'Ordet', even by Dreyer standards, is a gruelling experience, but in a different way from 'the Passion of Joan of Arc', which, with almost sadistic intensity, thrust the viewer into a visceral pummelling, dragging the spiritual out of us. 'Ordet' is more typically Scandanavian, based on a play by Kaj Munk, a cleric-playwright murdered by the Gestapo during the Nazi Occupation of Denmark.

Its austerity and rigour are reminiscent of Bergman, without that director's lapses (i.e. Audience-friendly gestures) into sensation. Like Bergman, Dreyer makes no attempts to hide the theatrical origins of his material - most of the action takes place in austere interiors that even look like sets in their oppressive spaciousness, just as you can hear the boards being trod. There are no harrowing close ups a la 'Passion' here; the camera keeps an unblinking distance throughout, as if we were watching a play in the theatre. The performances make no concessions to film acting, keeping a stern solemnity as they utter their tersely simple dialogue.

So why would Dreyer, one of the five greatest film directors of all time, make such a seemingly uncinematic picture? Part of the answer probably derives from the film's theme, that of faith and miracles. Although the film is as restrained and grim as you would expect from a Scandanavian work, the content is actually full of barely suppressed passion.

The situation and plots are straight out of classic 19th century realist literature - a stubbornly proud landowner refuses to let his youngest son marry a wealthy neighbour because of religious differences; his eldest son goes mad from studying too much theology, hoping to fulfil his father's messianic dreams, under the delusion that he is Jesus, with beard too match, although a joyless, Old-Testament kind of prophet-Jesus; another son has renounced his faith, disgusted with the daily evidence of God's indifference; his pious wife loses her baby in childbirth.

Material ripe for hothouse treatment. And yet Dreyer's reticence never lets it descend into 'Elmer Gantry'isms. The film works as a study in loneliness, in the limited options open to people in isolated outposts made rigid by tradition, religion, culture etc. Dreyer makes a virtue of the theatrical material: his use of doorways, his patterning of entries and exits, his positioning of characters, his calm yet insistent panning all created this sense of something being held in, ready to burst.

The film opens with a brilliantly orchestrated sequence, which introduces the characters, their dilemmas and their milieu, with a simple, yet intricate pattern, as each family member searches for the missing mad brother, a man linked to nature, the light and the dunes. His strictures are hard to take, and yet he is the one with the special knowledge and the miraculous power.

I'm not averse to miracles in cinema. I just found this one a little hard to take (it would certainly never have been produced in a Catholic country - Mother surviving baby? An outrage!). I prefer the way Dreyer turns the rare modern intrusions in the film, the doctor's car for instance, into a scary, almost medieval vision of death in motion; or the chillingly glum view of village life, in a film that keeps implicating the social only to drive it out. I guess you've got to have some knowledge of the theological background.

"Ordet" (which apparently means "word") is the first Carl Dreyer movie that I've ever seen. It's the sort of movie that throws a lot at you and you have to see whether or not you can digest it. It portrays a family in 1925 Denmark seeing everything around them getting thrown into question. Son Johannes believes himself to be Jesus, and the other family members aren't much better (of course, screwy families have become commonplace in movies; see "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Igby Goes Down").

The main point of the events portrayed here are that the family has to reconsider everything that they've ever believed. I just saw "The Illusionist", which also deals with blurring the lines between what we know and believe. Maybe both movies are saying that not only can we never fully know what's real and what isn't: maybe they both say that everything that anyone of any credo knows is totally incorrect. There is no truth left in the world (this could lead into Stephen Colbert's description of "truthiness", meaning what you want or immediately assume to be the truth).

So, it's worth seeing, but just know that it's a little bit overwhelming. And I apologize if my review doesn't tell you as much as it should; I've just described what I interpreted.