NextFest

Barry_Green said:
Y'know, people ragged on the Dogme "manifesto" but the way I look at it, it strips away all "crutches" and puts you in such a circumstance that hey, if you can make a GOOD film under those restrictions, then that's something to be proud of.

Hard to believe it's 12 years old now.
Click to expand...

Lights are not a crutch in photography. And people have been making good movies since the dawn of the medium without resorting to these shenanigans.

I think it's a GREAT film school exercise, but not really a great approach to making a movie.

And pound for pound, I don't think it's produced any greater percentage of good movies than doing it with "crutches" does.
 
I agree with you Mark.

But I think it can be a useful exercise and method at the same time ... at least for a film or two.

As for the light ... of course you are right and I don't think Barry would assert that lighting is a crutch of photography.

But

anything can be a crutch ... dialogue if you can't light ... lighting if you can't block ... etc.

and

1) If that's ALL you do or it masks content ... what happens if you don't have it. I know there are some films you feel have gotten by on that with little content

2) the dogma rules were made to be broken ... they use lights or SFX or sneak a gun in when they need to.

I don't think anyone here is so advanced that doing a short that was supposed to at least look natural, even if you cheat, would be counterproductive.

but anyway just throwin it out there

wouldn't want to do it while we were doing 2 minute fest though, that would be too many challenges at once I think
 
Last edited:
Yeah I was thinking of you when I suggested that actually ... in the back of my head thinking that would be the part that sucked the most ... no herman :(
 
Mark Harris said:
Lights are not a crutch in photography. And people have been making good movies since the dawn of the medium without resorting to these shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Looks like I left it wide open for misinterpretation -- sorry Mark, please understand I'm not trying to impugn anything else, nor am I saying that the Dogme rules led to any improvement in filmmaking at all.

All I was trying to say was: the rules are so ridiculous, so confining, and so constraining that if someone can actually abide by those rules and still produce a good film, then they have mastered the art form.

Of course, in reality the whole thing backfired and talentless filmmakers seized upon it as a claim for legitimacy (as in, "I didn't use lights because Dogme said not to," rather than admitting that they wouldn't know how to light anway, etc.) So we had a flood of lousy handheld camcorder movies that did *nothing* to advance the genre or the art form.

I view the Dogme manifesto as an exercise to stretch the imagination, nothing more. And I think that in that context it might be a good thing, because it forces filmmakers to use creative muscles they might never otherwise have needed to tax. It was an interesting idea; and it might prove an interesting idea for a DVXFest someday.
 
This dogme rule might make a little difficult:

The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen.
 
Barry_Green said:
Looks like I left it wide open for misinterpretation -- sorry Mark, please understand I'm not trying to impugn anything else, nor am I saying that the Dogme rules led to any improvement in filmmaking at all.

All I was trying to say was: the rules are so ridiculous, so confining, and so constraining that if someone can actually abide by those rules and still produce a good film, then they have mastered the art form.

I view the Dogme manifesto as an exercise to stretch the imagination, nothing more. And I think that in that context it might be a good thing, because it forces filmmakers to use creative muscles they might never otherwise have needed to tax. It was an interesting idea; and it might prove an interesting idea for a DVXFest someday.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand. Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on you. And I agree that as an exercise and even a good DVXFest.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I also like the idea of:

"One Location Fest." for some of the same reasons you guys like Dogme. I think seeing Norm's film and S H I T K I C K E R both show some more intensity of thought due to that limitation. I think both filmmakers were forced to focus on the story and the people. And it might make it easier to also focus on higher technical quality.

Oh Barry, I do remember this one AWESOME dogme film. It's actually on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Check it out, you remember this one?
 
The enemy of art is the absence of limitations. Dogme is a lot of limitations.

I thought The Celebration was a really strong Dogme film, probably the strongest I've seen.
 
you do DogmeFest, and you can count me in. i concur with isaac (and mr. welles). stripping away the usual devices could lead to even more ingenuity than we saw in DramaFest.
 
Last edited:
Isaac_Brody said:
The enemy of art is the absence of limitations. Dogme is a lot of limitations.

I thought The Celebration was a really strong Dogme film, probably the strongest I've seen.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's why they were able to make great films throughout the reign of the Hayes code. they were forced to find creative solutions.

I think the celebration is the ONLY one I thought was good. And even then I didn't see why it wouldn't have been AS good with lights :)
 
Zak Forsman said:
you do DogmeFest, and you can count me in. i concur with isaac (and mr. welles). stripping away the usual devices could lead to even more ingenuity than we saw in DramaFest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Welles was so great at working without devices...and under strict limitations...:)
 
i dont know who said that....but its definately true in some cases.

studio and budget limitations for George Lucas = star wars original trilogy
no limitations whatsoever for George = prequel trilogy
 
tommyinla said:
Who said that? The enemy of art IS limitations.
Click to expand...

I think you're assuming that limitations = censorship, and even so I'd be more inclined to agree with the original quote than with yours.
 
I'm actually referring to limitations as far as artistic limitations. A painter is limited by his canvas, brushes, and paints. A musician is limited by time and notes. A filmmaker is limited by light and technical limitations related to the media, be it film or video. There is only so much dynamic range a camera can capture. That's what I'm referring to. Those are the same types of limits that Dogma places on a film...
 
Sad Max said:
I think the first device to go, should be the camera.

Now that will force some creativity...
Click to expand...
ROFL

tommyinla said:
Who said that? The enemy of art IS limitations.
Click to expand...

The thinking goes like this. If you have every tool in the world you don't have to invent anything.

Look at the guy that made that movie with still images about a girl that lost her camera ... he's on the forum here. But he found a way to make a movie without a movie camera even.

And the result was an interesting film told in a completely inventive and refreshing way and with more resoluition than we have ever come close to with the HVX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top