Ordet... How ironic, bearing the name "The Word," a film so measured and precise, especially in terms of its screenplay, that I find myself, poor me, having to use words to assess it. What more can I do than be sincere and admit that the possibility of not finding the right words to encompass this splendid work disheartens me?
Every element in this work, whether a visual detail, a verbal exchange, or a musical note, is infused with meaning. Nothing lacks purpose, especially considering that the theme revolves around the gap created in individuals with the advent of modernity. It explores the quest for a new response to replace the rupture of spirituality dependent on God and the need for a renewed subjectivity free from metaphysical constraints.
Emerging from a strictly secular diegetic universe, even inevitably liberal, no normative subjectivity that unites individuals is envisioned. Not even in the realm of love, where reciprocity might seem more achievable than in faith. With perfect cinematic eloquence, a portrayal of fragmented, broken, and decentered subjects unfolds. In this scenario, each person must forge their own response in the solitude inherent in this reality.
Dreyer's intention was not to claim a religion or faith as an authority and foundation, a moral and absolute leadership providing a reason for a better life. His focus was not on finding solace or divine redemption but rather on discovering practical and useful knowledge in life. One of the film's greatest virtues lies in not delving into the specific theological differences causing the conflict between the two families. It suffices to observe their similar doctrinal rigidity, lack of flexibility, and authoritarianism. While distinguishing between the Christianity of the Borgens and the Petersens, whose theologians seem represented in the portraits adorning their homes, could help pinpoint the coordinates of their respective doctrines, the film is content to present their disagreements and opposition not as a clash between cults but as the residual persistence of fanaticism and intolerance. What the film dramatically emphasizes is the speed with which their convictions become fundamentalist, denying something as human and inherent to life as love, in the name of their doctrinal abstractions and that instance positioned above existence, called divinity.
To conclude, Ignar's return to life not only serves as the film's closure but also stands as the most relevant deus ex machina in cinema, constituting one of the most notable cinematic miracles. It opens up a realm beyond the narrative, providing a final discursive gesture that establishes an inherently metacinematographic quality in the sensible and figurative, logically rooted and intertwined in the unfolding plot, a consequence of its own organicity. As Jankelevitch notes: "emphasis, which means little by saying much - as evidenced by much of contemporary cinema, saturated with shots and special effects - is the regime of extravagance and vanity; whereas litotes or the greatest possible attenuation of what one wants to convey, which means much by saying little, is the regime of economy and greater spiritual density." The internalization of the external and the externalization of the internal, along with the evident intrusion into established codes, and the will to express the most by saying the least, equally characterize Ordet.
In an additional note, I would like to highlight that Ordet is one of those rare cinematic gems that stands out for its uniqueness even in the way it is presented to the audience. It is one of the few films that dispenses with the traditional end credits, defying the usual convention. This decision, though seemingly small, underscores the film's ability to break away from established norms and immerse the viewer even more deeply in its unforgettable narrative. A reminder that, at times, the magic of cinema also lies in bold and unconventional choices that make a work stand out. Or maybe it's just a matter of my blu-ray version and the montage that was screened at the theater where I saw it.
Review by AitorBlockedParent2024-02-02T21:11:01Z
Ordet... How ironic, bearing the name "The Word," a film so measured and precise, especially in terms of its screenplay, that I find myself, poor me, having to use words to assess it. What more can I do than be sincere and admit that the possibility of not finding the right words to encompass this splendid work disheartens me?
Every element in this work, whether a visual detail, a verbal exchange, or a musical note, is infused with meaning. Nothing lacks purpose, especially considering that the theme revolves around the gap created in individuals with the advent of modernity. It explores the quest for a new response to replace the rupture of spirituality dependent on God and the need for a renewed subjectivity free from metaphysical constraints.
Emerging from a strictly secular diegetic universe, even inevitably liberal, no normative subjectivity that unites individuals is envisioned. Not even in the realm of love, where reciprocity might seem more achievable than in faith. With perfect cinematic eloquence, a portrayal of fragmented, broken, and decentered subjects unfolds. In this scenario, each person must forge their own response in the solitude inherent in this reality.
Dreyer's intention was not to claim a religion or faith as an authority and foundation, a moral and absolute leadership providing a reason for a better life. His focus was not on finding solace or divine redemption but rather on discovering practical and useful knowledge in life. One of the film's greatest virtues lies in not delving into the specific theological differences causing the conflict between the two families. It suffices to observe their similar doctrinal rigidity, lack of flexibility, and authoritarianism. While distinguishing between the Christianity of the Borgens and the Petersens, whose theologians seem represented in the portraits adorning their homes, could help pinpoint the coordinates of their respective doctrines, the film is content to present their disagreements and opposition not as a clash between cults but as the residual persistence of fanaticism and intolerance. What the film dramatically emphasizes is the speed with which their convictions become fundamentalist, denying something as human and inherent to life as love, in the name of their doctrinal abstractions and that instance positioned above existence, called divinity.
To conclude, Ignar's return to life not only serves as the film's closure but also stands as the most relevant deus ex machina in cinema, constituting one of the most notable cinematic miracles. It opens up a realm beyond the narrative, providing a final discursive gesture that establishes an inherently metacinematographic quality in the sensible and figurative, logically rooted and intertwined in the unfolding plot, a consequence of its own organicity. As Jankelevitch notes: "emphasis, which means little by saying much - as evidenced by much of contemporary cinema, saturated with shots and special effects - is the regime of extravagance and vanity; whereas litotes or the greatest possible attenuation of what one wants to convey, which means much by saying little, is the regime of economy and greater spiritual density." The internalization of the external and the externalization of the internal, along with the evident intrusion into established codes, and the will to express the most by saying the least, equally characterize Ordet.
In an additional note, I would like to highlight that Ordet is one of those rare cinematic gems that stands out for its uniqueness even in the way it is presented to the audience. It is one of the few films that dispenses with the traditional end credits, defying the usual convention. This decision, though seemingly small, underscores the film's ability to break away from established norms and immerse the viewer even more deeply in its unforgettable narrative. A reminder that, at times, the magic of cinema also lies in bold and unconventional choices that make a work stand out. Or maybe it's just a matter of my blu-ray version and the montage that was screened at the theater where I saw it.