Carl Theodor Dreyer and Ordet: My Summer with the Danish Filmmaker

Appendix E: Dreyer's lecture at Edinburgh: "New Impulses"

We can all probably agree that the film of today is not perfect . But we can only be grateful for this as there is a chance of development in the imperfect. The imperfect is alive. The perfect is dead, pushed aside, we do not see it. But a thousand possibilities are open for the imperfect. Film as an art stands in an era of struggle, and one is looking to see where the new impulses will be coming from. Because I actually used the term new impulses you naturally now expect a long, profound lecture with learned analyses and all that, but I will have to disappoint you. I am not a film theorist, unfortunately not—I do not have the brains for that. I am only a film director, and proud of my craft. But a Dreyer’s lecture at Edinburgh: “New Impulses” Appendix E Appendix E 126 craftsman too will get his own ideas during his work, and I would like to share these simple thoughts with you. I do not have anything revolutionary to say. I do not believe in revolutions. They push development backwards. I am more inclined to believe in evolution, in the small steps forward. So I only intend to point out that film has possibilities of giving an artistic renewal from inside. Human beings follow the principle of inertia, and are opposed to be taken away from the beaten track. They have by now got used to the correct photographic reproduction of reality and sure feel a certain happiness in recognizing what they already know. When the camera appeared, it won a quick victory because it in a mechanical way and objectively could register the impressions which the human eye sees. This capacity has so far been the strength of the film, but as regards artistic films it is becoming a weakness we have to fight. We have got stuck with photography and now are confronted with the necessity of freeing ourselves from it. We must use the camera to drive away the camera. We must work so that we are no longer slaves of the photography, but make ourselves masters of it. From being a purely reporting media photography should be turned into a tool for artistic inspiration, and direct observation be left to the sightseeing of film news. Photography as a means of reporting has compelled the film to stand with its feet on the ground, and so it became addicted to naturalism. But not until the film has cut off its earth connection will it be able to fly into the sphere of imagination . So we have to wrench the film out of the embrace of Dreyer’s lecture at Edinburgh 127 naturalism. We have to define to ourselves that it is a waste of time to copy reality. By means of the camera we must give the film a new language of style and create a new artistic form. But first of all we have to understand what we mean by the terms art and style. The Danish author Johannes V. Jensen characterizes art as a “spiritually interpreted form,” and this can probably not be said any better. The British philosopher Chesterfield thinks that style is “the dress of thoughts.” This definition is also simple and precise, presuming “the dress” is not too conspicuous, as the characteristic of a good style must be that it enters into such an intimate contact with the material that it forms a synthesis. If it is pushing, so as to attract all attention, it is no longer style but mannerism. I myself would define style as “the form in which artistic inspiration expresses itself,” because we recognize the style of an artist in certain features which are characteristic for him, and which reflect his mentality and personality in his work. The style of an artistic film is a result of many different components, such as the playing of rhythms and lines, the mutual tension of the colour surfaces, the interaction of light and shadow, the gliding rhythm of the camera—all this, which combined with the director’s conception of the material as a picture-creative factor, will decide his artistic form of expression—his style. If he confines himself to give a soulless , impersonal photography of what his eyes can perceive, he has no style. But if he uses his own mind to transform...