What is Dogme 95?
In 1995, while filmmaking celebrated its centennial, Danish filmmakers Thomas Vinterberg and Lars Von Trier penned a manifesto that birthed the Dogme 95 filmmaking movement. For a discussion of Dogme, the manifesto is a good place to begin.
Here it is.
THE VOW OF CHASTITY
I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 95:
- 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).
- 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.)
- The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted.
- 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.)
- Optical work and filters are forbidden.
- The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
- Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
- Genre movies are not acceptable.
- The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
- The director must not be credited.
Furthermore I swear as a director 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. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.
Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY.
Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995
On behalf of DOGMA 95
Lars von Trier Thomas Vinterberg (signed)
Why did von Trier and Vinterberg make this manifesto?
This is a very fair question. A list of ten rules seems, on the surface, like a sophomoric idea. So where did the idea of a Dogme 95 Manifesto and the vows of chastity come from?
NEW TECHNOLOGIES:
By the mid-90s, many people involved in filmmaking could see that digital technologies were improving and becoming poised to challenge the role of film. German filmmaker Wim Wenders (Paris, Texas) likened the emerging digital landscape to the development of sound cinema. He believed it would shake up the process of filmmaking, calling for an embrace of the new tools and a re-envisioning of the traditional filmmaking practices that went along with them. While this wasn’t a call for an organized, Dogme-like movement, Wenders did suggest European filmmakers were poised to develop the digital practices. He deemed the old ways of Hollywood filmmaking to be played-out. It was time for change.
The rules are somewhat shaped around an embrace of digital technology (the one about Academy 35mm film format was a rule for distribution, not for production). Almost all Dogme films were shot on video, because camcorders were easy to hold in a hand. A director could shoot a film with their own hands (Thomas Vinterberg’s The Celebration had him physically operating the camera in about 80% of the final cut). Digital meant footage wasn’t precious. Improvisation was encouraged, and resulted in more naturalistic performances. Locations looked real. Because they were real. Crews could show up with small, mobile, digital equipment, and shoot in a house or a restaurant, and it was much easier than doing things on a soundstage.
The most important and exciting part of the development of new, digital technology was that it was remarkably cheap in comparison to traditional film equipment. This was the first chapter in the democratization of media production. For the first time, a filmmaker didn’t need a backer with a ton of money. They didn’t need a beret, either. If they wanted to shoot, there was easier access to shooting. The Dogme collective saw it as an opportunity to scrub pretense, individualism, and excess away from the craft of filmmaking.
“I am no longer an artist”- pretentious in its effort to evade pretention
HOLLYWOOD AND GLOBALISATION:
The Dogme 95 Manifesto has a strikingly anarchistic tone to it. While this could be written off as a manifestation of von Trier’s flare for drama, or as a marketing scheme (we’ll discuss this later), there is also purpose and significance to the fact that this movement originated from, was managed by, and for the most part was mastered by Danish filmmakers. Denmark is a small country. It’s not a major player in the global marketplace. It imports a lot of films. Its own films are usually funded by The Danish Film Institute (a division of government).
In other words, Denmark was filled with small filmmakers. The kind who had chips on their shoulders, and were reacting against a Hollywood and American influence.
How does this make them different from other small, European nations though? It probably doesn’t. One thing that did make them different was that Denmark had Lars von Trier to help champion the movement. By 1995, he’d already made 5 films and they’d all gone to Cannes. He was still a relatively young filmmaker, who carried international prestige.
And he actually seemed to be bored with traditional rules and stipulations for filmmaking. Frustrated by the process of making his 6th feature, Breaking the Waves (released 1996, not Dogme), he teamed up with Vinterberg (a very young Dane, fresh out of the Danish Film School) to write the Dogme 95 manifesto as a way of reigniting creative energies and advancing the medium of film. He and Vinterberg saw the French New Wave and Italian Neorealist movements as good starts, which eventually became burgeious movements for the elite. They wanted to democratize filmmaking. In announcing the movement to an audience at the Odeon Theatre, Von Trier pelted a crowd with red pamphlets that contained the Dogme 95 manifesto.
This is beginning to sound like it is just a gimmick or marketing scheme…
So Lars Von Trier is theatrical. That much is true. And there’s not a clear way to prove that there weren’t marketing intentions behind the inception of Dogme 95. It’s also undeniable that the movement did receive a lot of press. I would like to argue that neither of these things really matters. One of the most common critiques against the Dogme 95 movement is that it doesn’t make sense to limit artistic capabilities in order to advance a medium. As evidenced by other modern and postmodern art movements, this is a somewhat unfounded stance to take. In literature, great advances were made with the 20th century’s embrace of literary minimalism. Kevin Brockmeier once wrote an entire novel in which every sentence contained 10 words. Jackson Pollock and The Sex Pistols didn’t err on the side of more artistic excess either. They reacted against tradition and challenged their medium’s form.
Thus, I find it unfair to say that putting stipulations on filmmaking inherently reduces the quality of film that could be produced. More so, with Dogme 95, the artistic merit can be found in the product.
Enough talk! Show me the films already!
I’m glad you asked. Dogme films were numbered as they were approved, so let’s begin with Dogme #1, The Celebration. Because Denmark was hesitant to finance Dogme films, it wasn’t completed until 1998.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe3AySphzgI
Then here’s a trailer from Dogme #2, The Idiots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWaPAQwDS5s
And one of the highest grossing Dogme films, Dogme #12, Italian for Beginners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEi3Z3anhT4&list=PLD5FOGxuI4EN4Yzke-ZnX68zLotKsEloI&index=2
I watched The Celebration. I watched Italian for Beginners. I’m waiting to get a DVD of The Idiots.
The Celebration is nothing short of a masterpiece. After the opening scene (linked above), the rest of the movie is a bottle film, taking place during a weekend, in a hotel. It’s hectic family drama. There’s violence, sex, crime, secrets, racism, and betrayal. The Dogme 95 rules elicit and augment the frenetic energy of the story, and the result is a zoomy, grainy, whirl of fantastic storytelling. For evidence that great filmmaking can occur within the constraints of the Dogme 95 manifesto, look no further than The Celebration. In my opinion, a single film like this can validate the movement.
Italian for Beginners is a romantic comedy. It follows a lot of tropes and conventions of Hollywood storytelling, and resorts to a lot of melodrama. The unslick, documentary feel of a Dogme film is not particularly suited to filming a woman working in a bakery, rom-com cliché. It was, in my opinion, a weird, flawed vision of Dogme. But that, in its own right, is a fascinating lesson about the movement. Not every story requires the artistic restraints of Dogme 95. This film might’ve been better off working within traditional, Hollywood techniques (which, by the way, are as restrictive as the rules of Dogme 95. They just weren’t penned down. They evolved). All that being said, this film made a lot of money, compared to other Dogme films. It got a broad release in Europe and distribution in a lot of markets. Hollywood sells, even when it’s not Hollywood.
So what was the deal other Dogme films?
There were over a hundred films approved by the Dogme 95 collective (which consisted of Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, Kristian Levring, Søren Kragh-Jacobsen). Many of the best of them were Danish, but the rules garnered global attention. There were French and Argentinian Dogme films that were widely viewed independent films. American indie-filmmaker/troubled youth Harmony Korine made a well-recognized (at least in the states) addition to the Dogme 95 canon with Dogme #6, Julien Donkey-Boy. Some of the films (like Julien) made more liberal use of the rules than others. But according to Vinterberg, chaste adherence to the rules was never the ultimate goal of the Dogme 95 movement. The goal was to create a set of parameters in which a filmmaker could thrive. In other words, the manifesto is a tool for people to work with and against. It doesn’t always have to be the 10 provided by the Vow of Chastity. In fact, the Dogme collective dissolved the movement in 2002. The first Dogme film was released in 1998. That’s only four years of Dogme.
Why should I care about a movement that’s so short and strange?
Because the movement was, in a lot of regards, super successful! Many of the films produced by the movement were groundbreaking and novel in some very interesting ways. They were made cheaply, but recognized widely. The movement was a major factor in the democratization of the media. The movement did a great deal to advance the careers of those involved (with the exception of Von Trier- he was always going to be fine).
The movement has also influenced some of the very common DIY, indie filmmaking that occurs into the modern era. American mumblecore owes a huge debt to Dogme 95. Dogme 95 owes a huge debt to The New Wave and Neorealism (and John Cassavetes). The fact that none of the art is completely original or novel should serve as inspiration, though. Not a deterrent. Digital equipment is more affordable than ever. Get some equipment. Shoot! Let the story lead you, not the other way around. Write your own manifesto that’ll force you to do something interesting!
References:
Roman, Shari. Digital Babylon: Hollywood, Indiewood, and Dogme 95. iFilm Publishing. Hollywood, USA: 2001. Print.
Hjort, Mette and Scott MacKenzie. Purity and Provocation: Dogme 95. BFI Publishing. London, UK: 2003.Print.
The Celebration. Dir. Thomas Vinterberg, 1998.
Italian for Beginners. Dir. Lone Scherfig, 2000.
CMA SENIOR SEMINAR 2018 