Gertrud

Dreyer's final film is tantalizingly slow, almost daring you to tire of it, with its ensemble of dreary middle-aged characters speaking slowly and monotonously during long, static takes (one conversation occupies a single 10-minute medium shot). It's also a thoroughly captivating masterpiece about a lovelorn society woman, to whom "love is all", and her gradual rejection of the men in her life. It's a flawed but unique gem, probably one of the bleakest films ever made.

According to the new Sight and Sound list, this is one of the 50 best pictures in film history. If you ask me, the poll voters are a bunch of jokers.

While some of the discussion is interesting (for a while), and the compositions are carefully crafted, and the cinematography is very well done, much of this seems very dated (and probably was already very dated in 1964).

the bleak, static style, the countless shades of grey, the pauses, the fixed outward gazes, all pleading for an answer from the audience. an uncomfortable masterpiece.

Some compelling ideas, but watching these divas enunciate into the ether for 2 hours almost gave me a stroke.

Good, but the commentary on love failed to resonate with me and the acting was average at best. All the characters, while not particularly unlikable, aren't very sympathetic and the constant harping on the conflict between love and work felt undeveloped. We're told a whole lot in conversation and see some consequences but the causes are left off screen. It is a very finely crafted film visually, though, and deserves credit for that.

Annoying and somehow weird acting. At first I hated and then get used to it. Gertrud was pain in the neck. I wonder what she would do if I put her in a film like Bicycle Thieves or Nights of Cabiria...

Exquisitely photographed. That's the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. Ridiculously melodramatic dialogue brought to life by ridiculously bad actors. What a waste of time.

Cool if you like furniture and long monologues.

LOL! Ridiculously theatrical, melodramatic and bourgeois. Takes its shallow and didactic philosophizing so serious that I couldn't stop hating this terribly outdated bore. Yeah Dreyer you're the coolest guy on earth with your dullness and bleak vision. How could he even think of such a movie in 1964 when Antonioni was shooting Red Desert, Godard the Alphaville or Rocha Black God, White Devil? No coincidence that it was his last film. Waste of time.

Takes a little time to get into, but has a compounding effect up to the majestic finale.

Suffocating in its miserable outlook on love and life, overwrought with philosophical meandering, and dryer than a bone lying in the Sahara. Absolutely gorgeous in its aesthetics--each shot could be a portrait in its own right--but it comes across as a slower, less-interesting, and much more frustrating Bergman film. It will absolutely test your patience. To re-appropriate a quote from the film: "Gertrud is suffering. Gertrud is unhappiness."

there is a particular level of theatricality that can be conducive to drama, as in dreyer's other works, and also bergman. this goes far beyond that. every word is delivered with laviscuous sombreity, and every eye gazes into that abstract space occupied simultaneously by both nothing and infinity. in other words, this lavish and sombre work is almost admirable in dedication to its ornate artistry, but it's also pretty ridiculous, despite some interesting psychological insight.

Watch it more than one time. And pay attention to character "Gabriel Lidman". You'll remember, "Amor Omnia".

Certainly not THAT good, at first I wasn't sure how I was going to get through it. Still, somewhere along the way those same qualities that annoyed me (the entire atmosphere, really) eventually grew on me. Lesser Dreyer to be sure, and not for everyone, but an interesting watch for those willing.

Seeing this for the first time while engaged and wedding planning has to be the most bone-chilling perspective to watch this from. Whoa.

It's very old-fashioned, classic style. The dream-like flashback sequences are magnificent.

prowler's review nails it better than I ever could.

# 97

Pretty strong feminist message for the time given it doesn't pass the Bechdel test at all. Very dry and overwrought though. If he can be so austere with the visual style, why not a little more with the dialogue?

Pushing his austere style to its logical extreme, Gertrud continues to divide cinephiles with its long static takes of characters delivering theatrical monologues while avoiding eye contact. It's an anti-melodrama melodrama that's complicated by a concentrated use of form that emphasizes gaps and silences painted in elegant monochrome. Pens Rode is astonishing in the titular role, playing the lovelorn Gertrud with a quiet intensity that is haunting and memorable. A near perfect swansong.

I believe this is the last film by the master Carl Theodor Dreyer. Almost no modern audiences will appreciate this, but film buffs should definitely check it out. NOTE: is it just me or do none of the characters look at each other when they talk, throughout almost the entire movie?

It is very rarely a classic film does absolutely nothing for me. I can always find something to at least appreciate. But man, I didn’t like anything about this. And I love Passion and Ordet, but this film was just…..nothing.

108

apart from cinematograpy, it means nothing to me.

Within such a minimalist production style - extended single shots of dialogue occasionally linked by a simple camera track, sparse use of sets - hides so much emotional power. That the actors don't even look directly into each other's eyes just add to the sad tone of lost love for the main female character and her attempts to keep her head held high regardless. It is an utterly beautiful achievement.

aka, The Many Ex-Lovers of Gertrud. Filmed like a play with interminable monologues and people steadfastly refusing to look at each other (when talking about love and passion), this is really just a slog, particularly because Gertrud isn't sympathetic and keeps falling for the wrong guys. Even the beautiful cinematography and lighting can't save this. Favorite (and inexplicable) scene: the rebellious youth form a marching choir. (The mirror sequence was cool but blink and you'd miss it.)

Perhaps the most accesible of Dreyers works. While it is as slow and ponderous as anything he has made, it contains the most indentifiable characters of his work and perhaps the most sympathetic story. Taken as a straight drama is still comes off heavyhanded, but taken as the ponderings of old age it almost reaches something quite beautiful and true.

"Gertrud is a film that is as richly mysterious and inscrutable as it is earthy and wry." - Eric Henderson

Very stilted and theatrical in style but still intriguing.

Dreyer finds the ideal balance of his two favorite things -- romantic melodrama and understated aesthetics -- with a weary, emotionally draining love story. Some viewers will undoubtedly find that Dreyer's long takes, immobile camera, and barren sets add an oppressive monotony to the film, but it's all an intentional part of his vision in letting the innate drama of the story and the actor's performances speak for itself.

111

Not bad, but it left me feeling cold, which was surprising considering how much emotion Passion of Joan of Arc packed. A bit underacted at times (seemingly by design) and the choice to almost never have the characters make eye contact with each other interestingly made it more difficult to connect with them, and I was having difficulty as it was. Surprised this is held in the esteem it is. It feels like Dreyer is going for something specific, and achieves it, but it doesn't work great for me.

I have loved? The final act is a 30 year friend zoning? Watch the wasted life of a miserable woman. Pretty to look at though.

Masterpiece of static camerawork. Dreyer wrote and shot this work as a series of conversations a deux, with nearly immobile long takes and minimalist performances. Slow pace of film creates its own tempo. Worth a look.

#111