Just finished watching the Criterion box set of Carl Th. Dreyer's films Day of Wrath, Ordet, and Gertrude. While I enjoyed all, Ordet has been swimming around in my brain. The ending has been eating away at me. I'd like to discuss it freely, so let's please not worry about spoilers and be aware of he forum's rules about discussing religion outside the film. Up until the resurrection, the movie left the issues of faith very open. That is, no viewpoint was presented as "correct." If anything, the merits of an ideology was measured by its effect on the people who hold it and their familial relationships. Inger is the heroin because her faith is strong but open-minded, as she bears no malice towards her seemingy non-theistic husband or the opposing Christian faction of the tailor. The introduction of the supernatural at the very end is jarring. I suppose it's supposed to be. Note that the two responsible for resurrecting her are not only those with purest faith, but also without dogma. I find it interesting that the decision to defend faith was illustrated via the impossible rather than an acceptance of her death (ie, using one's faith to accept a tragedy and move on). On the surface, it seems like this ending is a relatively simple praise of faith. However, it doesn't quite come off that way when the reward for this faith is something that is naturalistically impossible. I don't think it's trying to be subversive, but I'm not sure (I do have a tendancy to read too much into things, though). Thoughts?