Printable View
Just wondering,
What is everyone's opinion of the danish DOGME film theory, and indeed the films themselves?
I saw Mifune the other day, and aside from finding it a great film, I thought it was an interesting portrayal of the DOGME rules in practice.
Your thoughts?
I have not seen any of the Dogme films so my comments may be a bit premature, however here they are--------------
As I understood it these rules where developed to encourage the story instead of the images and give amature filmmakers some guidelines to create films on an even keel.
Rule #9 states that all films must be shot in Academy 35mm film. Why is this necessary if the images don't matter and how the f^#k do they expect the average Joe to shoot in Academy 35mm.
Rule #10-Director is given no credit. ???????? I don't see any reason why everyone except the director would receive credit. If I'm going to spend that much energy, time, money your damn right I want some credit for it. The Director of "The Celebration" has definitely taken credit for his film. Maybe his name wasn't on the screen at the end but he's definitely taking credit.
The rest of the rules are fairly understandable. You can view them at www.dogme95.dk under the Vow of Chastity.
The thing I agree least about Dogme is that they say movies are not about the images. If this is the case then why on earth would you go to the extent of shooting and editing. Why would you not just publish a book and be happy with it. That way everyone can make their own images in their mind and you can spend a year of your life writing more pretty stories. Motion pictures are definitely an aesthetic medium, no one can argue that. It takes your vision to fully experience a film. Story and Images must be equally considered when making a film otherwise you will create a product that is lacking in one area.
thats all.
tash.
------------------
"Grab a handful of St. John's Wort and a Giant Coke Slurpee and go make a movie."
I don't agree with the Dogme theory of not crediting the director - so what if his name does not appear on the screen? Everyone knows that Lars Von Trier made 'The Idiots', and every time a reference is made to any Dogme film in the press, the directors name is invariably mentioned.
The intentions are good (don't credit the director so that there are no preconceived notions brought to the film by the audience), but for a lot of the time, they don't hold up, as they're a bit hard to follow through with.
The idea is to return a sort of purity to film, which I feel is a good thing but I think that they've sort of painted themselves into a corner with these much-hyped rules.
I agree with Tash. Though I haven't seen any Dogme films so they might be good but I think the whole concept is horseshit.
Film is visual.
I did tape a program about Dogme that was on channel 4 a while back but I'm yet to watch it. The short bits I saw looked awful.
But I won't judge it yet.
Dogme is the dubmest crap ever. The rules are stupid. Who are we sopposed to credit for making the film if no the director? Images don't matter? What the hell is that about? Images matter as much as everything alse.
Thom Yorke- I love your music, looking forward to KID A. j/k
-Ivan
------------------
"A place for everything and everything in it's place".
I saw 'The Celebration' on channel four and enjoyed it. As for the visuals not mattering the makers of this film must of disagreed also. Some of the shots really stood out, they made the most of the flexability of the DV cameras.
I actually quite like the idea of the dogme movement. At least they are trying to do something different and refreshing, they also make the use of DV cameras more acceptable in major films.
So you don't have to use 35mm?
I don't think that the makers of 'The Celebration' stuck to all the rules, they just used them as a guideline.
That's something I was thinking about.....in order to receive a Dogme certificate you must adhere to all the rules...according to the site, The Celebration was the first certified Dogme film. I guess perhaps they are flexible on the rules. I think it's more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Create some hype about yourselves, be it positive or negative, and people will watch your films. Blair Witch Project is a perfect example.
ttyl.
tash.
------------------
"Grab a handful of St. John's Wort and a Giant Coke Slurpee and go make a movie."
Well, you can shoot in any format you want, but the finished film MUST be Academy 35mm before recieving the Dogme certificate. Dogme is not about images because it emphasizes and focuses solely on characters and story. The film takes place only where the story takes place. So it's very actor and performance oriented. I kind of the the idea of cinema being stripped to it's gritty bare bones. It's quite refreshing from all the special-effects that we are used to; almost like theatre.
The director is not credited because it's not about who made the film, or self-promotion. Dogme is based upon the idea that the film exists, and should be criticized, solely on it's own terms.
-N. Foster Tyler
I saw Breaking the waves a while ago, and Festen (at long last) the other night.
I beleive that the rules are a combination of the above comments and more.
They serve(d) as a good publicity stunt but they also provide a platform to experiment with film.
The results from following these rules seems to be to produce a harrowing and emotionally painful film (almost a documentary) to watch. To me the concentration seems to move away from the 'film' idea, to concentrate more on actors and performances.
Most of the technical stuff is thrown away, giving the film makers time to concentrate on the story and the acting.
Festen is one of my favourite films, because it is fresh, alive, painful and anarchic.
Seeing a film like that makes me want to become a farmer. Imagine the passion/drive/anxiety/arguaments/laughs on set!!?
Even the gang behind inventing the rules would probably admit that they are just a guideline. But look at the results!
These are unique films, whether you like em or not, and they are low budget. Perfect. You could actually think of the 'rules' as a low budget guide. (The technical ones at least, not so much the more philosphical ones, such as not crediting the director.)
I read an interview with Lars Von Trier, he sounds like an egomaniacal nutter. Is that the only attribute you need to 'make a film' ?
Since you put it like that it sounds pretty good.
I wouldn't mind giving that kind of film a try. The acting sounds just the sort of thing I'd enjoy. (And be good at. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif )
Trier and friends made up the wow, to focus more on the important aspect of films. STORY!!
Ed
Just my opinion.... but this current "DOGME" isn't new... we have had it for years... it was just called "HOME MOVIES" before... there are no rules to filmmaking... make what you want, the way you want, that is the way of the artist and always has been... you want to make mainstream films, DO IT! you want to make wierd art-house films? DO IT! you want to make a movie following some guy that thought it would be fun to make up his own rules and see who follows? DO IT! But if you are a filmmaker, you will make films... there are several "Wonderful" films that I think are crap, but that is my opinion... just make yourself happy. And stop complaining and pick up a camera and shoot something...!!!
Good Luck,
Stuntman (A veteran of over 250 films, some good, some bad, some great...)
------------------
"Madness takes it's toll... please have exact change."
[This message has been edited by Stuntman (edited September 01, 2000).]