bandw If other atheists than myself react to this movie as I did, they will find its story of academic interest in the everlasting quest to understand the role that religion plays in human behavior, but they will have a hard time identifying with the motivations for the behaviors of many of the characters. The story concentrates on a Danish farming family in 1925. The main characters are: the father Henrik, a member of a liberal Christian sect; Mikkel, a son who has lost his faith; Inger, Mikkel's wife; Johannes, a son who believes himself to be Jesus Christ; and Anders, a third son. Also, there is Peter, a tailor who is a member of a conservative Christian sect. The characters we get to know well are Henrik and Mikkel. The only notable thing revealed about Anders is that he has fallen in love with Peter's daughter Anne, precipitating a proxy religious war between the two Christian factions. Johannes emerges from time to time spouting quotes from the Bible and other moral admonitions--that is all we know about him, and all we need to know, outside of his having been driven to his madness by studying Kierkegaard. As far as I am concerned the movie could have done with a lot less of Johannes. One takeaway for me was to witness yet once again the power of religion to cause much grief. If religion were removed from the equation here, then I think all of these people would have been much happier.The movie is clearly based on a stage play and it has not been opened up much to make it more than the filming of a play.Given the language barrier for me and the fact that I could not identify with most of the characters, I did not find the acting to rise above average. The women are not given much to go on. Mikkel's wife presents a pleasant, beatific presence and Anders' girlfriend is treated by Peter like property.The birth scene I found excruciatingly painful. Not much was actually shown, but the offstage sound effects and final outcome were horrific.Movies like this leave me in a quandary. I can recognize the quality of the production, but the main message (the value of pure faith to accomplish miracles) is something that I reject. Could any homophobe ever be enthusiastic about "Brokeback Mountain?"I would be less critical of this movie if it had ended with Anne's becoming part of Henrik's family. Instead the movie presses on to a resurrection scene that I found to offer an unsatisfying and quite unbelievable resolution.

MartinHafer Up until late in the film, I was rather bored by this film. However, I am glad I stuck with it, as I really enjoyed the way the film concluded.The film is set on a farm in Denmark and involves the Borgen family. They are in some ways a traditional family with traditional Danish religious values. The biggest non-traditional aspect of the family is John--the seemingly crazy member of the family. He happens to think he's Jesus!! Yet, despite this, his family loves him and they have no intention of placing him in an institution--and he seems harmless.Several plot twists arise in the film. The first is a conflict between the more orthodox Borgens and the Peterson family, who are closer to charismatics in their Christian beliefs. When one of the Borgen boys wants to marry a Peterson girl, their families come into conflict--especially as the Peterson parents consider the Borgens to be damned for not sharing their exact beliefs. The other major twist is death and what happens next. I'd like to say more but can't as it would spoil the film. However, I was impressed how in an increasingly cynical world when it comes to religion that director Dreyer makes a film that is unashamedly religious and creates A LOT to talk about once the film has completed.Overall, a very slow film but one that's worth watching. The acting is very good and the plot is just bizarre and creative--and, as I said, it makes you think. Odd but satisfying on so many levels.

jacksflicks ***I see a couple of idiots don't like the review. Maybe it's because I misspelled Kierkergaard (corrected). Or maybe they just don't like what they can't comprehend.***I love Pauline Kael. As a film critic, she was the greatest. About Ordet, she said:"Some of us may find it difficult to accept the holy-madman protagonist (driven insane by too close study of Kierkegaard!), and even more difficult to accept Dreyer's use of the protagonist's home as a stage for numerous entrances and exits, and altogether impossible to get involved in the factionalist strife between bright, happy Christianity and dark, gloomy Christianity -- represented as they are by people sitting around drinking vast quantities of coffee."Yes, you could read it that way, if you were a cynic. But that begs the question of the film. (Anyway, they weren't drinking that much coffee.)The question for the current audience was the same for the audience of Kaj Munk's time: Are you going to "face reality" -- the reality of the New Order of the Nazis, or in Dreyer's 1955, the reality of materialism -- or are you going to reach beyond yourself, despite all the evidence, embracing even folly? (Erasmus was asking this centuries ago.)The lesson of Dreyer was the lesson of Kierkegaard. Whether your world view is bright or gloomy, stuff happens anyway. What matters is how you confront it, with faith or despair. I think Munk's and Dreyer's challenge still confronts us in the 21st century.As for Dreyer's success in getting the message across, at first I braced myself for a dour lecture. But I was surprised to find uplifting characters and even humor. Like all Dreyer's films, Ordet is mannered and stylized. But think of Eisenstein. Think of Bergman.Speaking of Bergman, I rather compare Ordet to The Virgin Spring. Both confront grief and end with a miracle.

Cosmoeticadotcom Denmark's Carl Theodor Dreyer was one of the great auteurs of early cinema, and such masterpieces as Vampyr and Day Of Wrath attest to that fact. Many critics, however, have hailed either his earlier silent film, The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, or his later Ordet (The Word) as his greatest work, and while I've never seen the earlier film in a full restoration, having just watched Ordet I can say, uncategorically, that it is not in a league with Vampyr nor Day Of Wrath. This is not to say that the film is a bad one, but it is nowhere near a great one…. Ordet is not even a direct allegory on evil and complicity with it, as was the earlier Day Of Wrath, made during the occupation. In fact, it is not really an allegory at all, merely a simple tale of faith, and a none too original one, at that. Its ending is telegraphed all throughout the film. Its ultimate message, about the power of faith over strict rationality, is also not a new one, and its rendering here is not in the least powerful. Compared to, say, Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light, made only a few years later, this film pales in every measure of comparison. That later film was loaded with vitality, even as it was a despairing film. Despite this film's seemingly upbeat ending (resurrection is a good thing, right?), it has none of the verve nor power Bergman's film has. Its characters never resonate with the viewer the way Bergman's tormented pastor and his scorned lover do, in their anomic faith and intellect, and their probing of it. Nor were Munk nor Dreyer the writers that Bergman is. And, compared to Day Of Wrath's ending, wherein that film's female protagonist's descent, into the insanity of feeling she has become a witch, haunts a viewer with regret, the resurrection of Inger seems too pat an ending, and not too challenging in terms of religion, nor science. To answer, though, that this is because this film is about faith and its necessity doubt, as framed by Kierkegaard, therefore one must suspend disbelief to 'get it', is to let Dreyer's own filmic and writing failures off the hook because those things he was in control of also fail, despite or because of that belief system. I'm sure that there are many critics who have been, and are, more than willing to grant the director such favor, as I read enough of them in my researching the critical reception this film got, but you'll have to look elsewhere for such poor critique. If the Internet bores you, try the books of Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert. I'll be rewatching Vampyr in the meantime. I need its fillip after Ordet.