Dear Wendy (2005)

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.

Fmovies: Thomas Vinterberg has finally reemerged from the disaster that was "It's all about love", and with help from compatriot Lars Von Trier he has delivered a hugely original and entertaining film. The story evolves around Dick - a small town loser who feels confident by holding a gun. Seeing this, he creates a group "the Dandies" of fellow gun-fanatics. Violent as it may seem, the point of the group is pacifism - to obsess with guns, but NOT TO USE THEM. Yet when ex-criminal Sebastian joins the group tensions emerge, and Dicks ego and his gun-obsession becomes a deadly cocktail. The story is absolutely outrageous, but Vinterberg, realizing this, gives the film a warped, almost giddy, feel. This actually complements Von Trier's screenplay better than the latter's ultra-realistic style, and prevents the film from becoming moralizing. The only real drawback of the story is the slow start and the dialog, which at times has difficulty hiding the fact that it has, in fact, been translated from Danish into English. Nevertheless, a strong comeback for Vinterberg - let's hope he can do some more serious stuff as well.

I saw this movie in France with a large group of friends, something I highly recommend. We all seemed to have a different take on the film and each of us was able to draw something unique from it. Some loved it; some hated it. One of us focused on the powerful characters, another on the coming-of-age aspect, another on the gun control issues, etc. I saw it as a commentary on the power of fear in light of current world events and about how allowing that fear to control your life can ultimately bring about the very tragedy of which you are most afraid.

Dear Wendy certainly lends itself well to conversations that surpass the standard post-movie fare. I am looking forward to it coming stateside so I can see it again with other friends and see what reactions the film provokes in them ...

Dear Wendy fmovies. Up for the award for weirdest film I've seen in quite a while. You don't believe me? Okay, the plot revolves around Dick, who seems to have no friends at all and who lives in a small, nameless town in America that is totally centred on working in the mine. He buys a toy gun as a present for someone he doesn't like, but doesn't give it to him. Eventually he discovers that the gun isn't a toy at all, its real. He falls pretty much in love with this gun, names it Wendy, and forms a type of gang; The Dandies, who are pacifists although they do love their weapons.

Obviously, things do not work out well.

The whole style of the film is strange. Virtually all of it is narration, which is then developed in a few conversations or, and for the most part, shown and illustrated through what we see occur. It is also rather on the surreal side. I don't mean melting watches or anything, just, well surreal.

And I really liked it. The detached position the audience is placed in by not being able to engage with any of the characters except through the letters Dick writes/narrates. And the very fact that we're never quite sure what the film is about. Is it anti-gun, or just anti the culture that seems to love guns and violence yet wants to hide it away? Or is it a praise of their idealism? And lets not forget the humour. If you can't laugh at this film I don't think you'll enjoy it.

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.

A

I went into this film extremely hesitant. I don't know Vinterberg well, but I do know there isn't much about Lars that I like at all. Top that with a subject matter that I'm rather sensitive about as well. But the film was beautifully filmed and the performances were enjoyable. I enjoyed all of it. I disagree with critics who say the film attacked America or had a heavy-hitting message in it. I think it's subtler than that. For me it was the big surprise of Sundance 05. Rich and fun. In the script, the characters were twice as old as those in the film, and I think Vinterberg made a wise choice in changing that. What is powerful in a teenager can look dorky in a 30-something.