Carl Theodor Dreyer

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Message
Author
User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#76 Post by Tommaso » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:14 am

Sloper, I tend to agree much with you about the characterization of the prince in "Der Var Engang", and somehow the cruelty doesn't really chime in with what I suppose is his love for Katherine (another massive difference indeed to the Shakespeare play, which may have its dark undertones, but certainly basically plays like a light comedy).
Sloper wrote: but because Dreyer's film is played from the beginning as a comedy, the whole thing gets very uncomfortable very quickly.
Yes, but I'm no longer so sure whether our impression that this would be a light comedy isn't just deception on Dreyer's part. Perhaps the two 'tones' of the film don't coalesce as well as they should do (as they indeed do in "The Parson's Widow"), but as said before: the film might appear, even in the beginning, to be lighter than it originally was. The missing 'Seasons in Denmark' sequence, which I assume was very much an elegiac mood piece, might have put things in perspective, so that the shift from comedy to seriousness wouldn't have come as suddenly or as surprisingly as it does now. But that must remain speculation (and leads me to complain about the absence of any background information on the film and its origins in a booklet or audiocommentary; that goes for the other DFI discs as well).

Good to hear that you changed your opinion on Brand a little, here and with the Christensen disc. I agree though that there might be more variety among composers who should be invited to do the scores for films like these. For instance, I was a little let down by Brand's score for "Mitchell and Kenyon in Ireland" after In The Nursery's sublime score for "Electric Edwardians". But you can't always have top-notch scores and individual invitations for musicians who are normally also doing other things; Brand is solid and reliable almost always, whereas Sosin is very hit and miss, and if he misses, he tends to do it quite thoroughly....

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#77 Post by Sloper » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:10 pm

[Late response due to internet having been down...]
HerrSchreck wrote:Sloper, I don't think this is quite fair. You're sounding wounded and quite a bit bitter with me. Remember, you wanted to have this discussion. You initiated this one on one with me, so the tone of victimization sounds a bit off color to me.
Schreck, it wasn't really intended as a tone of victimisation; I felt I was just doing you the same courtesy you did me, of explaining what I felt was wrong with your objections to my objections to, er...whatever it was we started out on. I did want to have this discussion, and have wanted to for a while - this is the kind of thing my sad life revolves around - and I suppose given that you're pretty much the only person around here (along with Itfontaine) who's expressed enthusiasm for Leaves From Satan's Book, and given that you're also something of a Griffith fan, I thought it might be a subject of interest to you as well. For future reference, if you don't want to have the discussion that's fine; no need to force the wheaties upon yourself. Also for future reference, if I seem combative then please chalk it up to my enthusiasm for conversation, and my tendency to argue a case as though invading a small country; it's just the thing I do. To me it's a sign of respect to the person whose arguments I'm engaging with, but I realise tone is hard to gauge on the internet, so I apologise if the CRT scan came off as hostile. The tone of bitterness was mostly to do with confusion about where the discussion had gone. At a time when I'm having half-waking fever dreams in which I'm investigating the Zodiac murder case and my bedclothes are heaps of indecipherable evidence through which I'm trying to sift, while a nearby clothes-horse admonishes me to spend more time with my loved ones, being told that I was 'tumbling into a pit of extrapolation of my own making' just isn't going to go down well. Nor is being called 'doggie', for that matter. But I'm not actually hurt, nor do I feel victimised. Glad you survived the pig-cold, I've been avoiding all my 'unclean' friends like the plague (literally), but it turns out no man can outrun his destiny. [cough, splutter]

Itfontaine, thanks for your informative post. Staggering through the library the other day, I took another look at Bordwell myself, and from his account it sounds like Edgar Hoyer wrote the Leaves screenplay in 1918, not 1913, so perhaps after seeing Intolerance. And as you say, Dreyer did a lot of work on it himself, much to Hoyer's annoyance (especially expanding the Christ episode and reducing Marie Antoinette's role), but Bordwell also says that Hoyer received much of the credit for the film's quality, at least from some quarters. And with regard to the Finnish episode, there's a quote from a review calling the film 'one long scream against the reds', and comparing it unfavourably with Intolerance on the basis of Dreyer's 'less progressive' attitude towards the workers. Odd to think of him being regarded as a political film-maker, when even Day of Wrath he claimed had nothing to do with the Nazi occupation. Reading your quote from Dreyer again reminded me how much Griffith there is in that final part of Leaves, especially the climax: Siri taking the knife from the table, and the subsequent extreme close-up, is pure Mae Marsh in Intolerance. And Clara Wieth is just as rewarding to watch in close-up...
Tommaso wrote:I'm no longer so sure whether our impression that [Der Var Engang] would be a light comedy isn't just deception on Dreyer's part. Perhaps the two 'tones' of the film don't coalesce as well as they should do (as they indeed do in "The Parson's Widow"), but as said before: the film might appear, even in the beginning, to be lighter than it originally was. The missing 'Seasons in Denmark' sequence, which I assume was very much an elegiac mood piece, might have put things in perspective, so that the shift from comedy to seriousness wouldn't have come as suddenly or as surprisingly as it does now.
You're depressingly right about this. On a second viewing I realised this was a big part of what made me dislike the film: the simple fact that I can't see it. It's like when someone stands up in front of you in the cinema, except that here it happens over and over again and for long stretches of time. Whenever I watch The Parson's Widow, that bit at the beginning about the waterfall just melts me straight away, establishing exactly the right mood and subtly, lyrically setting up the film's whole philosophy. And it's bliss from there on in. As you say, the 'seasons in Denmark' passage no doubt served a similar purpose. Der Var Engang makes me uncomfortable in a similar way to Master of the House (I guess I don't like stories about a person being forced to change their ways, can't even begin to think why...) but that film is so perfectly formed, so unified and coherent down to the last detail, that any personal aversions fade into insignificance. Oh well, life is pain.
Tommaso wrote:Sosin is very hit and miss, and if he misses, he tends to do it quite thoroughly....
Quite. The naffness of his King of Kings score is not wholly inappropriate, and sort of adds to the experience (when the choir came in I nearly fell off my chair). But I can't forgive him for Spione...

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#78 Post by ltfontaine » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:30 am

Tommaso wrote:I'm no longer so sure whether our impression that [Der Var Engang] would be a light comedy isn't just deception on Dreyer's part. Perhaps the two 'tones' of the film don't coalesce as well as they should do (as they indeed do in "The Parson's Widow"), but as said before: the film might appear, even in the beginning, to be lighter than it originally was. The missing 'Seasons in Denmark' sequence, which I assume was very much an elegiac mood piece, might have put things in perspective, so that the shift from comedy to seriousness wouldn't have come as suddenly or as surprisingly as it does now.
sloper wrote:You're depressingly right about this. On a second viewing I realised this was a big part of what made me dislike the film: the simple fact that I can't see it. It's like when someone stands up in front of you in the cinema, except that here it happens over and over again and for long stretches of time. Whenever I watch The Parson's Widow, that bit at the beginning about the waterfall just melts me straight away, establishing exactly the right mood and subtly, lyrically setting up the film's whole philosophy. And it's bliss from there on in. As you say, the 'seasons in Denmark' passage no doubt served a similar purpose. Der Var Engang makes me uncomfortable in a similar way to Master of the House (I guess I don't like stories about a person being forced to change their ways, can't even begin to think why...) but that film is so perfectly formed, so unified and coherent down to the last detail, that any personal aversions fade into insignificance. Oh well, life is pain.
The incomplete “Der Var Engang,” especially the cobbled-together second half, does leave us in the dark somewhat about the film’s shift in tone. Perhaps even more than in the seasonal montage, this mood swing might have been accounted for in the missing sections during which Smokehat and the king negotiate the princess’s exile, and the early scenes of the prince and princess’s trek to Denmark. (And the two substantial scenes between Smokehat and the king, both missing, would probably have given us a more satisfying sense of his character.) As it is, the midpoint jump is undeniably jarring.

But isn’t the comic content of Dreyer’s silent films always balanced against the darker side of human nature, bordering cruelty? What other term would we apply to Sofrin’s attempts to hasten the demise of Margarete Pedersdotter in “The Parson’s Widow?” I wince rather than laugh every time he dons that Satan costume in attempt to scare her to death, and especially when he moves the ladder to the loft, even though the intertitle implies—disingenuously, I think—that he was hoping to detain her up there while he visited Mari. Some parson! (Dame Margarete’s failure to react more strongly to these ruses is almost as implausible as the congregation permitting Sofrin to marry his “sister” after the old widow dies, but that’s showbiz.) And isn’t the entire domestic setup of “Master of the House,” Dreyer’s one boxoffice hit, just dreadfully depressing? The wonder is that the warmth of these films, in their last acts, not only redeems the foregoing darkness, but lends the films a depth and complexity that they would otherwise lack, the sense that, as Tommaso says, “there's more profundity in it than might at first be apparent.” In comedy as in drama, Dreyer’s dictum stands: “suffering always leads to ennoblement.”
sloper wrote:Odd to think of him being regarded as a political film-maker, when even Day of Wrath he claimed had nothing to do with the Nazi occupation.
I wonder if the specifics of Dryer’s politics would be less elusive if someone would collect and publish his early journalism, including the satirical, often scathing, columns for "Ekstra Bladet." The anti-revolutionary stance of the French and Finnish sequences of “Leaves” which prompted criticism from the left may boil down to Dreyer’s aversion to dogmatic brutality, equivalent to that of the Spanish inquisitors in the earlier section of the film. Dreyer’s ideological views beyond that are obscure, except as reflected in his increasingly public, outspoken statements and actions opposing anti-Semitism, particularly as this conviction grounded his determination to make the Jesus film. In this context he did draw explicit parallels between the political environments in which Christ was crucified and the Nazis occupied Denmark, with emphasis on the despicable roles of respective Jewish and Danish collaborators.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#79 Post by Sloper » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:56 am

Very well said, Itfontaine - Ordet, which by Dreyer's standards is a comedy, is the crowning example of that darkness/light balance you're talking about, although there the cruelty consists largely in the inexplicable pain of Inger's labour, or Johannes' madness; the human cruelty, in the form of religious intolerance, is for the most part comical rather than painful. And the one moment of genuine cruelty (Peter's remark after the news of Inger's illness) is repented of and forgiven very quickly.

I think that's why I don't have a problem with The Parson's Widow: Sofren and his fiancee are comic figures, our sympathies are with them for much of the film (and indeed we're supposed to see their situation, and the witch-like widow herslef, as rather cruel), and most importantly they never actually manage to inflict any cruelty on the old woman. Both the Satan costume and the moving of the stepladder are childish and thoughtless rather than outright evil. Yes, the intertitle about the stepladder seems disingenuous, but the point after all is that it is Mari, not the widow, who gets hurt by this. It's the young couple who are ennobled through suffering - suffering which, as it turns out, the widow had to pass through when she was young as well. So I think the couple are very much figured as children to be chastised and forgiven rather than as would-be killers. This story of the 'triumph of the soul over the body' which obsessed Dreyer is often told in the guise of a story about the growth from childhood to maturity. The same is also true of the child-like Viktor in Master of the House, but that's a much more complicated and troubling film - and, I agree, kind of depressing in its early reels. Again, though, it's his suffering that's ennobling, not the treatment he doles out to his family. If suffering is ennobling, cruelty never is.

And that's the problem I have with Der Var Engang: it follows the same pattern as Master (cruel character gets taste of own medicine, matures and mellows) but it's never established why the prince is in a position to dispense this lesson, because we never know him as anything other than this cold-eyed avenging angel. That's where the ending should have come in, I guess. But in the existing material it's the lack of good humour in his behaviour that makes it seem merely cruel. The widow and the old nurse are fierce, no doubt, but they don't teach people lessons by putting their lives in danger.

But I'm sure you're right that the uncomfortable aspects of the story are there to be overcome, just as the unfathomable behaviour of Joan of Arc or Gertrud is supposed to lead to a higher, more refined perspective on life, in which suffering is all incorporated into the process of growth from materiality to transcendence. (Or something like that.) You really do need the 'warmth' of those last scenes for this process to make sense, though.

Thanks for the comments on Dreyer's political views, too. The 'aversion to dogmatic brutality' certainly suggests more common ground with Griffith!

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#80 Post by ltfontaine » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:32 pm

Sloper, I hasten to assure that I don't have a problem with “The Parson’s Widow;” I think it’s funny, handsomely detailed and beautifully directed. I like the fact that Dreyer lets us in on the young couple’s homicidal intentions, and sends the Illyrian princess’s rejected suitors to the gallows, and rubs our noses in Viktor Frandsen’s sullen meanness, and equivocates about the sexual relationships in Michael, and reveals a reluctant Satan—all to open the respective film’s narratives to richer possibilities and indeterminate conclusions. From the beginning, Dreyer denies closure, defies assumptions and insists on film’s unique capacity to carry multiple, simultaneous meanings. (Although, with regard to the intermittent bad behavior of the prince and princess in “Der Var Engang” those Danish fairy tales are pretty dark and bloody to begin with!)

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#81 Post by Tommaso » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:24 pm

ltfontaine wrote:Dreyer’s ideological views beyond that are obscure, except as reflected in his increasingly public, outspoken statements and actions opposing anti-Semitism, particularly as this conviction grounded his determination to make the Jesus film.
Well, "Die Gezeichneten" speaks for itself in this respect, I think. I know little about Dreyer, the man; he seems to have been so reclusive about his personal life and about his opinions, but if his films are any indication, they show a man who was carefully balancing 'wrong' and 'right' and was abhorrent of any sort of ideology or fanaticism. Thus I very much think your assessment of the Finnish episode in "Leaves" is to the point; there's an overarching humanity in his works that would defy any attempt to make them 'legible' for an ideological stance; but that doesn't mean that he would have simply subscribed to a social or political status quo; these were just not questions that interested him in his films.

Now, this recent discussion made me decide that I should revisit some of Dreyer's films rather sooner than later, despite of what the nagging kevyip says, and while I haven't seen "Master of the House" again (though my memory makes me tend to agree with everything what you say, ltfontaine), I treated myself to "Ordet" again the night before yesterday. And well, after that viewing experience, I'm rather surprised about this:
Sloper wrote:Very well said, Itfontaine - Ordet, which by Dreyer's standards is a comedy, is the crowning example of that darkness/light balance you're talking about, although there the cruelty consists largely in the inexplicable pain of Inger's labour, or Johannes' madness; the human cruelty, in the form of religious intolerance, is for the most part comical rather than painful. And the one moment of genuine cruelty (Peter's remark after the news of Inger's illness) is repented of and forgiven very quickly.
Even if you qualify your statement by saying "by Dreyer's standards", I still cannot quite see why you would call that film a comedy, unless you have Dante in mind. The religious intolerance has rather painful effects on the youngest son and his beloved, for instance; and I wouldn't connect Johannes' madness with cruelty at all; but neither is he a light or comical figure in my view. What the film tries to show is the sudden re-appearance of real faith and miracles in a world that has totally given up on the concept, either by atheism or by religious dogma, which has nothing to do with faith as I understand it, but with laws. That repentance and forgiveness are there is true, but that is only because Inger's labour and (momentary) death are used by God - or whatever you want to call the force that is at work here - is a catalyst for reconsideration for the two old people and also for the eldest son to a degree. Dreyer's film seems to say that Johannes, while appearing to be mad, is actually closer to the truth and the reality of the way the universe works than all the other characters in the film. After all, his faith and the little girls in the end make the 'miracle' happen. Put this way, the 'message' of the film appears much more banal than it of course is; Dreyer's characterisations and the way he creates precise moods and meanings by his camera set-up and lighting, and not least the sound (I couldn't help thinking that the wind sounds we hear often are meant to signify the Holy Spirit, or pneuma (wind)) far exceed such a quick summary. But anyway, despite of the 'happy ending', I simply find the film too serious to call it a comedy, despite that line about Kierkegaard, which really made me smile. But perhaps it's just a matter of how you define the term.
Sloper wrote:And that's the problem I have with Der Var Engang: it follows the same pattern as Master (cruel character gets taste of own medicine, matures and mellows) but it's never established why the prince is in a position to dispense this lesson, because we never know him as anything other than this cold-eyed avenging angel. That's where the ending should have come in, I guess. But in the existing material it's the lack of good humour in his behaviour that makes it seem merely cruel. The widow and the old nurse are fierce, no doubt, but they don't teach people lessons by putting their lives in danger.
Yeah, I quite agree with that, and it's not quite clear why he doesn't reveal what's going on to Katherine much earlier in the film, too. The film, simply by way of narrative and plot, requires much more suspension of disbelief than any other Dreyer film. In the case of the prince, I also don't believe that if we had the complete film, our impressions of him would change much. Again, it would be interesting to read the source play here. I somehow think the fault is to be found there rather than with Dreyer (but that's not meant as an excuse, even if he should have slavishly followed the text of that play). In other words: we need an MoC edition of that film with an 80-page booklet to give us all the background info that the DFI sorely needs. Which reminds me: Nick once wrote a review of the disc which gives us at least some more info and which can be found here.
ltfontaine wrote: (Although, with regard to the intermittent bad behavior of the prince and princess in “Der Var Engang” those Danish fairy tales are pretty dark and bloody to begin with!)
Now DON'T tempt me to watch "The Red Shoes" yet another time... :wink:

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#82 Post by ltfontaine » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:20 pm

Tommaso wrote:there's an overarching humanity in his works that would defy any attempt to make them 'legible' for an ideological stance; but that doesn't mean that he would have simply subscribed to a social or political status quo; these were just not questions that interested him in his films.
Tommaso, I think this is exactly so. What did interest Dreyer in his films was the question of what it is to be human. Because no solution is possible, he chose to meditate on the inquiry itself and found film an excellent medium in which to do so.

As for the notion of “Ordet” as comedy, I’m more or less with you. The conflict between Inner Mission vs. Grundtvigian Christianity out in Jutland just doesn’t tickle me like it should. Johannes unhinged does make for some jolly moments, but mostly the film appeals to me as great drama and, in the end, a powerful act of faith—creative, religious and otherwise. I do recall an astute friend naming “Ordet” as his favorite film, which he thinks is terribly funny, so sloper is in good company.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#83 Post by Sloper » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:14 pm

Tommaso wrote:Even if you qualify your statement by saying "by Dreyer's standards", I still cannot quite see why you would call that film a comedy, unless you have Dante in mind. The religious intolerance has rather painful effects on the youngest son and his beloved, for instance; and I wouldn't connect Johannes' madness with cruelty at all; but neither is he a light or comical figure in my view.
Yes, if I felt like being cheered up I wouldn't exactly throw myself at Ordet. (Although I did think Medea was an absolute scream, so who knows...) And it's by far the most harrowing of all Dreyer's films (that I've seen), really the only one that can bring tears to my eyes. And the scenes of Inger's labour, which are not in Kaj Munk's play, are almost unwatchable. Generally, as with Gertrud, the reduction of the script to its bare essentials gives the whole thing a very spare, bleak tone: in the play, for instance, Johannes is much more chatty, and his initial encounter with the parson seems intended to be more funny and absurd than chilling, as it is in the film. And it isn't saying much to point out that Ordet is cheerier than Day of Wrath and Gertrud...

Still, I do think it's a sort of tragicomedy - similar to The Winter's Tale in at least one really obvious way. The story about Anders and Anne is absolutely the stuff of comedy, not just because it ends happily but because the scenes concerned with it - Inger and Morten having coffee, Morten's sudden change of mind when Peter has rejected Anders, Morten and Peter having coffee and smoking together while the young lovers sit in the kitchen being watched over by Anne's mother - are consistently played, if not for laughs exactly, then for a certain gentle humour. There's something really touching about how courteous everyone is when Morten and Anders interrupt the prayer meeting, and even when the dispute becomes heated you can't help but feel that these people all mean well, and that things will turn out okay in the end. I think the religious dispute between the two patriarchs is something we're supposed to shake our heads over, rather than regard as some portentous clash of the titans, or Montague/Capulet situation. The futility of their disagreement is not tragic, nor even very dramatic - it just seems silly, and as Tommaso suggests, it isn't really their faith that divides them, just their mutual absorption in lesser things, points of dogma. I don't think the repentance and forgiveness comes because of Inger's death; rather, Inger's death reveals that Peter did not really mean what he said, and that Morten doesn't really hold it against him. Their dispute is trivial, and when serious misfortune occurs they both acknowledge that triviality to focus on important things and do right by each other.

The cruelty I mentioned was that inflicted upon Inger and Johannes - and the other Borgens, through these two - by nature, or by God. Human evil often sends a person running to faith and transcendence, which is essentially what Gertrud is about, but it's the random pain of existence that has visited suffering on the characters in Ordet, and this is why Mikkel and Borgen have lost or are losing their faith. But just as the dispute with Peter turns out to be trivial, and a distraction from life's blessings and all that, so Johannes' 'madness' and Inger's suffering have simply to be seen from a different perspective for them to take their places in the divinely ordered comedy of existence (maybe comparison with Dante isn't too misguided!) The ending isn't happy simply because Inger comes back to life - it would still be happy if she died again, which of course she will - but because she can be brought back to life, and because of the affirmation this gives to the characters' faith. In some of Dreyer's films, the suffering, torture, death, betrayal, etc conclude by transfiguring the protagonist into a higher plane of existence; in others, as Itfontaine said above, the suffering ennobles the character in a more mundane way, and they learn to re-adjust their values, recognise the blessings they had all along, and so on. In Ordet, the harrowing pain we see is meant, ultimately, to make us smile through our tears. It's very much a quiet Dreyer-smile, which must quickly sink back into an expression of stoic gloom - but a smile all the same.

Maybe that's why it's one of my least favourite Dreyers. Essentially it's an optimistic film, and that's a tone he only really pulled off, I think, in The Parson's Widow. Otherwise his style - especially in the late films, with their obsessively long takes and prowling camera moves and menacing shadows - just doesn't seem suited to material that should, I think, be played with a light touch. I'd love to see the 1940s version with Victor Sjostrom as old Borgen. I imagine he must have hammed it up a bit more, whereas Dreyer's actors are all so bloody authentic, and you feel so immersed in the harsh reality of their lives, that there's no chance of ordinary entertainment - you either get shaken to your core or you switch off. Tommaso, I'm fully with your reading of the film, and with the idea that Dreyer makes it transcend its apparent religiosity, but by the same token I think this can obscure the often light-hearted tone of the underlying material. I don't exactly mean to criticise the film, by the way - on its own terms it's perfect - just explaining what I meant by calling it a 'comedy'.

It's not like I hear a laughter track while I'm watching it. Though come to think of it, Johannes is a bit like Kramer...

User avatar
mikkelmark
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:00 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#84 Post by mikkelmark » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:22 am

Sloper wrote: It's not like I hear a laughter track while I'm watching it. Though come to think of it, Johannes is a bit like Kramer...
Johannes is like Kramer in slowmotion. I think the stuff that makes "Ordet" special for Dreyer, is how funny it is. Even with Dreyer making some changes in the film, that makes it seem much more serious than Kaj Munks original play, it still is packed with funny moments. People in general speaks unaturalistic in Dreyers movie, I dont mean what they say, but the way its pronounced, its often slowed down and sounds kinda majeastic. Just the way Johannes speaks, is hilarious, its kinda cheap shots all his lines. I dont know how it sounds for non-danes. Its kinda ironic because Dreyer wanted Johannes voice to be the way it is, because he had met a man locked up in an asylum, who thought he was christ and spoke like that, so it was to be naturalistic, but doesnt sound that way. Also because of how fun "Ordet" was, it ended up being the only commercial succes Dreyer achieved in Denmark.

The Dreyer i like the most is "Gertrud". The ideals that Gertrud stands by, even at a high cost, same can be said about Dreyer himself. Also i often wondered how, during the conversations some how the dialog is highlighted by the slowness of the voices, and how many single sentenses could be taken out, and still have great value.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#85 Post by Tommaso » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:29 am

Sloper, thanks for pointing out the differences to Munk's play; I always suspected that Dreyer - in his usual fashion – infused the play with incidents and stylistic devices (the absence of chattiness most of all) very much his own; using the play perhaps only as a starting point for his own agenda.

Sloper wrote: Still, I do think it's a sort of tragicomedy - similar to The Winter's Tale in at least one really obvious way.
The Shakespeare comparison is very interesting because it points to the near-impossibility of placing the film into a generic concept like comedy or tragedy. With the four late Shakespare plays, scholars have always felt an uneasiness accepting the placement in those two categories in the First Folio. Thus later, terms like "tragicomedies" or "romances" came up. I feel uncomfortable with these, too, and simply would call these plays "The Late Plays" without feeling the need to pigeonhole them anymore, though there are certain similarities of course, for instance an emphasis on reconciliation. The latter, of course, is also at the heart of "Ordet". The gentle humour you mention in the scenes with Anders and Anne is most significant, and as you emphasize that all these people mean well in the end, the gentleness is the more important aspect here than the humour. Dreyer, similar to Renoir, never judges his characters, but seems to accept their occasional 'silliness' and wants us to see the humanity (with all its flaws) beneath it.

Sloper wrote:I don't think the repentance and forgiveness comes because of Inger's death; rather, Inger's death reveals that Peter did not really mean what he said, and that Morten doesn't really hold it against him. Their dispute is trivial, and when serious misfortune occurs they both acknowledge that triviality to focus on important things and do right by each other.
You have a point there; on the other hand wars have been fought over such trivial differences of faith; it's hard for me to decide whether the differences between Peter and Morten are truly important for them or are just kept up out of stubbornness.
Sloper wrote: In Ordet, the harrowing pain we see is meant, ultimately, to make us smile through our tears. It's very much a quiet Dreyer-smile, which must quickly sink back into an expression of stoic gloom - but a smile all the same.
I'm not so sure about the sinking back into stoic gloom in this film, and in this respect I see "Ordet" as indeed being different to "Day of Wrath" and , to a lesser degree, to "Gertrud" (which, IIRC, ends with at least a glimpse of reconciliation, too). "Ordet", as you say, is an optimistic film in the end, despite its serious tone and meditative slowness which might cause you to think it's missing a light touch. It indeed misses that touch for most of its running time, with the exceptions you yourself have mentioned, but I don't find it particularly 'heavy' either. It's just often difficult (especially on a first viewing) to attune oneself to Dreyer's perfection and control of his material; sometimes these films feel a little 'super-human' in this respect. But it's precisely this extreme artistic assuredness and accomplishment which makes me admire these films so very much. And given the subject matter and Dreyer's treatment of it, it still feels to be the most accessible of the three late Dreyer films. Also, seeing the early Dreyer films has certainly helped to put things into perspective for me. I not only see much of the typical Dreyer themes and stylistic devices in his early films already, but vice versa also see how the perfection of his late works has been built up from his beginnings, and how there are always still glimpses of his early films in the late ones. In other words: late Dreyer seems no longer as austere and forbidding to me as formerly.

Sloper wrote: It's not like I hear a laughter track while I'm watching it. Though come to think of it, Johannes is a bit like Kramer...
I don't know who Kramer is, but what occured to me is that you could easily parody and ridicule Johannes' way of speaking, and by extension, many key moments of the film itself. The same goes for the relentless 'staring' in "Gertrud". Dreyer surely walked a very thin line here, and its another testament to his greatness that he not only dared to take these risks (of which he surely was aware) and succeeded where most other directors would surely have failed miserably.

Mikkelmark, I only saw your post when typing this one. I know about the asylum story, and curiously I think it is indeed naturalistic given that the character of Johannes is supposed to be mad (but I'm not Danish, so I can't tell how 'funny' this way of speaking would sound for a native speaker). Johannes' delivery rather seems 'strange', 'unearthly' if you like. At least I guess that is what Dreyer had in mind, and for me, as said above, he succeeded.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#86 Post by Sloper » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:58 am

Thanks for the context, mikkelmark - I remember Preben Lerdorff Rye expressing some (tongue-in-cheek) bitterness over the criticisms of his strange voice, since this was an accurate reproduction of the real-life 'insane Jesus'. As Tommaso says, Gertrud also skirts very close to silliness and self-parody at times, and I think for the same reason. That scene where Gertrud and Jansson are sitting in the dark room, and she's doing the whole 'mouth, clouds, all a dream' bit while gazing off into the distance, with Jansson listening avidly (the actor said they did the scene so many times he ended up croaking his lines like a little girl, and there is something of that in the scene)... It should be really funny, in all the wrong ways. And indeed, I think Jansson regards all this with contempt, if not at the time then certainly afterwards - just as the other characters in Ordet roll their eyes at Johannes. It's all connected, again, to what Itfontaine was saying earlier about re-adjusting one's perception so that suffering and death - or in this case the seemingly 'insane' utterances of Johannes and Gertrud - come to have great meaning and value. The rather severe implication in these films is that if we can't see the sense in all this, or if we just find it amusing, then we're not looking hard enough, or in the right way. But by the same token, as you're suggesting mikkelmark, that amusement is an important element in our response to Johannes - we need to see things from the other characters' point of view in order for the film to work. Gertrud is more demanding: I really think you need to be on her side from the beginning, or the whole thing is just mystifying.
Tommaso wrote:The gentle humour you mention in the scenes with Anders and Anne is most significant, and as you emphasize that all these people mean well in the end, the gentleness is the more important aspect here than the humour. Dreyer, similar to Renoir, never judges his characters, but seems to accept their occasional 'silliness' and wants us to see the humanity (with all its flaws) beneath it.
Very astute comparison: I'm still getting into Renoir, but this made me think of La Chienne, Partie de Campagne and Regle du Jeu, which are all approach fairly depressing subject matter with a wonderfully light touch. They're certainly more 'comic' than Ordet, but most of the time I don't find them especially funny - that warmth and generosity towards the characters is what generates the humour, such as it is, and places the murders, lost loves and other tragedies in a wider context. I'm sure Renoir's perspective was very different from Dreyer's in lots of other ways, but don't know his work well enough to comment. In any case, I agree that it's a mistake to try and 'pigeonhole' such films.
Tommaso wrote:I'm not so sure about the sinking back into stoic gloom in this film, and in this respect I see "Ordet" as indeed being different to "Day of Wrath" and , to a lesser degree, to "Gertrud" (which, IIRC, ends with at least a glimpse of reconciliation, too).
I meant more the stoic gloom he slipped back into in Gertrud, although I think that Ordet's happy ending is about as austere and restrained as they come. As for the ending of Gertrud, I do think it's a moment of hard-won peace, but that, as in Joan of Arc or Day of Wrath, it's the peace of death (hence the final recurrence of the tolling bell).
Tommaso wrote:Also, seeing the early Dreyer films has certainly helped to put things into perspective for me. I not only see much of the typical Dreyer themes and stylistic devices in his early films already, but vice versa also see how the perfection of his late works has been built up from his beginnings, and how there are always still glimpses of his early films in the late ones. In other words: late Dreyer seems no longer as austere and forbidding to me as formerly.
Same here. I didn't get into Dreyer until I saw Michael, and then all the rest just clicked. However, apart from the prowling tracking shots in Day of Wrath - which seem to come straight out of one of the silents - I tend to feel those three late masterpieces are in a different world stylistically. The silents are clearly films by a '20s director at the top of his game, and regarded as such by contemporaries - they're sort of 'in tune' with what was being done at the time - whereas the late films seem (and I don't mean this in a bad way) like they were made by a man who hadn't made a film for a very long time. Hence, I guess, the complaints from Bergman (anyone know what he actually said about Dreyer?) and others about the 'ponderousness' of these films, and the 'senility' of Gertrud. I can see where those criticisms are coming from, and think this goes back to the issue of whether you find people like Johannes and Gertrud 'ponderous' or whether you find them deep and meaningful. Even the style of these late films challenges us to re-think the way we look at and listen to the world, or to people or art. Gertrud is, in one sense, Dreyer's most amateurish film, but in another sense his most highly developed. I genuinely have moments, while watching these three late films, when I think to myself: 'is this really as good as it's cracked up to be?' It sounds awful, I know - and I hasten to add that I always come away reassured in the end - but I like to think such lapses of faith are integral to what Dreyer is doing. These films are the sort of thing an artist can only (safely) do in his late years, and I never have any such moments while watching his early work.

Kramer, by the way, is a character in the American sitcom Seinfeld. He bursts in through doors, is greeted by loud applause from the audience, and comes out with loveable non-sequiturs. Just for a moment, Johannes made me think of him. Now Ordet will never look the same.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#87 Post by Tommaso » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:59 am

Thanks for telling me about Kramer. You know, I practically never watch any TV series...
Anyway...
Sloper wrote:
But by the same token, as you're suggesting mikkelmark, that amusement is an important element in our response to Johannes - we need to see things from the other characters' point of view in order for the film to work. Gertrud is more demanding: I really think you need to be on her side from the beginning, or the whole thing is just mystifying.
True, and because you know it's a Dreyer film, you implicitly trust the director and the seriousness of his way of presenting things; it would be interesting to know how an audience totally unacquainted with Dreyer or perhaps even to slow, artsy kind of films would react to "Gertrud". Would they simply be bored, angry, or would they indeed find it laughable? As to "Ordet": you seem to read the reaction of the other characters to Johannes a little differently than I do. While I agree that we certainly need to see things from both Johannes' and the others' perspective, I don't think they react to Johannes' madness with amusement. They don't believe him, of course, and are mystified about why he behaves like that and thus consider him mad, but they're not making fun of him and more or less accept that he is how he is (but of course they don't much care for what he says). When Johannes disappears for a while near the end of the film, I think their anxiety is genuine. Okay, again we have the question of how to define 'amusement'.
Sloper wrote: I'm still getting into Renoir, but this made me think of La Chienne, Partie de Campagne and Regle du Jeu, which are all approach fairly depressing subject matter with a wonderfully light touch. They're certainly more 'comic' than Ordet, but most of the time I don't find them especially funny - that warmth and generosity towards the characters is what generates the humour, such as it is, and places the murders, lost loves and other tragedies in a wider context. I'm sure Renoir's perspective was very different from Dreyer's in lots of other ways, but don't know his work well enough to comment.
I haven't seen "La Chienne", but what you write goes for a lot of Renoir; it's especially apparent in the actually rather depressing story of "Boudu" which is wonderfully balanced with some almost anarchic humour (and thus I find much in the film indeed truly funny). And I think that the generosity you mention is something that Renoir and Dreyer indeed have in common, though Dreyer seems to be far more intellectual and colder on the surface, whereas Renoir often much more overtly celebrates the joy of life.

Sloper wrote: Same here. I didn't get into Dreyer until I saw Michael, and then all the rest just clicked.
I guess I was lucky enough to start with "Vampyr", which completely mystified me at the time (and still occasionally does), but which had enough simply fascinating images to draw me in. But I indeed had difficulties 'getting' late Dreyer like "Day of Wrath" and especially "Gertrud", and it's only relatively recently and after watching them several times that I have come to understand them better. And yes, they are stylistically different to his earlier work, but more in terms of evolution than of a radical break. "Ordet" still retains so much of the elaborate lighting and purely visual language that you see in silents (not just Dreyer's) and which had become somewhat rare in the 50s (no need to mention the many exceptions to this rule, of course :wink:).
Sloper wrote: Hence, I guess, the complaints from Bergman (anyone know what he actually said about Dreyer?) and others about the 'ponderousness' of these films, and the 'senility' of Gertrud. I can see where those criticisms are coming from, and think this goes back to the issue of whether you find people like Johannes and Gertrud 'ponderous' or whether you find them deep and meaningful.
Exactly, and while I don't know the exact Bergman quote either, I'm surprised to hear the director of "Winter Light" and "The Silence" complaining about ponderousness. Surely Bergman also asked us to take the problems of his characters seriously and find them meaningful, and of course he mostly succeeded. But I sense some touch of oedipality here; if Bergman's work resembles that of any other director of the time, and with which it cannot quite compete, it must be Dreyer's.
Sloper wrote: It sounds awful, I know - and I hasten to add that I always come away reassured in the end - but I like to think such lapses of faith are integral to what Dreyer is doing. These films are the sort of thing an artist can only (safely) do in his late years, and I never have any such moments while watching his early work.
This forcibly reminds me of my reactions to Scott Walker's "The Drift" every time I replay that album. It's undeniably great, perfectly composed and executed and so on, but it seems also to be pushing the boundaries in a way in which it almost becomes self-parody. I never really had those lapses of faith with Dreyer, not even with "Gertrud", but the only reason for this might be that I ascribed my 'not-getting' of the film to my own 'weakness' or cinematic inexperience and didn't dare to blame Dreyer. As my reaction to the film has changed over the years and I'm finding it better every time I (try) to watch it, I guess I must have been right.

But another film I don't really seem to 'get' is "Master of the House". I gave it a spin again last night, and still cannot quite see why this film is deemed to be so exceptional. The story of the husband mistreating his wife and later learning that he was wrong doesn't seem all too original to me. Perhaps I'm just not very much into domestic dramas, but it seems that the marital problems or the general problem of the husband's behaviour more or less remains in this domestic sphere, and that there's little in the sense of dealing with the 'bigger topics'. Yes, there's a lot of humour, the acting is excellent for the most part (though I occasionally find Johannes Meyer's Victor a tad wooden), the story is believable and subtle and so on. But the film just doesn't involve me as much as other Dreyer films do, even on a purely visual level there are far less 'attractions', though I would assume that the film has lost a lot of its impact due to the very battered print (which almost looks like 16mm occasionally) that was used for the BFI disc (and probably all other releases, too). I think it's a good film, no doubt, but I'm just not totally crazy about it.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#88 Post by Sloper » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:02 am

I don't think the characters are amused by Johannes exactly, but they're quite sardonic about him: and there's a good deal of bitterness in their response when Inger dies but he doesn't, almost as if they wish he would die. That's outweighed by their enormous concern for him, of course, but there is a certain wry contempt in the way they talk about him. His condition, after all, is the origin of the 'no, it was Kierkegaard' comment.

You make a good point about trusting the director: that's why it's so important that Gertrud is his last film (who knows what the Jesus project would have been like...?), because it does sort of depend on the laurels it's resting on. That's not to say that it doesn't work on its own terms, but I'm sure what pulled a lot of people (including me, and I guess you) through it that first time was the awareness of Dreyer's previous achievement.

I didn't mention Boudu because I do find it genuinely very funny in a way that I don't with Renoir's other films, but yes it surely has that same sense of balance and generosity: people sometimes call it, and especially Regle du Jeu, 'scathing', but they don't strike me like that when I watch them. There may be a lot of discomfiting social critique going on, but it seems more in sorrow (and amusement) than in anger. But perhaps at the time (especially on the eve of WWII), it seemed different.

As for Bergman - I may have misrepresented him, I think what he was supposed to have said was that Dreyer was, to some degree, an 'amateur'. I'm sure he admired him quite a bit as well. (For the record, I do like a lot of Bergman's films.) So the impression I got was that, as with most of Antonioni's work, he just didn't think these films were very well made. But I may have been misinformed...

Your reaction to Master of the House sounds exactly like mine when I first saw it: it had some Dreyer hallmarks, but hardly seemed like one of his films. And I still don't warm to it, or enjoy it all that much. As with Joan of Arc, though, it made a lot more sense when I watched it without the music. I'm terribly picky about soundtracks, and I think this one (not unlike the work of Mr. Brand) imposes a rather mawkish, sentimental tone, which seems alien to the tone Dreyer usually seems to be going for in his works. In silence, the film's 'documentary' qualities really come through, and you can appreciate how intricately Dreyer establishes and sustains the domestic realism of the setting. Apparently he made the apartment as liveable-in as possible - it had a working heating system, running water, everything - and in terms of art direction it's not much less of an achievement than Joan of Arc, and similarly self-effacing in the way it incorporates this aspect of the production into the whole piece. And just as I find Joan's trials far more moving when there isn't any music telling me how moving they are, so the story of Viktor and his family has a much greater immediacy and authenticity when viewed 'in the raw', so to speak. And it does end up being quite moving.

But I know you feel differently than me about silent soundtracks - more and more I do find myself reaching for the mute button if the music is even slightly irritating, though it can be a rather lonely and depressing way to experience a film. (Watching Napoleon the other day, I kept toggling back and forth between silence and Coppola; the music is so frustratingly inappropriate, and yet if any silent film needs a good score pounding through it, helping the viewer to match their energy level to that of Gance, this one does.)

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#89 Post by Tommaso » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:03 pm

Sloper wrote:there is a certain wry contempt in the way they talk about him. His condition, after all, is the origin of the 'no, it was Kierkegaard' comment.
And I thought it was just a little joke about Kierkegaard on Dreyer's or Munk's part. :wink: But you're right, of course, there's indeed some irony which they direct at Johannes, though for me it's not contempt but just another signifier that they don't believe in him and are somewhat bemused by his speeches and behaviour.

Sloper wrote:I'm sure what pulled a lot of people (including me, and I guess you) through it that first time was the awareness of Dreyer's previous achievement.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't manage to get through the whole of "Gertrud" the first time. I simply couldn't go on with it after an hour or so, though I didn't even think it was bad, on the contrary. But I simply couldn't stand it any longer. I felt ashamed (after all, it was Dreyer), but perhaps without Dreyer's previous films in mind I would never have taken the disc out of its box again. Have watched it twice since then, but it's still a tough ride (but now at least I find it very fascinating in its own way).

Yes, now that you mention it, I think Bergman indeed called Dreyer an amateur, which I think is even worse than calling him or "Gertrud" 'senile' or outdated or something similar. Whatever he had in mind when he said that, it's hard to imagine that Bergman wouldn't have been aware of the extreme technical accomplishments Dreyer's works show. And that alone is the best sign of a complete professional. But I would say the same about most of Antonioni.

This was only my second viewing of "Master of the House", and I think your recommendation to watch it in silence is a very good one. Actually, I was pretty annoyed about the soundtrack; it's an assembly of various pieces of classical music (though I wasn't able to identify one in particular, probably some Scandinavian stuff) which fit the individual scenes sometimes better, sometimes worse, but all in all it's indeed pretty intrusive. And that they apparently used vinyl records with constant pops and crackle didn't make it any better. At least Brand would have used his own music and might have tried to adapt it better to what goes on on the screen. So, in this case I can indeed imagine the film would work better in complete silence; and I certainly have no doubt that in terms of direction and design the film is flawless and consciously subdued. Perhaps it just didn't give me as much to think about it as other Dreyer films do.

Sloper wrote: (Watching Napoleon the other day, I kept toggling back and forth between silence and Coppola; the music is so frustratingly inappropriate, and yet if any silent film needs a good score pounding through it, helping the viewer to match their energy level to that of Gance, this one does.)
I agree, though in this case I could also imagine me switching back and forth between the film and some other channel while leaving the music on. Having to watch the film at 25 fps is even more painful than the music, not to speak of the other shortcomings this version has. Damn Coppola...

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#90 Post by Sloper » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:18 pm

Tommaso wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't manage to get through the whole of "Gertrud" the first time. I simply couldn't go on with it after an hour or so, though I didn't even think it was bad, on the contrary. But I simply couldn't stand it any longer.
My first time, I got about two minutes in and thought, "No, not now - not now. Not this." Really had to take a run at it, after a very good night's sleep!

User avatar
martin
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:16 am
Contact:

Re:

#91 Post by martin » Wed May 26, 2010 3:47 pm

bollibasher wrote:DFI announces new online Dreyer resource
CARL THEODOR DREYER WEBSITE

The Danish Film Institute is realising a long-held dream of a public Carl Theodor Dreyer website.

The DFI’s Carl Theodor Dreyer Archive features a unique collection of working papers, original scripts and research materials for several of the famous Danish director’s unrealised films, including Jesus of Nazareth, Maria Stuart and Medea (filmed posthumously by Lars von Trier in 1988 for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, DR). In addition are personal letters, photographs, film awards, a large collection of clippings, plus a book and article collection.

This collection will now be catalogued and published online, affording film scholars and the public alike access to previously unknown facets of Dreyer’s work and glimpses into his working method, as Dreyer’s personal files lay bare the extensive research and other efforts he poured into his films.

Dreyer is arguably the most important Danish filmmaker of all time. His films remain in demand around the world, and considering the global interest in Dreyer and his films, the DFI expects the new website to attract wide attention, especially among institutions and international circles of film scholars, as it optimises future research opportunities. At the same time, the new website will give a wide public the chance to look over the shoulder of the classic Danish cinema artist.

Dreyer’s output as a director comes to fourteen features, plus eight shorts and documentaries. In 1959, he published a book, “Om filmen”, later translated into English as “Dreyer in Double Reflection: Carl Dreyer’s Writings on Film”.
Published in: FILM62, page 28, February 2008
The site is live now (congrats!):
http://www.carlthdreyer.dk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://english.carlthdreyer.dk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (English beta)

User avatar
Anhedionisiac
the Displeasure Principle
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#92 Post by Anhedionisiac » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:08 pm

Has anyone read Dreyer's Jesus screenplay?
Moreover, is there a place where it can be found/read/downloaded? Failing that, where can a decent presentation of it be bought? Amazon has it out of print and used copies are for sale but at exorbitant prices... and I'm afraid I've got the munchies after reading a few articles about it at the dfi.dk site!

User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#93 Post by ellipsis7 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:34 am

I have it, a fascinating unmade project!... Here's a copy for just $12.95 on Abebooks (plus the postage)... A great resource for finding OOP & rare books is http://www.bookfinder.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW I agree that the new Dreyer website is a great resource; there are 8 or so shorts streamed in full, and clips from feature length works etc., plus a mass of other material...

User avatar
Anhedionisiac
the Displeasure Principle
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#94 Post by Anhedionisiac » Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:53 pm

Thank you very much, ellipsis7, and yes, I think we 're all still happily perusing the Dreyer website. At the very least it should be nominated for the Webby awards!

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#95 Post by Stefan Andersson » Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:09 am

Dreyer's Medea screenplay online: Scroll down for links to screenplay in English or Danish. New window opens, showing screenplay page by page (fullscreen option available).

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#96 Post by Stefan Andersson » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:16 am

"Pontius Pilate", a hitherto unknown colour film shot by Dreyer c. 1967, has been discovered in a suitcase in Copenhagen.

A showing in April 2013 at the Copenhagen International Film Festival is planned.

Read more here: http://www.cineuropa.org/nw.aspx?t=news ... did=235454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
rockysds
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:25 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#97 Post by rockysds » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:37 am

Considering the festival (CPH PIX) posted the news of the findings April 1st, well...

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#98 Post by Stefan Andersson » Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:31 am

Hi rockysds... yes, an April Fool´s joke.. good one, too. The CPH PIX site now carries a disclaimer.

User avatar
Peacock
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#99 Post by Peacock » Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:33 am

I see no disclaimer on the festival website?

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Carl Theodor Dreyer

#100 Post by Stefan Andersson » Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:39 am

At the beginning of the article, the Danish word "aprilsnar!" (meaning "April Fool") appeared. Now it seems the article has been taken down. I searched the site and found nothing.

Post Reply