I was reading a column by Roger Ebert a few years ago and he refered to a certain European movie as a “Dogma Film”. I don’t recall what that film was. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the movie Dogma since it came out after the term had been coined.
So what is a “Dogma Film”?
Thank you
Ebert uses the term in this review. It seems to refer to the works of a Danish independent film director Lars von Trier (or works patterned after his films), who strikes me as a bit Tarantino-ish, though I admit I’ve never heard of him before this thread.
Dogme 95 I think is the full title. It’s a method of filming done by a group of Europeans (can’t remember what country) where there is no set decorating or costumes, props are only what is found on the set and only natural lighting is used. It’s meant to make the films seem more realistic. I couldn’t tell you if it works or not, the closest I’ve seen to a Dogma film is The Blair Witch Project
Well, Bryan beat me to it. Curse the slow board. Curse it to heck.
The film “The Celebration” is perhaps the best-known film to come out of Dogme-95. Most Dogme films are shot on video of some sort, all handheld (tripods and rigs are not allowed), and use only simple mics as well, and I believe no ADR looping.
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).
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
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).
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).
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
Genre movies are not acceptable.
The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
The director must not be credited.
You forgot 11. and 12. “Don’t talk about Dogma Film” and “Don’t talk about Dogma Film”.
It makes for quite interesting movies. And von Trier is getting more and more of a reputation, outside art circles. His latest, to be released is Dogville, with Nicole Kidman, Laureen Bacall and James Caan, so he’s certainly hitting mainstream.
For more on dogma, this is the official website.
It’s Dogme, not Dogma, and it’s Danish.
A laudable philosophy that, alas, has not yet produced a movie that I can get more than halfway through…
jjim:
It’s dogma in Swedish and English, it’s dogme in Danish. Do you say Copenhagen or Kobenhavn?
Ah, my bad then.
Although… while you have a point re. the city names, it is a recent proper noun, and one finds that quite often the original language of the proper noun is used - think “anime”, “karaoke”, “sumo”, rather than “odd cartoons”, “singalong” and “fat blokes wrestling”…
Certainly when referenced in the English media, it’s always called “Dogme”.
In general I like the Dogma except for the handheld camera.
I don’t know about everyone else but when I view the world the image is pretty steady.
I think it’s an interesting idea, but every single ‘Dogma’ film has been made as a flat out publicity stunt, which betrays the spirit- see rule 10.
In fact, some of the rules seem pretty damn goofy themselves. What do they mean by “genre movies”? All movies are genre movies, from westerns to “art films”.
Some of the movies “inspired” by dogma without being dogmatic about following the rules have been really interesting; Dancer in the Dark directed by Von Trier himself was a pseudo-dogma musical, Waking Life directed by Richard Linklater was a pseudo-dogma cartoon. Whereas The Idiots and Julien Donkey Boy, the only two dogma films I’ve seen, blew chunks.
By the way, in the movie Cecil B. Demented, John Waters has a funny line referencing dogma. The dogma rules are called the “vow of chastity”, in that film the movie maker make a vow: “We may be horny, but our film comes first.”
Dogme 95 is a silly manifesto coming from a group of mostly Danish film makers in response to the overblown production of Hollywood film making. Where I think they go wrong is insisting that this is how all movies should be made.
Despite my disdain for their “manifesto” i greatly admire two films made in this style. “Celebration” or “Festen” is a masterpiece and IMO of course among the finest films of the past couple of decades. “Breaking the Waves” is also a fine film made using most of the precepts of set out in the manifesto. The minimalist style imparts a sense of hyper realism that can work with the right script.
Even if you, like me, think the whole concept is a bit silly you really must see “Celebration”. One of the few movies I immediately rewound and watched again after seeing for the first time.
Italian for Beginners was a decent Dogma film. Except for a few quirks it played pretty much like any other low-budget dialogue driven art film. Decent story, decent acting.
But overall, I agree that Dogma is somewhat silly. Placing needless restrictions on the filmmaker (though of course, the idea is that the director is not the most important part of the process; a backlash against the auteur-theory of filmmaking). The idea of avoiding excess is a good one, but each of those elements they ban have their places, particularly sound. The requirement for native sound only frequently makes for difficult to hear dialogue.
Thank you all.
One of our 10 plexes is switching to art house flicks so I guess I’ll finally get the chance to see some. Although I may not take the opportunity, the hand held aspect is a big turn off.
And while the Dogme concept came out of Europe, there are filmmakers outside of Europe who subscibe to its precepts too.
In fact, the best Dogme film that I’ve seen is from Argentina. It’s pseudo-documentary called Fuckland. It’s a very funny film that deals with the ramifications of the Falklands war. It’s playing regularly on The Sundance Channel…check it out if you can!