Talk:Dear Wendy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

[edit] Plot

This plot description is absurdly POV. - User:ShadowyCaballero

I noticed that too. I'm moving it here for now. Maybe someone can go through it and salvage the useful parts. Serpent-A 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Any film by a proven director deserves to be seen and commented on in its own terms. this is not what has happened to 'Dear Wendy'. The film was written by Lars von Trier and exhibits many of his tics and obsessions - notably a tendency to be didactic and rather melodramatic, yet also with a strong structure. Vinterberg works against most of the negative traits here, favouring a loose naturalism within the highly stylised story and setting.

The acting is uniformly excellent, but the debate and almost all 'criticism' for the film is centered on the supposed moral of the story - a group of misfit and rather anodyne teenagers form a pacifist gun club, develop close almost fetishistic attachments to their weapons, and run into the inevitable conflict with reality.

NO SPOILERS. Reading reviews and press reports, almost all discussion (and dislike) surrounding the film has been of two types: a) a non-cinematic debate about gun control in the USA; and b) criticism of the film's artificial and 'inauthentic' setting. Both of these trains of thought are held in common with Lars von Trier's recent 'Dogville'.

The film is however, very thoughtfully made, with beauitiful imagery and a distinct awareness of its own artificial nature. There are unusual moments of beauty and life within the film, and if at times the temptation to view it as a somewhat 'failed' Hollywood drama intrude, nevertheless, as a film, it does not fall into many of the dull traps of those 'typical' genre films.

Much closer to van Sant's 'Elephant' than to (say) 'Bonnie and Clyde', and very much worth the time.