Face/Off: Breaking the Waves

Posted by Peter Smith
This post inaugurates what will hopefully be a regular Screengrab feature: two writers debating a specific moment in a great film. I'm calling it Face/Off until someone thinks of something better; sorry. In the meantime, here are Paul Clark and Scott Renshaw on the last shot of Breaking the Waves. Guys, have fun, but please don't take each others' faces. . . off. — ed.

Paul: I should preface by saying that I think Lars Von Trier is one of the world’s greatest filmmakers, and Breaking the Waves is one of his finest films. But I've never liked the final shot of the movie — the bells, the God's-eye view, all that. It bugs me for two reasons. First, it betrays the style of the film, which aside from this shot is a ground-level, documentary-style drama. Second, it ruptures the ambiguous approach the film takes toward Bess. I realize I’m in the minority here; Scott, your thoughts?

Scott: It's a stylistic disruption, admittedly, but I don't think that's a problem. While you admire the ambiguity regarding whether Bess is crazy or really doing the will of God, I think where von Trier goes is ultimately more fascinating: if we know that God does approve of putting his creations through torment, how do we then think about God? Von Trier has always been fascinated with how those with absolute power use or abuse that power (e.g. Dogville, Boss of It All) and this seems in keeping with that theme.

Paul: I admit that the idea of Von Trier questioning God's motives is compelling. But I'm not sure he does anything especially compelling with that idea. Seems to me he just sort of throws it out there right before the lights come up.

But more importantly, what we've referred to thusfar as "ambiguity" has a more precise name — faith. Von Trier's exploration of faith may be the film's most compelling aspect. When the doctor asks Bess what she's good at, she responds, "I can believe." As the existence of God can't be proven, the most we can do is believe, so whether he actually exists is, in the world of the film, fairly inconsequential. So the story demands to be told in a ground-level way. Bess' actions pit her against both the rules of her religious community and the acceptable behaviors of the secular world, so there needs to be some doubt as to whether God exists there. There needs to be the possibility that (a) Bess has sacrificed herself for nothing, and (b) that should God indeed exist, he doesn’t approve. By bringing God into the picture, Bess' sacrifices don’t have the same meaning.

Scott: I don't believe for a second that von Trier just "throws it out there." I'm not disagreeing with any of your assessments of how to perceive Breaking the Waves ideas up until that final shot; I'm suggesting that the final shot forces us to re-evaluate and re-frame everything we've seen — and that's a good thing.

And clearly I don't agree that the existence of God is "inconsequential" to the film's ultimate ideas. I don't believe that most viewers watch the film thinking, "Well, Bess might be doing the will of God, we just can't know for sure." The townsfolk are surrogates for the audience's most likely response: "What a poor delusional girl submitting to some patriarchal notion of divine sacrifice." So when we see that indication of heavenly approval, it forces us to think not just about "faith," but about re-defining our very notion of God-hood and its impact on our thinking.

Paul: I suppose it all comes down to the question of whether we think God's presence is really needed in Breaking the Waves. I'm still not sure it is. As an agnostic, I find those possessed of extreme, unquestioning faith to be both scary and fascinating. Bess doesn't simply believe that God is up there — in her mind, she flat-out knows. She may be childlike and even mad, but she also chooses to sacrifice everything — family, church, possibly even her eternal salvation — because she's confident that her actions will save Jan. To me, that's the movie — not God sacrificing one of his own, but a woman giving herself freely for her love and her faith.

But while I still don't care for the final shot, it also exemplifies why I love Von Trier. By confronting the audience with this image of God, he’s testing our reactions to it, and he practically dares us to resist. Von Trier has always been a ballsy filmmaker, and that's one reason why he's so brilliant.
+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT
Posted Oct 30 2007, 03:00 PM
Filed under: , , , , ,

Comments

Yiyer said:

Thanks guys, I need to rewatch the film. It drained me so much the first time through I thought of the bells as more a signifier of the ending rather than anything else.

October 31, 2007 4:07 AM

Nerve Insider said:

Sure it was Halloween…but forget werewolves and “ sexy mustard ” costumes. Those other blogs brought

November 2, 2007 5:39 PM

in