Dogme 95. Good? Bad? Quite possibly ugly.

AS we speak, purist filmmakers are lurking in the shadows, having signed the Dogme 95 vow of chastity (I swear to god, there is one) they are prepared to make films, and be even more pretentious than the average arthouse auteur.

For those of you not familiar with this particular breed of filmmaker, you can check out their website at http://www.tvropa.com/tvropa1.2/film/dogme95/index.htm but for the impatient ones, I'll have a quick synopsis.

The basic concept, is that Dogme 95 is filmmaking, with rules. Lots, and lots, and lots of rules. This was invented by a group of film minimalist, who, sick of overproduction, and shallow story, have created a set of rules to inhibit these types of "easy" films. heres a quote from their site

"Predictability (dramaturgy) has become the golden calf around which we dance. Having the characters’ inner lives justify the plot is too complicated, and not “high art”. As never before, the superficial action and the superficial movie are receiving all the praise.
The result is barren. An illusion of pathos and an illusion of love."

I'm confused on how to feel about these people, so, I've thrown up their Vow of Chastity, and tell me your opinion.


"I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGME 95:



1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
10. The director must not be credited.
Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.
Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY."


If you like the idea, print out the Vow Of Chastity, sign it, and date it, and you will officially be a member of Dogme 95.

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

Oh man. This thread is never going to get replies.

I have always found Dogme intriguing. I haven't seen any of the films [although I fail to see how any film in the history of Earth is able to truly be genre-free], but I like the mentality in some ways, and in others I hate it.

Of course, there's the fact that they're going against all the people I like to go against, which is nice; but on the other side of the spectrum, they're adding rules to art [which, if you've read any of the how to write a screenplay thread, you'll know I hate]. The thing I do like is the manner in which Dogme directors are constantly breaking their very own rules, crediting themselves and such, adding lighting because, well, they just had to do it.

Spielberg, I once read, said he was very interested in doing a Dogme film, and to be honest, I'd love to see how it turned out. And I'd be interested in doing one too, although I would think I would only have one in me. The thing with Dogme, I would think, is that, amongst it's extreme art in artistic povery sort of approach, the films would be very hard to enjoy as an audience member.

Dogme 95 is an experiment, so experiment away. But any piece of art made while there are rules attached, ultimately, goes against what it's all about, and so Dogme is really somewhat of a contradiction. It's an interesting contradiction, but ultimately, as I started this paragraph, an experiment.

It's something to try out once or twice, and to see if you like it.
Pretentious? Yes.
Different? Sure.
Intriguing? Depends.

I'd watch a Dogme film at least once, and make one at least once.
And I have a slight suspicion that that would be it.

My two cents.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

I too would like to watch a Dogme film, and quite possibly be interested in making one. But the question arises, what story would I use?

If I had a really good story, I don't think I would "waste" it, on a Dogme film, simply because I'd be so artistically restricted by the rules. Using a mediocre story is also out of the question, it would hardly be worth my while to make a film that didn't interest me. I'd think that to do a Dogme film, one would have to totally commit oneself to the Dogme cause. And I don't think I'm ready.

I'm too... afraid .

It's still an interesting topic, adn maybe I'll get around to trying out the rules.
But, Vow Of Chastity? Hell no. That just sounds too permanent.

That's the reason I probably wouldn't follow all the rules if I were ever to partake in such a practice.

Not credit myself? You have to be kidding me.
Academy 35mm? I'm lucky enough to be able to afford DV.

I totally disagree with all of those Dogme rules! That is a horrible way to make movies. I understand wanting to distance yourself from say Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, but those rules are ridiculous. I actually saw a film made under those rules, the film Breaking The Waves, by Lars Von Trier (Who helped come up with the whole Dogme 95 idea), and it was ugly and boring. I will probably never make a movie, but if I ever did, I certainly wouldn't make a Dogme style film....

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

No one ever said that the films aren't boring [and they most certainly are] or ugly [Hell yes], the point is it's just a convention breaking experiment for directors who want to make films to challenge themselves. As opposed to an audience. Who are just fodder in my own opinion.

hmmm, interesting, i've heard of the dogme rules, and seen a few of the films, but hadnt read the rules themselves.

i think these rules can actually facilitate a film's impact on the audience in certain contexts, both due to the values of the rules themselves, and their translation to actual film. havent seen too many of these, but 'julien donkey-boy' comes to mind as a very successful use of limits to aproach the most brutal and honest depiction of schizophrenia i've seen in film.
neither did i find it boring, and neither does crude/ugly visual depiction necesarily translate into unrewarding/boring viewing.
i already think music is overused in film, and usually am very impressed when the rare movie comes along that doesnt pound you with an intrusive and irrelevant soundtrack that hinders its tonal/emotional integrity. (a good example of this is a little known film by japanese director shunji iwai called 'undo' 1994.)

what are you people's thoughts on the use of music in film? i asume from the responses so far, that i'm alone in my general annoyance...

i'd also like to point out that the logical connections between the rules are convergent, rather than linked conditionally, so i cant really imagine that the people who wrote them actually expected subscribers to never take liberties, unless they were total wackos. i'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

"Breaking The Waves" is not a Dogme '95 film. One of the Dogme rules is that a director can only make one Dogme film, and von Trier's contribution is "The Idiots", not "Breaking The Waves". There are a lot of things in "Breaking The Waves" that violates the rules of Dogme '95, even if it's different compared to ..eh.. conventional films. I loved "Breaking The Waves", by the way.

I don't see how you can "waste" a good story on a film by making it a dogme film. There is, however, stories that's probably impossible to shoot with those rules hanging over you. But one of my absolute all time favourites is a dogme film. Check out "The Celebration" (1998) by Thomas Vinterberg and tell me what you think.