video



Anna Faris in "Smiley Face" (2007) & Maria Falconetti in "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928)


"I will never find the way to say how much I love American close-ups.  Point blank.  A head suddenly appears on screen and drama, now face to face, seems to address me personally and swells with an extraordinary intensity.  I am hypnotized.  Now the tragedy is anatomical...Waiting for the moment when 1,000 meters of intrigue converge in a muscular denouement satisfies me more than the rest of the film."  — Jean Epstein (1921)

***

The Tubular Muse uses YouTube as an ephemeral resource to discover and talk about cinema.  Clips are posted, are removed, and we grab on for a second to gave some their due.

Related Films

P_w192

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1928 France

0 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music ran a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Easily the most epic of Dreyer's films (that I've had the pleasure to see), Love One Another (1922) juggles more than a few ideas and only occasionally does the swarm of plot stifle. It's an issue picture about anti-Semitism and revolutionary aspirations in Russia at the turn of the century, complete with fist pounding and ferocious mobs out to kill, but it's also about spies and a bathhouse, not to mention family and (there it is again) faith. Faith, here, despite the late riots, is not a teleological force sweeping up its characters; that is, conceptually, faith for these characters—for this film—is a mask donned or shucked or projected. This reaches a near-parodic height when we see the duplicitous revolutionary spy in a monk's robes and awfully fake beard shooting a once-Jew-now-Christian in the belly to save face. Further, the film ends with a blond Goy "rescuing" his dark Jewish lady from a narrow plebe with an axe and the genocide-mongering horde behind him with flight the only option. Indeed: in the climax we can see a seed for Jack Torrence's bathroom assault late in Kubrick's The Shining (1980), an unexpected echo, but apt in that all Wendy and Danny can do at the close is run, and run.

There's a solution in Vampyr (1932). Demons can die (twice) in this film—because they are the evil of the world, we might say its vacuum, manifest in corporeal forms. The horror of the other in Vampyr is the fear of becoming possessed, of one's soul overtaken, and that this change may be irreversible. This is common, of course, to the genre, but viewed a night after Love One Another, its allegorical possibilities became highlighted. And, for me, at my moment, this meant within the work of this filmmaker. It seems the great threat in Dreyer's cinema is not simply death but the soul's corruption, and that our trace may (or, more likely, will) be erased by the world's passage. In effect, as Phelps intoned to start this project, we are shadows. And, boy, do the shadows dance here. Phantoms never seemed to thick with life, and desire. (Also, I'm reminded of Burroughs.) Vampyr is not necessarily avant-garde but its expressive tilts and dollies do push the image, as typified by the late leasing of the frame to our hero's dead-eye view from a coffin. We look with him, shadows in our own dark space, as evil seals us into a box and limits our view of the world, only to transport us outside. The image is autocratic. And, yet, the image is an allowance, too: seeing is a gift earned, like life. Lucky for our man, the sun shines on his cell and he is returned to the world to drive a stake into the past and free his future. But, really, I could care less what happens story-wise in Vampyr. What kept me rapt was the cycle of light and how it makes the possible a reality, even if that reality is a darkness tethered to nothing.

Related Films

Film_437w_vampyr_w192

Vampyr

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1932 Denmark

0 Comments

picture

The Interrogation (Bugajski, 1982): two shots of Krystyna Janda as a political prisoner, which remind me of Maria Falconetti in Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc.

Related Films

P_w192

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1928 France

0 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music is running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Gertrud (1964) shimmers and burns as it (as she) longs for life as dreamers often will. In fact, our lady in the middle says it outright: that life is a dream, or a series of dreams, drifting into one another. So goes the film, a cycle of deadpan non-events that stretch time past languor into a near total stasis (though filmed by an elegant and curious, to say sometimes mobile, camera). Gertrud is a careful film: it curls slightly circumspect though it yearns for the world and aims to sing in praise of love. Through Gertrud's myopic devotion to Love, we understand what lays beyond such a simple frame as herswe see the lack for what it is, we see the limits of the metaphysical. Dreyer is out in the open about it: though justified in her rejection of blind and hypocritical patriarchy (so crucial to Dreyer overall), Gertrud is arrogant; she remains deaf to the world beyond herself and her love (her loves) to the end. If we see Dreyer in Gertrudand why not, the film is hers as hisas much as in the poet, Lidman, and the composer, Erland, then we see how cinema (or, at the least, Dreyer's cinema) figures as the great metabolizer of all art forms, and how it, yes, transcends representation. But Gertrud is the opposite of Joan: this last masterpiece finds expression not in the play of close ups but in the emergence duration exposes, in how emulsion's grain does, over time, register temperaturesof emotion, of age, of significance, of love.

Related Films

Gertrud_w_w192

Gertrud

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1964 Denmark

5 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music is running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Daily ritual cramps life at the outset in Master of the House (1925). Complacency is the target as a good wife's dutiful acceptance of her role, which she props up larger than her capacities, has bred a spoiled husband—and exhausted her to illness. Thus a plan to reform the husband through punishment and denial. The old tough love routine: wife recovers in secluded country air (she's seen enclosed there, too) while husband endures a new training from an old nanny on how to participate in a home. Routine becomes repetitive, becomes explicit behavioral training, and education is a one-way battle. It's also about asserting the feminine right to power in a patriarchal order, a gender study decades before co-eds could sign up. A key image late shows three generations of ladies looking at this now-reformed man of the house willingly wash his dishes, their faces triangulated over the top two thirds of the frame. Dreyer shoots the couple's reunion from behind the man with the woman's handshands we've seen butter bread and skin potatoes, load wood and carry laundry, burn on the stovecreeping into sight around his neck, as if to assert her claim. Finally we see her hands start the clock, as echoed by Ordet, and we see their love in a metronome swing between them, heart to heart. Their marriage finds a new beginning, as echoed by Ordet, with the man acceding to his better. And the woman shines fresh with life. If Dreyer is the ultimate master of this house, as he angles our eyes on its every cranny, he does his best to build a space where optimism may brim.

2 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music is running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Walking away from the theatre with Kasman two nights ago, we jockeyed the idea that The Bride of Glomdale (1926) does not need its restoration-approved inter-titles because its language (in a Metz way) is so lucid. An arbitrary tale, some may promote "fable" here, of two lovers separated by a river and greed, Dreyer's film is most fascinating in how it advances since we know what advances. The best example comes early in the picture: our lady, daughter Glomdale, is upset and stomping on a door in the floor; Dreyer's camera looks down at her hot stepping feet diagonally. There is a fade out to black and a title describes what we see next: two rings of young people (male and female) dancing on a meadow, seen from above, happy to be alive in the sun. The echo-circuit is complete, without naive match-cuts, as it repurposes the simple act of moving with the world: anger can be dance, and dance can be fun. Indeed, Glomdale can be lauded for shooting outside, on location. We see real farms plowed by real horses, we see real smoke fill the air, we see a real river rush. So far in my current curriculum, this film is the most interested in "the document" against any affective stylistics as found in later masterpieces. Further, just as Phelps wrote, it is a joyful—even goofy—thing all designed to celebrate youth. There is a lot of kissing. I was surprised to find such explicit foreplay, to see how dancing can lead to fighting, to watch these kids joke around with axes and wood and to see him pin her against a wall.

0 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music is running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Ordet (1955) is a lesson in patience. We see the world unfold in Dreyer's roving, enveloping inscription; in fact, we must. Everything—from its camera to its characters to its story to its frames to its language/s to its sets (and on)—moves in two directions, though all tracks lead to one point. It's a convergence. All our angles on the world cohere about a coffin stuffed with white in a no-space bled from grays into high contrast light. Everything leads here, we know from the start. Yet, for all the "signals" or "warnings" or whatever you will, the film is no waiting game. It is slow by any standard, but such is the weight of a life bound by ritual—and faith.

Ordet is rural, though emptiness a lie. This space teems. Borgen's farm houses three generations: widower Morten Borgen begat three sons, Mikkel, Johannes and Anders; Mikkel is married to Inger, pregnant for a third time after bearing two daughters, Maren and Lilleinger; Johannes thinks he's Jesus; Anders loves the tailor's daughter, Anne; there are pigs giving birth, too. All these people, all spaced laterally around this home, all points of light aimed at (and from) one another. Though memory and death factor into this home, it is ultimately a space of life, as Johannes and Inger's twinned actions and words testify (that is, make possible) from beginning to close. Their ardor makes faith less a religious act than an ordinary leap. We hear Kierkegaard with Johannes if we listen: we hear the possible's call, we see life upend into something new every day.

Ordet is straight-forward where Day of Wrath confounds. Ordet's system is hardly lukewarm, nor a braid, nor quite the austere picture some would have you believe. It is a gentle phenomenology. It allows for ambiguities, as its picture of faith does not demand monotheistic devotion (nor propose tidy mirrors) but offers our stream a branching; its world opens with every shot. Dreyer does not disclose a world, nor record events, but allow the appearance of life to happen in front of his camera, his eye (our camera, our eyes), though his orchestration is never hidden. Prescription yields, and doubt can be erased as headlights ghost a wall and a nose twitches awake. His cinema builds.

Related Films

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

0 Comments

article

Above: The Bride of Glomdale (1926).  Image courtesy of The Danish Film Institute/Stills & Posters Archive.

***

The Brooklyn Academy of Music is running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31.

***

Almost all early Carl Th. Dreyer films show life to be one big ceremony, each generation parading in place of the last; only one, like Gertrud, finds fortitude in futility. Typically, The Bride of Glomdale (1926), Dreyer’s pre-The Passion of Joan of Arc masterpiece, and his final outdoor folk tale, is seen as Dreyer’s last light, joyous movie. And it is (though Ordet is too): the story of a couple of youths from opposite classes in some ancient time who defy their families to love each other, Glomdale’s alive in earth, and fire, and water, smoke and sky, running lovers, peasant dances and weddings. It’s also alive in vindictive parents, gushing rapids, and wooden stock-still rooms, cramped peasant quarters filmed on diagonals to appear like huge, open Flemish paintings, which threaten to both swallow up the characters and lock them in place like the encoffined dead. As in Gertrud or the end of Ordet, when the lovers move inside, or awaken in bed, they can look like museum pieces starting to breathe. Death is everywhere in Glomdale, but unlike in previous Dreyer films, it’s actively pursued both by nature and evil characters—out to kill two kids’ happiness. Read More

Related Films

Film_125w_daywrath_w192

Day of Wrath

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1943 Denmark

Gertrud_w_w192

Gertrud

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1964 Denmark

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

P_w192

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1928 France

7 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Where can we sit in comfort to watch something like Day of Wrath (1943)? It is certainly not the cinematheque. Nor is it a bed. Recliners sound about right, but I feel a lack sitting solitary. In fact, I'm wary of couches, too, for this vision. I wanted to abandon my drowsy body throughout the film—to just be my eyes—and float with the camera, but I'm happy I saw the film with people.

There must be witches. There is no reason to doubt their presence: not in 1943, not in 1623. We ought to believe in them as Dreyer does not explain, we know; he rather offers a fiber of perspectives on events. The first "scene" is one long shift left, as if transposing a chord down a scale one paused step at a time, where the camera first turns curious by inches then glides invisible through a wall we saw angled and "real" at our fade in. In the bow of a boat, two young lovers so thick against the other cannot form together and their separate bodies double that bent tree's reflection to further cloud their love. Later, we observe them from behind, a pair of shadows talking against a mist backdrop. So many "characters" look like heads floating over their bodies, hardly tethered, just figures (just things) to track. And when the young girl runs, she bobs like a ghost: the image curls, falls away and pushes, confuses whether we follow her or if she chases the camera.

I know I heard the film well (all those bells, the scratch of winds), but I was not prepared: I will need to see this odd, relaxed film again. I wish I knew how to sit. Then I might be able to see better.

As is, the film is a fantasy: hazy, truly bizarre, a pellicular splinter (if that's possible) nestling into my folded sense of how anybody could be ready for it upon its initial appearance, much less now. Is Dreyer the witch? Why is that a bad word? Maybe we need a cellar to screen this thing. Definitely not a loft. It might break the beams.

Related Films

Film_125w_daywrath_w192

Day of Wrath

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1943 Denmark

5 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31. Here you will find my quick notes as I plunge in deep with the Dane. I hope we learn something as we march forward (and step back) with care.

***

Cinema is a pure and brisk series of faces in The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), a set of expressions abutting and overlapping to build a stream of tears and tears. The fabric rends itself and reweaves with new material. It's a fast film, dancing across these faces and cropping the world into boxes of quiet pain. It lights up to our late eyes as almost a parody of Deleuze's "affect image" with its flux of close-ups bleeding unsaid feelings. I happened to see the earlier show with Donald Sosin accompanying on piano; the later screening was just the flicker. Unfortunately, for a lot of the film, rather than paying attention to the textures Dreyer captures with simple spotlights and frames, I found myself thinking about what music I would have scored the film with instead of just a piano. Joan seems to ask for silence, or, as the Criterion disc offers, a fuller backdrop to color over its unheard lips (I can read Joan say, "Oui," without the need of inter-titles; I can almost hear it, too). Joan also seems to rebel against itself, against rules or accepted traditions, against its time, against rebellion just for the sake of rebellion, until its final montage swings cacophonous with wild violence. Joan has no need for simple geometry: her space is a swelling, circulatory plot of angles (not rows) that will, without fail, will themselves into each other to become mass coordination and not competition. Joan finds us across a moat looking up, solid, seeing the flames lick the sky like wings. All of it close, all of it immediate, none of it dramatic so much as anxious collision.

See some of how over here, from when I first saw this film last September.

Related Films

P_w192

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1928 France

2 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running the Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31.

***

"What she learns is that love simply exists, enshrined as securely in her failures as in her aspirations to perfection. Independent of volition (hence the switch from free will to Racine), independent of time (the poem that leaps the fifty years from childhood to join the epitaph she has chosen for her gravestone), and essentially a secret mystery that can be known but not possessed as by right (the letters that Axel burns, one may be sure, are destroyed so that this secret may remain unpublished, and rise like a phoenix from the ashes), the love Gertrud sought so vainly is present throughout the film in the haunting and haunted depths of its images."
-- Tom Milne, The Cinema of Carl Th. Dreyer, 1971. P. 177.

"[Dreyer’s] most supernatural film, glowing with a more secret magic than any previous work."
-- Elliot Stein (on Gertrud), quoted in Tom Milne, The Cinema of Carl Th. Dreyer, 1971, p. 170.

"Gertrude, the film of her, the greatest declaration of love of woman in the history of the medium."
-- Stan Brakhage, The Brakhage Lectures, 1972. P. 75.

"Occasionally in the same frame with Massieu or a soldier, almost never in the same frame with a judge, Jeanne inhabits a space apart. It is not just that in several scenes we can only infer the relative distances and positions of the characters. More important, we can no longer assume that a constant, homogeneous set of spatial relations exists."
-- David Bordwell, The films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1981. P. 79.

"Dreyer’s manipulation of space hardly stops there. Even when space is fully exposed in his shots, it takes on a strange elasticity, expanding and contracting according to the pattern of Dreyer’s montage. In The Parson’s Widow, Dreyer is already delaying the long, “establishing” shots that allow us to make spatial sense of a setting before it is divided into close-ups of the characters within it. In The Parson’s Widow, Dreyer often begins a scene in close-up, putting off the establishing shot until the middle or end of the scene, at which point it may not correspond to the image we’ve formed in our minds. The room is larger or smaller, the characters closer together or further apart, than we would have guessed from the close-ups. At other times, Dreyer will begin with an establishing shot and then go on to undermine it: an example from The Parson’s Widow finds the three main characters sitting loosely around a fireplace, a scene that becomes much more intimate in the shot breakdown when the warmth and tightness of the close-ups seem so to draw the characters closer together. And in The Passion of Joan of Arc, there are, famously, no true establishing shots at all; it space is wholly subjective, wholly plastic.

…[In Mikael] the division of the mise-en-scene into close-up and long shot is a representation of the conflict of spirit and body that defines Dreyer’s profoundly Protestant view of the world. Protestant, that is, but not puritanical: Dreyer cannot support a strict division, just as his most “spiritual” close-ups contain, in their highlighted textures, an element of physicality, of sexuality. For Dreyer, the crisis of Protestantism is centered on the question of love, which can be both a sexual and a spiritual quantity. For Dreyer, both kinds of love contain the possibility of the sacred: he does not rule out one kind in favor of the other, but looks instead for a resolution, a new quantity that might contain them both. Mikael, through its use of long and close shots, becomes the most successful of Dreyer’s silents in portraying that quantity, which might be described (very inadequately) as a kind of spiritual sexuality, a love that caresses the soul."
-- Dave Kehr, “A Love that Caresses the Soul,” The Chicago Reader, c. 1989.
Read More

Related Films

Film_125w_daywrath_w192

Day of Wrath

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1943 Denmark

Gertrud_w_w192

Gertrud

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1964 Denmark

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

P_w192

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1928 France

Film_437w_vampyr_w192

Vampyr

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1932 Denmark

2 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running the Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31.

***

"There were to be no horror scenes at all, just all the time this feeling of something evil lurking behind the actors and the scenes. As if there were something behind you that you do not dare turn around and face."
-- Carl Th. Dreyer (on Vampyr), quoted by Elsa Gress, “The White Nightmare,” Scandinavian Review, 1989. P. 54-56.

"If a faint sound is heard, outside the picture, Dreyer does not immediately cut to where the sound is coming from; he lets the camera pan slowly round, so that we only discover its source after a period of suspense. It is what we do not see which makes the everyday things we do see seem strange."
-- Ebbe Neergaard (on Vampyr), Carl Dreyer (A Film Director’s Work), translated by Marianne Helweg, 1950. P. 28-30.

"To look behind things is not for Dreyer a matter of seeking their ideal depths. Their beyond is not, as with Fritz Lang, the underground, the paths, cavities and dungeons under the earth. It operates on the same level as the visible. The crucial thing is not what is behind the images, but what is visible in them as an aspect of white. The beyond of Dreyer’s films, which he often hides behind historical materials or period dress is the repressed, censored portion of the ‘this-side’ of things. ‘I build houses’, complains Johannes in Ordet, ‘in which no one wants to live’, taking two lit candelabra and putting them in a window. Gertrud could say exactly the same thing.

Dreyer uses cinema to wake the dead. The centre of Dreyer’s films never appears directly. Only its outline is marked. The images are only scraps of the infinite, of the unformed, the possible, hieratically and rigidly demonstrating their own limitations. One can never wholly identify with any single figure in a Dreyer film: there are no heroes and no villains. The conflicts are cosmic but not historical. Different types of order clash with one another, or rather order clashes with disorder. When one things of the miracle at the end of Ordet, that is in fact the real triumph of disorder.

An event beyond all interpretability, outside any context. A zero point, another white speck, a gap in the chain of causality. When Freud began to describe the Unconscious and to comprehend it in a theoretical manner he could only establish that he was in an aera where the conceptual apparatus of the existing sciences broke down. That it was the great Other on which we all depend, and which we all depend, and which, at first, could only be conceptualized by means of negative categories.

When one sees Dreyer’s films today one is often struck by the thought that they are not of this world."
-- Frieda Grafe, “Spiritual Men and Natural Women,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 9/10 Feb. 1974. (Transl. by R. Mann, available in Mark Nash’s Dreyer, 1977).
Read More

Related Films

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

Film_437w_vampyr_w192

Vampyr

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1932 Denmark

0 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running the Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31.

***

"Hands, which feel life, by which the things of the earth become tangible: so Inger ties old Borgen’s hands with yarn when she advocates Anders’ marriage; so the Doctor puts on his gloves before the birth; so Anders takes Anne’s hand when Petersen has given her; so the child takes Johannes’ as they pray for her mother to live. And the camera itself caresses the objects and creatures of Ordet, glides through the air to make it tangible. The camera moves to impart a fullness, roundness of life to its subjects, as when it turns full circle round Johannes telling Inger he will bring her mother back to life. The camera searches out space, touching livingly upon all details as it travels to capture an act or gesture."
-- Ken Kelman, “Dreyer,” Film Culture no. 35, Winter, 1964-65. P. 8.

"[Dreyer] was perhaps closer to Orson Welles than to Yasujiro Ozu and Robert Bresson, with whom he is more commonly compared. Like Welles, he knew the best special effects are often the simplest. And so in Vampire [sic] he created a moment more chilling than all the installments of Poltergeist combined, merely by having an actress smile. In Day of Wrath, the sound of a woman softly humming resounds more dramatically than any of John Williams’s overblown scores. And in Ordet Dreyer carried off what may be the cinema’s ultimate special effect: a convincing on-camera resurrection, using nothing more than the movement of a hand."
-- Stuart Klawans, The Nation, March, 1989.

"He is keenly aware of the work of other directors, is most enthusiastic about Kazan, thinks “Baby Doll” one of his finest."
-- Walter Ross, “Carl Dreyer: Move Master in Slow Motion,” The New York Times, c. 1960.

"For at the heart of a system as rigorous as this, at the centre of so meticulous a structure, the least vibration figures as an uncertain gravitation, and an equilibrium disturbed and causing a divergence in the contours. The blink of an eyelid, a gesture by a hand, become irretrievable. Because they incessantly elude the schematism that provokes and haunts them at every moment."
-- André Techiné, “The Nordic Archaism of Dreyer,” Cahiers du cinema nr. 170 (post-Gertrud, translated by Tom Milne, available in Mark Nash’s Dreyer, 1977). Read More

Related Films

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

0 Comments

article

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running the Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31.

***

"What I seek in my films, what I want to obtain, is a penetration to my actors’ profound thoughts by means of their most subtle expressions. For these are the expressions that reveal the character of the person, his unconscious feelings, the secrets that lie in the depths of his soul. This is what interests me above all, not the technique of the cinema. Gertrud is a film that I made with my heart."
-- “Between Heaven And Hell: Interview with Carl Dreyer by Michel Delahaye,” Cahiers du Cinéma (in English), c. 1960s.

"Dreyer simply isn’t cinema. Cinema is Dreyer. That wildly beating heart struggling against its mortal coils, that fierce resignation one encounters in characters who realize too late that love is the meaningful issue of life, the only consolation of memory."
-- Andrew Sarris, quoting his original review of Gertrud, N.Y. Observer, 10/18/99.

"Dreyer is perhaps, with Eisenstein, the only director whose work matches the dignity, the nobility, the elegant power of the masterpieces of painting. Let’s not have any false modesty when it comes to cinema: a Dreyer is the equal of the great paintings of the Italian Renaissance or the Flemish school."
-- André Bazin, Le Cinéma de la Cruauté, orig. From Radio-Cinéma, 1952. P. 39. (my translation) Read More

Related Films

Film_125w_daywrath_w192

Day of Wrath

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1943 Denmark

Gertrud_w_w192

Gertrud

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1964 Denmark

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

Film_437w_vampyr_w192

Vampyr

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1932 Denmark

0 Comments

article

Above: The Master, Carl Th. Dreyer.

***

The Brooklyn Academy of Music will be running a Carl Th. Dreyer retrospective, appropriately and monolithically titled DREYER, from March 13 - March 31.

***

Let’s not have any false modesty when it comes to cinema, Bazin says; not Dreyer’s, anyway, the greatest cinema (with Hitchcock’s? Brakhage’s? Hawks’?), or, simpler, as Sarris also says, the cinema. (But so, said Renoir, is cooking.) Cinema is Dreyer, which is to say that his achievement can only be understood by watching his movies, that criticism, thankfully, will never do him justice, and that that’s why there’s few more valuable subjects, why few directors benefit from criticism quite as much: there’s everything to say about Dreyer, half of it contradictory to the rest. Following this article, I will post some clippings compiled of Dreyer criticism, and deliberately cut, mostly, from pieces unavailable commercially or online (one important missing piece: Noel Burch in Cinema: A Critical Dictionary). It’s as much as portrait of Dreyer as it is a portrait of Dreyer criticism: both, necessarily, very inadequately. My special thanks to Charles Silver, at MoMA, for his assistance, skepticism, and for keeping this stuff alive. Which is an essential Dreyer theme.

Cinema is Dreyer, says Sarris, and there are, as there always are in Dreyer, practical reasons for jawstruck claims: that cinema, in the magic lantern shows on the walls of Vampyr, Ordet, and Gertrud; in Mikael’s endless rhymes on voyeurism and seeing not just as believing, but living (as in Rear Window); in all the early folk tales in which emotion comes through motion, through flux, through letting time and lovers carry us on; in the resurrections of Vampyr and Ordet (bringing back the dead: movies, and a constant Dreyer theme); in the cutting of Joan and Vampyr and the circling-pans of Day of Wrath and Ordet that impossibly unmoor their characters from their oppressive scenes by spinning the scene around them and taking them out of the real world, as in Vertigo’s own circling, into some entirely subjective reverie (what movies do); in the openings of background doors in Gertrud that unmoor them similarly (what movies do); in the late lines of Gertrud, a film that’s followed the systematic destruction of traces, “One day, your visit will only be a memory, as all the other memories I cherish. Sometimes I bring forth the memories and lose myself in them. I feel as if I’m gazing at a fire about to be extinguished” (has there been a better description of movies?)—that Dreyer’s constant subject, with God, love, and the wind (they’re all magic) is cinema: ungraspable visions: memories, dreams, hopes, nothing more than emotion’s portals, their exact nature vague even to those who feel them. Read More

Related Films

Mymeteirw_w192

Carl Th. Dreyer—My Metier

Dir Torben Skjødt Jensen

1995 Denmark

Film_125w_daywrath_w192

Day of Wrath

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1943 Denmark

Gertrud_w_w192

Gertrud

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1964 Denmark

Ordet_w_w192

Ordet

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1955 Denmark

Film_437w_vampyr_w192

Vampyr

Dir Carl Th. Dreyer

1932 Denmark

0 Comments

Most Recent Reviews

Displaying 10 of 29 reviews.

See all

Avatar

11Dec09

by Glenn Kenny

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

Invictus

8Dec09

by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

The GoodTimesKid

30Oct09

by David Cairns

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

Chelsea on the Rocks

7Nov09

by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

Bright Star

20Sep09

by Martha Polk

  • Currently 3.0/5 Stars.

The Informant!

18Sep09

by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

Gamer

4Sep09

by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

Liverpool

4Sep09

by Daniel Kasman

  • Currently 5.0/5 Stars.

Inglourious Basterds

22Aug09

by Ryland Walker Knight

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.