I hate dogma movies. They're too pretentious and have stupid ass rules.

Teacher said:

I've heard these comments quite a few times, always coming from Scandinavians, which makes me wonder... why ??

Ok, the rules were very fixed and maybe this has a pretentious flavour to it, but this you don't need to know as an audience. It's a cancer every more or less 'avant-garde-thing' suffers from, and it gives those movements a part of their strength IMHO...

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 vica 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 colour. 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.
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 DOGME 95
Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg.

More information I need.

What are these rules etc? What makes a "Dogma-Film"?

films like The Idiots

Who knows this Scandinavian film-movement? Put you hand up.

I'm talking about people like Lars Von Trier,Thomas Vinterberg,Lukas Moodysson,

or

films like The Idiots, Festen, Fucking Amal...

In the music non-Prince forum there's a discussion going on about why the 80's were so much cooler. I can agree on some points... BUT Not the movies. Sure there were very good movies made in that area, but at least the Dogma-movement was not active yet... which makes the 90's very cool as well !!!

MarieLouise said:

Well sorry. I'd say yes to Scandinavian film-makers in general then. But you shouldn't take this compliment too personal

Oh.... incidentally.... Lukas Moodysson isn't a Dogma-film maker, and Fucking Åmål isn't a Dogma-film. Lukas Moodysson is a pretentious fuck who happen to be good at making movies. It'll blow up in his face soon enough. We're waiting

MarieLouise said:

Because we're from the countries the movies were made in, and they're not all that. They're nothing more than people creating another illusion by creating rules that limit the illusion. They claim that the films become more real because of these rules, but the fact remains: It's still not reality, it's fiction.

Teacher said:

That's really a personal opinion, because for me they are more real. In a way that I couldn't sleep after watching some of these movies, because they really raised some important issues. To me the acting looks pretty heart-felt, and improvisation is always a bit closer to 'real emotion', isn't it?

Of course, it's never 'real' as in non-fiction, but hell yeah, that's the same with every artistic creation. Even a Prince-song is fiction, although people on this site don't always realise this. We could even argue MarieLouise or Teacher are part of a fiction too.

MarieLouise said:

I think bkw would like that one.

My answer to Teacher disappeared, only one emoticon stayed.

I'll repeat...

Sorry for my ignorance. I'd say yes to Scandinavian movies in general then, but you don't have to take the compliment too personal...

MarieLouise said:

Not ignorance, Moodysson is hardly important enough to be able to be ignorant about

Teacher said:

I heard his last film was horrible and cruel, so I didn't watch that one. But I enjoyed 'Together' very much. Do you really think this one was pretentious? For me it was just a simple movie about love, illusion and (lost) faith.

MarieLouise said:

Not ignorance, Moodysson is hardly important enough to be able to be ignorant about

MarieLouise said:

Actually, his last film is the only movie I'd watch of his. Can't remember what the heck it's called right now (something with forever, maybe "Lilja forever"), but it's about a russian girl who gets exploited for prostitution. It's very grim yes, but also very relevant today, because here in Scandinavia it's becoming common for girls from the Baltic countries and Russia to be sold more or less as slaves, they're brought to for example Sweden and forced to prostitute themselves.

Was Dancer in the Dark a Dogma-Film?

2teh9s said:

Hey! Would one of you nordic types answer my question!?

2teh9s said:

wasn't that a musical? a musical fall under a genre and couldn't be a dogma film although it was a Lars Von Trier film.
I saw one called "cabin fever" which I wonder was a dogma film - think it was a swedish one, where the family gets together for christmas in their cabin.

Was Dancer in the Dark a Dogma-Film?

MarieLouise said:

I think bkw would like that one.