Dear Wendy (2005)

Interview with Thomas Vinterberg

Thomas Vinterberg ist one of the founders of the Dogma95 Movement. The handsome Dane was in good humour when he met OutNow.CH at Berlinale 2005. He sympathised with us since his father was reporting as a journalist from the festival as well. The interwiew which he conducted in a perfect American English wasn't about Stress though. We talked about his friend Lars von Trier, the fascination for guns, und why he is a bit tired of Dogma.

» Deutsche Übersetzung

OutNow.CH (ON): Where did the idea for Dear Wendy come from?

Thomas Vinterberg (TV): From Lars von Trier. He wrote the script himself, but then he got obsessed with drawing lines on the floor and experimenting in that way and it did not fit into that concept. He came up with the idea that I should direct it. When I asked him why, he said, I could bring some life to it. We are ultimately different in our way of working. The whole idea behind it, was trying to combine the best of the two worlds.

ON: What was your first reaction when you read the script. It is a very violent movie, isn't it?

TV: It is. Other than being a political allegory which was interesting, provocative but also fun and entertaining in a certain sense, I felt that it was a film about young vulnerable people trying to create a larger life than their normal grey existence. Which is bit a bit of a sad story. When I first read it, they were in their mid-thirties. The first thing I did was to take it down to half that age. That vulnerability was really important for the film not to be entirely cynical and only allegorical.

ON: Is it an allegory only on the United States?

TV: It's not only on America. Gun control programmes and stuff are being talked about. But the desire towards firearms is somewhat universal. And peace keeping missions is not only American. It's the whole western society. Of course it is also a debate of American society. The American society is the frontier of western societies.

ON: What do you mean by that?

TV: Culturally they go first. Politically they go first. Scientifically the go first. They go first for good and for worth. They also go first with McDonalds. I grew up far from America but with a basketball and a Coca-Cola in my hand. I find it obvious that there are so many films that take place in America, that debate America, that celebrate America and that offend America. It is part of our imaginary landscape since we grew up with American films all the time. So I guess that's why. I hope this film will not be solely received as an arrogant finger point towards American culture. That would be poor. I hope it can do more than that and I hope it does not offend the Americans in the wrong way.

ON: Is it true that Lars von Trier never wants and will go to the USA?

TV: He can't. You don't know him. He's intoxicated with all sorts of medicine. He can't go.

ON: So why is he so fascinated by America?

TV: It has become a mythological country over the time, as I said before, through the films. And for Lars it has become even more mythological since he only saw it in films. I've been there. It makes it a bit more boring to go there. He has not. It has become a country of his imagination.

ON: Isn't that an obstacle when writing a script? Or does it give you more freedom?

TV: It's inspiring for you not to have seen it. In a way like when people masturbate. People have a much more beautiful intercourse than in real life when they masturbate. I think Lars' America is much more interesting than the real America. In that sense it is very encouraging for him not having been there. It offends and irritates a lot of people. And you can see it in one or the other way.

ON: Why did you want to do the film then since it was not about Denmark or any other country in Europe?

TV: I found no reason to discuss that it was in America. It's like the choice of a colour. It's like something you feel. So it is so difficult to discuss.

ON: So the situation was important?

TV: The political allegory, as I call it, was important. It was obvious. Lars just felt like painting in red in other words. That goes for the zombies as well. Someone asked once, when I was sitting next to him: "Why the zombies?". He said that in his mind he had a black box of things he wants to put on film. And in that box there were a couple of zombies right now. It is a simple as that. As opposed to be arrogant and finger pointing it might have been written out of a deep fascination.

ON: How did you like Elephant by Gus van Sant?

TV: I loved it. It's fun since we get always offered the same movies. I saw it together with Gus. He showed it to me in New York before it came out. I was casting Dear Wendy at the time. And I said to him that he is going to win the Palme D'or. And he did. I said the same thing to Lars, and he hated me for it. I think Dear Wendy is a very, very vulgar film compared to Elephant. Elephant is very pure, very refined. It's a cristal film. My film is porn compared with it which has another quality. When my characters are dying in slow motion with "glory glory hallelujah" it's vulgar. But I like it.

ON: What do you think of Michael Moore's films?

TV: Moore's Films are less objective. I think they are even worse that Bush's election campaign. They are great movies and very entertaining and showing stuff that we haven't seen before. They are therefore important films. But they are highly manipulative.

ON: Do you consider Dear Wendy a satire?

TV: Yes.

ON: But since you don't like to give moral statements is doing a satire ok then?

TV: Satire is great. It is provocative but it is not moralistic. I like that.

ON: How was the reaction to the movie at the Sundance Festival?

TV: We are cheating a little a bit if we are combining Sundance with the rest of America. But let's do it anyway, since it was such a great reaction. It was a very lively reaction which was the primary thing for me. One thing is the political aspect, that you discuss, that provokes people or makes them laugh. Some people can find it silly and childish and stupid. But there is another side. It was important that it worked dramatically as good as possible. Instead of just being a thought experience some people actually follow the characters and feel for them. Which was very difficult in a film filled up with irony and voice-over and stuff. There was a lot of clapping in the end. So it was a fantastic screening. But I'm sure that someone out there in the crowd hated it. There were also journalists leaving the room saying it was irresponsible. Unfortunately there were probably also some scratching their heads. That's maybe the worst reaction I can get.

ON: Don't you think it can also be a good thing if a film leaves some questions?

TV: Maybe I should think so. I am afraid of that reaction. To me it means failure. But maybe I am wrong. A thing that a lot of people have said about this movie is that they keep thinking about it. Maybe that is a compliment in a sense.

ON: Where did you get your knowledge of guns from?

TV: I've got them from books and materials. Actually some of the material they watch in the film was the material I watched.

ON: But can the stuff that happens in the film happen in real life too. Like shooting around angles and other geometric calculations that happen in the end.

TV: You can do indirect shooting but you cannot calculate that. That's fiction. You cannot say what angle it's going to fly. It is not possible. Firing blind? I don't think it works. Other than that you can do a lot of things with guns.

ON: What about killing the sniper with a gun from the second to last century?

TV: That's possible. He's got a very heavy projectile which means that it brings a lot of energy when it hits you. Also it was a little bit flat so it didn't go right through. So all the energy stays inside the man and that will kill him. The thing you die from is something called cavity. It's the shockwave that destroys your body. You can die from bleeding but that is very rare. It's like when you throw a stone into the water.

ON: Do you consider a gun to be a sexual object?

TV: In this film and maybe also in life there is something close to an erotic relationship between human beings and firearms. There is an obvious symbol of course in shooting. But there is also something in the sensation you get when you hold a gun in your hand, which is very interesting and dirty and vulgar. The whole build up of Dear Wendy is deeply sexual. In the sense that they oppress it and oppress it and then at the end they were all blown away, because they finally got to shoot. There is something that really provoked an old leftist as I am a great satisfaction connected to that. I got a little ashamed of feeling like that.

ON: Do you still follow Dogma-Productions?

TV: Does it look like we did? [he cracks up] You are not allowed to use firearms!

ON: I meant other people doing such films?

TV: It's not something we invented. Almost all artists or filmmakers react against something in order to create something, which is what we did with Dogma. We took all the conventions of filmmaking and prohibited them. But now in our mind, since we were going through a lot of years with a lot of - even commercial - success with Dogma it has become its own convention. Dogma has become a brand or a style. Dogma-Style is something ironic. Therefore it is natural for us now to act against Dogma. It's all about Love was my first reaction to Dogma and this is Lars' reaction by using as many firearms as possible. But it would be nice to come back at some point. Maybe not at a Dogma film because it has this pathetic sense of being a sucker for success. But going back to some sort of cleansing would be necessary for me.

ON: In spite of the success it meant not only for Danish Films but European film in general?

TV: I am aware of the fact that people are still being inspired and encouraged by Dogma. Which is great. The first thing Lars said to me, when he called me was: "Do you want to create a wave?" I said yes. It has become a small wave now. But we are done. We have to do something else. We try to push the boundaries. Therefore we can't repeat ourselves. There has to be something we haven't tried before. There has to be a certain risk combined with it. Else you are not alert, you are not awake and you are not exploring. That's the opposite of what they do in Hollywood.

ON: The risk of Dogma was enormous and it worked.

TV: Yes. But so was the risk of It's all about Love and it didn't work. For some it did.

ON: What do you think of young people with little money that shoot a film according to the Dogma rules.

TV: That's fantastic. I remember that Lars and I talked about, that we couldn't afford shooting this on film so we went on digital. It democratized the process. Now it became affordable which we found was great. We found it really nice and I am proud of that.

ON: Do you sometimes think of where you would be if Festen wouldn't have happened?

TV: No. But I can try since you are asking. First I did a graduate film that was very successful. So this whole festival life, celebrating myself, kind of intoxicating myself had already begun at that time. I am thankful that it happened. But if I didn't do it? I don't know. I haven't got a clue. How should I know? It's like if I asked myself what would have happened if I didn't accidentally meet my wife that day because she accidentally went to the dentist in that same area where I life.

ON: Is the group that found Dogma still meeting some time?

TV: There were four. One of them lives in London now. Another one does something else. Lars and I share offices. So we are like married for good and for worth. But we talked about what to do when Dogma becomes ten years of age which is now. It's either shutting it down or making another one.

ON: To finish this up, I would like to give you some keyword and you just tell me what pops into you mind first.

TV: Ok.

ON: Lars von Trier

TV: Childish

ON: Danish Film Promotion

TV: Pathetic

ON: Switzerland

TV: Skiing

ON: America

TV: Guns

ON: Weddings

TV: Sex

26.07.2005 / rm