Dear Wendy

First of all Dear Wendy is a tribute to Kubrick: We have the gang from A clockwork Orange, the gun named Lyndon (and the ancient guns) from Barry Lyndon. And there are more subtle references: a chart from one of the bullets reads Full Metal Jacket, etc.

Although directed by his friend Vinterberg the story is written by von Trier and bears all the marks of a von Trier-movie, but this time it is deeply drawn up in irony. A typical Von Trier-story always watches like literature: idealist gains strength from his beliefs but is confronted by the real world (in this case an ex-con), his beliefs are shaken and self-imposed rules are broken. And enter the tragedy.

The US-setting fits the teasing we are now familiar with from von Trier but the wider meaning is much more universal and it raises several interesting questions. Can a society be free of gun violence when people have guns readily available (US vs Switzerland)? Is gun culture and adoration a wider problem than guns themselves? Or do people need guns in order to rise against any form of eventual dictatorship? What does pacifism mean?

This is a very refreshing movie from Vinterberg-von Trier. It is an interesting study in irony and gun culture with good camera-work from Anthony Dod Mantle and interesting special effects. Would certainly have made a splash and controversy at Cannes.

All of this recent fuss about David Cronenberg's film, "A History of Violence." What rot. You want a good film about violence and the gun culture in America? Check out this little gem from the co-founders of Denmark's Dogme 95 movement: Thomas Vinterberg ("The Celebration"), who directed this film, and Lars von Trier, who wrote the screenplay.

Von Trier drives many American film critics absolutely bonkers because he has the temerity to make films about the "American Character," even though he apparently has never set either of his personal feet on U.S. soil. First came "Dancer in the Dark," set in central Washington State, then "Dogville," set somewhere in the Colorado Rockies. (The actual locations were European, as is the case in Dear Wendy.) These earlier films may have had their problems, but they nonetheless stung with their unflattering depictions of American hypocrisy, greed, violence and injustice.

The worst thing you can say about von Trier's depictions is that they are derivative, hardly novel or unique. Think of Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Theodore Dreiser, or Ralph Ellison, or Don DeLillo , or David Foster Wallace, or any number of other authors. Pick from almost any generation of American writers and you'll find these same themes sounded. Because – like it or not - they are valid. And it should come as no surprise that some intelligent foreigner who reads deeply about America might be capable of writing a credible screenplay about our national foibles.

"Dear Wendy" is set in an unnamed mining town sometime before the present day, probably the 1960s, judging from the musical soundtrack. The town is obviously a false set, not a natural location (odd since this violates of one of Dogme 95's central tenets, to always use natural locations). A miner's son, Dick Dandelion (Jamie Bell, who has carved out a niche, it seems, playing miner's sons, beginning with his splendid performance in Billy Elliot) is a misfit, too fragile and disinterested to spend his life down the mines. Out of sorts, aimless, Dick one day buys a toy gun as a gift for a buddy. But he learns from his fellow misfit friend Stevie (Mark Webber) that this gun is actually a small but real bullet shooting weapon. Stevie, as it happens, has an obsessive passion for guns, gun history and the workings of guns.

These two hit upon a plan: why not start a little club, a cult of losers and outcast young people, the town's stray kids, and bring a little honor, pride and some decent principles of conduct into their lives. No one else is going to give them a break, so it's self-help time. The club will have a secret headquarters for meetings, indoctrination and just hanging out. The unifying themes will be the possession and adulation of firearms juxtaposed with pacifism (is this an amusingly ironic riff on our culture or what ?!) Members will learn to love their guns, to name them, to vivify imagined relationships to their guns. But they will also be honor bound never to use them to commit violent acts against others, not to mention each other.

The group is named The Dandies, presumably after Dick's surname, and grows to include Susan (Alison Pill), Huey (Chris Owen), Freddie (Michael Angarano), and Sebastian (Danso Gordon). An aging black woman, Clarabelle (Novella Nelson), eventually becomes a sort of honorary member, or, more precisely, someone whom The Dandies find need to protect from harm, once the going gets rough.

And the going does get rough. We know that it will only be a matter of time before the idyllic fantasy life shared by this noble little band is somehow shattered by violence. This force arrives in the form of Sheriff Krugsby (Bill Pullman) and a legion of police sharpshooters. It's the gunfight at the Not Very OK Corral. Without getting into further particulars, I will say that the final shootout between The Dandies and Pullman's legion is conducted with an awesome display of police firepower that absolutely resembles the massive use of high tech weaponry that we are accustomed to witnessing when America goes to war, whether abroad or in quelling domestic uprisings (think of Fallujah and Waco).

All the actors I have named deliver good turns. I was especially impressed by Bill Pullman, Jamie Bell and Mark Webber. The sound track features several songs by the 60s British pop/rock band, The Zombies, including their great hits, "She's Not There" and "Time of the Season." More than anything, to me this film feels a lot like a couple of Gus Van Sant's movies. The Dandies adopt period costumes as well as arcane, stylized manners like the street people in "My Own Private Idaho," and the notion of outcast young people bearing weapons, of course, permeates "Elephant," in a similarly lyrical manner.

I think "Dear Wendy" is a powerful film, brimming with poetic truth about us. Yes, it is polemical, one sided, provocative. It may be only half the truth, ignoring our national virtues. And the slant may be familiar. But Vinterberg and von Trier have teamed up to make a decent movie about our seemier side. (In English). My rating: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 12/11/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

I liked "Dear Wendy". It was well photographed, had good cast and the rocking soundtrack provided the light icing on a film that is both sad and happy from the inside.

It is a bit puzzling that this film has been seen as anti-American propaganda. It does criticise the American values - but so do many American films that are hardly described as anti-American. The message is even softened by placing the film in surreal, small mining town that is so detached geographically that you can almost feel the fiction. In some sense it bears resemblance to the village set on Brechtian stage in "Dogville" (compare for example the "stageness" of main street) by Lars von Trier, whose touch can be seen in "Dear Wendy", too.

It can be also seen as an anti-gun lecture - but that is just one perspective to it and in my opinion also possible to ignore.

The only turnoff is the somewhat annoying narration by the main character, that explains too much and leaves less for the viewer to ponder. I might be also giving one star too much, because the end scene, where the film picks up the pace left such a strong impression on me, and not just because of being so well shot action.

While the cinematography was very pleasing to the eyes and the young actors did a commendable job, the story itself leaves something to be desired. Though it starts out with an interesting concept, Dear Wendy winds its way into a ridiculous hole. The "twists" are random and unfounded, probably there for the sole reason of providing conflict. Also, the movie tends to be sluggish: watching for an hour feels like two or three. On the positive side, the young actors did a very good job (for the most part). At times dramatic pauses cause more laughter than thought, but that's difficult to avoid with the script. Eye-catching camera angles were used, along with some interesting techniques. To sum up, the director, cinematographer, and actors are probably usually amazing at their jobs; however, if they enjoy their careers they should stay away from writing like this.

This flick, with its subtle views on America's obsession with weapons, is likely not going to be a crowd pleaser. One of the main reasons for this is the films use of highly symbolic mise-en-scene takes several viewings to fully appreciate. Another reason for the let down is that some might be inclined to want more action for a movie that centralizes on guns.

However, this movie is brilliant. The shot composition, the editing, the acting-this movie is very well pieced together. Also, as for the meaning of the movie, it goes in a direction that is a really provocative and fresh. I would highly recommend that you give this movie a chance, and keep an open mind. I have never been a fan of the director of this film or the writer, but I was deeply pleased by this film.