12 years ago, a bunch of Danish filmmakers laid down the rules for Dogme 95, half style, half ideology, as a reaction to bloated American block (and budget) busters. I giggled at their earnestness and naivete. Then, after an awesomely bad Charlie’s Angels sequel, I kind of got the point of it.
Their rules were numerous. The ones I remember are: Handheld cameras only, no dubbed music, no special effects. I’m not aware of any American films or directors that adopted this in its entirety, but I see its influence in films like Ghost World, Sideways and The Blair Witch Project.
Are there any other American films that have benefited from this “Scale it down” philosophy?
This is beyond scaled down. It’s virtually Spartan (and not this kind of Spartan, which one might call the quintessential anti-Dogme film).
The independent film movement was well underway by '95, so the idea of small/offbeat films made with small casts and smaller budgets wasn’t invented by the Dogma group. Theirs is more an aesthetic manifesto, to which I’d say that American filmmaking (in general) has not been impacted at all by it. Sure, some indie projects might shoot for an advanced naturalism or deprioritize traditional story conventions, but Cassevetes was doing that in the 60s and 70s anyway.
I remember once that Spielberg said he’d like to make a strictly-adhered-to Dogme film; that I’d like to see (though it’d probably make the least $ of any film in his entire career).
The American director Harmony Korine’s Julien Donkey Boy was a certified Dogme 95 film (Dogme #6). It was the first non-European Dogme film.
Not to be a thread-pooper, but have you seen a Dogme film? It’s kind of hilarious to insinuate that something like Sideways is in any way similar to one in any way. Go watch “The Idiots,” “The Celebration,” and “Julien Donkey Boy.” Different universes, man.
I have never heard of these rules before. However, it seems to be bit contradictory. The rules seem to be designed to create a new genre of films, but according to rule number 8 quoted by ArchiveGuy, genre films aren’t allowed.
It isn’t – they do a lot of on-location shooting, but they use proper lighting and sound design also.
I never really understood the point of DOGME. It seems they just want to throw away all the tools of filmmaking to demonstrate how hip they are, but they don’t seem to have any reason for rejecting these things in the first place.
I understand if they simply want to do it for the challenge, but otherwise it doesn’t make much sense to me. A film is for telling a story; why not use whatever tools you have available?
That’s pretty much the reason the original Dogme guys give for having done it. It was another in Lars von Trier’s long line of experiments-for-the-hell-of-it with the film medium. Very much in line with his later The Five Obstructions, where his idol, Jorgen Leth, agreed to be forced to remake an avant-garde short of his from the sixties five times according to sets of bizarre rules imposed by von Trier.
However, Dogme proved to be inspiring to a lot of film makers, and outlasted the planned period of its original gimmick, which was for each of the four of them to make a film and then go on to something else.
I have seen a number of Dogme films, including The Celebration, Mifune, Italian for Beginners, and Fuckland. I’ve enjoyed them all. Fuckland in particular is made in a way that leaves you wondering if it’s not a documentary in disguise.
I think the thinly veiled fictional autobiography The Anniversary Party by Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming owes a great debt to the Dogme style. As does the fantastic Bloody Sunday, although that’s not an American film.
It’s often assumed (though, refreshingly, not in this thread) that Dogme 95 was a manifesto, a pledge to swear off all the gimmickry disallowed by its rules. But as scotandrsn points out, it was simply an experiment. And as adam yax points out, it was essentially defining a new genre.
Only, not really all that new: many filmmakers, prior to Dogme 95, had made films that could probably be back-certified as Dogme films. So back to the OP, I don’t really think that post-Dogme 95 films have had any significant influence on mainstream American filmmaking; it’s far more likely, it seems to me, that the fims mentioned in the OP were influenced by filmmakers like John Cassavetes or Elaine May or Ken Loach.
One of the things that irks me about Dogma 95 is that they seem to be trying for the most organic approach possible and yet they still allow for a script. One would think a basic plot with a lot of improv would be more suitable for them.
From the ones that I’ve seen, only The Idiots uses Dogma 95 to its own advantage. The Celebration could have been a great film had it been told in a traditional manner. But it’s a grand story that’s somewhat undone by its very shabby look. As for Julian Donkey-Boy, well, Harmony Korine is such a talentless pseudo-art hack it’s impossible to say what Dogma 95 really did for the film.
I’m sure there, simply because such a generalization could never be true. But, not quite an answer, Cary Grant hated it. Much of The Awful Truth–one the top, say, three romantic comedies of all time–is improvised and Grant hated every minute of it.
But without the associated quality. You call Dogme95 an experiment, I call it a joke played by that bombastic hack, Lars ‘von’ Trier. Yes, I’m still pissed about the two and a half hours of my life I’ll never get back after watching Dancer in the Dark, and I think Trier needs to keep his criticisms of the culture of a country that he’s never even visited to himself. The independent film movement (such as it is; most “independent” studios are at least partially owned by major Hollywood studios or are the result of vanity branding by such) was doing just fine before the hacktastical Trier came along and tried to accord himself credit for all of it.
I don’t think **Trier ** is a hack. I think he’s very pretentious (adding *von * to his name being #1 in the people’s exhibit). I was at the press conference after the first screening of Breaking the Waves and Trier attended as a life-size cardboard cutout picture, with his producer excusing that by saying Trier doesn’t like to travel.
Whateverhis faults are, Dancer in the Dark is not critisizing “the culture of a country” and neither is Breaking the Waves about Scotland.
I think this whole thing about him criticizing from without is utter bullshit. America exports not only its culture, but its weaponry and imperialism. It’s 100% valid for a European to have something to say about American culture, even if they’ve never “visited” here by any other vehicle than a television.
Not at all I hope. All About Love has got to be one of the worst films of all time. Ninety seven hours (subjective time) of pointless, plotless, stupidity.