Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The IMDb Archives
  3. Dogme 95

Dogme 95

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The IMDb Archives
13 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion


    random_guy2 — 15 years ago(October 27, 2010 05:49 PM)

    This seems like a good place to ask this question, since this film really illustrated my confusion over Dogme 95. My main question is, what is the point of it?
    It seems to me like almost regardless of what your view is of what film should aim to do (provide an aesthetic experience, convey emotion, tell a story, draw the viewer in, whatever), the stylistic rules used in Dogme 95 films sharply detract from that aim. The film ends up looking bad (supporters might prefer a euphemism like "natural"), and it takes the viewer out of the experience rather than drawing them in.
    This movie was a good example. The over- and under-saturation in many scenes, the focus problems, the obscuring of all details in dark scenes, the constantly shaking camera all of these are annoyances, and unnecessary ones. I understand that following the Dogme 95 rules will automatically gain you some "cred" with a certain segment of viewers, but does anyone honestly think it makes for
    better
    films?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Sentraxx — 15 years ago(December 02, 2010 11:48 AM)

      Why does it make a movie better to cast super models, use tons of CGI (even for blood)?
      I think the dogme 95 wanted to create "real" movies.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        philman200001 — 15 years ago(December 20, 2010 03:59 AM)

        the idea was to put emphasis on the story and the acting, and not gimmicks. i think its a good idea, though some of the rules are stupid, like no props. this doesn't make sense to me, because any object used by characters is tehcnically a prop and i don't understand this one. well, i'll list them, copied from WIKIPEDIA:
        Filming 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 prop thing doesn't make sense to me, but fine, no studios
        The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic.
        -understandable
        The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.
        -why can't we put the camera down somewhere? it's a stylistic choice
        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).
        -also seems like a stylistic thing. this is why most dogme movies look like beep
        Optical work and filters are forbidden.
        -fine
        The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
        -and why exactly is this?
        Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say that the film takes place here and now).
        Genre movies are not acceptable.
        -again, why? and how can you say that? arguments can be made either way concering the genre of a particular film
        The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
        -oh now you are dictating the film stock? why can't we shoot digital? it's cheaper and easier, seems more in line with the rest of these rules
        The director must not be credited.
        -again, why? it seems like a convoluted ego thing. like that episode of curb when marty funkhouser donates a bunch of money anonymously but everyone knows its him
        basically, Lars Von Trier is a pretentious cock and he wrote out these rules. i would like to see him tortured in a korean movie.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Robanjo78 — 13 years ago(May 31, 2012 10:21 AM)

          The rules are only suggestions.
          Lars von trier:
          "But I still think that Dogme might persist in the sense that a director would be able to say, I feel like making that kind of film. I think that would be good. Im sure a lot of people could profit from that. At which point you might argue that they could just as easily profit from a different set of rules. Yes, of course. But then go ahead and formulate them. Ours are just a proposal."(in MacKenzie,2003, 56)
          "Dogme is not about following the Brothers Rules: its simply about setting some rules and limitations, and these can be any. The idea is simply to gain creativity through self-imposition." (Kelly: 2000, 80).

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            AllyWheels — 12 years ago(April 20, 2013 11:45 AM)

            Good post Philman.
            The emperor has no clothes.
            The Dogme thing is a joke.
            Oh, and I heard that it was Ted Danson who donated the money anonymously.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              mooo0 — 12 years ago(June 15, 2013 01:19 PM)

              You are mistaken about the shooting format. The Idiots, Festen and Julien Donkey-Boy were all shot on MiniDV, which is digital. They were then transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition. The rule is not that it has to be shot on film (which these examples blatantly aren't) but that the aspect ratio has to Academy Standard (4:3).

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Sergeant343 — 12 years ago(August 27, 2013 06:27 AM)

                The question can easily be answered is that like all genres of film, there are style choices involved. That is like saying why a film can't be horror if it is bright and sunny.
                HI F-ING YA
                Nicholas Cage Deadfall
                2013 Rankings imdb.com/list/2-zx4cThbEY/

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  MetalWorks — 11 years ago(August 27, 2014 05:52 PM)

                  Its a manifest, like the sound manifest Russian filmmakers made when sound in films came around
                  Like you said, "it's a stylistic choice", you either do it or don't
                  Films aren't better or worse because of it, that would be a very superficial statement

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    IMDb User

                    This message has been deleted.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      sean_pak215 — 14 years ago(September 17, 2011 05:27 AM)

                      I agree with the OP to an extent. There are very few Dogme 95 films I've enjoyed, and I can't watch more than 1 at a time before craving for something more "cinematic." However, I do think the style really helped this particular film. The look, the realism, the fast editing all served the plot in this exceptional case. Actually, for a Dogme 95 film, it was actually pretty fancy, I thought, with the camera angles and editing. If the picture quality were sharper it could've easily been an Orson Welles flick from the '40s (much of it reminded me of The Magnificent Ambersons in tone, pace, theme, and style).

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • F Offline
                        F Offline
                        fgadmin
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        daftspunk — 11 years ago(August 09, 2014 02:30 PM)

                        Even though i will agree that the Dogme approach did wonders in this particular film, i certainly despise many of its rules.The only rule that is understandable is the prohibition of the usage of non diegetic sound/music. No wonder Dogme is now abandoned by its creators itself.(And i think there isnt a single so-called Dogme film that purely conformed to these rules 100%..even Festen broke one of the rules)

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          fgadmin
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #12

                          ItalianGreyhound — 11 years ago(September 07, 2014 05:41 PM)

                          This movie looked like it was somebody's home movie and I am quite sure that is exactly the look the director was going for.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • F Offline
                            F Offline
                            fgadmin
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #13

                            bull-boy — 11 months ago(May 08, 2025 03:59 PM)

                            The director definitely wanted this certain look.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0

                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • Users
                            • Groups