This movie blew me away the first time I saw it, thanks mainly to the ending. It's one that gets better with repeated viewings, because once you know how it is going to end, you can concentrate better on the theological aspects of the film that lead up to it.
shareI agree, a wonderful film. I don't consider myself a 'Christian' in the strictest sense of the word (there are just too many other important religions out there) but I found the performances incredibly moving.
I actually think that the film attempts to move away from the boundaries of christianity, defining a 'religion' of sorts which is more accepting and believable than the stoicism which characterized christianity in the past. I don't know, just a theory. But if looked at as a sort of parable and applied globally to our current situation, I think actually wants to push boundaries. But maybe I'm reaching a bit here.
I think the photography and camerawork too were just beautiful; deceptively simple yet so mesmerizing.
I watched this for the 2nd time, and having seen some of his other films,
I don't quite know what to make of the ending, whether to take it at face
value, or what. I don't mind not having all the answers though. In fact,
I often prefer it that way.
Van
Yeh...I watched Day of Wrath just before and it was fascinating, almost divine movie experiance. Then came Ordet, which transcended Day of Wrath and blew me away. Ordet is now on my top 10. Day of Wrath is somewhere up there too. Any chance we'll see these films on the IMDB top 250 ever? Not that anyone takes it seriously, and it would probably atract way too many unwanted viewers (how can one ever find a Dreyer film slow when it is so forceful?). Powerful stuff.
Edit: Checking the user ratings for fun, you notice that this film's has a near 50% 10 score, which is remarkable. But its overall score is 7.6, since there are allot of 1's and 2's (are people being put off by religion or the miricle?). Go Figure.
[deleted]
At first (for the first few hours after seeing "Ordet") I also prefered "Day of Wrath" (Lisbet Movin gives a performance in that film as perfect as any I've ever seen), but "Ordet" hit me over the head into shock and wonder. I knew I watched something glorious, but was to bewildered to know whether I liked it or not. In fact, I recognized just after viewing that "Ordet" was the greater film, yet I liked "Day of Wrath" more. After a day recovery and thought I came to like "Ordet" as the greater film. Both are very powerful.
An "unwanted viewer" is one that starts to watch a film, find that he/she does not like it after a few minutes, turns it off, and than goes on to IMDB to give it a 1, 2 etc and saying how bad it is. At least some of the people who gave this film a 1,2 are like that. Hopefully that got something out of it and will watch it again in the future, although I highly doubt it. "unwanted" is probably the incorrect word to use though.
Yes, this film was incredible. I never thought an ending to a film would make me so happy. I loved every moment of this film and all of the characters, but most of all Mikkel. At the beginning of the film, his character is pleasant, but simple and cool and dependable. That's the only way I can describe it. As his wife's and baby's condition gets progressively worse, that's when this actor's acting skills really come to light. As he sat at his wife's coffin, totally falling apart, his anguish and grief had me sobbing. Then the surprise unfolds. Even though previous scenes led you to believe that this may be a possibility, I was still absolutely floored when she awakened from death. I just wanted to see Mikkel's pain end, and I was overjoyed when it did. And when they embraced.... I agree, powerful is the way to describe this film.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
newmanmonster999 wrote:
"The resurrection is far too literal. It locks us into a reading of the film that is probably not going to work for anyone but a true believer (I'm sure that there are exceptions) - and even then, I don't know."
Most people in this world are believers, some are true believers. Dreyer was one. He and many other great artists have used their art to put God back into our conciousness. This was Dreyer's intention. Dreyer never had an inkling of leaving this open ended. The only reason he made the film was to portray the miracle.
[deleted]
"""newmanmonster999 wrote:
"The resurrection is far too literal. It locks us into a reading of the film that is probably not going to work for anyone but a true believer (I'm sure that there are exceptions) - and even then, I don't know."
Most people in this world are believers, some are true believers. Dreyer was one. He and many other great artists have used their art to put God back into our conciousness. This was Dreyer's intention. Dreyer never had an inkling of leaving this open ended. The only reason he made the film was to portray the miracle."""
I dont take the resurection scene as necessarily being a literal series of events. Clearly anyone that see it knows that what they are watching is a film and that this isnt a demonstration of some god's powers. The purpose of the resurrection scene as far as I'm concerned is to distance the viewer from the illusion of the reality of the events which are depicted in order for them to engage more with the different ideological positions propounded by the characters, thereby causing the debate which takes place between the characters in the film to transcend the fictional and hopefully inspire the viewer to think about these ideas in a new way.