Ordet

ordet3

Religion is a rich and varied subject for many filmmakers to pursue. Many filmmakers make at least one movie that explores the religious side of society. Sometimes these movies can be hard-hitting satires that point out the hypocrisy of religion. Other times, they can be small lyrical dramas about a person’s internal faith. But most filmmakers do not make their career subject matter the big r word. But most filmmakers aren’t like Th. Carl Dreyer.

Ordet is about two families in a remote part of Denmark. The Borgen family is led by Morten Borgen, a stout farmer who clearly etched out a unique life of his own. He has three sons. Mikkel, the eldest, is married to Inger and they have two children with one ready to burst out. Johannes is the middle one. He has gone mad some years ago after studying too much Kierkegaard and now believes he is Jesus Christ. The third brother, Anders, is a young adult who is in love with Anne, the tailor’s daughter. The other family is the tailor’s family, called the Petersens. The patriarch and proprietor of the business, Peter, is also a very devout fundamentalist Christian. The wife, Kirsten, staunchly stands next to her husband. Anne is the silent, but dutiful daughter.

The main conflict between these two families is Peter Petersen’s refusal to let Anne marry Anders. But this conflict doesn’t really matter. What matters more is Petersen and Borgen’s difference of religion. They are both Christians. Although they are united by one sacred text, their interpretations of this text vary wildly. Petersen is an austere fundamentalist, believing in the need for the sinner (which is everyone) to frequently ask for forgiveness and prostrate oneself in front of the Lord. We see the physical manifestation of his religion at a prayer meeting that he holds. The meeting is somber and full of fire and brimstone rhetoric. He is staunch and resolute in his beliefs. Borgen, however, believes in a joyous and forgiving God. He wants everyone to go to heaven not just the people of his own religion. He talks about religion and faith to Inger early on in the film and we can sense that he has some reservations about it. Although in his youth, he fought for a less strict faith in his community, we can see that this fight has gone out of him. He doubts his faith in God. These conversations that happen between Petersen and Borgen and Borgen and Inger make up most of the film. What is right? What is the perfect path to peace and happiness? No one ever has the answers, but that seems to be okay.

As the film progresses, the lives of these people shift dramatically. Inger is becoming sick from the pregnancy. She is failing fast and the doctor must get the baby out of her in order to save her. Their questions about abstract religion now become very real. Will the power of prayer save this beloved family member? Or will she die? At one point the doctor who is working on Inger sits down next to the priest who has come to visit. He asks a very important question. Did his work and his reliance on science, a very concrete discipline, save Inger? Or did the family’s persistent prayers save her instead and guide God to give the family a miracle? No one knows quite how to answer the question, because they don’t quite know. This is in essence the problem not just with religion, but with life itself. The doctor could have applied every aspect of science that he was taught to try to save her and there was still a strong possibility that she wouldn’t have lived. The world is made up of wild chances and harsh realities.

Of all the characters, it is easiest to sympathize with Inger. Inger has an internal faith that isn’t bound by a Church’s sense of rules. She prays out loud and has faith that prayer will help her brother-in-law, Johannes, become sane again. But she doesn’t force her faith onto her unbelieving husband. She accepts him for who he is and believes that one day he will find true peace, even if it isn’t in the religion she believes in. Her internal light seems to brighten even Morten Borgen. Her illness brings him back to prayer and the belief in his own religion.

Religion is a complicated subject to portray accurately on film. Most of the time characters with religion seem to be a cardboard cut out of very few characteristics. However, Dreyer was able to convey the complexity of religion while also grounding his characters in the reality of his world. The religion of their choosing is just one aspect of their many faceted lives. It is what drives them and completes them but it isn’t all that they are. More filmmakers need to remember that.

Religulous

To be objective in a documentary is very hard, especially when you are well-known for one side of an issue you are exploring. But the mark of a good documentarian is to stay as objective as possible and present the facts how at least you see them. Maybe these facts reinforce your ideas and beliefs, but maybe they also challenge them and cause you and therefore your audience to question their ideas and beliefs. A mark of a bad documentary then would be the exact opposite of this principle. The documentarian is very sure of his ideas and thoughts on a particular subject and seeks out only interview subjects and facts that enforce his views. It is boring to watch and makes you want to punch the man (or woman) in the face for wasting your time. Religulous was definitely one of the latter films.

Bill Maher makes it very clear from the outset that he hates religion. He thinks anyone who is religious is stupid and he seeks out stupid people or people who believe a certain thing to a manic degree and makes them even worse. He interviews the person who made the Creation Museum, a Jew for Jesus, a cannabis minister (I have t admit that I found that interview funny because the minister was just an insanely stoned dude who could only say yes or no and laugh…), the man who plays Jesus at an amusement park, Muslim doctors, and an ex-gay Christian. However interview is a very strong word. Mostly he would ask leading questions and interrupt the answers with a shaking of a head, a goofy smile or some snide comment about the ridiculousness of it all. This  may prove how funny Bill Maher is (and mostly he is not) but it doesn’t actually make me learn anything about the stereotype each interviewee represented. I think that the ex-gay Christian may have been able to say some interesting things if he was given a chance. (I am not pro those groups, I am just saying that I would like to hear his point of view) But he doesn’t give anyone a chance to speak a completed sentence on their beliefs. Instead he is clowning around saying am I not cool, am I not in the right about everything? It is frustrating.

I am sure from the second paragraph, you might think that I am personally religious. I am in fact not. I am an ex-Catholic who does not believe that there is a god. My personal conclusion involved years of doubt and research that I am still working on. So in theory I would be Bill Maher’s target audience for this piece of crap. I should go ahead and laugh at these dim wits and their stupid conclusions about life, but I end up just feeling sorry for them and getting mad at Bill Maher for making these people go through his abuse. It makes me mad that someone would have given Bill any amount of money to make this and then have my liberal friends recommend it to me as a valid discussion piece. It is nothing more than an exercise of stretching Maher’s ego interspersed with media footage of Jesus Christ and John Smith.

I was pretty disappointed by this film if you could not tell from the previous paragraphs. The rousing call at the end of the film for people who are anti religion to rise up and take the reins had the opposite effect for me. I would rather hide in a deep dark hole than have Bill Maher be my spokesperson. He is an angry old man who doesn’t care about the people around him. Who would want that to represent them? It is just as bad as a pedophile priest or Osama Bin Laden standing full a large body of religious folks. I do not want to be judged badly because Bill Maher and I believe the same thing. It is as simple as that.