MovieChat Forums > Dancer in the Dark (2000) Discussion > Selma is a murderer with a low IQ, I fee...

Selma is a murderer with a low IQ, I feel sorry for her orphan

posted 13 years ago by nickymelnar
41 replies | jump to latest

In this movie we watch as a mother is brave enough to sacrifice herself so that her child never becomes blind...

Or, we watch a woman with serious mental problems, low IQ, unbelievably bad mother, and of course a murderer of another person who has his own mental problems.

Why do I speak so harsly?

1) Most horrible mother I ve seen on screen:
She prefers the kid never find out the truth about his probable blindness because if he does learn that, he will be sad, thus worsening his condition. While hiding the truth , she condemns herself to death...

She prefers raising him without ever being there for him (you see, acting classes are so much interesting, and its better leaving him to her neighbors).

She never gives him any kind of presents and would rather he thought all his own money and his mother's , went to a non-existing grandfather.

SHE PREFERS HE BECOMES AN ORPHAN AND KNOWS HIS MOTHER AS A SENTENCED TO DEATH BRUTALL KILLER/LIAR, rather than just learn

he may be getting blind at some point in his life but his mother has all the money ready for a successful operation which will save his eyesight.

What a good and brave mother, lying to the court and hiding the fact her son is getting blind, thus condemning her self to death... If she had told the truth, her son would hear about it and he would become sad!!! No , we dont want that!!!
Better we get him to an orphanage scarred for life!!! That wouldn't make him sad at all!!!

(Also: in the question "why did you have your son, even though you knew he would eventually become blind? " she answered "I wanted to hold a baby in my arms" Nothing about giving him the chance to live... No comment)

2) She is so moral, hiding the truth about her neighbors condition even though she is accused of nearly raping him/stealing from him/killing him.

She is such a Christian, keeping her promises, that when he asked her to kill him she does so with 34 freaking hits. Such a good friend indeed!!!

THE GUY HAS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, GET HIM TO SEE A PSYCHOLOGIST, DONT KILL HIM IN A VULNERABLE STATE OF MIND!!!

------------------------------------------------------------
There are many many things I could point out to show this woman DESERVED THE WORST OF THE PUNISHMENTS IMAGINABLE , as she killed a human being. (I never agree with the death sentence, I believe its a far worse punishment to keep someone in jail all their life).

The poor kid grew up with a retarded woman who left him an orphan ALL ALONE IN THE WORLD "to protect his happiness and eyesight."

There were so many alternative choices, the obvious one being she told the truth from the start to the wife, so she d never end up killing him... In the end, even if noone believed they were her money, she could work and gather the money once more... After all , her son wouldnt be getting blind any time soon (she started when she was about 30 years old) and he would grow up with a mother truly protecting him...

I cant believe how horrible this plot is, how horrible the "songs" were, the camera, everything. The only thing I liked were Bjorks acting. Nothing else...

[–] Jim-500 13 years ago

I would disagree with you about most of what you said, but specifically what makes you think she has a low IQ? She speaks haltingly at times, but that's because English is not her first language. She's poor, which would indicate she's had a minimal amount of education. She moves slowly because she can't see.

Other than that, I never thought for a minute that there was anything wrong with her intelligence. She was overwhelmed by love and caring for her son, and everything she did in the movie was guided by that. She might have made some questionable choices, but to me they didn't indicate any kind of mental deficiency.

[–] nickymelnar 13 years ago

She didnt want her son to know that at one point of his life he would get blind (but she had already all the money to cure him).

Why? Because if he became sad, it would worsen his condition.

So she prefered to do all these things, eventually getting hanged, so her son became an orphan, stigmatised for life, with no money , no relatives, abandoned at the orphanage , hating his mother for being a ruthless killer of the kindest man (thats what everybody thought).

But that wouldnt get him sad, obviously.

No , wait a minute.... It WOULD get him sad... It would scar him mentally for ALL HIS LIFE...!!!!

But if she had told the simplest truth, then her son would be a bit sad for a few days , whilst knowing that the operation would come and everything would be perfect, keeping his mother, home and sanity.

I m sorry, but I truly believe that it takes a really low IQ to not be able to distinguish which would make him sadder, the one choice or the other!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, if she cared for her son sooooo much and had a little teeny IQ shed have told the truth from the beggining to the wife, thus ensuring she wouldnt be called a rapist or gold digger, as THAT would make her son truly SAD , again, more sad than knowing he is getting an eye surgery!!!!!!!

And dont say anything about her being ethical hiding his truth and keeping the promise... Theres absolutely nothing ethical in killing with 34 hits a man with [sychological problems, JUST BECAUSE HE ASKED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] srd-dullflame 13 years ago

Well, do you remember Cathy giving Selma that pair of glasses at the end, when she's standing on the gallows? Those were Gene's glasses. He'd had the operation already. Her goal was met- her son would have a better life than she'd had, and he would see. That's all she wanted.

[–] nickymelnar 13 years ago

but he would see even if he didnt have the operation at the minimum age of 13 , but at the age, say, 20+ (his mother was with a good eyesight until the age of 30+. Theres was no reason to rush things and destroy a whole childs life just because he should have the operation RIGHT NOW.

Once more, it doesnt need a whole lot of IQ to figure that out!!!

Come on guys, any person with a little logic, sanity and even selfless love for their children would understand that the path she chose is the truly most terrible path which will destroy an innocents person life.

Just think: Would Jean be thaaaat much sad had he learned he would soon be getting an eye surgery??? Isnt getting orphaned far far worse???? Where exactly is the protection of the child?

Possibility 1- Best case - scenario : She told the truth from the beggining to the wife. All would be well, her son would get his operation and keep his mother.

Possibility 2: Her son would lose the operation because his mother used the money for attoerneys. He would still have the operation by charity, help of others, or even his own work (he still had many years before getting blind). He d still keep his mother and phsycology fairly well.

Possibility 3 - Worst case scenario: The boy gets the operation, his mother is hanged, he is left an orphan, with no one in the whole world, stigmatised for life, mentally scarred, hating his mother for being a ruthless killer of the kindest man (remember, he got his only present from the neighbour, so thats what everybody thinks).

Well, only a person with a truly low IQ, unsuitable for a mother, would go and choose possibility 3!!!!!!!!

[–] srd-dullflame 13 years ago

He got his only present from the guy because she couldn't afford to buy him anything! Also, I think if he'd known she was saving money to give him an operation so he wouldn't go blind like her, he would have understood.

And she didn't have good eyesight. Her glasses were enormous and she still couldn't really see anything.

As far as telling Bill's wife what was going on... Do you really think that woman would have bought all that? Think about it. She kicked Selma out because Bill told her Selma had come onto him. I don't think she would have listened to a word Selma said.

Maybe Gene would have had the operation by charity or earning his own money, but in the 1960s, $2000 was a lot more than it is now. It would have taken a very long time and with the cost of living, you can double the time it would have taken him to earn the money on his own. Selma basically worked two jobs (remember the bobby pins?) and she still barely scraped by.

[–] megaruda 13 years ago

I tought the same way as the Op, it was kind of silly from her i couldnt even feel pitty about an stupid character not saying she was a bad actress but the character itself was too stupid to be true she made herself a martyr almost tought all she wanted was attention, when thinking about it is like oh a sad dramatic story she did everything for her kid... but in arealistic way :
1.- She was mentally retarded
2.- She didnt want to live anyways which was very selfish because she had a child.

[–] srd-dullflame 13 years ago

It wasn't that she didn't want to live. She acted in desperation and it resulted in her death- she wouldn't allow the lawyer to be paid with her son's operation money so that he could get her released. It was more important to her that Gene could live his life with sight.

I thought it was fairly straightforward, I guess I'm the only one...

[–] megaruda 13 years ago

not really theres a bunch of people who liked it we are the minority. Gene could live his life with sight... why wouldnt he be able to live with sight and her mother too... too much retardesness for me to handle.

[–] nu_riot 12 years ago

"i couldnt even feel pitty about an stupid character"

Me no lik pepole dat stupid are.

---

[–] megaruda 12 years ago

Why not focus on the sound design, the editing or the cinematography instead like a normal spectator would? was that sarcasm ??
If the story sucks not even that saves a movie, why would you keep watching it if you find it annoying, you can´t relate to any character and find it simply boring.
I watched it because of a lot of positive reviews and cause i wanted to see a Von Tier musical sounded fun, but for me it ended up being stupid. I can´t find a reason to like this movie, and no one seems to defend it properly.

[–] ucn7 12 years ago

I have one common annoyance on all IMDB message boards and that is people questioning the actions of characters within the narrative. Referring to characters actions or motives is futile and the action of an imbecile, as proved by this ridiculous post. The film is a fixed text so it should always be analysed as such and not in the realms of fantasy whereby the characters have a choice to do this or that.

Why not focus on the sound design, the editing or the cinematography instead like a normal spectator would? They and their actions are essential components of the films subtext and if for example they were changed in this film to the way you believe then it would result in narrative inconsistencies and would be utterly terrible. Do you also go about second guessing the actions of characters in classic novels and suggesting what they should have done with your magnificent observant powers of hindsight? What should Tom Joad or Miss Haversham have done differently in your opinion? And who the f cares about your opinion any way?

It is far more productive to ask the question as to why Von Trier is presenting us with these events rather than questioning the validity (or intelligence) of a fictitious phantasm. In short she sacrifices herself because thats what she does, thats just how the film is. It could be interpreted that her sacrifice is in fact just her way of finally performing on a stage, albeit in her act of death on the stage constructed for the use of the gallows. Her character thus represents a fatalistic death drive which is perhaps one of many of the messages Von Trier is attempting to communicate. Thats my interpretation any way which is just a subjective observation, and please care to notice how I come to this conclusion from the images that Von Trier has communicated to me and NOT by fabricating ludicrous additions to the existing plot.

[–] Greystone 12 years ago

"like a normal spectator would."

Really? In my experience of going to the cinema with people, they tend to talk afterwards about the actions of the characters. If something wrankles it's often because a character's motivation or action seems contrived or even, yes, ludicrous.

I agree that things can be overanalysed (including blind speculation about a filmmakers intentions) but your rationale of 'just accept it' is justification for any old pile of terribly written rubbish (which I'm not saying this film is).

Writers (should) spend half their time working on the actions and motives of characters. Sometimes they do a sloppy job. Questioning the work they have done is not the action of an imbecile. In my opinion that's a rather inane thing to write. (As is "who the f cares about your opinion" on a discussion board with many replies to the OP's opinion.) If one may question the direction, editing etc. why not the writing?

And making a comparison to classic literature is hardly helpful. People tend not to question the actions of well written characters, and when a character's actions are ambiguous in such works you will find endless theses discussing them. Why Hamlet doesn't murder when he has the chance has been pulled apart for centuries, and many scholars are of the opinion that it's one of Shakespeare's weaker plot points. In a work of such greatness it doesn't tend to be a big problem for them, but questioning the author is not out of bounds. Writers and filmmakers are just people, and the quality of their work will inevitably vary. Would you say that no one may question the actions of Harry Potter? Of James Bond?

If I have a common annoyance on these boards it's the attitude that some filmmakers are beyond questioning, that everything they do must just be accepted as it is and that we must search for the meaning in it, or behind it, even if it is woefully inconsistent, poorly thought out etc. We all know about the fine needlework behind the emperor's new clothes right?

I'm all for discussing the things you mention, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a reasoned discussion about character action and motivation, and the quality of the writing.

[–] usernumber655321 11 years ago

I feel sorry for the OP. I'm filled with sorrow for him/her.

[–] johnf_sf 13 years ago

can't you go to goodwill and buy a toy or something for like .10 back in the 60's. Or join a church and get halp? The Salvation Army was founded in 1865...she couldnt get toy from them? Toys for Tots was founded in 1947.

I agree with OP...bad mother with low IQ. Some people want to take the easy way...caring for a child is the hard way.

[–] I_Created_U 7 years ago

I would disagree with you about most of what you said, but specifically what makes you think she has a low IQ?

This is also one of the first things that came to my mind about 15min in. I thought she's either the nicest and most innocent person this world has ever produced or simply a complete retard. There's obviously beauty in innocence, but bear in mind that the concept itself already implies a lack of complexity of some sort, so either way, it would be a stretch to assert that she was an intelligent person.

I don't think that anybody with half a brain would make the same logical steps and decisions that she did. From accepting to kill the cop, to her not telling at her trial that the cop was broke and spent more than he earned, passing by her deciding to upset the kid by being killed as a murderer in order to not upset the kid by letting him know he might go blind, all of her decisions were nonsensical. Full of love, yes, but nonsensical nonetheless.

She might have made some questionable choices, but to me they didn't indicate any kind of mental deficiency.

I think they do. Any kind of choice that leads you to be charged for a crime you didn't commit, that prevents you from saving yourself at your trial, that gets you killed and that makes an orphan out of your son should indicate at least some level of stupidity.

All in all, i would say she was too pure for this world, but at the same time, saying that is also saying she was too dumb for it too.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] chromesthesia 13 years ago

Dude! It's a von Trier movie. She could have gotten a lawyer to do the case pro bono. I think he just wanted to make the movie as excruciatingly sad as possible and succeeded.

He said,
"Just put your feet down child,
'Cause you're all grown up now."

[–] cake-26 13 years ago

I'd say the choices Selma made were certainly questionable and rational onlookers might say she had low IQ. Whichever way you look at it I don't think the character deserves to be hated for being flawed. Can't flawed characters make sacrifices for love, just like level-headed characters?, even if they're warped ones. Do real human beings always act with infallible logic and reason, that would defy criticism if their choices featured in a movie? I don't think so. Maybe then, it's a more realistic plot and character than the op gives credit for. I just think that saying the plot is horrible, just because you might find the behaviour of one of the characters to be horrible is making an assumption that to be any good, a movie must have a perfect hero, who we all would like to be. There's enough lame movies like that already aren't there?

[–] MarManHollow 12 years ago

'Nuff said!

[–] owned101 12 years ago

You have low IQ with your terrible grammar and spelling, ha ha ha, stupid *beep*.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Misanthropik 12 years ago

Damn, dude. It's just a movie. RELAX

[–] scoochie9 12 years ago

While I agree with the OP that it's unconscionable to have a child if you know you can't be a good parent (for whatever reason), I disagree wholeheartedly with his/her reaction to Selma and her actions. It seemed quite important that the operation be done as early as possible for it to be successful, for one thing (whether or not that was just in her own mind, we don't know). Plus I don't think she was retarded, just a little psychologically disturbed from past experiences (like Phoebe on "Friends", but not as smart). Why else should she have constructed her way of escaping reality when things get rough? I really don't think she could have recognized Bill's need for intervention--how could she have? He told her his problems in confidence, and with her background (which, unfortunately we're not privy to, except for the fact that she never met her father--but you can bet that loyalty was instilled in her from a young age), she could not tell on him.
Wow. All these reactions to this movie are really interesting! :-)

[–] biautifulOh_Yeah 12 years ago

Yeah, I felt a bit cheated by how her character turned out. It started out as someone I could possibly relate to, but ends up being this person who has this whole shifted perception of life. I don't think such a person could even relate and make as good friends, as that woman she worked with was to her. I mean, srsly, killing a man cause he can't tell his wife about his troubles. Seriously?? I mean, it's one of those silly irrational things people say. He just needed a talk. How in he world could anyone with a sound mind think it was a good idea to kill him... I mean, there was even no way she could've known that she wasn't gonna be caught before she manages to give the doctor the money for her sons operation. So what the hell was she doing? Also, what this guy Bill did, well with what we know about him, it's very unlikely that he would do such a thing. 'Evilness' just ain't that simple. Doesn't click, didn't believe it. People just don't act like that.

I mostly enjoy von Trier's films, but this one didn't have any of the beauty his other movies have. Just dark, and impossible to relate to.

[–] eero-lampinen 12 years ago

The original poster seemed to have a little trouble understanding the plot of the film, or the situations of the characters in general but here's some clues:

Selma is accused of murder, even if she had spent the money on a new attourney, her sentenced might have been alleviated to years or life in prison at best, in which case she wouldn't have really been able to be there for gene anyways. It was also stated quite clearly that Gene needed the operation done very soon after turning 13.
Also, Selma didn't ask to get into the situation she was in. The choices she made were made in desperation (and i dont even think that the choices she made were faulty, just very stubborn and unselfish).
Selma didnt have the choice to leave the money with bill, get another job and save up again for another operation. To get this money, selma had to work 2 jobs, and now that she was blind, she would probably not longer get any job. Selma had probably worked hard for several years to save up that money, and considering that she acted with a lot of calm and restraint when she came to get her money back.
As for telling Bill's wife about his situation before hand. How could she have possibly known what was gonna happen, and what reason could she possibly have to tell her otherwise?

[–] tamna-iris-344-23031 12 years ago

Thank you.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

This makes sense. Her priority was to get the kid his operation ASAP, everything else was secondary, and the fact that she was blind meant an early death was almost desirable.

The only thing that stood out to me as odd was how her son never visited her in prison. Surely they would want to see each other, and she would want to tell him about the operation and why it was necessary?

Perhaps it was a character flaw that she was in denial about her blindness and full of guilt for having a child condemned to the same fate and, even though she had rectified it with the operation, couldn’t bare to see him and have that conversation. Seems rather irresponsible and cowardly but she was a fantasist.