Dear Wendy

There is something about guns that appeal to many people. Both my sons, when they were old enough, bought guns, even though they know the second amendment is not in effect in my house. A psychiatrist might say that a gun is a phallic substitute. Maybe so. But guns certainly represent power.

Dear Wendy is the story of Dick, a young man who discovers that carrying a gun, even though no one knows he has it, gives him a power – a confidence – that he never had before. He shares this discovery with other “losers� in town and they form the Dandies, a bit of social club, a bit of church, a bit of gang all mixed together. They find an old abandoned part of a mine and there they create The Temple, where they escape from the outside world and can concentrate on their guns. Through their joining together by carrying guns, they all begin to grow within themselves.

They have no desire to use their guns (other than in target practice) because they are pacifists. One of the prime rules of being a Dandy is that you never display your “partner.� The guns are not to be used outside The Temple. They are carried to provide “moral support.�

The attitude towards guns is an exaggerated version of the romantic mythology associated with guns in America. The Dandies don’t use just any gun. They want guns that are older, preferably with a history. They see each gun having its own character and personality. They name their guns, and refer to them as partners. They don’t refer to the purpose of guns as killing, but use the word “loving� instead. They go through a ceremony similar to a wedding in which a Dandy is united with his partner. We see in the Dandies an idyllic vision of good hearted people who just happen to love guns.

Of course, for the plot to move along there has to be some conflict. It begins with the introduction of Sebastian, the grandson of Dick’s former maid. He is African-American and has gotten into trouble elsewhere and has “blown someone away� (possibly in self-defense.) The local sheriff asks Dick to be an unofficial parole officer for Sebastian to help keep him out of trouble. Dick begins to bring Sebastian into the Dandies’ activities, although Sebastian has a much different understanding of firearms and their uses. Sebastian also brings some destructive emotions to the group, especially jealousy.

The film is written by Lars von Trier and directed by Thomas Vinterberg, the two creative Danish directors that created the Dogme movement (although this is not a Dogme film.) Dogme was designed to make films seem more real. The strictures of the Dogme Vow of Chastity are not in use here. In fact, there is a sense of unreality about this film. The unreality is not so much like a fable or fairy tale as some films. Rather the film has something of the feel of a comic book. The set for this film is just a few blocks of a mining town. It looks like a backlot street made up to look like a backlot street. It is reminiscent of the set without buildings of von Trier’s Dogville in its minimalism.

Von Trier especially has been controversial in the United States because of his portrayals of America. This film will stir that controversy a bit more. Although in production notes Vinterberg says that pacifists with guns are interesting because that is how the Western world sees itself, the film is very clearly focused on America and America’s love affair with guns. Nearly every scene has an American flag in it somewhere. The flag may or may not be obviously displayed, but it is there telling us over and over who this film is about.

It is easy to take offense at outsiders critiquing our culture. They aren’t really invested in us and we are free to question their standing at bringing such issues before us. It is especially hard to have them be so heavy handed (as with the use of flags). It makes it seem as if they are being judgmental and condemning us for the way we are so tied to violence and the means of violence.

In their defense, they point out that Americans have made films about other countries for a long time without really being part of those cultures. They also point out that much of their own culture is American in that most of the TV and movies come from the US. They feel as if they are part American because they are so surrounded by American culture.

Even though it can be debated if they are the right people to raise issues about America, it is more important to consider whether the issues are valid. Sometimes it may take an outsider to help us understand how we seem to others. To be sure, I think their picture of America is not always accurate, but it is very often the way the world sees us.

What does it mean to us that they picture us as pacifist with guns? I’m flattered they think we value peace, even though I seldom see any evidence of this on any level other than a few individuals. It is obvious that America and many Americans feel more secure because of the weapons we have, both as individuals and the large stockpile of weapons we have as a nation. We all, of course, believe that we would never use these weapons. We just want them for the “moral support� they provide. They make us stronger, we feel, just because we have them.

Is it any wonder that other nations want to be armed as well? Should we be surprised that Iran or North Korea wants to develop nuclear weapons so they can feel the same security? Do the nuclear weapons held by India or Pakistan or Israel give them security? Are they only for feeling secure? Do they hold the potential to “love� that the Dandies’ partners have?

It is true that this film can and should be seen as being about more than America. It is not only about us, it is about the way the feeling of power can seduce us into thinking our virtue is enough to restrain us, even if others can’t be trusted with such power. The power that comes from such things as guns and bombs is only power if the ability and will to use them exists as well. And when we choose to live partnered to weapons we have sold a bit of our souls for a security that might be fleeting or even illusory.

While I find validity in their overall theme, I am still bothered by part of the film – the way racism plays a role. Race is not the key issue in the film, and is never spoken of, but it certainly has a role to play. Remember that it is Sebastian who brings turmoil into the story. It is he who has killed someone. Later in the film, the battle that we know is inevitable because of the guns is precipitated by another African-American.

Are the filmmakers intentional in the use of African-Americans in this way? Is it a way of saying, “white people with guns are safe, but black people with guns are dangerous?� Is this a reflection of the filmmakers’ racism? Or is it (as seems to be the case often with von Trier and Vinterberg) merely a reflection of how they think America is? Are they intentionally racist in this way to show us what they think we need to see in ourselves?

Obviously this film will not be winning any awards from the National Rifle Association. But it may not be accurate to call it anti-gun. What it does is challenge our romantic ideas about guns and our idea that our guns (and other weapons) really give us security.

As with almost all films from von Trier or Vinterberg, Dear Wendy will upset a number of people. Perhaps what makes their films so upsetting is not just their outsider status as they look at American culture, but also that there is truth in what they tell us about ourselves.