Wow, not only did I spell the topic wrong and can’t fix it now that a short time has passed, I also stumbled upon TheAuteurs unwritten method of text styling. This thread could also be used to disseminate knowledge on how to build links, bold, italicize, strike through (single dashes on either side of a text piece apparently) if no one is interested in discussing the end of Ordet. :-)
While the ending seems to be a marked change to supernaturalism from the drained realism that had come before it, that assessment is not complete upon closer inspection. By the use of abstraction through minimalism, sustained single shots, and the directly religious/spiritual dialogue, Dreyer is not working in realism. He uses these elements to create a “creepy and ominous” tone, but this could also be interpreted as the presence of something, something that cannot be seen, felt, or identified. It is through this that Dreyer is showing his mastery: he is suggesting God.
What makes the ending work is that God is always present, but nobody allows Him to work in their lives, except for two characters: Peter and Morten both claim to be men of the cloth, but are both ultimately ungodly men, each as intolerant as the other; if God is Love, Anders and Anne are kept from it by institutions beyond their control; and Mikkel has no professed faith at all. The two figures who do let God work in their lives the the two most central to the film: Inger and Johannes. Johannes, odd as he may be, is one representation of God in the lives of these people: he (like God is, really) is constantly reminding those around him to place trust of themselves in God, but nobody listens. Inger is herself a figure of God, also Christlike. As Peter and Morten are two men who claim to be of God, but really aren’t, so are Inger and Johannes not claiming to be of God (indeed the latter claims to be ), but really are. On the same day both Johannes and Inger leave to places “wither [they] go [others] cannot come”, and both return on the same day, each resurrected in their own way.
What bridges Johannes and Inger directly is Inger’s older daughter Maren. She is a loving daughter to her mother, and the only person to truly take Johannes at his word. A child herself, she practices the instruction of Paul in Ephesians 5:1 by being “a [follower] of God, as [a] dear [child]”. It is her childlike Faith that frees her to ask Johannes (who is now, no longer "crazy") can invoke God to bring her mother back to life. Dreyer (like the Apostles) is saying that raw, unblinded belief is the only kind of faith that can unchain the goodness of Christianity. He is saying that the rigidity of each sect (be it one way or the other) is the ultimate barrier of faith, more than the aetheism of Mikkel or the doctor. Dreyer’s attitude seems directly lifted from Matthew 7:16 :“Beware of false prophets…”
I myself was deeply affected by this film (as you can see), because I myself am a Christian, and if I sound pretentious or self-important, I apologize; it is the result of how personal my perspective is on this film. The ideas Dreyer posits on what the Faith should be are nothing new, but things which, over time, have found themselves divorced from what the Faith is on earth. Most criticism I have read consider Robert Bresson the most spiritual filmmaker, including David Thomson. I myself feel that, on the merit of this film alone, that distinction belongs to Carl Theodor Dreyer.
Thanks, Matthias. This was exactly the kind of analysis I was seeking when I posted this thread. Mysticism attempting to break through uber-realism is a more concise way of interpreting “Ordet.” Johannes reminded me of “Lost Highway’s” Man from Another Place, or “Twin Peak’s” Bob, a spirit speaking of unfettered devotion and harsh truth to those who do not want their viewpoints and institutions disturbed by the rawness of unfiltered faith. Those two spirits are malevolent, whereas Johannes is speaking more from a John the Baptist POV.
I think Lars Von Trier could end it like this…I always thought the CGI bells from heaven at the end of BREAKING THE WAVES were like the miracle in ORDET. Completely out of nowhere. A complete transformation in the laws of the film universe. The transmigration of souls to another level of being. Granted, neither ending struck me as satisfying, but their ballsy as all get-out to change an audience’s perspective on things. The inexplicable, both within the story to the characters and outside the story to the viewer. The miraculous. The presences of God, as others in this thread have said.
Thanks for pointing this film out to me – just after I have seen Passion of Joan of Arc finally and been completely captivated by Dreyer’s incredible visual style and honesty. I saw the end of Ordet on YouTube, but have yet to see the rest of the film. I thought the observations of Ben are apt – this ending definitely is similar to Breaking the Waves – which I have seen. I think Matthias summons up the ending very well for us – whether one accepts it or not as a ‘miracle’. Dreyer, from what I have seen, did have a more conventional view of faith than, say Bergman, who was much more conflicted. Like Bresson, his view on faith is never simplistic or catering to orthodoxy.
I might also compare the ending of this film in a way to Tarkovsky’s Sacrifice, where again we are required to believe in the efficacy of a ‘miracle.’ Tarkovsky comes from the same spiritual vein as Dreyer and Bresson, however you interpret this religiously. Lars von Trier is also in the mix. Each of these directors has a very complex, metaphysical view of the world – very Kierkegaardian perhaps – and, as such, modern. These are existential filmmakers as much as spiritual – reflecting the necessary conflict of doubt vs belief in our times. They can be enjoyed and studied regardless of one’s own particular beliefs. However, one’s beliefs might reflect on how well the ‘miraculous’ part works.
I bring an (almost atheistic) agnostic perspective to this outstanding film. I think the ending is overwhelming in its artistry, a masterpiece of patiently slow intensity. Normally I like fast-paced films, such as the screwball comedy films of the 1933-1943 era, especially the ones written and directed by Preston Sturges (who, i think, wrote dialogue on a par with Shakespeare and Jane Austen). But I am also drawn to some well-made slow-moving films that demand patient concentration - “Ordet” is one such film, as is Antonioni’s “L’Avventura.” The impact that “Ordet” had on me lasted for several days. But, then, I’m willing to put up with Frank Capra’s absurdly infantilizing nonsense about pixieish angels in order to enjoy the feel-good rush at the end of “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
Ordet is totally believable if you have that fundamental Christian faith—I do not, but this Dreyer movie is a favorite on many on the the 10 greatest movies list—it seems to fascinate both the believers and the non believers who see it—it certainly is a masterpiece—if not a miracle—it could not have been made by any body other than Dreyer, one of the masters of true cinema. Vellaem, thanks for reminding me with your posting.
vellaem
I finished Ordet last night. Quite a well made, brutal gem of chiaroscuros and religious angst: the discussions of miracles by different characters, and the portraits on the walls resembling the person sitting in front of them as if life in this village were always ever thus marked Ordet as well executed and obsessively detailed. The film was spare, solid, and inexorable with medievalism ripping into the modern. While I appreciate that the ending resurrection brought about religious conversion and demonstrated a modern miracle, it was odd. It didn’t fit. The realism brutalizing the characters and the audience for the entire picture is abdicated for something that feels like it is out of another film. I honestly didn’t feel anything either way, other than the incongruousness of it. I enjoyed all that went before. Ordet is creepy and ominous. I don’t feel the picture is marred by the ending. I can’t think of a different ending other than the one Lars Von Trier or De Sica would definitely have provided where everyone good dies and everything good is destroyed. Anyone else’s thoughts on this film or its ending?