What is it? I’ve been seeing and hearing a lot of it on the IFC channel lately.
-M
It’s a collective of film directors founded in Denmark in 1995. They set up a list of rules for making films that they felt would be more true-to-life because they wouldn’t use any kind of special effects, lighting techniques, sound effects, etc.
You can read the complete list of rules at the Dogme 95 website. If you hear a reference to Dogme 95 on IFC, they are probably showing a film that conforms to the Dogme rules.
I just read those rules. Damn! I would like to see Steven Spielberg do a film that conforms to the Dogme 95.
-M
I’d like some clarification on rules 6 and 8.
The only Dogme 95 film I know for sure that I’ve seen is Italian for Beginners, and I feel certain it violates rule 8; isn’t it a romance?
And I’d like to know how “superficial action” is defined.
If he did, you would never know:
The concept is sorta neat, and some pretty good movies were made under the rules - as well as some not-so-good ones. I guess one goal was to keep production costs down and have more movies made. If the script lends itself to it and the actors are on the up-and-up, some good moments can be captured.
I think the best I’ve seen was Thomas Vinterberg’s “Festen” (“The Celebration”) - IMHO because the production values mesh with the subject. It’s a movie about a large party, after all - and it it is right for it to look just a little home-made, a little like a home video.
Fiver, the rules really are just guidelines, and some of the directors don’t take them too seriously or bend them in creative ways. There was an instance (although the exact movie eludes me right now) where a pianist was simply placed in a shot in order to provide background music - although he was in no way involved in the plot and there was no reason to have him there, really.
I liked “Italian for Beginners”, although I don’t think the Dogme 95 rules really added anything to it.
joshmaker, that rule is just for show. The instructor is not accredited in the credits on the print, but he/she can (and do) step forward and take credit all the same.
There’s been some followup discussion as well. In an interview with one of the original participants, I think it was VonTrier, it was pointed out that it’s almost impossible to avoid genres; there are only, depending on who you listen to, two/seven/twelve different stories, after all. In any case Dogme 95 has become a genre in its own right, so there you go.
Also, these were not rules, in that they weren’t put forth as suggestions for other directors to follow. Nor was it a declaration that the participants vowed never to work outside the Dogme 95 guidelines. It was kind of, “Wouldn’t it be nice if more films were made along these lines, and fewer hollywood blockbusters?” It’s my understanding that each of the original participants made one Dogme film, and then resumed making films without “rules.” Some stupid people then criticized them for not sticking to their own rules, but then these were stupid people.
The only Dogme films I’ve seen were pretty much steaming loads… i mean interesting in a train wreck way but just crap for real content.
Don’t believe me? You try sitting through all of Gummo or Julien Donkey Boy without making snarky comments.
Umm, what those films have in common is not that they’re both Dogme 95 films, but that they’re both Harmony Korine (sp.?) films. He came along “after the fact” and said that he wanted to make JDB as a Dogme 95 film, but it makes no sense to judge the work of the five original signatories by the work of a director came along later and appropriated the style.