Regrettably, most critics try to explain Dreyer's cinematic style by analysing and interpreting solely the literary component of his films, that is, his manuscripts. For example, the recent article by Dai Vaughan [see excerpt above], typifies such attempts at the philosophic interpretation of Dreyer's films as if his work existed in the form of literature and not in the form of cinema. This approach stems from the writer's presumption that Dreyer's 'technique [read: cinematic style] is the outward expression of a more fundamental abstraction in which the circumstantial elements of the story [sic!] are eliminated until we are left, not with a spurious symbolism, but with the human essence of the drama.'

One can hardly accept this separation of the form (technique) and content (story), particularly in the case of Dreyer, who insisted on the 'amalgamation' of all film's components, because 'only when all the artistic elements...