Ordet (The Word) is a film. It is also more than a film. And whatever it means to say "more than a film," it is again more.
There is a slowness that director Carl Dreyer brings to the film. The style of the film has been called "realized mysticism," which sounds perfectly awful. What this term consists of, however, is camera shots that are both slow and discerning. The camera work brings a meditative feel. The language of several characters is also slow, and almost leads to sheer boredom. But as Roger Ebert rightly points out, "...once you're inside, it's impossible to escape."
What seems inescapable in the film is an eternal truth. But if the film is archetypal, it only skirts the question of historical differences. What makes the film relevant today is not its affirmation of religious faith, but materialist limitations with regards to ideology. How does ideology cut through materialist certitude? The film forces the same question Gramsci had for Marxists who could not imagine a rival to economic class in figuring the results of history. Simply asked, what does a movie mean today if it denies all analogy to materialist importance? The film is anything but fantasy.
What seems inescapable in the film is an eternal truth. But if the film is archetypal, it only skirts the question of historical differences. What makes the film relevant today is not its affirmation of religious faith, but materialist limitations with regards to ideology. How does ideology cut through materialist certitude? The film forces the same question Gramsci had for Marxists who could not imagine a rival to economic class in figuring the results of history. Simply asked, what does a movie mean today if it denies all analogy to materialist importance? The film is anything but fantasy.
Since engaging a detailed criticism of the film seems wrong, at least beyond preliminary questions, I will abstain. It is a film that only asks to be experienced, even after it has been situated in the question of materialism and/or ideology. So rather than commentary, I end with a monologue from the Johannes character. Indeed, it is the point I knew I was "inside." It is also the moment I recognized the shift from a language of material conditions to figurative language pointing beyond itself. The change happens as the minister enters the room to introduce himself. The minister asks Johannes if he is one of the sons there at the farm. Johannes evasively remarks that he is a bricklayer and continues with what feels like a poem directed straight at the minister:
"I build houses,
but nobody will live in them.
They like to build themselves.
They build themselves,
even though they do not know how.
Therefore, some of them inhabit half-finished huts,
others live in ruins,
most of them wander about homeless.
Are you one of those
in need of a house?"
Perhaps this exercise is like giving someone a point on a map with no explanation, but all that is left is to recognize where one is and deciding whether the space is not to great for travel.
Perhaps this exercise is like giving someone a point on a map with no explanation, but all that is left is to recognize where one is and deciding whether the space is not to great for travel.
IMDb rates this film 8.1 out of 10
Film 101 rates this film 5 out of 5 stars (not red stars)
Roger Ebert includes this film in his Great Movies section.
Other feature length films by Dreyer include The Passion of Joan of Arc, Vampyr, and, Gertrud.
