Dogma 95
Comments by Mark R. Leeper
What is Dogma 95?
My review of the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT made reference to the fact that it was very nearly a Dogma 95 film, probably without even trying. In the September 13 NEW YORKER David Denby makes the same observation. In the most recent episode of Roger Ebert's review program on TV he said that JULIEN DONKEY-BOY is a Dogma 95 film. Now a correspondent has asked me to explain my take on Dogma 95. Well, I cannot claim to be an expert, but here goes.
Back in the 1960s an issue of MAD MAGAZINE talked about audiences who went to see foreign films. Their illustration was an audience watching a film and the image on the screen was of water with one arm, limp at the wrist rising above the surface. In other words they were watching something depressing. Even then there was the idea that European art films were serious, depressing, nihilistic affairs and American films were somehow lighter. There was probably some truth to this. Most were not as glum as the MAD image would indicate though maybe Andrzej Wadja's KANAL, which takes place mostly in a sewer, might be a candidate. Roberto Rosellini's OPEN CITY is very downbeat also. It is an anti-Nazi film shot secretly in Rome while it was still occupied by Nazis. (I picture Rosellini setting up on the street like we see the title character do in ED WOOD. But when he yells "run" his film crew really had something worth running from.) American films of the post-war era like John Wayne westerns were generally lighter fare.
Flash forward to the 1990s and there is still the division. We now have computer techniques to create visuals that are spectacular. Films have never looked better. On the other hand, there are very few films of much substance. The American film industry is catering in large degree to the public who spends the most money on films. That is people from age 15 to 25. That audience tends not to like a lot of deep thought in their films. So the formula is to aim films at that range, make them dumb if necessary but very visual, and if the film is not theatrically marketable, it can go direct to cable or cassette. There are not many films of any substance being made these days by the major American studios. It is too easy to make a nice looking film without much substance that will appeal to the affluent but not well discerning audiences. Compounding the problem is that good filmmakers like Paul Verhoeven make substantial films in their own country, then get seduced by the big budgets of the American film industry and never make a film of real substance again. A set of European filmmakers have said that they are not going to make artificial special effects driven films, they are going to make films in what appears to be the tradition of Roberto Rosellini. They will follow a list of ten rules drafted by Danish filmmaker Lars von Triers:
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 color. 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.
Films that already have been made following these conventions include BREAKING THE WAVES and THE CELEBRATION. Obviously the mystical number ten was important in the rules since even von Triers himself has never followed his own tenth rule. (Or perhaps is it just not that we know of.) THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, by chance, or perhaps inspired by the same concerns followed Rules 1 to 7. And that film's appeal is the immediacy of its action which is certainly one of the goals of Dogma 95.
The Dogma 95 directors are in a sense the puritans of the international film industry. This is not in the sense that they eschew sex and naughty words in their films, but they have reacted to what they see as excesses in the film industry by creating their own strict set of rules to live by apart from the mainstream. They want a more natural, less gimmicky and not by chance a less expensive mode of filmmaking. It itself is a gimmick and I am sure even the Dogma 95 filmmakers admire a great many films that break many of their rules.
Is Dogma 95 in itself a good idea? One might as well ask if Cubism is a good idea. It is a movement that will appeal to some and not to others. Most people I talk to do not like Dogma 95 films. A common objection is the use of the hand-held camera. This is not a device that a filmmaker like Rosellini used because it was not around in his time. But he undoubtedly would have appreciated the naturalism of filming with a box you hold in your hands. The over-use of hand- held cameras does lead to motion sickness in some viewers.
One thing certain is that Dogma 95 strips away from film a lot of the folderol that distracts from the theme and essence of a film. Like other forms of Puritanism it clearly is intended to elevate substance over style, which is probably a good thing. And it is not a movement that is going away after one or two films. I think it will be with us for a while at least.
Mark R. Leeper
mleeper@lucent.com
Copyright 1999 Mark R. Leeper
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews