Why do so many females hate this movie? And no, not just the ones under 18. On average, the score given to "ordet" by females is much lower than that given by males. Would females who voted or seen "ordet" please state what you liked and disliked about this movie? As for guys, don't post unhelpful comments like "because they're stupid".
shareI can relate, I am one of the rare women that has passion for a genre not respected by many of this day. I run the gamut from Clouzot to Goddard and Pekinpah. The latter, some women find I imagine to have misogynsitic undertones. I am an englishwoman who expatriated to New York to attend film school, and I can say that most of the women I know have underwhelming taste in film and music for that matter. The women I encompassed, even in film theory courses, were more interested in the aesthetics of the actors in the montages of film we deconstructed than the true art form of such, Many women, and I can say this because I am part of this species, are far too superficial to appreciate political depth in films such as "Le Petit Soldat" and 'Wages Of Fear'" this is their loss. This I find to be the case in my native Manchester as well as New York City, perhaps I am ill fated to know the extremely uncultured people that I have, I will say that I have been none to impressed, and often have the obligatory marshall mcluhan moments every time I go to the Film Forum.
shareWell, if that´s true, I think it´s quite sad. Fortunately, my female classmates here in the University appreciates old, reflexive movies.
shareallhorrorshow,
beautiful reply. I go to school uptown from you (I suspect, as NYU is superior for film) and I would be surprised to find people of comparable taste at CU. Are Dreyer's methods obsolete? I hope not. Every time I see this film, I shake and cry with catharsis, but I don't expect that of everyone. Still, recent and local film history seems to outweigh the achievements of the past.
please persevere. I am an anthro grad student, but I still know what great is.
I am a woman and Ordet has been, for the past 25 years since I first saw it at the Cinemateque in Paris, among my 5 top most loved films of all time. I agree with some of the later posts that some respondents seem to be taking the ending quite literally. There is a profound acceptance of the metaphysical, and of the unknowable, but I am not at all convinced that Dreyer means us simply to accept "god" as the savior here. Faith in general is dissected and questioned to such a degree that we cannot walk away from this film with a simple answer to the force of faith. As to the representation of the woman, this is a profoundly sympathetic, empathic view of the place and the plight of woman within patriarchy. Women have been subject to the fate of the body, throughout history, and frankly, still are in many ways today. Drawing attention to this fact hardly counts as misogyny. Frankly, I find a lot of the postings in this thread far more misogynist than Ordet -- in discounting women's taste, depth and ability to appreciate cinema.
shareFemale checking in.
Allhorrorshow, I'd say you are truly ill fated in that respect. I'm lucky to know a lot, and I do mean a lot, of women who appreciate great film-making. Thank goodness, or I would feel terribly alone.
This film was just amazing. I didn't even know about it and I pride myself on having quite a bit of knowledge of films. I happened upon it last week on TCM and I'm so glad I did.
I wouldn't dare guess why women rated this film lower than men. I'd like to think higher standards :) As for me, I'll be rating it quite high.
I agree with you Denise and as an atheist woman I still consider it to be a fascinating film. The exploration of faith is something that interests me in general and I will listen to, and watch, an INTELLIGENT depiction of one's faith. Just don't give me the "because" and simplistic answers. I do have trouble with the ending of the film but then again, I don't have the faith that Carl Theodor Dreyer did.
share"...trouble with the ending of the film" or not, and from the pov of a materialist with a Dreyerish stain, I agree with you. I would never have guessed this film diverged on gender lines. How Xtian.
share
I think they dislike the idea that a woman in childbirth has so few options
and is treated as if she were just another farm animal. It makes it look as
if her only hope is a belief in a mythic God and a blind obedience to faith.
Most modern women buy into the feministic ideal that if only men would
leave them alone they'd be fine. Men create Gods to bind women. Childbirth
itself is a miracle and a woman's crowning glory. If only the doctor depicted
here wasn't so aloof and indifferent -- didn't he know about caesareans? --
things would have worked for the better of everyone. But Dreyer believes
that undeserved punishment is redemptive and so we get miracles.
- - SoundTrak
Childbirth is not a miracle. Miracles, by definition, are something rare and awe inspiring. Childbirth is not rare nor awe inspiring. Miracles also defy Nature and can't be explained by conventional scientific means. How is childbirth unnatural and unexplainable?
Idiotic.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I get so tired of people constantly talking about "the miracle of birth." There's nothing miraculous about it at all. There are approximately 360,000 human births on this planet each day! Like you said, that means that it's neither rare or awe inspiring. In fact, it's common and ordinary. Any two idiots can make it happen, so it's nothing special. Of course, idiots may not understand that it can be explained by conventional scientific means, but that doesn't make it a miracle, that just proves that they are, in fact, idiots.
shareI'm 50 (a woman) and all my life I've appreciated deep, theological, mystical aspects of art. I absolutely loved "Ordet" which I saw for the first time on cable TV last night (in the wee hours of the night). I was sobbing with emotion and joy - I couldn't believe the overwhelming response it elicited from me, because, in my middle age, I'm increasingly harder to move with tears, whereas 20 years ago, I cried at the drop of a hat. Having also had bouts of psychiatric illness -- the 'delusions of grandeur", schizophrenic-break-with-reality kind -- I was so moved with the dignity the characters afforded Johannes, though they were sad and confused, filled with guilt and self-recrimination, and grappled with motives, and questions of faith. When the pompous minister clucks, "That's quite appalling" and "wouldn't he be better off in a home somewhere", the writer acknowledges the awesomeness of God's design for every human being in his/her frailty and the immense contribution the individual makes to family and society. As with quality movies that must be shown in the dead of night to get any airplay in our shallow society, this movie also highlights the great "meaty" roles of older actors from yesteryear --old men who had true dignity, authority, and concern for their families.
shareI'm not sure the ending is to be taken as literally as some in this post seem to take it. I'm not a Dreyer expert, so I don't know what his philosophy was, but that seems slightly irrelevant since we are discussing our own gut reactions. If you look at the film as a conversation with faith e.g. the two Fathers who each believe their religion is correct and the other is going to hell, the son who has lost his faith but seems perfectly content, Johannes who believes he is the risen Lord and then after his delusion passes is still zealous enough to be called "crazy" by the pastor, etc. the ending is more a hypothetical question than a testament to the power of faith. If miracles really could occur, would you have faith? If a miracle happened to you would it cause you to have faith? The trouble is that miracles don't really occur...people don't rise from the dead several days later when asked(Besides the story about the two Michigan girls' car fatality/swapped identity craziness). The pastor and the doctor have a similar discussion about miracles earlier in the film. Anyway, I really enjoyed the ending of the film, but I find it interesting that some seem to take it as affirmation and others as complete baloney. Which is probably what Dreyer really wanted.
And on the question of why women like or hate? I don't know. It's a very masculine film with men making most of the decisions and taking most of the positions of power. That may turn off some women. Look at the ratings for Mai Zetterling's excellent film "Loving Couples." A film with similar themes to "Ordet" but with a very feminst view and men still rate it higher than women. Maybe women are just tougher reviewers than men? Anyway, best thread I've read on imdb in a while.
Hi peeps,
A member of the less dangerous side of the species commenting here. =)
I would agree with your suspicion, Blancmange. I think men are, on average, more romantic and less analytical in their responses to art, and are prone to protestations of love or rage towards things they enjoy, or dislike.
You'll probably appreciate the disproportion between those two pairs of terms. Relatively fewer men would. I expect the ability to assess qualitative material with some objectivity is one reason why far more women take higher degrees in the humanities. Most men are too easily carried away.
All caveats about allowing for the individual aside, I would be inclined at first to value a woman's assessment of a film more than a man's. The other side of it is that of the three professional film critics I know personally, the one whose assessments are the sharpest, easily the most balanced (formally as well as qualitatively), and the most reliable is the one woman.
Tiny, subjective sample. Such is reality. And yes, this is a very interesting thread.
I a woman, in my late 50s, and by no means did I "hate" this film. I was very moved by it, and rated it highly (however, even if I'd rated it low, that wouldn't mean I hated it). I'm also a feminist professor who teaches film, which colors my views, I admit. Is it the best film I've ever seen? No, but it ranks right up there with others I've rated highly.
As for comments from another poster that maybe women dislike it because it shows women as subservient to men, then by that logic women should dislike most older films. Such subservient roles would fit both the times in which the film was made as well as when it was set (in 1925, as noted on the death certificate). Rural women, in Denmark or elsewhere, primarily were homemakers taking care of their children and husbands. In addition, a country doctor in 1925 would not have had a lot of options in dealing with a breech pregnancy. The truth is that many women in the past, and even today, die in childbirth. From my perspective, it would be ludicrous to be turned off by the women's roles in the film, given its time period. Further, despite her role as a housewife, I thought that Inger was the most "alive" character in the film, and perhaps the most important.
doctor bb
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
A bump up, because I think it is an interesting thread.
"Never trust a bunny"
Sorry I missed this thread when it was active, but I only saw Ordet for the first time last week. Though I'm a fan of Dreyer, I was put off from seeing it by, you guessed it, a woman, namely my favorite critic Pauline Kael, who didn't care for the film. She thought it was overrated and said:
"Some of us may find it difficult to accept the holy-madman protagonist (driven insane by too close study of Kierkegaard!), and even more difficult to accept Dreyer's use of the protagonist's home as a stage for numerous entrances and exits, and altogether impossible to get involved in the factionalist strife between bright, happy Christianity and dark, gloomy Christianity -- represented as they are by people sitting around drinking vast quantities of coffee."
Another interesting take is Roger Ebert's. He thinks Ordet is a great film and, like most of the reviewers, responds on a very personal level. Though he doesn't address any "women's issue" (I didn't notice any myself), he does mention that, contrary to the impression his oeuvre leaves, Dreyer wasn't a particularly religious man. I'm not taking this entirely on faith (so to speak), since, when Dreyer died, he was making his life's project, a film about Jesus Christ. But still, if true, then one might say that religion for Dreyer is the setting rather than the subject.
Ordet isn't amenable to deconstruction. It's far more than the sum of its parts. Why so many women don't seem to like it is a mystery to me. It's interesting, though, that more women seem to like Bergman's The Virgin Spring, to which I compare Ordet thematically. Maybe the notion of woman-feral (Ingel in Virgin Spring) appeals to today's feminine vanity, while woman-domestic (depicted in Ordet) is out of favour.
My review: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048452/usercomments-36
Ebert review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/REV IEWS08/914866035/1023
And here I am a year and a half after jacksflicks...! (btw: female)
A couple of posters on this thread, jpseacadets and The Professor had some lovely observations. As a true product of this culture; i.e., my mother's parents ("mor-mor" and "mor-far") were Swedes of the Morton and Peter era... along with being a firm believer in the sociological phenomenon called "Jante Law," this film is VERY Scandinvian(!) It's not a concept. These shades of indifference and self-loathing are...real. I'm also fascinated by the proposition of it doing a dandy-bad job of portraying women.
This is where I like jpseacadet and the suggestion of women as "just another farm animal."
Curious, but anyone else notice the questionably oddly-placed and/or needed sfx of lowing cows and bleeting sheep? I think jpseacadet's got something going with that idea. Curiouser still in regard to women in this Danish flick...Denmark's the country that gave us pornography on film... (doh!)
PS: I liked the film. But moreso for its accurate portrayal of the proud, but uptight Scandinavian mindset of the time...
interesting thread. Despite my screen name, I'm a woman, and I first saw Ordet in the late 70's and have always held it in high esteem (although I think Dreyer's Jeanne D'Arc his masterpiece.)
I would direct other women to Dreyer's silent comedy Thou Shalt Honor Thy Wife aka Master of the House if they wnat some insight into his sexual politics.
Parsing a film according to gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, specific mores etc might be a fine exercise for the classroom, but ultimately ignores the integrity of the work. And it usually ends up saying more about the critic than the film.
Possibly they dislike (among other things) the scene in which Mikkel assures his beloved wife that their baby is alive -- oh yes, it's alive in heaven, or in other words it's dead. About as cruel as a slap in the face, but in the view of the film the sole significance of this statement apparently lies in the revelation that Mikkel now believes in heaven...
~~Igenlode
Gather round, lads and lasses, gather round...
I'm a woman and I loved this movie. Not only is it a beautifully made movie, I found the message of faith truly stirring. I'm Wiccan, not Christian, but I think religious or spiritual faith of any kind is a beautiful thing (although what some people do with that faith is far from beautiful.)
Inger's death and funeral scenes are particularly well done; the performance of the actor who plays Mikkel is especially outstanding. I can definitely see why some people have problems with the ending, and while I personally don't believe in resurrection, I thought it was beautifully and respectfully done, and fit with the movie's overall message of faith and miracles.
Peter, is your social worker in that horse?