MovieChat Forums > Ordet (1955) Discussion > Dreyer's deception

Dreyer's deception

posted 17 years ago by YellowManReanimated
28 replies | jump to latest

I'm starting this topic mainly in response to a comment I saw on another thread, which read:

"imho, Dreyer leaves Bergman in many ways bloodless."

This comment for me, not only missed the point of Bergman's work but also fails to understand the meaning and salience of cinematic art.

Now, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Ordet, the photography was sublime and unique and the pacing and technical processes were amongst the greatest cinema has ever produced, and in many ways Dreyer is amongst the greatest cinema has ever produced. However, I argue that in this film Dreyer neglects his purpose and opts for propaganda over art, message over truth, deception over honesty, something Bergman has never done, and would never do as perhaps the most dignified and thoroughly dedicated artist ever to enter the cinematic medium.

Ordet is deception, the "miracle" is a lie. The view that some critics and fans have espoused relating to the openness of the interpretation of the final scene is fundamentally misguided and flawed and, I contend, not communicated in full earnestness. It is abundantly obvious what Dreyer is asserting in this film and that is, simply put, faith. Specifically faith in Christianity and the writings of The New Testament. Now I have nothing against films that advocate such actions; however, I do object to dishonesty and the final scene of this film depicts a literal understanding of The New Testament that real life just does not provide.

Dreyer wasn't creating an artistic vision for the purposes of truth but for the purposes of his religion, his conclusion was heavily skewed and influenced by his own subjective perceptions that do not relate to an objective understanding of life and nature. Dreyer fell into the trap of advocacy over normative rendering, and this is why, for all its technical excellence, Ordet is ultimately a failure, in the way that The Seventh Seal, Wildstrawberries, Persona and The Silence are undoubted successes. Bergman would never trade in truth for propaganda and would never mislead or misdirect his audience away from what is true. Bergman films reflect reality in the way that we are able to perceive it, and any conclusions relating to his films are drawn from that. From here we get to truth and understanding in a way that a film like Ordet can never provide us with.

Silencio

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

I see where you come from, but I don't agree with you. And I am not a Christian but of other of the three monotheistic religions, which is not Judaism, and I enjoyed this film very much.

You shouldn't take the last scene literally. In one way it is a miracle, deus ex machina, but you should see the reasons why it ends like this. I've read somewhere that Dreyer opposed organised religion and I truely agree. In this film we have "Jesus Christ" alive, rather than as a crucified corpse. We have a Christian fundamentalists who indulge in the cult of death. The tailor's woman looks at the image of a dead person and says how beautiful the image is. There are people who think that the perfection of a human being is in the death. Actually, it is one strong aspect of the Christian dogma, praying to the statue of a dead corpse (crucified Jesus). The old Borgen cannot come to terms with that kind of worship so he has doubts in his beliefs. In reality he was just being imperfect human being looking for the joys of life (whish for a grandson, for example). Indirectly, he is guilty for pushing his daughter-in-law to give birth to a son, which eventually takes her life. But the guilt exists only if you see the situation trough the austere version of faith, the one where death is the perfection of human being, and joys of life are to be avoided.
The "living Jesus Christ" in the film protests in the one scene because his church and his believers have distorted him, because they crucify and kill him over and over again, because they somehow enjoy some kind of a spiritual necrophilia. So you should not see the end of the film in a literal way. The miracle should not be taken literally more than the fact that Johannes is really Jesus Christ. He condemns all people around him for taking a wrong course in their beliefs, just a moment before he ressurects Inger. And Inger "wakes up" in protest of the cult of death. That is why her last words in the film are "living, living". There is a use for her body too, her husband said that he loved her body too and finally consider the sensuality of the kiss she gives to her husband when she "wakes up".

My own religion tells me that I should not avoid joys (as long as they are not immoral) of this life. In my religion there is no cult of death - accordingly, burial of our dead takes place the same day they die and we never expose the corpse to the looks of people. Dead person is dead, but we do not want to spoil the memory of the time he/she was alive.

And although Dreyer was a Christian (rather an undogmatic one) this fim is not an advertisement for Christianity no more than it is for any other religion. Dreyer believed in God, and he was not preaching anything. His art lived in the world with God's presence.

~~~~~~

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

Thank you for that reply enkibilal, you mention some interesting points, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take issue with a few of your arguments.

First of all I'd like to refer to the final scene. Now you state that it is not meant to be taken literally and is rather, if I understand you correctly, a comment on the significance and beauty of life over death. I'm inclined to agree that this was perhaps the principle purpose of this final scene, but the problem I have is the very literal way in which it is rendered. Johannes literally commands the corpse to awake and the corpse literally awakes, coming back from the dead. Now the context of this scene is important because up to this point we've been watching a realistic portrayal of a family and their struggles with faith,love and community in the middle of the 20th century. We are not prepared for metaphors, we haven't been conditioned to take things metaphorically. The director has made it pretty clear that he expects us to view everything that is going on with a literal mindset and he goes to great efforts to represent his characters as real people going through real situations. The consequence of this is that once we observe the miracle we are set-up to take this literally, we are supposed to be shocked and astounded that this has happened because everything before it was very obviously relatable to real life. In this sense it appears as if Dreyer is trying to tell us that miracles do happen and that God is looking out for us and that if we believe in him enough, he will reward our faith. Well, although I accept that many hold that view, I'm afraid it's a view that has no correlation with real life. I could go into a debate on the merits of faith but I'll try and avoid that and just state that anyone who genuinely attempts to claim that there is a rational basis for a belief in The New Testament miracles, and the existance of a Christian god, just isn't looking at the evidence properly. To recreate such evidence on a film-set in such a suggestive manner strikes me as extremely dishonest and deceptive.

There also seems to be some mixed messages in this film. Again I refer to your comments regarding Dreyer believing that Christians should value life over death. Well there is one scene where Johannes (Jesus) tells his niece that if her mother should die then she would be perfectly happy in heaven and she would be able to look out for her from there also. For such a message to come from someone who seemed to be the moral center of this story perhaps throws your analysis into doubt, or is perhaps an example of Dreyer confusing his own message. I'm inclined to go with the latter, I think Dreyer wanted to achieve what you claimed he had, but the contradictory nature of his faith led him down the path of mixed-messages and confused outcomes. This is the nature of Christianity and it has no place at the center of an artistic vision. Art concerning anything, religion included, should always stay a certain distance away from its subject in order to allow the viewer to come to their own interpretations. Ordet failed to do this, as was undeniably revealed in the final scene, and as a result failed artistic aspirations.

Do not misunderstand me, I still rate this film highly for its technical prowess and its memorable performances and dialogue but ultimately as a quest for understanding and truth, which I believe great art should be a communication of, for me Ordet falls at the last hurdle, as it were.

Silencio

[–] haciendacaliente 17 years ago

If I may interject...

Personally, I consider myself to be religiously indeterminate (which is not the same as atheism or agnosticism, in my opinion), but I thought "Ordet" was an incredibly beautiful, powerful film. Then again, I don't think of it as a soliloquy on religion (by 'soliloquy', I'm referring to the film itself as being a direct communication by Dreyer to whomever is viewing the film, as opposed to the traditional definition of soliloquy). While the themes of religion are very prominent, I think they are used more as a contrasting factor to show us the general disconnect (between each other and, in some cases, within themselves) that these people have, and not as the film's premise. I do think the film is about faith, but not faith in a higher power as much as faith in one another. Consider these points:

1) Johannes, who is the most religiously faithful person in the film, is also the most miserable...until the point at the end, when the little girl finally shows him faith (though the doctor also does, after the little girl). This faith towards Johannes is probably the purest that anybody receives in the film, as the little girl never doubts Johannes.
2) Mikkel, who is the least religiously faithful person in the film, is the happiest...until Inger dies, that is.
3) The priest, who *should* be the most faithful person in the film, is nearly as faithless as Mikkel (the doctor is his counterpoint: a man who professes to have no faith, only to show faith in Johannes at the end of the film). Out of all of the people, he is the only one who stands up to openly decry Johannes at the end of the film, before being stopped by (of all people) the doctor. Actually, the priest's reaction in this film is reminiscent of Dreyer's "Passion of Joan of Arc", another film which (to me) didn't deal with religion so much as it dealt with intolerance between people (though for different reasons than, say, the intolerance between the elder Borgen and Peter, or the priest's intolerance of Johannes)

Furthermore, I think the film deftly blends literal and metaphorical sentiments throughout, so it is a bit of a mistake to look at the film as being completely literal. I mean, practically every line that Johannes speaks is a metaphor for something else in the film!

As for the ending, it may be a bit difficult to accept if you look at the film with a strictly linear view, but there is a method to its madness (to me, at least). Right after Inger dies, somebody (Mikkel, I believe) stops the grandfather clock, and Johannes comments that Inger is not dead, but merely sleeping. At the end of the film, after Inger is 'resurrected', Anders starts the clock again. The placement of these events in the film are too obvious for me to consider that they were insignificant. It does undercut the 'miraculous' connotation of the film's ending, but I think that was Dreyer's intent: a miracle, after all, is based on individual perception of the events. One person's miracle is another's myth.

In the end, you can ask yourself whether Johannes' plea for Inger to be returned to life was real, or whether time had (figuratively) stopped and Inger was only 'sleeping', or even if she does come back to life, but I'm not sure that it truly matters. What matters to me, at least, is the personal growth that the events in the film brought to these people, which never would have happened at the beginning of the film.

(Another interesting thing, in my opinion, is that the characters with the least [Mikkel] and greatest [Johannes] amount of faith are both the only ones who make the comment that Inger will 'rot'. I'm not sure of its true significance in the greater scheme of things [at least, not yet], but it is very interesting that these two characters in particular expressed the same sentiment)

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

To TheYellowMan:

Here is my intrerperatation of the scene when Johannes is talking to the little girl. Johannes is crazy, it is beyond point. He is not really Jesus Christ, which is obvious. But his lunacy is used in the scene to uncover (should I say) the danger of some ideas. The little girl is so deluded at one moment that she favours for a death of her mother. A little girl who should be full of life? But she changes her mind, thankfully. So the significance of Johannes is not that he is the voice of reason but because interaction with him uncovers the fallacies of the supposedly normal people. He is rather an innocent "holy fool" used to test and provoke responces which are put under the critical lense by the director.
And in the end, when the miracle happens, it is not because they all were good Christians and because thay prayed for the miracle. I repeat, Johannes condmens them all before he performs it. The husband was turning agnostic. The old man didn't believe in miracles and had a hard time commiting himself to a prayer. So this is not miracle in the usual sense. Not a reward to a prayer but a miracle of protest. So I see this film as some sort of a non-comedic farce.

~~~~~~

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

You regrad Johannes as an innocent "holy fool" and yet he seems to be able to bring the dead back to life. Something doesn't seem right there. Plus you regard the miracle as being one of protest, protest by whom? Johannes? If so then he is obviously a rather favoured individual for his protests to receive such a divine response. Finally a "non-comedic farce", is that not somewhat of a contradiction? Are you saying that you see the final scene as farcical? If so, I would suggest that this undermines much of the significance of the film as it seems, at least to me, as if we are supposed to genuinely buy into this scene.

Silencio

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

"You regrad Johannes as an innocent "holy fool" and yet he seems to be able to bring the dead back to life."

One does not exclude the other. Holy fool is a term often used in literature, especially Russian, to describe innocent sometimes crazy characters who are usually objects of sympathy of the viewers/readers and God. Though they might seem as the voices of reason, non-cynical preachers of ideals, usually no one takes them seriously and are often ignored. An example from the top of my mind, is the fool from Kurosawa's Ran, or Domenico in Tarkovsky's Nostalghia, Stalker also by Tarkovsky, Balthazar the donkey in the film by Bresson, Myshkin from The Idiot by Dostoevsky, and some even consider Jesus Christ a holy fool. Many saints also. The term is not derogatory at all, but rather ironic. It is usual with holy fools to perform something unexpectable at the end, to astonish us with something special. That is what makes them holy.
I consider Dreyer and Tarkovsky some real-life holy fools.

"Plus you regard the miracle as being one of protest, protest by whom?"

By the nature, by humanity, by healthy reason, by God, whatever you choose.

"Finally a "non-comedic farce", is that not somewhat of a contradiction?"

No it isn't because comedy is not the only thing that defines a farce. But I did say "some sort of". + This film did have some funny moments, like when the tailor was trying to convert Borgen, but not only that one. And the whole situation about two families fighting over the love of the youth, theatrical structure, farsical ending, a lot of characters, are some classic elements of a farce. The whole premise minus the death is a classic farce.

" If so, I would suggest that this undermines much of the significance of the film as it seems, at least to me, as if we are supposed to genuinely buy into this scene. "

But can't you see that all of the disputes are solved with this ending? Not the miracle was a farce, but all of the hostility between characters and self tormenting was made nonsensical by the last scene. In other words, everything was turned on its head, including the fact that Johannes is talking nonsense which was assumed by every other character, and the belief that death is a greater perfection than life, that dead people cannot become alive, that there are no miracles anymore. That is farcical ending for me. Although only subtly humorous, and that is why I said "some sort of a non comedic farce". I didn't say it is a genuine farce.

I hope this helped.

~~~~~~

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

Thanks for the interesting points you have raised enkibilal, I certainly understand you're attatchment to this film but I do not share your appreciation of it. I feel that what matters in a film foremost, is how it makes you feel. I have to relate that I felt detached from this film as a result of the fact that I could not buy into its conclusion, your various interpretations have opened-up my mind to different ways of understanding this scene but I feel that there is an undeniable emphasis on the miraculous in this movie and I'm afraid that all it smacks of is defeatism.

The main influence I felt this movie was striving for was evangellically based. I felt as if Dreyer was exploring the possibilities of faith and the possible truth of Christianity and the Bible, being a Christian himself I still believe, despite the comments I've perused, that Dreyer allowed himself to be partial in his assessment. As a result I cannot hold this film as anything but an extremely worthwhile effort that is ultimately a failure. You could argue that I myself may be influenced in a partial manner via my lack of belief, I would dispute this but will resist defending it here as I think it suffices to say that one will always have their own views on these matters and I choose to be primarily influenced by evidence over dogma or faith.

Silencio

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

"You could argue that I myself may be influenced in a partial manner via my lack of belief, I would dispute this but will resist defending it here as I think it suffices to say that one will always have their own views on these matters and I choose to be primarily influenced by evidence over dogma or faith. "

Well, I won't argue in that way. I am a religious person, but I too prefere evidence to anything else. But maybe this is not the right place to discuss the principles of Islam (which is in this respect different from Christianity), especially because of the popular prejudices concerning this religion. Quran, for example, encourages the believers to seek for the evidence, knowledge, science, and to use logic in order to find the truth. And there is nothing in it that contradicts science (including the evolutive developement of species). Not only that it does not contradict scientific truths like that, but it confirms it in many instances. So, my point is that I also seek for evidence when confronted with things. But for my belief, I have found the evidence in myself. That kind of evidence is hard to transfer to another person. Everybody who finds it, does it in a different and personal way.

~~~~~~

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

So you are suggesting that everything that came between the doctor's announcement and Inger awakening was an hallucination of some kind just because a clock was restarted? I'll have to rewatch this scene but that strikes me as rather far-fetched. Who's hallucination would it have been and what would have been its purpose? As far as your analysis of the characters, I think it's a stretch to describe Mikkel the happiest of them all, he seemed just as tortured and confused as his father but on a different side of the same fence as it were.

As far as this film being about faith in people, I would suggest that the characters might be able to have a lot more faith in each other if they didn't relate everything back to some obscure oligarch (ie, God). For example the discussion between the doctor and the father when the doctor asks whether it was prayer that saved his daughter-in-law or his skill, and the father refers his skill to God. True faith in humanity comes from valuing human-beings as they are not relating them back to God so as to disavow them of credit and responsibility. The fact that the final scene appeared to be so faith affirming undermines such a conception, in my view.

Silencio

[–] Goldmund1710 17 years ago

Sometimes I ask myself whether ORDET is an ideological or a humanist/optimistic film?

I still don't know the answer.

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

I think it's humanist to the extent that it relates humans to the grace of God. He believes that God cares and that if we show an appreciation of God, as well as an appreciation of each other, we will be blessed and live good lives.

In short I would describe it as humanist in the same way and to the same extent that I would decscribe the teachings of Jesus as humanist.

Silencio

[–] haciendacaliente 17 years ago

"Hallucination" is a strong word (at least, it is to me). I think that 'miasma' or 'ruse' would be better. How is it any more far-fetched than any other film that liberally breaks the time continuum? And why does it really need a purpose?

I don't think of it as a stretch to describe Mikkel as the happiest of them all. Happiness is a relative thing, and while Mikkel certainly has his issues (which grow larger over time, of course), he is beaming with joy in contrast to almost everybody else in the film except Inger (relatively speaking, of course). He does become incredibly tortured and confused after Inger dies, though.

As I said before, though, the significance of stopping the clock in relation to plot occurrences stands as just one possible interpretation of the events. I personally think that the film defies a fully literal interpretation, which is why this is possible (but not the *only* interpretation).

Your ideas of the character's flaws are more or less on target, but I hope you realize that part of what makes the best dramatic works compelling emanates from the fact that the characters *have* flaws. And the fact that the characters allow their religious views to affect their personal relationships is something that often happens in this world. I won't say that it is wrong or right, but many people have allowed their beliefs in the manifesto provided by a higher power to affect their relations with others. Once again, I'm not passing judgment, but this sort of thing isn't a stretch at all.

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

I agree with all your points, hacienda. Thie film is most definitely not to be seen in a literal way. And all your interpretations are valid in some way.

~~~~~~

[–] Goldmund1710 17 years ago

Anyone here thinks The Virgin Spring is very similar to Ordet?

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

There are some similarities, like the miracle at the end and that it deals with death in general. Both films are open for different interpretations, that's for sure.

It is strange coincidence, last week I have seen both these films for the first time.

~~~~~~

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

Your interpretation is interesting haciendacaliente and, although I'm inclined to disagree with it, I do not deny that it holds a certain level of merit.

As to my understanding of the way characters relate to drama I assure you that I am well aware of the relationship, although I'd avoid being as simplistic as you were. First of all what is judged as a flaw will differ depending on your interpretation as a character without flaws would essentially end up being a perfect human being and what that would entail would of course be different for different people. An Oasis lyric comes to mind at this point "True perfection is imperfect", which would suggest that a flaw for them would not necessarily be a flaw at all, if that makes sense of course, isn't that like saying that an apple isn't an apple? Perhaps, I think this again comes down to personal interpretation of the meanings being constructed behind the ideas.
So in short I would be careful about how you simplify such concepts as over-simplification is of course a flaw in itself.

Silencio

[–] trochesset 17 years ago

[quote]This is the nature of Christianity and it has no place at the center of an artistic vision. Art concerning anything, religion included, should always stay a certain distance away from its subject in order to allow the viewer to come to their own interpretations. Ordet failed to do this, as was undeniably revealed in the final scene, and as a result failed artistic aspirations.

Do not misunderstand me, I still rate this film highly for its technical prowess and its memorable performances and dialogue but ultimately as a quest for understanding and truth, which I believe great art should be a communication of, for me Ordet falls at the last hurdle, as it were.
[quote]

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions and religion/non-religion; but I must say that most people do not share your views. Therefore, I believe, that it is impossible for your opinions on religion and the roles and functions of art, as well as religion and spirituality in art, to be considered or debated by 95% of artists or people in general. Religion and spirituality has played a larger role in art and the development of art than any other factor that I can think of.

I think that the nature of Christianity has been the foundation of western art, as well as the center of the western world's artistic vision. I think that what you are looking for, is something more sterile and scietific.

[–] YellowManReanimated 17 years ago

"You are certainly entitled to your own opinions and religion/non-religion; but I must say that most people do not share your views."

I'm not sure this is true, but even if it is it is by-the-by.

"I think that the nature of Christianity has been the foundation of western art, as well as the center of the western world's artistic vision. I think that what you are looking for, is something more sterile and scietific."

Sterile, no. If by scientific you mean related to truth then yes. Artistic methods need in no way to relate to artistic functions, I find fantasy more sterile than real life because of the lack of attachment that the former tends to possess. All I'm saying is that art shouldn't stray away from what we can relate to being true, entertainment, of course, has its own rules, separate and distinct from art.

Silencio

[–] blancmange79 17 years ago

This is a post I put on another thread but it seems more pertinent to this discussion.

I'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.

I also find it interesting that people are taking issue with the verisimilitude of the ending. You do realize a person is being raised from the dead, I don't think Dreyer thought so little of his audience that we are meant to literally believe this happens or happened in real life. This is not M. Night Shyamalan pulling a fast one on us.

[–] Voice-in-the-Machine 17 years ago

I don't mean to rehash what people have said, but I really feel that the point of this film is just faith in general; but to interpret faith as purely religious is a sad artifact of today’s society --- in fact a key point of this movie is to warn against the impending lack of faith that all people contain. The most general definition of faith is that belief which each person uses to decide their choices in life: we have to have faith that our set of choices in life will benefit us in order to pursue them. Most people in today's world (myself included) really have very superficial faith; our faith is merely in whatever feels most pleasurable, comfortable, or easy. Generally we have faith in science, because it provides us with the most tangible material benefits, yet we pursue it without any regard for if it is truly the best or "right" way to live (nor do we even view it as having faith). Even those people with religious faith (such as Morton or the Priest) really do not have faith, but merely ideology, without corresponding action.

Since Dreyer was Christian, of course he is best able to formulate a message on faith in terms of his Christian beliefs, but I thought it was clearly put forth that Dreyer wasn't interested in the religious aspects of faith specifically, in that in the end it was only the child who had enough "faith" to save Inger. Now obviously the child doesn't have faith in the true sense of God, as even they agree in the film that she "is too young to understand," but she represents goodness, naivety, purity; someone who is open to all possibilities in life and is not hardened by societal, religious, or economic guidelines and interests. She embodies the true power of the human spirit if it were to break free of the bonds that it has set itself in.

The point Dreyer is trying to make is to stop arguing over exactly what each person has faith in (as symbolized by the two fathers), but rather analyze why we have faith in this perspective --- be it religious, scientific, etc. --- and start looking at the benefits (or consequences) that would result if we followed this faith completely, even if that means humbling ourselves or sacrificing things we might hold dear (such as Morton needing to sacrifice his ego in order to be truly faithful).

I realize it is hard for such a religious movies to translate to today’s world, but I’d try viewing it again, viewing religious faith as an allegory for whatever faith structure you adhere to.

[–] pad264 14 years ago

Voice-in-the-Machine, even though it's been three years since you made this post, I felt the need to respond. I think you absolutely nailed the film's meaning -- one of the best posts I've seen on IMDB, which is not something I'd toss around carelessly.

Not only is it possible, it is essential
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/

[–] CaucasianMale 17 years ago

Dreyer wasn't creating an artistic vision for the purposes of truth but for the purposes of his religion, his conclusion was heavily skewed and influenced by his own subjective perceptions that do not relate to an objective understanding of life and nature

Bergman's depiction of women and the church/faith were skewed by his own experiences, the one thing you can't say about Bergman is that he was objective.

http://codeknown.blogspot.com/
http://thefilmforum.8.forumer.com/index.php

[–] sightless 15 years ago

This movie should have been made about a Muslim family:/

[–] sightless 15 years ago

or Aliens or something

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TemporaryOne-1 13 years ago

How can there be deception when from the moment the camera floats into Inger's funeral chamber until after Mikkel's epiphany/Inger's Resurrection, we see that the hands of the wall clock remain motionless?

After Mikkel's epiphany, Anders pushes the hands of time into forward motion, correcting the time.

I'm perplexed as to how so many people on this board failed to notice the stopped clock.

The camera graced the face of the clock numerous times, showing the same time repeatedly, and when Anders walked to the clock to set the hands back into motion, the scenic moment froze a bit, almost like slow motion, and the ticking of the clock was sharply pronounced.

Stopped Clock = Suspension Of Disbelief, Dreyer was not shoving any viewpoint down anyone's throat, he left it up to each individual viewer to interpret the Resurrection moment however each person wanted to.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]