"Dogma 95" controversy ... What do you think?

omar_

omar_

Well-known member
So what do you guys think of Dogma 95. Seriously.

[SIZE=+2] T[/SIZE]he [SIZE=+2]V[/SIZE]ow of [SIZE=+2]C[/SIZE]hastity
I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 95:

​
1. 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).

​
2. 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).

​
3. 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).

​
4. 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).

​
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.

​
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

​
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

​
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.

​
9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

​
10. The director must not be credited.​
 
i view it in the same manner in which it was born, both as earnest and ironic as something can be. if you consider the spirit in which it was done, its not much different from any group of filmmakers setting up some guidelines underwhich to produce a few works. *cough* HEROFEST *cough* so, when is DVXuser.com doing a Dogme95-FEST?
 
It's one of the purest forms of filmmaking. It demands great focus. If you can pull it off and make it look good, you've done some thing.

Check out "Mifune". That film is a good body of work.
 
we had to do one for matts class. It was pretty fun, I made like 24 min film and it was pretty fun to make it even though we had to do crazy ways to explain how matt turn into an actor we orginality needed so he just acts it was dream and says he'll never watch quatnum leap again.
 
"the idiots" is propoblly the movie, wich i connected to the most.
i m so sick of all those dime a dosen effects , hearwarming ligthing or even compeling scoring skillz,curntlly it is used by medicory "artists/buisnessman" to create the illustion of greatness of creation.
 
I have mixed feelings, but I think it's a little refreshing for an independent film maker who doesn't have access to high budget equipment anyhow. It allows you to focus on truly telling a story. I think it's a good test to see if someone is really a filmmaker at heart too.

It's sort of like telling an artist to paint using a brush and paper canvas and disallowing him use of fancy artistic tools such as very expensive canvas, thousands of color variants, sized brushes, etc.

My only wonder, which is why I posted it here, is that I think it hurts cinematography a little.
 
Last edited:
It limits the cinematography, but that is part of what makes it so cool. "What can you do with only the basic tools?" It puts you in the wood with only a knife.
 
VIVA LA Dogme 06!

VIVA LA Dogme 06!

I'm CONFUSED!!

People are always crying about the DVX being a native 4:3 camera! In order to conform to the Dogme 95 style you have to shoot 4:3 only, so the folks who own the DVX100 should embrace this style!

No uprezz'n, squeez'n, anamorph'n or hate'n!!!! :)

I say VIVA LA Dogme 06!!!!

- Manifesto soon to follow!
 
hehe... its 'dogpoo' in my book. I've yet to acually like one of the films.

They all seem so forced and artificial... like a badly staged reality tv show.
 
I think it's an interesting approach and a good excercise - though I think those who benefit most are directors with access to huge budgets and expensive equipment. They are the ones who have to watch out that the tail isn't wagging the dog in their productions.

As far as a blueprint for low/no budget features, I think Steven Soderbergh's Bubble is a great example. It was shot on video in tiny rural towns on the border of West Virginia and Ohio (two towns I lived near in graduate school and used to drive through very often which made the film even more interesting for me). He also used non-professional actors from the local area whom he let improvise for most of the film.

While I didn't think the movie was great, I did find it very interesting and definitely worth watching. I think this was Soderbergh's way of saying "don't make excuses, just go out there and make your film! I did it in a tiny rural town with non-professional actors and shot it on video. Now - you go do the same!"
 
omar_ said:
So what do you guys think of Dogma 95. Seriously.

[SIZE=+2] T[/SIZE]he [SIZE=+2]V[/SIZE]ow of [SIZE=+2]C[/SIZE]hastity
I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 95:

​
1. 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).

​
2. 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).

​
3. 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).

​
4. 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).

​
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.

​
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

​
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

​
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.

​
9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

​
10. The director must not be credited.​
Click to expand...

According to Stanley Kubrick, all films are genre films(if my memory serves, it was him.. but I have been known to be wrong). Which I agree with 100%. Any and every film can be put into a genre, even if you have to make up a new genre.

Dogme is a genre... so how does that hold together with something based on a contradiction.

People make dogme films all the time without knowing... and a great deal of the time they are ****.

Dogme was just created to get some filmmakers recognition... and it worked... see the topic of this thread..
 
Last edited:
The IDEA behind Dogma is kind of like a "what you got" game.
It's a way to get back to basics.
I honestly think that the whole process is designed to return ever film make back to "one" and see just what is known and what isn't.
If you've made film before, you know how easy it is to go in any of the directions that the vow prohibits.
Another part of the process is where you "confess your sins" how many rules of the vow did you break and why you had to.
The certification process is $5,000.00, which is BS to me, but the process it self, again, is very enlightening.
Put the fear aside and try it.
 
this is kind of a dead issue. Von Trier and Co. have kind of admitted the whole thing was tongue in cheeck anyway. so what's the controversy?
 
I personally do not like limitations on creativity, although some will argue the absence of complete freedom will force those to become more creative within the guidlines. I think the communists were the first to rationalize like that. haha, anyhow, I respect any type of filmmaking. These rules sound more like a competition then a method, but whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top