailor's Peter Skraedder, Ejner Federspiel,daughter Anne, Greda Nielson. With the help of Morten's daughter-in-law Inger there's a meeting arranged between the two fathers to get Peter's permission to have Anne marry Anders. the meeting turns into a total disaster with Peter wanting nothing to do with Morten and his son Anders.
The two, Peter and Morten, have been having sharp differences on religious issues for years and they really came into focus later on in the movie with Inger who was pregnant at the time. With Morten at his home Peter gets a call from Mikkel about Inger being very ill as she's about to give birth. Peter starts to feel that now his friend Morten will be tested by God like the Biblical Job. By having Inger die and having him accept what happens to her without any show of anger on his part to show his complete faith in God's work which is to test Morten.This unfeeling statement by Peter causes an angry and outraged Morten to almost clobber, and end up on nonspeaking terms with, him and end their friendship. At first Inger seems to be coming out of danger but later, after losing her baby, she just closes her eyes and stops breathing and peacefully passes away.
Inger's death causes Peter to feel a deep guilt by practically telling Morten that he hoped that she'd dies. At the same time Peter leaves Morten so depressed in almost wanting to die himself. Mikkel also is at the point of having an emotional breakdown at Inger's wake not wanting to leave her side and preventing her coffin to be closed so sher could be buried in her eternal resting place.
John, who was gone all this time, appears and with only young Meren believing him in his assertion that faith in God is the only force that can bring Inger back to life. If those who are now grieving for her showed that faith during her illness, instead of faith in modern medicine, this tragedy would not have happened. John then not only does the impossible but shows everyone there that he wasn't the unstable and irrational parson that they all thought that he was all these years. In fact he was a man of deep faith and conviction in God who never wavered in his strong and unshakable beliefs. No matter how hard they were tested by the events spinning around him.
Slow paced film that has an underlying and invisible force to it that doesn't really show itself until well into the movie. John who we all thought was somewhat mad is the person brings everyone in the movie together by making them realize that there is a God and the real proof of his existence is all around us. If we just take the time and effort to look.
9/10 & added to my "masterpiece collection" list
d-JCB15 June 2015
Another winner from Dreyer but i expected as much since i think every film i've seen by him is pretty much a masterpiece
that's taking into consideration The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), Vampyr (1932), Day of Wrath (1943), his final film Gertrud (1964) and now Ordet completes the string of 5 brilliant films he made from 1928- 1964 before dying at the age of 79 in 1968
he was one of the the few geniuses who wasn't given much time to make films, only 13 features in his career from as early as 1919
he was there right from the start and left with such a deep note on what can be done in cinema, that he has inspired generations to come with his meticulous detail for showing reality but in a very unusual manner
What is to be said about a story where one character believes he's the reincarnation of Jesus, yet the family think he's crazy in the early 1900s where religion ruled & love was broken cause the fathers of the 2 families have different religious practices where an atheist and his pregnant wife hopes for a boy but problems arise & all the families faith will be tested, and ultimately set the path for this very unusual and unsettling adaptation of a popular Danish play
If you haven't seen any Dreyer, you haven't experienced one of the masters of cinema who created a world & atmosphere like no other
http://samuellbronko.tumblr.com/post/119845549042/ordet-aka-the- word-1955-carl-theodor-dreyer
What is to be said about a story where one character believes he's the reincarnation of Jesus, yet the family think he's crazy in the early 1900s where religion ruled & love was broken cause the fathers of the 2 families have different religious practices where an atheist and his pregnant wife hopes for a boy but problems arise & all the families faith will be tested, and ultimately set the path for this very unusual and unsettling adaptation of a popular Danish play
If you haven't seen any Dreyer, you haven't experienced one of the masters of cinema who created a world & atmosphere like no other
http://samuellbronko.tumblr.com/post/119845549042/ordet-aka-the- word-1955-carl-theodor-dreyer
What a gem!
lindalovesthesea30 July 2005
Subtly suspenseful. Thought-provoking. Unpredictable--there's nothing cliché about this film. The long, single shot scenes are a very refreshing change of pace and help build intrigue. I loved it! I confess I had never even heard of this film until tonight while watching it on TCM. What a gem! Although it seems to get off to a slow start, it gains momentum. You find yourself intrigued by each family member's personal dilemma. Surprisingly, nothing turns out the way you expect it to! It's like that favorite good book you can't put down. On a sour note, I was very disturbed by a scene when the town doctor is called to the farm to aid Inger's midwife during childbirth. I'd like to do some research and learn if the director was true to the medical practices of the time.
I really enjoyed this film.
microx9600228 October 2004
Although slow going, and a little over 2 hours long, this is an excellent film. With realistic performances. I thought John's performance though was a little "stagey", otherwise everyone was very believable. Birgette Federspiel, the actress playing the role of Inger was in fact pregnant when Carl Dreyer offered her the role. She was afraid he would not accept her if he knew this. But he was delighted as the character she was to play was also pregnant. (When Birgette gave birth to her baby) he even went so far as have the sounds of the birth recorded to incorporate into the soundtrack of the film, according to TCM's Robert Osbourne. Incidentally, you may need a Kleenex at the end of the movie.
Ordet would be better with an alternate ending
dave-239521 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing of this famous film for years, I finally got a chance to see Ordet. Despite the obvious virtues well described by others (Dreyer's great photography with superb lighting and framing, and for the most part excellent acting), I was disappointed by Munk's plot development, especially its denouement - a totally avoidable descent into miracle-mongering mumbo-jumbo.
Let me explain why this was avoidable, and suggest that a more satisfactory ending would be possible, even while keeping most of the Ordet story elements intact. Knowing nothing about its trajectory, I at first welcomed the close proximity display of varying religious positions manifested in an early 20th century rural society, where such matters were taken more seriously and dogmatically than is usually the case today. I looked forward to how this diversity would work out, and what point would be made of it. First, you had Patriarch Morten Borgen, who is committed to a less severe form of Protestantism, and second, his son Mikkel, who is determinedly not religious. Third, his son Johannes who had become obsessed with Kierkegaard (a Danish existentialist) that he read while in college, and had returned to the farm thinking he was Jesus, looking down on the others, and given to long boring soliloquies on these matters. Despite Morten's annoyance and his own rigid beliefs, he seems to accept with regret the apparently psychotic Johannes, and is tolerant of the admirable and hard working Mikkel. But he is quite rigid with the third son Anders and his love for Kirstin, a daughter of Peter Petersen, who leads a much more strict Protestant gathering. Petersen also rejects Anders, which leads to some comedy involving Borgen pride. The families almost come to blows over the matter, and Petersen predicts bad tidings for the Borgen farmstead. There are elements of class conflict here; Petersen is an impecunious self-employed tailor with only his skill and tools, while Borgen is a hereditary landowner as well as farmer.
When Mikkel's pregnant wife, Inger, has complications with delivery, Johannes' mouth swings into action, first correctly predicting the infant's death and then that of Inger - despite the doctor's opinion that she is beyond danger. This awes the religious Morten almost as much as the deaths sorrow him. But then Johannes inexplicably bolts from the farm and is nowhere to be found. The film audience may be relieved that this gloomy guy seems to be out of the picture. Mikkel tries to be stoic about Inger's apparent death, up until viewing his wife's body in the casket. Meanwhile, Peter Petersen is sorry for his prediction of doom, has a change of heart, shows up at Inger's funeral, gives his daughter's hand to Anders, and reconciles with Morten. Religious dogmatism and division seem to have taken a back seat at last, and though Inger lies still, there is a rare cloud of joy and tolerance in this dark depiction of Denmark.
Suddenly, Johannes reappears at the funeral, looking less crazed, but still full of chutzpah. Waving the magic wand of his ideology, he raises Inger. Mikkel is so overjoyed that he forgets his principles and essentially promises to become religious. The others, including an impressionable child, are thrilled. The doctor, also at the funeral, smiles but is noncommittal. What could have gone through the good doctor's mind might have been the seed of a plot alteration that would raise Ordet itself from a dead religious tract to a live message of tolerance and good will.
Even in the 1920s, doctors were aware of occasional although rare graveside catalepsy, where the apparently dead arise before burial. It could be that Johannes had come to his senses, showed up due to guilt for the hurt caused by his religious snobbery and dire predictions, and merely wished to apologize for his behavior - with no magic word ("ordet" in Danish) necessary. The recovery from catalepsy could have occurred after this apology, perhaps along with some final words from the good doctor explaining what happened. It wasn't so in the Dreyer movie, but it could have been developed that way. The result would have been more enlightening as well as more entertaining.
Let me explain why this was avoidable, and suggest that a more satisfactory ending would be possible, even while keeping most of the Ordet story elements intact. Knowing nothing about its trajectory, I at first welcomed the close proximity display of varying religious positions manifested in an early 20th century rural society, where such matters were taken more seriously and dogmatically than is usually the case today. I looked forward to how this diversity would work out, and what point would be made of it. First, you had Patriarch Morten Borgen, who is committed to a less severe form of Protestantism, and second, his son Mikkel, who is determinedly not religious. Third, his son Johannes who had become obsessed with Kierkegaard (a Danish existentialist) that he read while in college, and had returned to the farm thinking he was Jesus, looking down on the others, and given to long boring soliloquies on these matters. Despite Morten's annoyance and his own rigid beliefs, he seems to accept with regret the apparently psychotic Johannes, and is tolerant of the admirable and hard working Mikkel. But he is quite rigid with the third son Anders and his love for Kirstin, a daughter of Peter Petersen, who leads a much more strict Protestant gathering. Petersen also rejects Anders, which leads to some comedy involving Borgen pride. The families almost come to blows over the matter, and Petersen predicts bad tidings for the Borgen farmstead. There are elements of class conflict here; Petersen is an impecunious self-employed tailor with only his skill and tools, while Borgen is a hereditary landowner as well as farmer.
When Mikkel's pregnant wife, Inger, has complications with delivery, Johannes' mouth swings into action, first correctly predicting the infant's death and then that of Inger - despite the doctor's opinion that she is beyond danger. This awes the religious Morten almost as much as the deaths sorrow him. But then Johannes inexplicably bolts from the farm and is nowhere to be found. The film audience may be relieved that this gloomy guy seems to be out of the picture. Mikkel tries to be stoic about Inger's apparent death, up until viewing his wife's body in the casket. Meanwhile, Peter Petersen is sorry for his prediction of doom, has a change of heart, shows up at Inger's funeral, gives his daughter's hand to Anders, and reconciles with Morten. Religious dogmatism and division seem to have taken a back seat at last, and though Inger lies still, there is a rare cloud of joy and tolerance in this dark depiction of Denmark.
Suddenly, Johannes reappears at the funeral, looking less crazed, but still full of chutzpah. Waving the magic wand of his ideology, he raises Inger. Mikkel is so overjoyed that he forgets his principles and essentially promises to become religious. The others, including an impressionable child, are thrilled. The doctor, also at the funeral, smiles but is noncommittal. What could have gone through the good doctor's mind might have been the seed of a plot alteration that would raise Ordet itself from a dead religious tract to a live message of tolerance and good will.
Even in the 1920s, doctors were aware of occasional although rare graveside catalepsy, where the apparently dead arise before burial. It could be that Johannes had come to his senses, showed up due to guilt for the hurt caused by his religious snobbery and dire predictions, and merely wished to apologize for his behavior - with no magic word ("ordet" in Danish) necessary. The recovery from catalepsy could have occurred after this apology, perhaps along with some final words from the good doctor explaining what happened. It wasn't so in the Dreyer movie, but it could have been developed that way. The result would have been more enlightening as well as more entertaining.
Dreyer Does It Again
gavin694212 June 2013
How do we understand faith and prayer, and what of miracles? August 1925 on a Danish farm. Patriarch Borgen has three sons: Mikkel, a good-hearted agnostic whose wife Inger is pregnant, Johannes, who believes he is Jesus, and Anders, young, slight, in love with the tailor's daughter.
All I wanted to say about this one was a general comment on the cinematography in the Scandinavian countries. Dreyer and Ingmar Bergman seem to prefer black and white over color, and they both know how to make it look sharp and crisp, the contrast and shadows even bolder than any use of color could allow. Today, making a film in black and white is hard to do unless you are independent... "Pi" comes to mind. It is an art form that should not be dead.
Beyond that, this is a beautiful take on faith and "the word". Again like Bergman, this seems to be a preoccupation of Scandinavian cinema. Perhaps it is not -- maybe only the great films (and thus those that reach America) have such a worldview... but it is wonderful just the same.
All I wanted to say about this one was a general comment on the cinematography in the Scandinavian countries. Dreyer and Ingmar Bergman seem to prefer black and white over color, and they both know how to make it look sharp and crisp, the contrast and shadows even bolder than any use of color could allow. Today, making a film in black and white is hard to do unless you are independent... "Pi" comes to mind. It is an art form that should not be dead.
Beyond that, this is a beautiful take on faith and "the word". Again like Bergman, this seems to be a preoccupation of Scandinavian cinema. Perhaps it is not -- maybe only the great films (and thus those that reach America) have such a worldview... but it is wonderful just the same.
Solid
Cosmoeticadotcom15 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Denmark's Carl Theodor Dreyer was one of the great auteurs of early cinema, and such masterpieces as Vampyr and Day Of Wrath attest to that fact. Many critics, however, have hailed either his earlier silent film, The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, or his later Ordet (The Word) as his greatest work, and while I've never seen the earlier film in a full restoration, having just watched Ordet I can say, uncategorically, that it is not in a league with Vampyr nor Day Of Wrath. This is not to say that the film is a bad one, but it is nowhere near a great one
. Ordet is not even a direct allegory on evil and complicity with it, as was the earlier Day Of Wrath, made during the occupation. In fact, it is not really an allegory at all, merely a simple tale of faith, and a none too original one, at that. Its ending is telegraphed all throughout the film. Its ultimate message, about the power of faith over strict rationality, is also not a new one, and its rendering here is not in the least powerful. Compared to, say, Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light, made only a few years later, this film pales in every measure of comparison. That later film was loaded with vitality, even as it was a despairing film. Despite this film's seemingly upbeat ending (resurrection is a good thing, right?), it has none of the verve nor power Bergman's film has. Its characters never resonate with the viewer the way Bergman's tormented pastor and his scorned lover do, in their anomic faith and intellect, and their probing of it. Nor were Munk nor Dreyer the writers that Bergman is. And, compared to Day Of Wrath's ending, wherein that film's female protagonist's descent, into the insanity of feeling she has become a witch, haunts a viewer with regret, the resurrection of Inger seems too pat an ending, and not too challenging in terms of religion, nor science. To answer, though, that this is because this film is about faith and its necessity doubt, as framed by Kierkegaard, therefore one must suspend disbelief to 'get it', is to let Dreyer's own filmic and writing failures off the hook because those things he was in control of also fail, despite or because of that belief system. I'm sure that there are many critics who have been, and are, more than willing to grant the director such favor, as I read enough of them in my researching the critical reception this film got, but you'll have to look elsewhere for such poor critique. If the Internet bores you, try the books of Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert. I'll be rewatching Vampyr in the meantime. I need its fillip after Ordet.
Heavy-handed
gbill-748772 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Oof. Such a heavy-handed, deeply religious film was not for me. There are some bits which show its heart was in the right place, such as the two pig-headed old men eventually understanding that they should set aside their squabbling over which one understands the "true" faith, but there is never a doubt about God's existence, or the importance of Christianity. The film emphasizes it again and again as it slowly lumbers through its 125 minute run time.
The protagonist of the film to me is the daughter-in-law, who smiles beatifically at those around her, including her husband who has lost faith, and his grumpy father. She radiates compassion but also the smugness of "knowing" that God is all around us, and that little miracles are taking place all the time because of Him. She's a nice, gentle person but her views are condescending, which is irritating.
There are two characters who represent possible challenges to this view, but they're woefully underdeveloped, or perhaps better put, are never really given a chance to articulate a different view. She assures her husband that his faith will come because he has goodness in his heart (hmm I wonder what will happen?), and he's quite weak in moments of crisis, because he doesn't walk "holding God's hand" as his father does. The film plays on the tired stereotype that the atheist is weak, and while sniveling under duress, will turn to God. Meanwhile after a life-threatening birthing, a doctor is allowed to ask "Which helped more this evening - your prayers, or my skill?" before driving off, but he's mistaken in his pride for what he believes the outcome to be. Neither character asks those who are religious about the contradiction between an all-powerful being in the sky who is still involved in the world, and all of its horrific suffering and cruelty, or any other hard question for that matter.
There is no real soul-searching here, and to me despite its message of healing over the schisms in religion which prevent the understanding of Christ's words and basic human kindness, the film is really quite shallow in exploring faith itself. To a tragedy, the father says "There must be some purpose in it, or it would have never happened," the ultimate non-debatable answer of a believer, not that the film tries to debate it. Unlike Bergman, Dreyer has no doubt, and presents a film that has no doubt, which in the best case is weak artistically and in the worse perpetuates a mythology that has done far more harm in the world than good. The ending is ludicrous, and I think would have been more powerful with ambiguity, or without the miracle.
The protagonist of the film to me is the daughter-in-law, who smiles beatifically at those around her, including her husband who has lost faith, and his grumpy father. She radiates compassion but also the smugness of "knowing" that God is all around us, and that little miracles are taking place all the time because of Him. She's a nice, gentle person but her views are condescending, which is irritating.
There are two characters who represent possible challenges to this view, but they're woefully underdeveloped, or perhaps better put, are never really given a chance to articulate a different view. She assures her husband that his faith will come because he has goodness in his heart (hmm I wonder what will happen?), and he's quite weak in moments of crisis, because he doesn't walk "holding God's hand" as his father does. The film plays on the tired stereotype that the atheist is weak, and while sniveling under duress, will turn to God. Meanwhile after a life-threatening birthing, a doctor is allowed to ask "Which helped more this evening - your prayers, or my skill?" before driving off, but he's mistaken in his pride for what he believes the outcome to be. Neither character asks those who are religious about the contradiction between an all-powerful being in the sky who is still involved in the world, and all of its horrific suffering and cruelty, or any other hard question for that matter.
There is no real soul-searching here, and to me despite its message of healing over the schisms in religion which prevent the understanding of Christ's words and basic human kindness, the film is really quite shallow in exploring faith itself. To a tragedy, the father says "There must be some purpose in it, or it would have never happened," the ultimate non-debatable answer of a believer, not that the film tries to debate it. Unlike Bergman, Dreyer has no doubt, and presents a film that has no doubt, which in the best case is weak artistically and in the worse perpetuates a mythology that has done far more harm in the world than good. The ending is ludicrous, and I think would have been more powerful with ambiguity, or without the miracle.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
