love is all
by Douglas Messerli
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the
greatest of these is love.
Corinthians 13: 13
Carl Theodor Dreyer (screenwriter,
with poetry by Grethe Risbjerg Thomsen), Carl Theodor Dryer (director) Gertrud / 1964, USA 1966
Dreyer’s last film, indeed, owes a great
deal to Ingmar Bergman’s representation of feminine-centered love in Smiles of a Summer Night—along with the
regret and sexual acceptance of that film—but also presented through the lens
of Ibsen’s Doll’s House and Strindberg’s Miss Julie. Gertrud Kanning (the
incredible actress Nina Pens Rode), however, is far cry from either the almost
sexually abused Nora or the radical, but absolutely terrified, Julie. She is
her own woman (already in 1906) who has had several affairs, particularly with
the poet Gabriel Lidman (Ebbe Rode), perhaps with the writer Axel Nygren (Axel
Strøbye), and now with the young, handsome pianist Erland Jansson (Baard
Owe)—all for the search of true love. The only man she might not have truly not
loved is her husband, the lawyer Gustav (Bendt Rothe), who in the very first
scene is about to be appointed to the as a cabinet minister.
Although not afraid, like Schnitzler’s Hands Around characters, to participate in sexual affairs, Gertrud
is far more like the same author’s Bertha Garlan, who becomes determined to
find an open love, in her case with a past friend who is now a musician. Like
Gertrud’s passion for a pianist, however, it ends badly, with her, finally
realizing, that men simply aren’t as committed to love as are women. Each of
her lovers—representing, as Eric Henderson, writing in Slant quite brilliantly observers, a cube of inter-relating
patterns of images and actions—is more interested in career, fame, money, and,
particularly, in the case of her husband, power than they are simply in
committing themselves to love. Love, she argues, again and again, must be the
center of all things, as if restating Christ’s injunction that among all the
things in the world, the most important is love.
As Strindberg and numerous other male writers have made clear, such a
relationship is nearly impossible, and each of her lovers blame her intractable
commitment to that goal as being the problem that is at the heart of their
failures, and the reason behind her leaving over and over, the men to whom she
has given her heart.
They all claim that they still love her—after all, she is a stunningly
beautiful Aphrodite who, until the very last scene, never seems to age. Yet,
none of them can seem to comprehend that in their utter shift of focus to their
personal lives and career perspectives, it is they who have left her, not she
who has left them. By the middle of this drama, the liberated Gertrud can only
perceive love as a “great disappointment,” providing only a world of loneliness,
a kind of series of linked dreams (again a reference to Strindberg)—but still
will not and cannot imagine giving up her search. She has, after all, already
given up a promising career as an opera singer! And now she embarks on a career
as a psychologist in Paris.
Yet, those audiences were, in retrospect, entirely wrong. One simply has
to watch Dreyer’s film more sympathetically, and admire the beauty of it, to
realize that this, perhaps, was one of his very greatest of films. If the long
dramatic sequences of talk seem static, one only has to perceive that in the
constant cuts between characters and, more importantly, their constant
movements from couch to couch, from standing to sitting, from stalking the
room, to patiently waiting out their interlocker’s comments, present a
remarkable cinematic representation of their shifting roles and relationships
with one another. The drama here does not lie entirely in the articulate
dialogue but in their constant movements, up/down, across/over, and, always, as
in Schnitzler’s famous La Ronde,
around and around each other. These figures are constantly circling one
another, expressing their desires and failures in their very indeterminate
motions. They are a very nervous folk—despite all their professed assuredness
in the positions for which they stand.
And then there is the incredible beauty
of this film—not only in the sets, moving from the rococo, over-embellished
rooms of the Kanning home and the even-more elaborate estate of the Danish
semi-royals celebrating the return of the absurdly celebrated poet Lidman to
the more modest design of Jansson’s apartment and, finally, to the almost
Amish-like Danish-peasant-influenced rooms of Gertrud’s final digs—but in the
breathtaking black and white shadows of cinematographer Henning Bendtsen, who
Henderson correctly argues made “just about the most colorful black-and-white
film ever lensed.”
Moreover, Dreyer presents all these tragically failed beings without
judging them, simply allowing them their viewpoints without trying to represent
which of them we might most despise. Even Gertrud, about to divorce her
husband, defends him when attacked; and she, even when realizing that the man
she so desperately loves, Jansson, sees her as merely an interesting interlude
in his sexual life, wishes she could believe in God to pray for his protection.
Dreyer clearly loves his characters more than they can love one another. And
that very profound sensibility imbues this film with the values that its
heroine so seeks but can never find in the world in which she lives. As
director, Dreyer, truly put his heart into this beautiful masterpiece, showing
us, without really commenting, why love, as Gertrud argues, is all that really
matters.
When I’m discouraged—as I am (along with many more of us) these days—I
now have a film to turn to, helping me to have the courage to move on, to
believe in what is almost impossible to believe.
Los Angeles, November 4, 2018
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment