In viewing "Ordet", a Danish film directed by Carl Th. Dreyer, one can scarcely avoid perceiving a religious theme. However, peering beyond the surface, it is also clear that the film's theme is significantly more complex, and exhibits an underlying existentialism, as well as a series of conflicts which relate to love, passion, society, and family. The latter elements lend an altogether human aspect to the film, allowing even the religious facets to convey the doubts and skepticism associated with human nature.In the final scene of "Ordet", the setting is a funeral in the home of Mr. Borgen, the grandfather of the farm on which the deceased (Inger) lived and worked as the daughter-in-law. This scene is characteristic of the style utilized throughout the film, which has been referred to as both transcendental and expressive inner realism. In both interpretations, conventional perceptions of reality are defied and normalcy is at odds with disparity. Dreyer can, perhaps, be credited with moving beyond defiance to a thorough redefinition of realism. This is evident in his focus on the inner struggle of his characters, rather than simply the societal norms with which they were expected to conform.As a spectator, "Ordet" affected me emotionally by emphasizing the fulfillment associated with a mortal existence in which miracles are defined by the value we place on earthly and otherwise ordinary experiences. The characters of this domestic drama convey a sense of familiarity through their interactions, and their struggles are tremendously relatable. As noted by Dreyer at the end of his screenplay, "spectators must gradually and carefully be placed in an emotional state like that of guests at a funeral", an effort which was visually achieved through long shots and slow camera movements. On an intellectual and emotional level, this movie is accessible to the ordinary, yet thought- provoking to the philosophical.

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.

Carl Theodor Dreyer was one of the most visual orientated directors that ever lived. His movies are often a delight to watch, due to its visuals but I also admit that I'm not a great fan of all of his work. He's praised by lots of people for his well known works but his movies are certainly lacking some of the needs that are required for a movie. His movies just aren't the best paced ones and they are often overlong and slow, with just not an awful lot happening. He masks this greatly with the visual style and quality of the movies but you can only compensate that much. His movies definitely always have some big pros and cons in them, while this movie does however luckily has far more pros.This movie also has the great benefit that it has a great story in it. It's about faith, religion, life and death, science versus faith and whatever more discussions and different perspectives of things this movie brings along. In that regard this movie perhaps feels more like an Ingmar Bergman movie than a Carl Theodor Dreyer movie really. Both directors however have always shown some similarities with their movie its themes, style and characters in it. It's a compelling story, that is being told effectively. It'a obviously all based on a stage-play, which you can tell by the way the scene's are being set up and the story is getting told.Again, it's all rather slow and the movie does definitely take its time to get its story across. It's safe to say that this movie is not just simply for everyone. But it's an ultimately rewarding movie, that is both being effective and powerful.it's cast mostly consists out of non-professionals. Something that often got done around that time for this type of movies. It sometimes works out very well and sometimes it just simply doesn't. This movie its acting gets the benefit of the doubt, since it's hard to judge someone's acting who is speaking in a language you don't understand. A real ultimately rewarding viewing experience.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Time for my annual dose of Dreyer, taken like medicine. Is it fair that Dreyer has a reputation of being turgid, slow, archaic, depressing, theatrical? Well, yes. Look at this. A large part of the time is spent watching people walk slowly from one side of the room to the other. In fact, this seems to be Dreyer's main directorial idea because the rest of the time they just stand there like hatstands. At climactic moments a door may be opened. There is no attempt to vary pace or tone; the dialogue is as stilted as silent movie cards. In fact, this looked and felt like a film made in 1915, not 1955.The film presents a Danish society so insular that subtle shades of Christianity tear them apart. That might be interesting if treated with any sort of subtlety or depth. Not here, where the plot is built with a few huge stone bricks. And we have not one but two of the most morose characters in all cinema. Old Borgen, who has the lion's share of the dialogue, always stares fixedly into the middle-distance while speaking - I presumed he was reading his lines off a card.Dreyer is a man entirely without humour. The mad son Johannes looks like Rasputin with slicked down hair and an immaculate centre-parting; he thinks he is Christ and walks in and out slowly spouting religious twaddle in a high pitched monotone with no facial movement whatsoever. Perhaps Dreyer was paying homage to Ed Wood here. Johannes' every appearance is unintentionally hilarious. If he can't see this, Dreyer really must have something missing. If you're not laughing at Johannes yourself every time he appears, I'm not sure I want to know you.And never have I been so let down by the ending of a film. A literal deus ex machina that I simply found intellectually offensive - all the more so because we can see it coming a long way back but are still led at snail's pace towards it.Painfully sincere, and good for the soul maybe, but woefully unaccomplished. To be enjoyed only by Quakers.