MovieChat Forums > Dear Wendy (2005) Discussion > You're All Missing The Point

You're All Missing The Point

posted 18 years ago by Buffy24601
34 replies | jump to latest

IF there is any moral to the movie, it isn't that guns are evil. It's that guns are simply tools and have no inherent morality.

1. The Dandies were intent on never using their guns to harm others, unless, as in the end, they have no other choice. They kept their gun use to a place away from the rest of society, simply researching and having fun with target practice.

2. All of the adults in town were terrified, even paranoid, of the idea of guns and gangs. Mr. Solomon, Clarabelle, etc. The sheriff also assumed guns = bad people. But this wasn't true. The Dandies were good people, something that all of the very same characters pointed out throughout the movie, until they discovered the guns. They were good kids, Dick was a nice boy, etc.

3. Despite being such "good boys", when a TOTAL ACCIDENT occurs, involving a SENILE old woman who's not entirely aware of her surroundings, they entire town rallies against them simply because they HAVE guns. Not because THEY have done ANYTHING wrong, only because they have guns. This is ironic because 30 or more well-armed police show up. Well-armed. This has nothing to do with the Dandies themselves, because they are considered good people, but the guns themselves, which by their PERCIEVED nature, have tainted them.

4. The Dandies are not only going out and getting shot because they want to deliver some coffee. After they lose most of their coffee, they continue. This is about an ideal. About freedom and their right to carry arms (hey, remember the Constitution everyone? Right to bear arms?). They are given the option to give up their "partners" but they choose not to. Why? Not because they guns have made them a blood thirsty gang (Huey first warns the police that they do not want to open fire and only wish to help Clarabelle to her annual visit) but because they have a right to not only their guns, but their choices. To give up their guns to the police would be to give up their rights, their ideals, their personal and private freedoms. It would also be accepting that they had done something wrong - but they haven't. They've injured or threatened no one, and their guns were neither, as far as the movie shows, illegal or dangerous to anyone.

5. The police, despite logical attempts to discuss their motivation and intent, assume that these people are dangerous. They don't ask why they carry guns, or if they are legally registered, or if the guns have ever been used against anyone. The line is simply drawn that guns make you bad, unless you're a cop, and then you can shoot people whenever you need or want to. Is that fair? No. Therefore, the Dandies fight both hypocritical viewpoints and police brutality. The police, within this film, have been condescending, sneaky, violent, and racist. This is part of the point. The ironic paradox of good people not being allowed to carry guns, while arrogant and tainted yet powerful individuals have them and may use them as they so desire.

6. Finally, yes. It is completely over the top. Social commentaries tend to be. It's (potentially) addressing the issues of gun control and police brutality. We had to be clear on the fact that the police aren't so obviously good guys, that the Dandies would die for their beliefs, that guns cause violence but only in the hands of people intent on causing it, etc. It was unrealistic.

However, I've seen lesser things happen - a friend was expelled from school because he came to class right after a hunting trip with his father. His gun was locked in his car, down the street in a public parking lot (the school is overcrowded) and yet someone saw it, assumed the worst, and reported it. In France, the Paris riots were sparked by police shooting a teen who was fleeing during a chase. Their was no proof of involvement in any crime, and he was shot in the back.

Point being, this isn't a movie about the evils of guns (though guns can definitely be used for evil - I think the police in this movie were doing more harm than the Dandies ever could have) or a simply coming of age story. It, at it's best, can be extremely thought provoking and important.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] silent_protester 18 years ago

The police said they just wanted to take her away but after the Dandies flee you see alot of armed police come out from their hiding places so I thought that they were planning to shoot her all along. They did kill first because Huey felt threatened and fired. But at the end Dick is shot through a window when he's is making a cup of coffee so is therefore unthreatening so why shoot him?
Personally I agree with Buffy.

[–] jenniferles1000 15 years ago

I just the whole movie was really stupid and not true to life at all the Dandies were clearly in the wrong at the end the old woman although senile did shoot a police officer and needed to be taken away for her own safety as well as others the polie were doing their job and the Dandies start shooting at them.
Stupid Stupid movie 4 out of 10.

[–] Drewy 11 years ago

Dick is shot through a window when he's is making a cup of coffee so is therefore unthreatening so why shoot him?

Dick was shot by SEBASTIAN while making the coffee, not by any of the cops. In fact, the cops had a clear shot at him, we saw him in their sights, but they didn't shoot. Dick had already been shot, of course, and was struggling. But the shot while he was making coffee came from Sebastian and Wendy.

[–] scottjm1967 18 years ago

people dont realize that hardly anyone reads those ridiculously long posts.

She Tells Him shes at church but she doesnt go,
Still, shes on her knees and Scotty doesnt know!

[–] scottjm1967 18 years ago

besides, i think most people didnt like it because of the directors strange take on kids in america

She Tells Him shes at church but she doesnt go,
Still, shes on her knees and Scotty doesnt know!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mach3blackbird 17 years ago

There is a definitely a way to interpret this movie as supporting the gun nuts' beliefs. Surely the whole showdown at the end isn't the sort of thing that gun nuts would regard as proof of the evil government's totalitarian nature? I mean, these are a bunch of kids who are just trying to keep to themselves and shoot their archaic guns peacefully, and yet they get massacred by 100 cops armed with M-16s.

Really, I just saw this movie as deliberately ambiguous. I imagine the screenwriter (not necesarily the director) had some kind of interest in guns, but lamented American culture and the role guns play in it.

"[I've] passed two English exams...I arent 15" - johnny_boosta

[–] tydaj1 17 years ago

I have to agree about the ambiguity. What was more pertinent to me was the mythos that the Dandies built up. As with any counter-cultural movement they rejected the norms of society (in this case working in the mines, etc). Instead they created an alternate, romanticized world with it's own values. Sebastian was like a bridge between the "real" world and the idealistic world of the Dandies. It would be great to live in a world were people weren't *beep* to each other and only shot at targets in abandoned mine shafts instead of at one another, but in the end guns were made for killing, and there's no way to get around that.

I guess I could inject my own personal political beliefs here and say that it was a social commentary that shows how guns are destructive even for those with pure intentions, but I think the main intention was just to show the conflict between the ideal world and the real world.

[–] imdb-14670 17 years ago

I have to wonder if some of the "well, it's a gun; of COURSE people are going to die"/"guns are inherently evil" attitude I have seen in many of the posts discussing this movie is being created by the urbanisation of the US. What I mean is that, in an urban setting, guns are there to shoot people. Whether they're in the hands of the police, or criminals, or homeowners attempting to defend themselves, the assumption is that, if a gun is going to be used, it's going to be aimed at a human.

Attitudes towards guns are a bit different here in Canada (at least in the rural areas, which are still most of the country). We have a much higher guns-per-capita count than the US, but MANY fewer gun-related deaths. And, perhaps some of that is because to most of us, a gun is just a tool.

Guns are not inherently evil. They ARE inherently dangerous, just as a chainsaw or an axe are. I'm not going to let my kid use any of them until he's old enough and knowledgeable enough to use them safely. But I don't regard the chainsaw as 'evil'; I don't see the gun as 'evil' either. It's a tool.

We have dogs, chickens, and a small kid, and live in a very rural setting. And when there's a coyote or a fox in the yard, I grab the gun. If there's a grouse I grab the gun. If there's a stag or a bull moose on the lawn, better believe it: I'm grabbing the gun. There are bears and cougars and wolves in the area; I'd have to be an idiot to NOT have a gun, especially with a preschooler around.

Would I automatically go for it if someone was trying to break in? To be perfectly honest, I doubt it would even occur to me. Frankly, I'd probably go for the hatchet by the woodstove. It's a tool, and it's sharp. The gun is a tool, and I'd have to stop and load it. Besides, it's for shooting food and chasing predators away from our livestock, not for shooting people. Why WOULD I think of using it, before anything else?

So far as the ending of the movie went, I knew that it would end badly, right from the beginning. How could it not? These were kids playing with handguns in Middle Amrica, or someplace close enough to it as to make no nevermind; sooner or later someone else was going to come along, misunderstand things, and the whole situation would degenerate. Probably fatally. Frankly, even after the cop was shot by the grandma, things didn't really go south until two things happened:

One: An outsider, who didn't personally know the boys, stepped in, and instead of seeing someone he knew in a tense, but controllable, situation, saw merely some punk kid with a gun. And then relied on his authority and bluster to overwhelm the kid. We know how that ended for him. Shame the rest of the force either didn't realize or ignored that it was a flintlock, and therefore a single-shot; having fired his weapon, he was now effectively disarmed.

Two: The Dandies broke their cardinal rule, and 'brandished' their partners in daylight, waking them up to their true nature. And, in the US as in so many places, the nature of a handgun is to kill other humans.

Here, the main nature of the handgun is to have something to hand when you're in the bush, and a bear or a moose surprises you when you're having a pee...

My husband and I both found it to be a deeply saddening, thought-provoking film. Frankly, we found the futility of the ending deep enough that we were afraid that it might have been based on a true story. It's a pretty screwed-up world, after all...

[–] samglen20 17 years ago

i like the last two posts because it brings up some rather pertinent points. about the difference in the real world, and the ideal world, and also about the fact that (for example) a gun in the hand of a kid, is not safe because the child does not know how to deal with the 'tool'.

The characters are portrayed as innocent young people in more ways then i can be bothered putting down. trier agreed with the idea vinterberg had about changing the age of the characters. I think it was brilliant too, especially because i think it makes my point plausible.

You could look at it in two ways, either it's a reference to how guns can be dangerous in even the most innocent of hands, and it contrasts the dandies and the police force (or for the sake of my next argument...government); both groups i believe are accountable for their injustices. the dandies for shooting the government, and the government for allowing a bunch of kids to have guns in the first place.

or second, its a reference to how the government allows the use of arms until the use poses a threat, then they intend to crush all dealings with them. i believe it could be a reference to the government (american specifically) and allowing the use of guns, knowing full well it's possible that young innocent people could get their hands on them, and do. dare i say, Iraq. how many young people are over there.

finally, this movie does prove that peace can exist in an idealistic world, but i think the underlying message von trier was trying to get out is: could there be peace in the real world if there were no guns? A theoretical question and not an answer to world peace, and certainly not the message i got from dogville. but isn't that whats great about ambiguity, it leaves things open for interpretation.

[–] kelticman 17 years ago

if a black person of any age accidentally shoots someone (clara was out of her head) then the cops will kill. here in texas every time, every time the cops get in trouble for killing someone unarmed....they are black.

sebastian realized that if they walked into that square, he and granny were goners. and because they HAD GUNS, and were with BLACKS, the dandies would be dead too.

notice how the cops shot hughie to death, even though he had an obvious ONE SHOT PISTOL. and was on crutches.

this movie is not meant to be realistic.

in a real life situation, when that deputy got shot, i doubt they would drag the granny back to the bat cave. but the movie played up the idea that they were on a MISSION.

and everyone in the movie is paranoid about gangs and guns. what are the dandies? a gang.
bonk!

[–] mh85 17 years ago

Yea, I got that clockwork orange feel about it too.

[–] rocio-berrios 17 years ago

so did i

[–] Stevelow 17 years ago

I thought the film handled the paranoia that exists within America and other countries obv.. about the perceived threat of danger when thier is actually no danger to be found(imagining gangs ect...terrorists at the doorstep, Bushes propoganda machine)And the so called pseudo confidence that a gun gives people when the threat is actually the individual themselves.

[–] snorky137 17 years ago

That is far from reality.
The gangs and terrorists danger is very real in America, the terrorist danger is very real world-wide for that matter.
Anti-Americanism has two main causes:
1- Communist propaganda.
2- Islamic propaganda.
Both currently working together on a common goal of controlling the world with their "self-righteous" ideology under a brutal dictatorship.
Something that many groups of idiots have been trying to do since the dawn of humanity, and never succeeded, but managed to cause most of the major wars in the history.
That is a very real danger my friend.
People trying to force others to live under the ideology that was forced on themselves to begin with.
America is about freedoms, one can choose to be a bum or a billionaire, a porn star or a priest...
Be afraid of the nations or groups of people who want to ban one or the other.

[–] Stevelow 17 years ago

All i am saying is that violence is built on fear and fearmakes people protect themselves with guns as this film shows that when the inexpereinced gain guns they overreact and start imagining all sort of enemys

[–] snorky137 17 years ago

All i am saying is that violence is built on fear and fearmakes people protect themselves with guns as this film shows that when the inexpereinced gain guns they overreact and start imagining all sort of enemys

That's half the truth my friend.
Violence is not built on fear alone, the majority of the most brutal murderers and genocidal leaders were not acting out of fear, but the desire to conquer and control others.
Now on the other side, you are right, that kind of people should be feared for a good reason, and people do have a right to protect themselves from any kind of dictatorship.
That's the whole truth on violence.
The means may be the same but the ends are different.
A gun in family household has one purpose only, protection against criminal elements.
A gun in the hands of a criminal also has one purpose only, to hurt others, or to threaten to hurt others so they can get what they want un-justly, be it stolen money, rape, or religious terrorism.
It's hard to imagine a responsible gun owner family person would start shooting everybody because they seem like imaginary enemies.
It is however a very real fact of life that criminals do hurt people every day by millions.
The gun in the hands of either side is just a tool, not the cause of how they behave.

[–] Drewy 11 years ago

people dont realize that hardly anyone reads those ridiculously long posts.

One of my pet peeves in the whole world is when people automatically believe that everyone else thinks like they do.

We say "no one likes" when we mean "I don't like".

We say "everyone hates" when we mean "I hate".

I personally don't mind reading long posts as long as they are interesting, informative and on the point. I don't pretend to know whether lots of people share my viewpoint or almost no one else. And it doesn't matter. It's MY interest that I'm talking about.

And yet SOME short posts like the one above that I'm responding to are the ones that I find ridiculous.

[–] snorky137 17 years ago

Nah, it's not about police brutality at all. In fact the police were the victims in the movie.

It's not about gun control either, although Dick tries to brainwash everybody from the beginning that it was because of an "innocent" toy gun that started it all.
Gun control is an idealistic myth, anybody can obtain a gun anywhere in the world, banned or not, that's the reality.

The point is not about "kids and guns" either, although that is a good point to make. If that was the case, the story could have focused on an "accidental discharge" by some kid who killed somebody. Well, that point was made by the insane lady with a shotgun, but that wasn't quite an accident either, she killed a man who was helping her without hesitation, far from an accident.
And the twist of the story is that the kids weren't playing with guns, they were into serious training.

The point is that the kids despite what everybody thought of them as nice fellows were all evil spirits, regardless of whatever reason that made them so, in the end they became senseless killers. No other words can explain it other than "insanity." They totally lost it in the end, and lost their lives.

The real point is about the real evil living among us, while everybody assumes they are "good" people.
As a matter of fact, the criminology studies prove that most of the serial killers and nowadays the terrorists are considered "nice fellows" by people around them.
Another fact, most of abused women think their abuser is a really nice guy, and they might have done something wrong to anger the abuser.
Get the point?
The real evil, and the real average idiot who can't see it as it is.
The point is the kids all had one wish in common, to go out and kill, despite the "nice guy mask" that they had on, and despite the "ideology" that they created to cover up their activities, their "actions" were all towards becoming anti-social killers, something they all had in them to start with.

[–] mach3blackbird 17 years ago

Gun control is an idealistic myth, anybody can obtain a gun anywhere in the world, banned or not, that's the reality.

That is NOT reality. That is pro-gun nut propoganda.

[–] snorky137 17 years ago

That is NOT reality. That is pro-gun nut propoganda

I have traveled to 17 countries in 4 continents, and to several towns and cities in each one for that matter, in each and every place guns were available, legal or not.
I KNOW of at least another 50 something countries that guns are available to someone who was looking for them.

Based on these facts I state again, that anybody can get a gun anywhere in the world if they want to.

That is pro-gun nut propoganda.

There is no such a thing as pro-gun nut propaganda.
Obviously when the logic fails the personal attacks start.
I am a gun owner and collector if you should know, so are most people around me, I have never heard of or seen anybody around me to have misused their weapon even once, although they all practice regularly, and I tell you this my friend when that rapist, thief, child molester, or murderer shows up in our neighborhood we can protect ourselves and our families. Can you?
Do you have any reason to believe that making gun ownership illegal will prevent the criminals from getting the guns?
Until you can positively prove that there is not a armed criminal element in the society I am keeping my guns.

[–] mach3blackbird 17 years ago

A gun in family household has one purpose only, protection against criminal elements.
A gun in the hands of a criminal also has one purpose only, to hurt others, or to threaten to hurt others so they can get what they want un-justly, be it stolen money, rape, or religious terrorism.

A gun in a family household may be used for hunting, or it may be used for sporting purposes. But such guns are usually designed for said purpose (i.e. a shotgun or hunting rifle). Handguns, yes, more likely to be used for protection.

Also, one of Gary Kleck's own studies has shown that the main reason criminals acquire guns is protection from other criminals (i.e. drug dealers buying pistols in case a rival dealer threatens their turf).

I have traveled to 17 countries in 4 continents, and to several towns and cities in each one for that matter, in each and every place guns were available, legal or not.

Yeah, so? I've been to many countries where guns were either illegal or heavily regulated and guns were unavailable to anyone but the most well-connected criminal elements. I think the contrast is pretty obvious when we consider just how much higher America's gun crime rate (and murder rate) are compared to many such countries.

Based on these facts I state again, that anybody can get a gun anywhere in the world if they want to.

OK, well, let's pretend I'm a "criminal" (in the vaguest sense of that term). I would love to get my hands on a brand-new Heckler & Koch G36 automatic carbine, preferably with Beta-C 100-round drum magazines, so that I can rob banks. Would you happen to know where I can get one? That weapon has never been legally available to civilians in the U.S., but since criminals according to you have the ability to access some magical "black market" where guns are available, I guess under your logic I should be able to get one? Please, PLEASE tell me who would be able to get one for me.

Anyway, in the United States, the vast, VAST majority (as in, probably 99%) of guns used in crime start out as legal. They may not be legally possessed by the person who uses them, but in nearly all cases, they were legally purchased by someone else at a gun store, and then illegally sold to the criminals.

There is no such a thing as pro-gun nut propaganda.
Obviously when the logic fails the personal attacks start.

Excuse me? Have you seen pro-gun nut editorials on web sites like KeepAndBearArms.com? They routinely attack people who support gun control as being "communists" and "freedom haters" and all that. Those aren't personal attacks? I would say that the supporters of gun control are far, FAR more civilized in comparison, judging by most of what I read.

Not to mention that the supposed "logic" underlies most pro-gun arguments is highly, HIGHLY questionable. It is not at all incontrovertible fact that gun laws have no effect on crime and violence; you need to accept this and be open to arguments to the contrary, even if the thought of losing your precious firearms makes you so afraid.

I am a gun owner and collector if you should know, so are most people around me, I have never heard of or seen anybody around me to have misused their weapon even once, although they all practice regularly, and I tell you this my friend when that rapist, thief, child molester, or murderer shows up in our neighborhood we can protect ourselves and our families. Can you?
Do you have any reason to believe that making gun ownership illegal will prevent the criminals from getting the guns?
Until you can positively prove that there is not a armed criminal element in the society I am keeping my guns.

I am not interested in banning guns. Just making it as difficult as possible for criminals to get them. Of course there are people who use guns for legitimate purposes and not crime, but the problem is that if guns are easily available to them, they're also easily available to criminals. It is therefore important to make sure that legal gun owners are the only ones buying/owning firearms, via background checks (which we now have, of course, but we didn't until 1994) and registration/licensing laws.

That said, why are you so afraid of criminals with guns? Do you live in some kind of environment where you need to worry about getting shot constantly? And don't you think that if criminals had a more difficult time getting ahold of guns, you wouldn't need to be afraid?

[–] jeffrey-100 17 years ago

I think your completely off with your analysis of this move. The kids were a group of misfits or nerds if you will. They were the really weird kids at school that every one picks and no one likes.

It's been a while since I've seen this and I don't remember their names but the main guy this who started this little club got a hold to his 1st gun and it gave him a sense of power. It gave him confidence. It gave him all the things that he had been lacking his whole life. So therefore he became obsessed with his gun. He even named it.

He shared these feelings with his friends and they all got guns too and they started this club.

They wern't doing this for freedom or to be good kids or bad. It simply made them not feel like such losers anymore.

The guns changed these kids and with their new behavoirs, caused this very nasty even at the end of the movie.

I think if this movie send any message it's an anti gun message because this kids gun "wendy" turned him into a more warped person than he already was and he was ready to throw his whole life away and his friends.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mtherfackr 17 years ago

All the points made by de OP are really good, and right on point. I would like to add that it might be making a comment on US foreign policy. The police in the film being the US (the world police, if you will) and the Dandies being their so called "enemies" (nations considered the enemy by the US). I think it describes both of them pretty accurately.

Great commentary, great film.

[–] GethinVanH 16 years ago

I'm an anarchist so I hate authority figures but I actually sympathized with the police in this movie. This is pretty much a first for me. The Dandies were a bunch of annoying kids who fell in love with their penises. They didn't even have any motivation or political ideas. They were just a cult, plain and simple. They had absolutely no modus operandi besides the fact they loved their guns and didn't want them taken away. They were all loners and perhaps the story was trying to make some kind of connection to the Columbine killers but we never knew the characters well enough for sympathize for them. They killed the police why? Because they didn't want their guns taken away? This movie was absolutely ridiculous.

It had absolutely nothing to do with US foreign policy. It came across as an NRA propaganda piece. I'm all for owning guns if you're fighting a bloody revolution against a ruthless government like Burma or Pakistan but these kids were just playing clubhouse. Really, it wasn't very interesting.

[–] Mawgojzeta 15 years ago

Incredibly written, Buffy24601!

As the movie ended the word "Tragedy" came to mind. I could see Shakespeare writing a play like this.

[–] s_k_a_d_i 15 years ago

That is a very well constructed post, Buffy, but the only thing I got out of this movie was a good 7 hours of drinking to forget the worst 100 or so minutes of my life.