-
Mmmmm... Spielberg making a film acording to the Dogme-dogma.... right. Just as soon as he gets done making Jurasic Park 19... and defending A.I.
Two other points:
1) It's not hard to make a film using real locations, in real time, with real actions and no props: it's called a documentary.
2) I beleive I remember seeing the budget for The Celebration somewhere when it came out. Seems to me, if I'm not mistaken, it was somewhere around the high $300,000 mark. I have some freinds who shot a feature on miniDV using an XL-1, and minus the cost of the camera, the spent a little under $1,000. Apparently, if they were slightly better writers (and weren't obsessed with horror movies), they could have had their names plastered all over the variety mags...
Or maybe they jsut need to change their names to Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh.
-
Quote:
Two other points:
1) It's not hard to make a film using real locations, in real time, with real actions and no props: it's called a documentary.
2) I beleive I remember seeing the budget for The Celebration somewhere when it came out. Seems to me, if I'm not mistaken, it was somewhere around the high $300,000 mark. I have some freinds who shot a feature on miniDV using an XL-1, and minus the cost of the camera, the spent a little under $1,000. Apparently, if they were slightly better writers (and weren't obsessed with horror movies), they could have had their names plastered all over the variety mags...
Or maybe they jsut need to change their names to Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh.[/B][/QUOTE]
1. Documentary is FAR, FAR from fiction filmmaking. Its approach is different, its need is different. I think both documentarists and Dogme followers would be both insulted by the comparison.
I think this analogy if severely flawed and uninformed (the analogy NOT you).
2. Remember the film was carried out by a pro crew and international cast. Thus, must be payed with serious money (SAG, DPs, TEAMSTERS http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif.
Moviestuff:
If the guidelines CAN result in new and interesting material then what is the difference if they shoot handheld with a DV and not 535B. The rules where meant to challenge filmmakers not create a religion.
Also, I'm confused:
"It is interesting, also, that the purpose of Dogme was to break away from the rules and molds of Hollywood....and then the first thing they did was institute their own set of rules and molds!
My daddy used to look around at all us "hippies" and say, "Look at all you damned hippies. So alike in your desire to be different."
Dogme is not an anarchist style of filmmaking. Are you saying they all are the same? Or are you saying that they turned out like Hollywood in their structure?
Please clarify.
I am highly interested in the debate but so far, those against Dogme has not stated any real valid arguments.
I regards to aesthetic qualities (or lack of it)- maybe that is their point. Hollywood has made us accept that valid movie making must consist of 35mm, Zeiss primes and Kodak 200T.
Picasso was blasted for his paintings looking like a 6 yr old's painting. From him Kadinsky, Pollock, DeKooning, Worhol, Kubrick, countless filmmakers and cosidered by many artists and crtics as the most important visual artist of the 20th century.
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring almost caused a riot for 'improper' use of instruments and often drifitng to sounds following no musical key whatsoever.
I am not saying 'Celebration' is a Guernica or Dogme the next Cubism, but if another style can expand our visual pallete and our perspective why not let it flourish until a valid arguement against rises.
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited August 04, 2001).]
-
OK, granted. No one is going to argue that documentary and fiction are totally different forms that fill different needs... my argument is that, based on the criteria I was using to make that at some point, there is a certain line begins to blur.
For instance, let us imagine that someone wants to make a Dogme95-style, FICTIONAL film about race relations in public high schools. So they get a cast of talented high school students together- black, white, latino- come up with some scenarios, and flesh out a story. They get permission to shoot inside a public school, using the actual student body as extras. They shoot using a handheld video camera, and use all natural light. Further than that, they let the actors improvise all their dialog... This seems to me a perfectly legitimate scenario for a film, one that would be praised as "groundbreaking, fresh and new" by all the jack-asses that write about films.
The problem is, once you go that far towards "reality" or whatever, I think you could make the arguement "Hey, wouldn't it be easier just to GIVE A VIDEOCAMERA TO THE KIDS WHO GO TO PUBLIC HIGHSCHOOLS AND LET THEM SHOOT WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM EVERYDAY?"
We did this in my high school (I went to a pretty progressive school) back when the movie KIDS came out. We had this teacher who was going on and on about the film, and there were several of us- the bookworm types who were nothing like the characters in that film- we said "Look, that film is shit. Yeah, it may show what people our age a SUPPOSED to be like, but it isn't right. It doesn't show what MAKES kids like that. It doesn't show these kids working in shitty jobs, or dealing with abusive parents, or 15-year old girls who have two-year old children who have to get up every morning and come here to try to finish the 9th grade."
Our point was that while it was supposed to be "real", it was like this DATELINE-NBC "real": "This is what your kids are like, shouldn't you parents be ASHAMED? Everyone else, run and lock your doors, because THESE people don't bring their kids up right..."
That film is bullshit. We said "You know, we could make something better (read: more real) than that by just giving cameras to the kids in this school". So they did. The school had 2 Hi-8 video cameras and a big ass VHS cam. We gave the Hi-8 cameras to different kids every night, and we used the VHS camera to tape things that went on at school OUTSIDE the classroom. After the first two days, no one really cared about the camera. This went on for two weeks (10 days). At the end, we had like 45 hours of material. It never got edited, but the thing is, if we HAD edited it, really carefully and really well, we could have put together the exact same scenario that I drew up way back at the top, as well as about 3 sequels concerning other such topics. The cost was totally negligable (tapes), and the "performances" by a lot of those kids were as real as real can get, and in the grand scheme of things, not terribly bad. For the most part, the material that we taped didn't look bad, and the sound was amazingly audible. My point: if a bunch of kids in highschool can do this, what does that say about your "pro crew and international cast that must be paid with serious money..." ?
[This message has been edited by dogstarman (edited August 04, 2001).]
-
There is no doubt that verite and Dogme can look unpolished and basic. But there are several things you must consider:
The goal of Dogme is NOT to capture real life as it happens (like the one you did) - that is verite filmmaking. The goal is too have an intended plot (script is not a prerequisite) and actors and perform with the least intrusion from things that puts production value over content. To remove us from the traditional view of what is filmmaking. Lets boil it down to the basic components of film -story and character. For example: To create a movie we must consider what camera. Since cameras can only handle certain amount of film we must COMPROMISE certain scenes in order to utilize what we perceived is a basic necessity. No takes that is longer than 1000ft of film. Another- there is a part of your script that is dull wide shot. To increase interest you use a crane though the crane shot did no way further the plot line, develop characters or create any emotional lasting bonds with the viewers. It was production value for the sake of production value (PV). There are numerous possible instances (subtle and overt) that we choose PV over story and characters. A prime example of that is Pearl Harbor and Tomb Raider. These movies were created for the purpose of the gee whiz factor, plot lines that is silly and insulting, FX are more interesting than people and scenes that are clich?. Yes, Hollywood has the right to make these movies and us to demand it. NEVERTHLESS, if I make a film regarding my life in high school it should not be dismissed before it?s viewed because we did not use Panavision.
With Dogme the burden of the film?s success as a narrative lies with the actors and writers to a higher degree than Hollywood films are. You could also think of it this way, if PV can interfere or hinder the emotional bond of viewers with the subject matter and character what is the end result of the absolute removal of it? Does it create NEW emotional bonds? NEW possible interpretations? The film the Celebrity says it can.
In a much lesser degree, its with the same philosophy that 90s independent films where successful worldwide. They where force to create above than normal Hollywood quality stories and characters. Dogme just goes a bit further.
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited August 04, 2001).]
-
Previously, crimsonson wrote of conventional film making:
"To increase interest you use a crane though the crane shot did no way further the plot line, develop characters or create any emotional lasting bonds with the viewers. It was production value for the sake of production value."
That would be true if a crane were used without discretion. Like wise, pointing a handheld camera at someone doing nothing achieves the same inferior results. Of course, if you are a competent director, you won't do either. Any camera movement should achieve a purpose other than just "production value". It should do all the things you claim it doesn't. If should propel and stir imagination and character through the revealing process.
The problem with Dogme rules are that they forbid effective and useful conventions like this in favor of sloppy methods that level the playing ground for more inexperienced film makers. It is tantamount to saying all track and field participants can't run any faster than X miles per hour or aren't allowed to jump higher than X feet.
On the surface, it might seem like a good thing, but all it really does is artificially make a job harder than it has to be to achieve the same result. Again, drawing with your toes. The end result MIGHT be more interesting as a result, but only if the director is inventive in nature to begin with. If he or she is, they could operate out side the Dogme rules and still produce something entertaining, which is the main object of movies; not creating art. Likewise, all drawings made with toes will look pretty much the same; those with artistic talent will do better. But they'd do even better if they were allowed to use their hands.
It is silly to for anyone to say, "We can't have conventional rules. We must have unconventional rules." The fact that they are rules, at all, makes them a new convention.
Wouldn't it be better to let each film maker do his or her own thing and just let the end results speak for themselves instead of having to qualify it by saying,"This is pretty good, considering the Dogme rules employed." or worse, "This could have been better, had Dogme rules not interfered with the creative process."
And let's face it, the rules DO interfere with the creative process because they dictate how the film has to be made.
Roger
-
I find it interesting how these rumors and legends develop on the internet.
Anniversary party not shot dogma style, just because it was shot digital video.
It was not shot on consumer DV-cams, they (multiple cameras) were top of the line progressive scan cameras.
I read a "making of the film" article, and there were photos of the cameras on dollys, jib arms, as well as tripods, and they had professional lighting as well.
All in all, I didn't like the film, and if it were not for the fact it is shot on digital, we would not be hearing about it at all. Did you notice that everything you read about it is all about how it is shot on digital video, not film?
That's their hype, their PR angle to market the film.
It doesn't look like film, you can see how DV breaks down with its limited contrast ratio, color saturation, and at the end, when they're outside, and there's lots of camera movement, it has that typical video feel, just like watching an episode of Cops.
I give it 1.5 thumbs down.
Film is beautiful.
Comparing film to video (even digital) is like hanging a Rembrandt on a wall next to a polariod snapshot, then arguing about which one has better resolution or looks more realistic.
Silly arguments I keep hearing in the film vs video wars.
Laughable, really...
Matt Pacini
-
Hi, Matt!
Amen, brother. Amen to everything you said. Praise film to the highest.
Roger
-
?Any camera movement should achieve a purpose other than just "production value".
My point is exactly. However, we have been conditioned to believe that to legitimately qualify for theatrical release we must follow certain guidelines ? 35mm acquisition method, dollies, cranes, etc. Though these things are not set in stone, one who uses them has a higher chance of getting to be released, reviewed and discussed. Your analogy with handheld/crane is fair except you missed a key factor -we are already conditioned to accept crane shots no matter how dubious the shot is ? meaning Dogme techniques are already being questioned without being fully being tested while we are brainwashed in accepting Hollywood techniques without conscious. Why? For example, handheld are automatically associated with low PV, ?gritty,? or ?edgy? or any of those clich?s because we lack the perspective to see it in a different matter. Cranes shots are often ?soaring? ?epic? and etc. Yourself have dismissed handhelds as sloppy when in fact great cinematographers of our time (Chris Doyle for example) have all use it to their advantage, thus influencing music video and countless 90s films.
Why is it sloppy? If sloppy is define as ?Marked by a lack of care or order? then I would strongly disagree that ALL Dogme style films are sloppy? It is reasonable to expect that those who work in this style are intelligent enough to anticipate the difficulties and the unpredictability nature of it. Thus, they have the foresight to organize their scenes accordingly and leaving room for improvisation. A quality almost lost in Hollywood drama. Such courage and the ability to handle that kind of situation can only be praised. Isn?t commendable for an actor and director to say yes to a film that takes their safety blankets in order to explore artistically? Is it not also commendable to give some praise to the style that fosters such creative environment? Creativity exists both in chaos and order. We must be creative when face with limits and creative to make sense of chaos.
Can a story be just a story and not just a empty spectacle. So we left of the crane shot? Now can the director and actors and writers be creative enough to give the scene the same emotional gravity? I guess in Hollywood they find that disturbing -depending on raw acting, writing and directing talent. The Theater had existed like this for eons. Hmmm? I guess that is why stage actors always had the hands up on most people?s eye when it comes to credibility.
Yes it may level some factors of filmmaking but it still leaves the most important and basic ones to the individuals - acting performance, good eye, dialogue and an overall grasp of character development. It tips the scale to talent instead of money.
NOT ACHIEVE ART? Oh my gosh! I hope you do not utter those words in front of people such as Woody Allen, Coppola, Kubrick, Storaro, Kar-wai, Godard, Trakovsky, Chaplin, Keaton and Ozu. Not only they think what they did is art but HIGH art! Maybe this discussion is then moot. I always thought that the title of the ?Quintessential Art form of the 20th Century? was filmmaking. If you do not think so then Dogme will never be relevant to you. It may be protentious and deliberate at times but every new artistic idea faces those problems.
?Wouldn't it be better to let each film maker do his or her own thing and just let the end results speak for themselves instead of having to qualify it by saying,"This is pretty good, considering the Dogme rules employed." or worse, "This could have been better, had Dogme rules not interfered with the creative process."
I agree, however, humans in our ending goal to be successful often forget to innovate and imitate proven traditions instead. Dogme is just stirring the pot a little.
Rembrandt realistic? Again this analogy is misinformed. Paintings are created from memory, filtered by emotion and dictated by physical prowess. I would like somebody to paint something and try to pass it as evidence in the court of law. This kind of mentality is harmful. Maybe traditional filmmakers have problems with Dogme because video is the only reasonable format of choice. Filmmakers constantly abuse video for its artificial look. ?Film is organic? Film is ?Romantic.? (like Rembrandt) But at the same time shots that are improbable, lighting that is impossible, and sounds added as if we walk with a 50 piece orchestra behind us constantly litters movies. Why is it every video versus film discussion always reverts to the technical differences. I never understood that. I always believed in video AND film. Film has had the advantage of creating a visual vernacular for itself with great artists such as Kubrick, Storaro, Hitchcock and great movements such as French New Wave, Noir and all other New Waves. ?Suspension of disbelief? has been carried to the fullest with help of million-dollar technologies and billion dollar film schools. Film has had the opportunity to develop a visual vernacular that compliments its technological idiosyncrasy as an art form. Video has not. Yes television has been with us for decades. Nevertheless, its primary duty has always been news, timely base entertainment (soaps, live events, etc.) and educational tools (documentaries, how-to, etc). But as an art force it is still growing. The technology has reflected as such. Movie cameras are advertised to give the absolute best quality and stock having the best latitude. Camcorders (both home and broadcast ones) have been traditional advertise as dependable, durable and with great ?auto features.? and Film?s has had the luxury of being known as most artists and entertainers? choice of medium. The technology and the aesthetic have been in place for decades giving it a clear advantage in the state of minds of viewers, makers and critics. Again, video has not.
I am far from saying that video has not been explored by the avant-garde, far from it. Actually, high artistic video has been strictly delegated mainly to the avant-garde. There has not been, or at least in the public eye, have not had its Kubrick and Storaro ? its auteur. Its lingua franca is in its pre-pubescent state. It is disheartening to read that soap operas and documentaries become the source of reference for video?s look, when clearly these two narrative mediums? intended purpose was not for intricate visual bravura.
Simulating the technical look of film is not the answer either. It is more of a hindrance in development of video more than anything. Why would we refuse an opportunity to add to our visual sense? It does not make sense. I guess it?s similar to how painters railed against photographers in the 19th century. We should relish the opportunity to be pioneers. Thus, stop thinking video versus film and more in the sense of video and film.
Yes the war is laughable.
Please do not mistake in my defense of Dogme and video. Not all Dogme films will exhibit the great qualities I have mentioned. Not all of them will be a magnum opus. I do not care if Dogme succeeds as a movement. But I do care that individuals do take the time to question our basic expectations. Hollywood has not.
There must be something to this. Woody Allen?s comments in the New York Times last week:
?Because my affection for foreign movies seems to be much deeper. If I were, for example, to list my 10 or even 15 favorite movies ?aside from `Citizen Kane,' all of the films would be foreign.?
Maybe LA LA land shoot take some cue from foreigners, like those Danish!
FYI - Some of the text was from a post I did at alt.movies.cinematography
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited August 06, 2001).]
-
Hi, crimsonson!
You make a good point. However, I never said that hand held shots equates sloppiness. What I said is that the "Vows of Chastity" strike me as nothing more than an excuse to be sloppy. "Stirring the pot" is an interesting notion, to be sure. However, not everyone is meant to be a cook. The "Vows of Chastity" substitutes full course dinners for fast food, effectively making anyone a cook because they call themselves one and have a spoon in their hand, no matter how shaky.
Admittadly, I think the idea of the Dogme approach is fun. In fact, I wouldn't mind trying it myself. However, I don't elevate the end results to art before there are end results. To hear others tell it, anything NOT shot Dogme style is commercial crap not worth viewing. I feel that is a slap in the face of every hardworking film maker out there. Considering the goal of Dogme is to remove the rules of convention, the last thing we need to replace them are new rules, don't ya think?
Again, the Dogme style may be "hard", but so is drawing with your toes. (I know I said that before, but I like the phrase and probably will never get to use it again, so give me some slack, here.) http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
What are some other Dogme films that I can check out? I'd like to see what others are trying to do with this approach.
Roger
-
Whithout a doubt! The end result is what matters most! Yes Yes! Dogme should not replace professionalism and dilignce.
Since Dogme has faced tremendous resistance and criticism (many fair and many unifair IMHO) there a short list of films. Some I just do not know how to view.
The list is on their website- when is the last time you heard film theory had its own website? www.dogme95.dk
Suggested viewing:
Celebration
Idiot
Dogma influenced films:
Anniversary Party
Dancer in the Dark (visual wise - not anything else)
Mifune - released early last year with decent reviews. Have not seen it, but quote from various critics:
film.com - Mifune is not, in other words, a bad film. It's just a commonplace one that's been lucky enough to gain a very special stamp of approval. Let's hope that's an aberration; otherwise, the resolutely un-gimmicky Dogma manifesto may ultimately become little more than a gimmick itself
NY Times:
Simple actions like lighting a candle or a cigarette, or the accidental tipping over of a lamp, flicker with aesthetic importance. The range of tones and shadows that twilight, cloudy skies or low-watt light bulbs impart to a single face seems revelatory. The occurrence of music becomes magical.
Village Voice:
feels painfully inorganic?a slapdash pastiche of tropes and tics that would be scorned arriving off a Hollywood conveyor belt but, gussied up with a bogus Euro-art-film respectability...
I empahsize that Dogem95 has a long way to go. At least in my opinion. But anything to prevent me to pay $10 (i live in NYC http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/frown.gif ) for another Battlefield Earth this weekend I guess is good (?)
Moviestuff is right- going handhled should not mean out of focus shots or any other carelessness. Art/movies is work. Hard work!
To all:
Also, go see Apocalypse Now Redux
Major scenes added. If not for the theme at least the cinematogrphy. I never saw it in the theaters when I was a small boy. Seeing in projected is a great experience. Interestingly, shots that was out of focus before is little more obvious. But small price to pay for the great and daring lightings techniques!
