It's been 23 years since it popped out of Europe and didn't take the world by storm. Is this something that any one considered or still contemplates before making a film. Just wondering if the style that strips down the filmmaking process might not be worth another look.
Dogma 95 time for another look?
- Thread starter lambert
- Start date
roxics
Veteran
I think it was a novel approach back then as a way of justifying the use of cheap looking DV cameras to shoot feature films. But if you're really going to take the time, effort and pay the expense to gather a bunch of people, find locations and shoot a film, why limit yourself to techniques that will sacrifice your quality?
I get that is was supposed to be about focusing on the performance and story, but I guess to me it was only really interesting because of their camera choices at the time. Now that we've had twenty years of stuff shot on digital, including most major Hollywood features, it's not anything appealing to me anymore.
I get that is was supposed to be about focusing on the performance and story, but I guess to me it was only really interesting because of their camera choices at the time. Now that we've had twenty years of stuff shot on digital, including most major Hollywood features, it's not anything appealing to me anymore.
Fair enough. I see it as a creative choice which most likely won't have much commercial appeal. I like films that are a little rough and tumble if they're interesting. Obviously that's the rub. I wonder how many great films of international cinema would suffer if shot in a dogma 95 technique. I enjoy harmony korins dogmaesque films.
rsbush
Well-known member
Rule #9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
Use of DV cameras was breaking the rules. It had absolutely nothing to do with justifying cheap looking video. It was all about taking the power from the studios and putting it in the hands of the artists. And while The 10 rules are 10 too many for me, I do think the spirit of what they were doing was something good. Not so different than what Cassavetes was doing in his way.
kohl-sudduth
Well-known member
Interesting info from the dogme95 'tribute' website about 'breaking the rule' - http://www.dogme95.dk/FAQ/.
DV transferred to Academy 35mm then blown up by projection. More than a little grain. I thought it looked awesome. Saw 'Festen' in the theater multiple times. Mind = Blown. Albeit the primary reason the movie affected me so deeply was the story, performance, and directing. Thomas Vinterberg... man. Incredible.
Definitely engaging with consciously chosen restrictions for a project when I have creative control (and time). Different rules than dogme95, but stripping down any creative endeavor to its most fundamental components is always a good thing.
One of the things I love that dogme95 did was make these rules hyper-conscious, actually super self-conscious. Kind of genius. Manifesto movements seem to come and go in reaction to mass conformity and an attempt to re-establish some kind of autonomy. Perhaps another one will gain traction soon.
Tangent thought - if one intends to write a manifesto, it's useful to be cognizant of the many that have come before - a fine primer impeccably performed and exquisitely photographed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_(2015_film)
Last edited:
roxics
Veteran
Doesn't matter what the initial rules were, at the time the vast majority of them were shot on video so that became synonymous with that style. Part of the look of what I associate with Dogme95.
That said, I realize now I approached those films very differently than maybe some of you did. For me, at the time, I didn't care about their rules. I just wanted to see feature films shot on the same gear I could afford myself. That's why I went out my way to watch them. Had they just been some indie Danish movies shot on 35mm I wouldn't have bothered at all. It's the same reason I went out of my way to see El Mariachi in the early 90s and not any other Spanish language films. It was a feature shot for $7000 and picked up by a major studio.
I realize I sound like your stereotypical uncultured American here, but at the time I was watching movies like that for self-serving reasons. As inspiration for my own filmmaking adventures.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed a few of those films when I saw them. They were well done for what they were. But I do wonder how many other people approached them the way I did. Would that style have been less popular at the time had it not accompanied the DV revolution?
Personally I don't think it would have been, which is why I made my initial comment. I think a lot of the draw was the fact they were shot on DV and people wanted to see what movies with a budget looked like on that format. Which is why I think such a manifesto today wouldn't play out as well.
roxics
Veteran
You are absolutely correct. Though I wonder how many others did the same at the time.
kohl-sudduth
Well-known member
I think the coolest thing is that this type of discussion about dogme95 is taking place, what, like 23 years later. So profoundly few projects actually make it onto a screen to be seen by more than perhaps a few hundred people, let alone endure for more than a year or two. Evidence of the cultural/market/aesthetic Darwinism that is particularly rapacious in filmmaking.
As far as my intent regarding engaging with dogme95 films back in the day, I think I was initially drawn to the aesthetic because I came up in the do it yourself hardcore punk community. This fostered in me a kind of 'i'm more punk than you' attitude in my formative years. Fortunately, I eventually saw that this attitude made the world pretty small and limited and that self-righteousness makes for bad art. And when an actual paycheck with health benefits came knocking from Hollywood, I jumped at the chance. That said, the initial draw was the 'low budgetness' of it all. Ironically of course, most of those movies weren't really all that low budget. I got hoodwinked.:happy:
Then, when I actually went to the movies and saw them in the art houses of nyc, I experienced the storytelling and acting. I was coming up as an actor at the time, had worked a bit by that point, thought I knew a thing or two... but man, when I saw that level of craft and skill in front of the camera, it was brutally clear that these actors and directors were on whole other level, a whole other gear I didn't know existed. Let alone could access, manifest, and repeat on demand. This revelation led to a long slow painful process of learning to 'level up'. The authenticity/truthfulness bar of the acting and directing in many of these films is just super high. The storytelling as well. Although it was bitter medicine at the time, it inspired me in the way that only such brutal honesty can.
Anyway, that's my experience. Look forward to hearing other people's experience.
As far as my intent regarding engaging with dogme95 films back in the day, I think I was initially drawn to the aesthetic because I came up in the do it yourself hardcore punk community. This fostered in me a kind of 'i'm more punk than you' attitude in my formative years. Fortunately, I eventually saw that this attitude made the world pretty small and limited and that self-righteousness makes for bad art. And when an actual paycheck with health benefits came knocking from Hollywood, I jumped at the chance. That said, the initial draw was the 'low budgetness' of it all. Ironically of course, most of those movies weren't really all that low budget. I got hoodwinked.:happy:
Then, when I actually went to the movies and saw them in the art houses of nyc, I experienced the storytelling and acting. I was coming up as an actor at the time, had worked a bit by that point, thought I knew a thing or two... but man, when I saw that level of craft and skill in front of the camera, it was brutally clear that these actors and directors were on whole other level, a whole other gear I didn't know existed. Let alone could access, manifest, and repeat on demand. This revelation led to a long slow painful process of learning to 'level up'. The authenticity/truthfulness bar of the acting and directing in many of these films is just super high. The storytelling as well. Although it was bitter medicine at the time, it inspired me in the way that only such brutal honesty can.
Anyway, that's my experience. Look forward to hearing other people's experience.
Agree with this & Kohl's post above about the "truthfulness" aspect. I'm very comfortable & much prefer that there isn't ONE way or method to making any film. Whether that's the studio way or something else entirely. But certainly love the spirit behind it - And even though I probably came to appreciate "the movement" of dogma95 late in the game, as I sit here and type this - I vividly remember watching Susanne Bier's "Brothers" and thinking that with the right tools (story, acting, directing) - even a lowly "cinematographer" (not something I've ever called myself) such as me, could actually really make a damn good movie. I would encourage any low-budget, indie crew to take a look at some of those films - to help foster creative solutions / ideas.
rsbush
Well-known member
My interest in Dogma 95 was formed by the same thing my earlier near obsession with Cassavetes was formed by: people with the opportunity to work within the conventional paridigm of filmmaking created by the studio system, who chose to impose great limitations upon themselves and others, in order to get to what they considered a deeper level of artistry. Within the limitations is a greater demand and responsibility on the director and screenwriter, and a great freedom and all the responsibility that goes with that, for the actors.
I didn't really care what the rules were, even thought some were absurd, just cared that they created obstacles and limitations in the effort to attempt to achieve something "else".
I didn't really care what the rules were, even thought some were absurd, just cared that they created obstacles and limitations in the effort to attempt to achieve something "else".
Great discussion guys. Unfortunately I came late to the dogme 95 party. I was to busy failing in Hollywood as a writer in the mid 90s on to notice. I just assumed it was an offshoot or European version of what American indies were doing.I don't think I started to see the difference s until much later.
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
I learned about it in university.
A big way that my instructors framed the movement was that it was not trying to look like film, but instead, embracing the quality of digital video at the time. So instead of treating DV as a cheaper version of film, it embraced it as a medium in and of itself.
Of course, there is much more to it than that, but it was an interesting idea. "The Celebration" and "Julien Donkey-Boy"still come to mind as relevant works...as relative as that is. Even, "Gummo" was on the outskirts of that movement in a way.
A big way that my instructors framed the movement was that it was not trying to look like film, but instead, embracing the quality of digital video at the time. So instead of treating DV as a cheaper version of film, it embraced it as a medium in and of itself.
Of course, there is much more to it than that, but it was an interesting idea. "The Celebration" and "Julien Donkey-Boy"still come to mind as relevant works...as relative as that is. Even, "Gummo" was on the outskirts of that movement in a way.
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
Gummo came right after Julien Donkey-Boy. Some decent amount of DV was used on Gummo. Harmony Korine was associated with Dogme 95...although Gummo had a higher budget and was also shot in various other formats, including 35mm,16mm, VHS, etc... so that's why Gummo was on the outskirts of that movement.
But to be honest, I'm not really a Dogme 95 scholar. Just liked some of the work that came out of it, and appreciated their approach.
mothmachine
Active member
I was energized and inspired by many of the films, but never by the look of the films. DV is what made it available, and that was great. There was a rawness which might have had a certain charm, but I don't think many people wanted it to be full of DV artifacts. Festen and Mifune were impressive to me aesthetically in how well they managed to overcome the limitations and still look pretty good after the transfer to 35mm. What made Dogme 95 special was how the "rules of chastity" or whatever became springboards to creativity, and breaking free of old baggage. As much as they could they overcame the faults of the medium. But who would want to shoot in MiniDV again?
Other than rule #10, Too Late follows Dogme 95 pretty well.
rsbush
Well-known member
Below is a link to an interview with Anthony Dod Mantle who shot Festen (Celebration), Mifune and julienne donkey-boy. On page 2 he talks about eventually choosing to shoot Celebration on a small consumer DV cam. "Originally Dogme was meant to be 35mm cameras on the shoulder, hand carried, like the Second World War photographers. Producers have distorted that beyond belief to encourage young directors into doing hand held video rubbish."
http://www.perryogden.com/assets/PDFs/Anthony-Dod-Mantle.pdf
http://www.perryogden.com/assets/PDFs/Anthony-Dod-Mantle.pdf
kohl-sudduth
Well-known member
Great article. Thanks for the link. Particularly the clarification of the original intent was to shoot Docu-style 35mm and how the use of DV cams later got distorted by producers for essentially marketing purposes (least that's what I inferred). It lines up with my experience. This kind of marketing - hey! we shot these things on cheap handy cams! - did in fact help get me into the theater to see the films in the first place, but then the story took over (thinking predominantly of Festen). I guess in that sense, it worked.
I appreciate his response to the interviewer asking "Isn't that (eg the handheld dv cam) what made it though (eg the movie)" and he responds, "I don't know, what do you think? Some say the direction was good. The story was fantastic." Remembering when I saw the stage production of 'Festen' on Broadway with Julliana Margulies and Jeremy Sisto about a dozen years ago or so. Was a very powerful night of live theater. From this, I deduce, in a sense, that the use of consumer handycams was relatively incidental to the success of some of them dogme95 films. The success came from the storycraft.
Sidenote: If anyone is interested in the 'hand carried, like the Second World War photographers' look refined to its apotheosis, pretty much anything by the Dardenne Bros is about as good as it gets. Another great film in this style is a Bulgarian film for a few years back called 'The Lesson'.