More seriously, what is interesting about the two films is the examination of faith as a devisive, as well as unifying force. Unlike some of the more recent films which present faith as a given, that falls within certain parameters, Dreyer acknowledges that nothing is obvious, and that there are no easy answers. No one may be entirely right, or wrong. Instead, Dreyer seems to acknowledge that his characters are all sincere about their respective beliefs in Ordet. The flip side is that manipulation of faith destroys the characters of Day of Wrath.

What is also interesting about Ordet is that even though it takes place well into the 20th Century, the characters live not too differently from earlier eras. The hand crank telephone and the automobile, heard but not seen, almost seem to be anachronisms.

Even though two older men almost come to blows, for the most part, discussions of faith allow characters to agree to disagree in Ordet. Seen in terms other films, especially The Passion of Joan of Arc, Dreyer's men seem to be more prone to dogmatic thinking, while the women are more flexible in how they feel faith can be expressed. The farmer's son in Ordet, who thinks he is Jesus, provides a comic commentary on both the activities in the film as well as how faith can be literally interpreted. After an unexplained absence, the son reappears, apparently himself and no longer claiming to be Jesus. That the dead woman comes back to life following his prayer indicates that, at least for Dreyer, maybe the son could have been Jesus reborn as the son of a Danish farmer.

What makes both films interesting also is that Dreyer is purposefully ambiguous so that there is no correct interpretation. It is as if Dreyer knew that by making films that took place in a past that could in some ways reflect upon present day concerns, without being too specific, that his films would still be meaningful to those who took the time to see them in the future.