DOGME

[GREATwarEAGLE]

The "end credits" topic digressed into dogme discussion. It probably deserves its own topic.

Someone said dogme is an excuse to be a bad filmmaker and make bad films. I'm sure that's true for some. Others probably take it more seriously and respect what it stands for.

I myself have never (at least consciously) conformed my approach to dogme. That's not to say I don't appreciate it. I do. But I think calling attention to one's own film as being a "dogme film" defeats the purpose. Why do you need to label your filmmaking approach? There are countless other methods of filmmaking that are put to use, but these methods are not "whored."

It's like a fireman who says, "Yes, I'm a hero and I'm saving lives."

Are you adhering to Dogme for the truth and selflessness of it, or do you want people to think of you and say, "Man, that guy's cool - he's a dogme filmmaker."

[zTolerance]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are you adhering to Dogme for the truth and selflessness of it, or do you want people to think of you and say, "Man, that guy's cool - he's a dogme filmmaker."</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

One might also say that "Man, that guy's cool - he's an action director" or "french director".

To me Dogme means purity. It isn't about genres (actually it's a genre of its own) it isn't about big budget special effects, it's about the stories. It's about bringing out the true talent of people.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

I once read a spec screenplay where the author had the characters talking about a few actual films. They were saying how such and such was a great film and how such and such was a bad film.

I interpreted this as the author's way of expressing his own personal views on these films, and hence, his way of saying,"I know what it takes to make a good film."

Now, if this screenwriter really wanted to display his talent for what makes a good film, he would have simply written a good screenplay, thereby allowing his talent to speak for itself.

I liken this to proclaiming, "I'm a dogme filmmaker."

[zTolerance]

Quote from the Dogme95 vow of chastity:

"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."

[GREATwarEAGLE]

I can't help but feel hypocritical about my posts. I'm basically saying, "Don't talk about it - do it."

If I truly believed that, I would have never entered theses forums. None of us would. It's helpful to bounce ideas off each other, but in the end, if we don't act on our ideas, it's all bullsht.

I think we get too carried away with these things. After all, we're talking about movies. It's not like we're saving the world. I try to remain humble, realizing how low on the totem pole I am, regardless of how invigorating filmmaking can be.

[zTolerance]

I believe that filmmaking is art, Eagle.

Scott McCloud defines art as everything that hasn't anything to do with survival (eating) or sex, the animalistic needs of life, is art. To some art means fine colors and shades on a painting, while to other a painting with nothing but white paint on it is art. Everybody has their own opinions, that's why there are so many of us.

[Dirty Cricket]

the thing i never liked about dogma was their opinion on what it takes to tell a story. They take the stance (or at least it seems this way to me) that you can tell a better story without big budget hollywood special effects. And for some stories that is true. But not all stories. i.e star wars, the matrix. Both big budget hollywood movies, but who can say they have bad stories?

Along those same lines, isn't one of the main goals of art to expand and try new things? Just because the majority of special effects utilize high tech equipment and the like, that doesn't make them not art. They are just tools to help the artist expand on his ideas and make his story more real and belivable.

I'm not saying that dogma movies are excuses to make bad films, i'm sure they are great films because it is obviouse that the film makers care a lot about their film. I am just saying that i think it is quite stupid for a film maker to abandon SFX. Because they can add to a film if used correctly.

[zTolerance]

Take a look at the actual stories of Matrix and Star Wars. Underneath those neat visuals there's only a cliche filled Hollywood story with only the skin as the originality.

The idea of Dogme isn't to abandon SFX, but to abandon the idea that the director could change what he has done in during the shooting, to show the reality of things without altering it to become more "real" than it is. No additional sound effects, computer generated carachters or other post production modifications.

It's about the purity of filmmaking. No facelifts, but the crude reality.

[deanl]

Hey there.

But what you guys are forgeting is Dogma movies look like sh*t. Film is a visual medium. If its just the story you care about go and write a chuffin book, an audio play or direct theater. Keep it as real as you want. But stay away from the cinema.

Special FX are not the only things forbidon my these fools. They wont even light a scene or use any kind of props. Its like watching big chuffin brother. SH*TE.

Despin out.

[zTolerance]

Am I hearing some jealousy in your tone?