Inside a farm house in Denmark some 90 years ago, a lot of
contentions took place. What were those people inside arguing about? Religion, of
course (if not about politics, what other alternatives could that be?). No, they
were all in a sense religious, and the family tradition provided them a common
religious upbringing. What they just had were very different opinions about what
they believed in. This summarizes the Danish master Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet
(1955), which is celebrating its 60th Anniversary this year. And, I would
like to offer this film as a spiritual gift to you, as we are getting close to
Easter, right? This modern classic has not dated - the story and images are still able
to captivate the audience, and its central theme has become even more
relevant in a world where
people are less tolerant of other's beliefs. There is a big
miracle at the final minutes of this masterpiece, but the big question from Dreyer is: who deserves such a miracle?
Was it love? No, it was Søren Kierkegaard.
In this film, there is not a 'good versus bad' contest, as
Leo Tolstoy has put it, ' only a 'good versus good' contest. The style of the film is
theatrical - reductionist setting, minimal characters, loads of dialogues for the
characters to explain clearly what they believe in, and these are realized by very
powerful long takes (ASL probably about a minute). The result is that all the
characters are fully
developed and you can understand what their beliefs are and
the motivations behind their actions. In the Borgen farm, there is Morten, a
widowed father, and his 3 sons, with different preoccupations. Mikkel, the eldest son, is a 'great guy' - and we can identify with his plight because he is really good and pitiable - he
just doesn't have any religious faith. Johannes,
the second son, is the one that stands out. Johannes, who is a bit too 'God-intoxicated' (or I prefer
'Kierkegaard-intoxicated'), descends into
madness and believes he is Jesus Christ. In Kierkegaard's
terms, he is truly a 'knight of faith', but like Nietzsche, no one in the
community understands him. Anders, the youngest son is a simple love-bird - he is in
love with Peter the tailor's daughter. However, while Morten and Peter have similar
religious backgrounds, they can't come to terms with each other's takes
on their common religion.
So when Anders asks for a proposal, the argument between
them reaches a breaking point. Worse still, Mikkel’s wife, Inger, who is
the light of the family, is expecting a child, and she has undergone difficult
labor. While an abortion saves her life, Morten’s skepticism about Johannes’
warning that Death is impending for Inger leads to nasty consequence. Tragedy
befalls the farmhouse and she dies as a result of this. When the family reunites,
it is at her funeral. Johannes suddenly appears and asks why no one has asked
God to help her. 'This bloke is crazy' - it is the consensus in the
room. Only Inger’s daughter has the faith to believe his uncle can deliver the
miracle. Johannes asks for God's help, and in one of cinema history's
most wonderful moments, Inger comes back to life! Mikkel and Inger embrace
and now he knows that he has found his own faith.
In 'Ordet', every characters have their personal opinions on
religion, and they all believe that their own opinions are the most authentic
version. They accuse each other of 'not religious' enough, or not 'sticking to
the rules', or do not have faith. Ironically, most of the characters in the film
can simply not put into action what they believe in. This is the main point of
Dreyer's concern - the only contest in the film is that of 'personalized faith
versus institutionalized religion' (compare with ‘The Passion of Joan of Arc’). This
of course brings us to Nietzsche, the Antichrist's ideas, and also that of Søren Kierkegaard's teachings. Nietzsche never hated Jesus Christ, he only hated Paul, in a sense the 'marketer'. Nietzsche
believed that Christ has overcome himself to transcend to another level, but he was
really against the religion institutions who dictated rules to their believers.
Kierkegaard, who was
far more religious, surprisingly served a similar concern.
Against the Hegelian objective knowledge, he opted for a subjective relationship
between the believer and God. So the key is what YOU believe in, rather than what
sort of ideas your religion imposts upon you.
Johannes, the contemporary messiah, is one of those who appreciates the importance of this issue. He is
the one who looks beyond the appearances, that many of the people around him do not have
personalized faith and
do not truly appreciate what they believe in. He is the
mirror which exposes the hypocrisy of the pseudo-religious characters in the film. In
Schrader's words, he is a symbol of 'disparity', who senses the chaos and
out-of-balance situation in the universe (1). He is ridiculed by others - because he
thinks outside the box and cannot fit in to a world covered comfortably by a veil of
ignorance. The only other two great characters are Inger and Maren, the little
girl. Inger is a lady with true faith, and the one who brings unity to the
household. Although with a young age and a child's vision, Maren is the one who
understands the meaning of faith and therefore are of intimate terms with his uncle
Johannes. She is the one who is willing to take the chance and asks Johannes to
perform the miracle, to give the 'Ordet'. She believes firmly in Johannes, and she
eventually is rewarded with winning her mother back.
I have a strong passion for the final moments of 'Ordet'.
Only a master like Dreyer can give us such an ambivalent feelings through
cinema. A supernatural phenomenon has taken place in front of everyone, secular or
spiritual, but this scene looks so real - as if the real thing has taken place. The
little girl’s facial expression is first rate – from a grim, unhappy face, her
expression gradually transits to a happy, satisfied place, upon experiencing
Johannes’ miracle. The style here is antithetical to that of Ozu – when Setsuko
Hara’s facial expression change at the end of Late Spring, an ellipsis is
achieved by inserting a transitional shot of a vase in between. Interestingly,
both masters are capable of creating spiritual ends in the 2 films. The beautiful thing is that Dreyer doesn't provide a rationale on why Inger can
be resurrected - does it mean Johannes really is a messiah, or even Inger is just
in a coma? No rationalizations needed here - all you need to do is to have
faith in what you really
believe in.
Happy Easter Vacation!
By Ed Law
1/4/2015
Film Analysis – Special Mention
Reference:
1. Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer (1972) by Paul Schrader.
ISBN
|
0306803356, 9780306803352
|
