|
|
Day of Wrath
Oh that’s right, I AM a witch
1943
Review: September 23, 2008
Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Starring: Kirsten Andreasen, Thorkild Roose, Preben Lerdoff Rye, Anna Svierkier
Nah, but I can see your point.
THE SETUP:
Fantasia on judgement, righteousness and condemnation.
DISCUSSION:
Having just watched and been completely blown away by Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Vampyr, of course I was keen when this one played at a local movie house, accompanied by breathlessly glowing reviews from thoughtful, thoughtful critics. Some and my friend packed off to see it. Vampyr was from 1932 and not exactly silent but hardly dependent on audio, whereas this one was from 1943, is quite dialogue-driven, and is to be understood in the context of the Nazi’s position in power.
We open with a long scroll down a, well, a long scroll, giving us many a verse on judgement and absolution and all those things [watching in the theater I was unable to go back, pause, and suck up the deeper meanings]. Cast on the parchment is the shadow of a cross. This whole thing is taking place in 1623 in a small Dutch town, and soon you’ll see everyone running around in ruffs and hat things like you see in Rembrandt and Vermeer. We’re in a kitchen with Herlof’s Marte [that’s her full name] when she hears an angry mob coming to condemn her as a witch and take her to be burned alive. She hot-foots it out the doggie door and escapes.
We now join the household of Absalon, his mother, who is just plain Marte, and his young and beautiful wife, Anna. Absalon’s first wife died, and he married Anna, who is despised and distrusted by his mother. When they go out, Herlof’s Marte shows up, asking Anna to hide her. She says that she hid Anna’s mother when she was accused of witchcraft. Anna tells her to go upstairs, but soon the mob appears, finds her and takes her in.
Then Absalon’s son Martin shows up. He is Anne’s age, and it soon becomes clear that there’s a bit of a spark between them. Their relationship develops at lightning pace as Absalon is then out of the house a lot, trying to wring a confession out of Herlof’s Marte. The condemned woman gently reminds him that he pardoned Anne’s mother—so he could marry Anne—and he might consider pardoning her, too. When he doesn’t do this, she ups the ante by threatening to denounce Anne’s mother—which would condemn Anne to death. Still, Absalon does nothing.
SPOILERS > > >
So Martin and Anne’s relationship has been taking off, and after a while Martin starts to feel guilty that the whole thing is wrong. Anne tells him that “it’s not a sin to love,” but he’s still torn. It comes to head when Absalon comes home, and Anne tells him that she will hate him forever for marrying her [she had no choice once he picked her], for robbing her of her youth, and by the way, she and Martin have been having a glorious affair. He gets up—and croaks! Surprise!
So Martin thinks that Anna wished Absalon dead—which she did—and that she therefore has the power to will someone’s death, which makes her a witch. There’s sort of a court over Absalon’s body, during which Marte denounces her as a killer. Then Martin gets up and says that she did NOT kill his father, did NOT will his death—although it seems like they might have a rough patch to their relationship. So Anna’s home free! Then—Anna gets up and says she DID will Absalon’s death, and is in fact a witch, sealing her own death. After another verse about washing away sin, it’s the end.
< < < SPOILERS END
It’s one of those things that, at least based on one viewing at a theater, seems to have a lot of resonances, but never takes one solid direction and makes one cohesive statement. One might think it’s going to be “about” witch trials, and it is at the beginning, but then it starts to wander, and you just have to flow along with it and see where it goes. Meanwhile Dreyer’s signature stunningly expressive photography and compositions seem to carry a great deal of the unarticulated text. For example, when Anna watches Herlof’s Marte be paraded past her window to her death, the shot is gorgeous and seems to be significant—it’s only later we realize how this moment prefigures what may be to come for her. Later, there are achingly gorgeous shots of the young couple down by the water, that seem foggy and muddy, giving a tragic cast to what, at the time, seems like a happy occasion. Because of this and the unexpected arcs of the story, one is kept pleasingly off-kilter and in a state to just follow what unfolds. Most of the resonance settles in afterward, upon reflection, though even then a clear “message” is never discernable—although again, maybe that’s because this was a first viewing where I couldn’t go back and watch things again.
The final gesture leaves a big impression, and was completely unexpected to me, which makes it even more moving. It touches on a lot of things—mostly a very depressing sense of how people accept condemnation of themselves, letting judgement seep into the back of their minds while they aren’t paying attention—but again without hammering home a solid “point” we can all take away. Which is good: it keeps us thinking about the entire movie, instead of feeling like we understand the point and can just forget the rest of the movie. Like the Val Lewton films, this is one of those things that just seems to be humming with resonance, although it’s difficult to boil it down to one main idea or statement.
Overall, very much worth watching, although if I was new to Dreyer I would watch Vampyr first. That film will introduce you to Dreyer’s photographic sense and elliptical storytelling style, which I would never have been able to get as much as I did out of this film without. It’s hard to imagine anyone walking out of this film “blown away,” but it does have a creeping insistence and haunting resonance that only increases the more you think on it.
SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?
Yes, but I would start with Vampyr or something more accessible first.
