I rewatched "Gertrud" after seeing "Les dames du Bois de Boulange" (1945, Robert Bresson) some time ago. It is not so strange to compare a Dreyer film with a Bresson film, because the two directers are often named in conjunction with each other. This is mainly because similarities in style, but let's first look at the themes of the two films.
In both "Gertrud" and " Les dames du ..." a relationship between man and woman is ending. This has nothing to do with adultery (Gertrud has a lover, but their love is only consumed after she has informed her husband) but everything with love slowly fading away. In "Les dames du ..." it is the man taking the initiative in ending the relationship, in Gertrud it is the woman. In "Les dames du ..." the abandoned wife is very revengeful and unsympathetic, in "Gertrud" the abandened man is very liberal and sympathetic. In "Les dames du ..." the man in the end forgives his new lover her shortcomings. In "Gertrud" the woman remains single because she keeps searching for the perfect lover.
The character of Gertrud is a complicated one. Is she a feminist avant la lettre? Her remarks that she can't bear to be less important to her husband then his work / career maybe interpreted as an indication in that direction. Unfortunately for Gertrud, since then women have adopted the ethics of men instead of the other way round. Is Gertrud an idealist, unable to compromise? I think this is closer to the heart of the film. The fact that the character Gertrud is also the title of the film awakens the expectation that she also is the heroin of the movie. This expectation is dismantles little by little during the film. In any case, she is not a sympathetic heroin. Wealthy as she is, she can afford to ignore everyday practical considerations, conserving her highly romantic very idealistic view of perfect love. She is totally ignorant to people for whom trivialities such as earning a living is an important thing, offending them in the proces. For example she really don't understand that it is humilating for her new lover to live on her pocket and that it is important for him to earn his own living. At the end of the film the old Gertrud inhabits a simple cottage. She is very proud on herself that she has abandoned all luxury, but at the same time she orders the housekeeper (in a very imperative voice) to mop the floor.
When the film premiered the critics were devastating. In part that can be attributed to the very high expectations because Dreyer hadn't make a film for so long (a similar effect did occur when Kubrick released "Eyes wide shut" (1999)). There are however also objective reasons. The movie was according to the critics much to static and theatre like. This is true. The only movement is when the characters move from one couch to the other. The dialogue is unnatural. The actors do not have eyecontact, they seem to read their lines from a piece of paper. There are more films who are clearly based on a play (("Rope", 1948, Alfred Hitchcock) ("My dinner with Andre", 1981, Louis Malle)) but they are much more lively than "Gertrud". Even Robert Bresson, known for his preference for unnatural play by his (non professional) actors, never stretched it to the limit Dreyer does in "Gertrud".
Apart from the justified criticism, there is also much that one can say in favor of "Gertrud". Dreyer makes Gertrud not a heroin but a complicated character. Dreyer brings the work of the playwright Hjalmar Soderberg under the attention. This writer has been living in the shadow of August Strindberg (who incidentally also did write about the men - women relationship). The compositions and lightning in "Gertrud" are extremely well thought out and very beautiful. The ending with the closed door is very symbolic. The door can be interpreted as the transition from this world to the hereafter (in this stage of her life Gertrud is very occupied with her funeral) or the closed door can be interpreted as an obstacle from one heart to the other. An obstacle Gertrud was unable to overcome her whole life.
All in all "Gertrud" is a movie that provokes strong opinions. Personally I do not find it entirely successful. "Gertrud" is at any rate a worthy conclusion of a very idiosyncratic oeuvre.
In both "Gertrud" and " Les dames du ..." a relationship between man and woman is ending. This has nothing to do with adultery (Gertrud has a lover, but their love is only consumed after she has informed her husband) but everything with love slowly fading away. In "Les dames du ..." it is the man taking the initiative in ending the relationship, in Gertrud it is the woman. In "Les dames du ..." the abandoned wife is very revengeful and unsympathetic, in "Gertrud" the abandened man is very liberal and sympathetic. In "Les dames du ..." the man in the end forgives his new lover her shortcomings. In "Gertrud" the woman remains single because she keeps searching for the perfect lover.
The character of Gertrud is a complicated one. Is she a feminist avant la lettre? Her remarks that she can't bear to be less important to her husband then his work / career maybe interpreted as an indication in that direction. Unfortunately for Gertrud, since then women have adopted the ethics of men instead of the other way round. Is Gertrud an idealist, unable to compromise? I think this is closer to the heart of the film. The fact that the character Gertrud is also the title of the film awakens the expectation that she also is the heroin of the movie. This expectation is dismantles little by little during the film. In any case, she is not a sympathetic heroin. Wealthy as she is, she can afford to ignore everyday practical considerations, conserving her highly romantic very idealistic view of perfect love. She is totally ignorant to people for whom trivialities such as earning a living is an important thing, offending them in the proces. For example she really don't understand that it is humilating for her new lover to live on her pocket and that it is important for him to earn his own living. At the end of the film the old Gertrud inhabits a simple cottage. She is very proud on herself that she has abandoned all luxury, but at the same time she orders the housekeeper (in a very imperative voice) to mop the floor.
When the film premiered the critics were devastating. In part that can be attributed to the very high expectations because Dreyer hadn't make a film for so long (a similar effect did occur when Kubrick released "Eyes wide shut" (1999)). There are however also objective reasons. The movie was according to the critics much to static and theatre like. This is true. The only movement is when the characters move from one couch to the other. The dialogue is unnatural. The actors do not have eyecontact, they seem to read their lines from a piece of paper. There are more films who are clearly based on a play (("Rope", 1948, Alfred Hitchcock) ("My dinner with Andre", 1981, Louis Malle)) but they are much more lively than "Gertrud". Even Robert Bresson, known for his preference for unnatural play by his (non professional) actors, never stretched it to the limit Dreyer does in "Gertrud".
Apart from the justified criticism, there is also much that one can say in favor of "Gertrud". Dreyer makes Gertrud not a heroin but a complicated character. Dreyer brings the work of the playwright Hjalmar Soderberg under the attention. This writer has been living in the shadow of August Strindberg (who incidentally also did write about the men - women relationship). The compositions and lightning in "Gertrud" are extremely well thought out and very beautiful. The ending with the closed door is very symbolic. The door can be interpreted as the transition from this world to the hereafter (in this stage of her life Gertrud is very occupied with her funeral) or the closed door can be interpreted as an obstacle from one heart to the other. An obstacle Gertrud was unable to overcome her whole life.
All in all "Gertrud" is a movie that provokes strong opinions. Personally I do not find it entirely successful. "Gertrud" is at any rate a worthy conclusion of a very idiosyncratic oeuvre.