Lars Von Trier

[Evan Kubota]

IMO Dogme 95 is a load of steaming crap. The principle of separating personal taste from the creation of art ("I swear ... to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole.") is patently ridiculous. By imposing self-consciously formulated "rules" on artistic creation, this renders their goal of "forcing out truth" impossible.

Their "vow of chastity" exhorts the "director" (who is not an artist, incidentally) to "force the truth out of characters and settings," by "all the means available." This shouldn't preclude the director from making something exactly like a Michael Bay movie, but it says that "genre movies are not acceptable" and "murders, weapons, etc. must not occur."

This seems like a very strange way to encourage directors to seek the truth in situations. This "vow" is basically saying - shoot the truth, as long as it doesn't involve genre filmmaking, weapons, superficial action, temporal or geographic alienation, optical work or filters, using a tripod, anything other than 35mm color, a nondiegetic soundtrack, outside props, or studio settings.

Seek the truth, but don't put your name on it, and don't use anything which we the undersigned have deemed unacceptable for true DOGME filmmaking.

Kind of a long list of exclusions when the last paragraph exhorts the director who is not an artist (who must eliminate personal taste) to ignore any aesthetic considerations in their search for the truth.

Why should the Dogme rules have any relevance or significance to the director who truly cares about seeking truth? A codified set of rules formulated by other people is as important as a pile of used cigarette butts in a real search for authenticity.

Finally, the implication in the last paragraph of the "vow" is that truth and art are mutually exclusive. I strongly disagree. After all, if there is no truth in art, what is the definition of art? The views espoused in the "vow" are certainly different than Tarkovsky's (better elaborated) theories in "Sculpting in Time".

[mattias]

IMO Dogme 95 is a load of steaming crap.

half of it's a joke, and it's pretty funny imo, and the other half is a means for making films in a new way, and it worked. i don't see the problem. the rules themselves are of course unimportant.

/matt

[steve hyde]

IMO Dogme 95 is a load of steaming crap. The principle of separating personal taste from the creation of art ("I swear ... to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole.") is patently ridiculous. By imposing self-consciously formulated "rules" on artistic creation, this renders their goal of "forcing out truth" impossible.

It is a joke. And I think Mattias is suggesting that it was in part written as a literal joke. This is a great quote that you have abstracted because I think it really speaks to the back-of-the-napkin hash bar manifesto point I made above. I think these guys were mostly clowning around when they wrote this. I imagine they found themselves in one of those *laugh or cry* situations where they were fed up with the directions cinema was heading so they did what any sane person would do: they got really stoned and scribed an impassioned joke that is Dogme 95.

Their "vow of chastity" exhorts the "director" (who is not an artist, incidentally) to "force the truth out of characters and settings," by "all the means available." This shouldn't preclude the director from making something exactly like a Michael Bay movie, but it says that "genre movies are not acceptable" and "murders, weapons, etc. must not occur."

This seems like a very strange way to encourage directors to seek the truth in situations. This "vow" is basically saying - shoot the truth, as long as it doesn't involve genre filmmaking, weapons, superficial action, temporal or geographic alienation, optical work or filters, using a tripod, anything other than 35mm color, a nondiegetic soundtrack, outside props, or studio settings.

Seek the truth, but don't put your name on it, and don't use anything which we the undersigned have deemed unacceptable for true DOGME filmmaking.

Kind of a long list of exclusions when the last paragraph exhorts the director who is not an artist (who must eliminate personal taste) to ignore any aesthetic considerations in their search for the truth.

Why should the Dogme rules have any relevance or significance to the director who truly cares about seeking truth? A codified set of rules formulated by other people is as important as a pile of used cigarette butts in a real search for authenticity.

Finally, the implication in the last paragraph of the "vow" is that truth and art are mutually exclusive. I strongly disagree. After all, if there is no truth in art, what is the definition of art? The views espoused in the "vow" are certainly different than Tarkovsky's (better elaborated) theories in "Sculpting in Time".

...... Well, I will be accused of being a postmodernist for saying this, but I have to side with Dogme on this one. Truth and art are mutally exclusive.
The modernist painter Pablo Picasso articulated this idea when he said art is the lie that points to the truth. That makes sense to me.

It would be really interesting to compare and contrast Tarkovsky's vision for cinema with Dogme 95. I think it is also important to keep in mind that , as Mattias said, "the vow of chastity" is a joke. I suppose the joke is on anyone who takes the vow seriously. As I said at the top of this tread, I think Dogme 95 is worthy of discussion and that is about it. That said, countering bourgois cinema is worthy of practice. And those of us that want to take counter cultural cinema seriously know that we have to write our own vows. Following someone elses vows is a joke.


Steve

[mattias]

I imagine they found themselves in one of those *laugh or cry* situations where they were fed up with the directions cinema was heading so they did what any sane person would do: they got really stoned and scribed an impassioned joke that is Dogme 95.

that's exactly how i see it too.

we have to write our own vows. Following someone elses vows is a joke.

word.

/matt

[npcoombs]

I presume everyone here has seen the Five Obstructions?

Cinematic rules are funny and sometimes necessary for inspiration.

In regard to Von Trier's rejection of film and turn towards video, I see it as having a root in both a rejectionist, radical position and an attempt to force himself to new creative plateaus by self imposing rules and to break from existing norms.

Clearly there is also a socialist/communist angle in the renouncing of individual directorial accolade and the rejection of genre pics, that as Steve correctly pointed out, reinforce the hegemony of the powerful and distracts the populace from the truth about life and social reality.

[sunrise]

In regard to Von Trier's rejection of film and turn towards video, I see it as having a root in both a rejectionist, radical position and an attempt to force himself to new creative plateaus by self imposing rules and to break from existing norms.

It was never in the Dogma rules to use video. In fact one of the original Dogma brothers shot his film on s16. Trier's choice of using video over film was for budget reasons only!

And another thing...(I missed this thread first time round)...Breaking The Waves can not be put in the same category as the Dogma films or any other films originating on video. It has a complete different approach to camera work and editing, which was also used to some extent in The Kingdom, however for different reasons.

michael

[mattias]

It was never in the Dogma rules to use video. In fact one of the original Dogma brothers shot his film on s16.

but it has to be academy 1.37:1, i.e. standard 16 but i guess they could have done a center extraction. i haven't seen mifunes sidste sang (sp?) so i don't know if it was square or wide.

/matt

[sunrise]

Could be standard 16, I'm not shure. It's academy format.

michael

[Alex_W]

Don't have the energy to write a long reply now, but i just saw Manderlay and it was beautiful and provocative. Personally i liked it better than Dogville.

Besides this, i agree with the people here who argue that Von Trier and Vinterberg didn't take Dogma to seriously. To support this i think the first scene of Festen (Dogma #1) says it all: it contains added dialogue.

[npcoombs]

In regard to Von Trier's rejection of film and turn towards video, I see it as having a root in both a rejectionist, radical position and an attempt to force himself to new creative plateaus by self imposing rules and to break from existing norms.

It was never in the Dogma rules to use video. In fact one of the original Dogma brothers shot his film on s16. Trier's choice of using video over film was for budget reasons only!

I wasn't talking about Dogme, only Lars's personal rules he sets himself. He did not shoot on video just to save money: he self-consciously changed his whole style.

[sunrise]

Not entirely true. The decision to go digital was made by Zentropa (in which Trier of course has a lot to say) and was budget oriented. The plan was to create a production apperatus that was able to make a lot of films and only release the best in the cinemas. A little later they where also ready to make series directly for television (and did).

Trier found himself with a new set of limitations and chose to operate within the new set of limits. You cannot understand Trier from a purely artistic level, but you have to understand how Danish Cinema works.

michael