Just saw Anniversary Party

[James Stewart]

In the film versus digital arena I don't think film has any thing to worry about yet. I just saw "Anniversary Party", written and directed by Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh and shot on digital video. Even though it had been transferred to film, which helps give it that "filmlook," it still looked like #*@%! Every actor looked ill, as if suffering from a rare tropical disease. Their faces looked pallid, a sickly greenish gray hue. When film is lit well, actors look better than life. Their skin is golden, radiant, unless you're trying to make them look sick. And if wasn't just the skin tone that looked bad. Digital video is still "video." If I had seen this on a small screen I would have thought it looked quite good for video. But I was in a theater watching the silver screen where you expect a certain level of quality and video just doesn't measure up. The look of the movie was only part of the problem: I also didn't get involved in the story. Yet I wonder how much of this was from bad writing and how much was from being constantly pulled out of the movie because it looked so bad. I can only say that it wouldn't have been worse had it been filmed instead of taped. So for all you film-lovers out there, sleep well tonight. Film is still King and digital but a jester.

[mattias]

if i'm not wrong (haven't seen it yet), this film is shot dogma style, by which i mean no lighting and no tripod. while film with its latitude would definately handle this better, you shouldn't judge the qualities of video originated film from such a film.

try finding the swedish movie "wings of glass" (doing festivals right now i believe) instead. it's probably one of the best examples of how great video can look, carefully lit progresive scan pal digibeta in this case. i thought "time code" looked pretty good too, but the documentary style might have helped hide the flaws a lot in that case.

[Svideo925]

you should check out "Dancer in the Dark" starring Bjork. it is shot on digi and looks great. it has a really nice feel to it.

[James Stewart]

Thanks for those suggestions. I'll check them out. I am curious to see digital at its best. If it's true that Anniversary Party was shot Dogma style then I'm being far to harsh on it. Still didn't like the movie, though.

[xclark]

The Anniversary Party was not filmed Dogma style. there was all kinds of violations of the 'vows of chastity.' however, it was filmed with a very basic technique, but there were post production sounds, tripods, fake action (taking ecstasy), etc. too many to be called a Dogma film.

i thought the film was okay. not too great, but not too bad either.

if anyone wants to see a great Dogma film, see 'The Celebration.' it's simply amazing. for more info on Dogma go to:
www.dogme95.dk

cheers.

clark

[MovieStuff]

Okay, I'll probably catch hell for this but... this whole "Dogme" thing sounds stupid and lazy. I'm all for hand held, naturalistic film making, but the rules found in "The Vows of Chastity" are nothing more than an excuse to be sloppy in the name of "keeping it real".

No special effects?

Hell-ooo. The entire filming procedure is nothing but one big special effect. The actors aren't REALLY in the theater when the movie plays. That's not REAL sound materializing out of thin air. Movies are, by their very nature, the definition of artificiality.

I'm not saying that an interesting film couldn't be made under the guidelines stated. But I also don't believe that doing so elevates the end product automatically to "art". Movies know their place in the world. They were invented for commercial entertainment and hanging them on the wall to be viewed behind a satin rope takes all the fun out of it for me.

Eeeeewwww. Just the thought iks me out.

Roger

[dogstarman]

Amen.

Frankly, I thought the whole Dogme95 nonsense
had gone away in about 1999, which would have given the filmgoing public plenty of time to realize it was a bunch of bullshit, and those who came up with it to get over themselves. I provide as evidence:

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 unlesa 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.

I think the only part that was ever strictly adherered to- and pretty much sums up the whole thing- is the vert last paragraph, especially the last sentence...

[norman-normal]

You may say that, but I agree with the above post, The Celebration is a fantastic film - absolutley gut wrenching.

To be honest I think someone who can make a film like that has a very powerful idea of what films can and cant be. I think any 'advice' or 'guidelines' or 'rules' they may come up with are worth listening to.

Strange as it may sound film making isnt just about 'making a film' Its about making an experience and creating all the myths and spin as well and getting people to see it. I dont think there are any films that have been made that havent also been accompanied by some sort of hype. Its all part of the process. The manifesto could be seen as a part of the hype.

Besides this manifesto is a great low budget tool and I think low budget film makers would be stupid to right it off.
All the rules ultimatley aim at the acting and the story concentrating on those things which cost nothing but effort and can make a huge difference.
If you havent seen festen (the celebration) then you really should. It is way the best Dogme film I have seen. F**k the rules, they dont even stick to them themselves, they are guidelines. The celebration is utterly raw emotion, and the dogme manifesto helped them to create that by concentrating on the emotion and performances, rather than anything else.

[mattias]

i said "dogma style" and not "dogma". if they faked taking e or not wouldn't change the shooting style or the look of the blow up, would it? ;-)

[dogstarman]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by norman-normal:
You may say that, but I agree with the above post, The Celebration is a fantastic film - absolutley gut wrenching.

To be honest I think someone who can make a film like that has a very powerful idea of what films can and cant be. I think any 'advice' or 'guidelines' or 'rules' they may come up with are worth listening to.

Strange as it may sound film making isnt just about 'making a film' Its about making an experience and creating all the myths and spin as well and getting people to see it. I dont think there are any films that have been made that havent also been accompanied by some sort of hype. Its all part of the process. The manifesto could be seen as a part of the hype.

Besides this manifesto is a great low budget tool and I think low budget film makers would be stupid to right it off.
All the rules ultimatley aim at the acting and the story concentrating on those things which cost nothing but effort and can make a huge difference.
If you havent seen festen (the celebration) then you really should. It is way the best Dogme film I have seen. F**k the rules, they dont even stick to them themselves, they are guidelines. The celebration is utterly raw emotion, and the dogme manifesto helped them to create that by concentrating on the emotion and performances, rather than anything else.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yrah, and part of that experience is if what you're watching is worth paying money and sitting there for. I tknow they broke all their own rules. As I pointed out, they only one they stuck to was promising to follow them "at the cost of good taste and aesthetic consideration." They nailed that one dead on.
I'm sorry, but when I pay $7.50 at a theatre or even $3.00 for a video, I expect to see something that looks and carries better than something that the people at the local group of area-players shot on Hi-8...