Hi Daniil,
Thanks for the email. Have you seen the film? Excerpts are on youtube under my martinifilms banner. In my case I set out to make an experimental film that cost little or no money; I had a fun premise, the story of a video camera and the various lives it touched. I got many friends to be in it, and was pleased when dogme95 gave us the dogme #15 title. I didn’t set out to make a dogme film per se, but had followed the rules (mostly) and its one of the few comedy titles in their group. I’m a fan of Vinterberg and von Trier, so its a huge honor to be part of their group, even though they have since abandoned the concept. When I finished the film, I sent it off to Denmark, and they sent me the certificate. (It was very tongue in cheek – you could either follow the rules and be awarded a certificate, or pay 10,000 kronor and buy one. I was lucky to be given one).
But Dogme has had a profound effect on story telling. It was director Jean Cocteau who said «when the cost of filmmaking is as much as a pencil and piece of paper you’ll find true art.» While still struggling to have a career in hollywood, my digital films (mostly documentaries as of late) keep me working. I run the DIY Film Festival in LA and we honor filmmakers who tell a compelling story using those same tools. I’m working on a musical documentary at the moment, I’ve been filming and cutting it for about ten years – story of two musicians who fall in and out of love through their art. But its an outgrowth if Dogme, which I call DIY (do it yourself) filmmaking now.
To answer your questions, 1. For me, personally, the most fun was being invited to a film fest in Delhi, and showing the film to 3000 laughing Indians. They flew me in and put me up in a hotel that cost more per night than the entire film ($300).
2. Socially, dogme, or DIY films are egalitarian by nature – money is not the motivating factor for the art – just telling a good story is. I’m fond of reminding film students that a painter doesn’t put a brush to canvas to make millions – its because they’re moved to tell a story through paint.
If you make a good film and get it into the world, people will respond. It doesn’t have to follow dogme rules – I personally think there was a bit of dark danish humor in the invention of the «list of dogme rules» which outlined rules on how to break all the rules of filmmaking – and if your film broke any dogme rules (mine includes music) then you had to publically confess your trangression against the breaking of those dogme rules (which I did). Which sounds a bit like a plot from a Samuel Beckett play.
3. Once they stopped making official dogme films (even though some appear now and then) I think the statement had been made – story telling knows no bounds, and we shouldn’t be restrained by budgets or studio mentality to tell compelling stories. For me, the indie world has become just a minor version of the studio world – to get money to make indie films, you now need stars, a rich person, or incredible luck.
In the dogme spawned DIY world you don’t need any of these. Just a camera, a point of view, and a compelling story told well. (You can check out trailers and some of the winning films of this year’s fest at www.diyfilmfest.com) For me that’s the future of storytelling.
I’ve never had the luxury of choosing between hollywood, indie and DIY worlds – I just keep forging ahead, working in various capacities on whatever is in front of me (I worked for Phillip Noyce on «Salt» – we had much fun at the Moscow fest in 97 when I brought my film «Cannes Man») so I wouldn’t know what advice to give art house directors on how to keep their souls, or direct their careers. «Do what you love and the rest will follow» whether making films or writing about the making of films.
Good luck!
God bless and protect beautiful Russia!
The style of dogme 95 is so free and honest. Your story needs to be powerful and you have to be natural, forget tricks and the lights. I knew there was an oportunity to get the certificate when lars von trier announced in an interview of the Manderlay’s period. I thought it was easy but it was the opposite, some people didn’t take it seriously or didn’t know about dogme 95, i really enjoy the process, the result, a natural result, maybe it wasn’t realistic film, but it was a very alive film.
What do you think about Dogme’s social positions, about its influence on the life (maybe politic, young people, education etc)?
I think Lars von Trier is a total genius and Vinterberg was very enthusiastic about the idea. They both understood what they were doing and what they created, so they elevate the idea with Idioterne and Festen, both films are powerful and intense, the actors showed one of their greatest performances. Dogme 95 influenced new directors like Andrea Arnold (Red Road) and Pernille Christensen (En Soap), many american directos also took the experiment and the audience was very open, it was something new and fresh. I remember I saw Julien Donkey Boy and I was very disturbed, it was a total experience and the film wasn’t dead at all, like some purists said. New generations know that there are many ways to make a film and there’s no excuse to make a good film without millions.
And what about films after Dogme? Is this filmmaking movement topical now? What things modern art-house directors should keep in mind after Dogme?
The actual times has a little influence, but the big time in this movement is dead now. Harmony Korine, Susanne Bier, Lars von Trier and Vinterberg made the best films of the movement, now there are some films, powerful indeed, with some elements, but it’s not the same feeling as in the nineties. Some tv shows took successfully some documentary tools, but reality shows abused of the real element. It was a great thing for the end of the last century but it is done, maybe the greatest in later movements of cinema, Denmark was hidden when Dreyer died, so Dogme 95 was a way to put Denmark (and Sweden) on the map again. The good thing is that all this directors continue his filmography with new aesthethic and stories after that, and they’re still successful, I was very happy to be part of it as audience and as a director.
Daniil, its good to meet you.
Here are my answers to your questions:
1. We shot the film in four days with a Panasonic DVX100 using no lights and real locations, the scenes were constructed on location with the actors. Personally, it was a rewarding experience to work with actors in a new way, the Dogma model presented useful constraints for filming and directing and these constraints created a worthwhile state-mind for all those involved. We all felt very present and mindful of what was going on, there was a sort of rhythm within the chaos, so to speak, and I selected the method specifically for this reason.
2. I’m unaware of Dogme’s social positions and influence on life. I just felt it was a good way to tell a story.
3. The takeaways from Dogme are that filmmakers need not feel limited by the ‘old’ way of making films, that is – heavy preproduction, large budgets, large crew, heavily rehearsed actors. It is very possible to make a compelling and entertaining film using limited tools and small crews on a set. What is essential is one’s ability to use their intuition and abilities as best they can in the moment. Directing, photography, and acting are at their base, simply emotional decisions that the individual makes numerous times along the way to completing a film. The Dogme95 aesthetic was an adequate means to reach these emotions decision and to see that they are accessible, and must be utilized if the creators wish to truly manage and shape the material that is being created.
Hope this is of help to you, Daniil,
Hello Danill,
First can I ask where you saw my film? So many people from around the world contact me here in Hollywood about this topic. I just like to know where each saw the film.
To briefly answer your questions:
I chose this style because I was making a «THEMA-TICALLY SCARY HORROR FILM». There were no zombies or flesh eating diseases. Just people barely hanging onto threads in life and doing desperate things to each other to survive. To me that’s scary because we see it everyday. Hollywood doesn’t like to talk about «real life» because it’s not good for business but if you turn on the news any given night you’ll know what I’m talking about and you probably already do. So that was one reason. I made my horror movie, a thematically scary one. I think that thing about dogme using «traditional use of story, acting and theme» to quote it is coincidentally what I happened to be going for for my project.
Also, I had no money. I did everything myself and dogme was the easiest way to go for a one-man crew that had zero dollars. So another reason for me was NECESSITY. There’s a book by a film maker named ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, it’s called REBEL WITHOUT A CREW. Really helped a lot. Dogme before Dogme you can say.
As far as Dogme’s influence on social life I think it’s huge. Now we have HD-cameras and editing from home. Pretty much everything you can think of. Lars von Trier was doing that before the hd revolution when digital video was just being invented. In a way you can say those guys gave «re-birth» to independent cinema. Now everyone and their brother thinks they are film makers but before the trend there was dogme. They didn’t invent making movies from your home but they made it acceptable. Hollywood is so harsh and close minded. If you look at something like let’s say Mumblecore now. Joe Swanberg is my favorite of those directors. Couldn’t you say those guys are modern day dogme95 ers? I think so. So the impact on at least the film community has been very substantial. Especially considering Von Trier has made films this way on the highest commercial level. These guys are road pavers. Very few exist. Inspirational.
In America we are lucky to be free and do what we want (for the most part), but in other countries I hear you die of you make a movie. So I’m sure for those kids that want to make movies all around the world but are scared to speak up because it might not be accepted, maybe seeing something like dogme might inspire them to do it. No matter what. You don’t need Hollywood or a bunch of money or anything except ambition. Again see guys like mumblecore for examples of this. Anyway to answer that question socially, politically and educationally dogme and the ambition and acceptance it had brought to many people on many levels is obviously unparalleled.
After dogme the sky is the limit. We now have things like Magic Bullet Look. A software that can color and light video after it’s been shot. It essentially allows a film maker not to have to anything except point and shoot and keep it in focus, run this program and it will look amazing. We have new cameras and computers and editing equipment so the sky is literally the limit for the future. I know dogme has a lot of rules and that’s one thing I don’t agree with. Rules. Some of them are ridiculous but I can understand why they are in place. In film making though there should be no rules, just principles. One thing I think modern film makers should keep in mind is just to keep doing it!!!! Make them sharp and harsh and unforgettable. Don’t make hollywood movies! Let hollywood make hollywood movies! Make your movies! And make them kick ass! Robert Rodriguez said in his book be scary so… be scary. It might be safe to say with all the technology that something like dogme may be a little out dated but those guys and that concept started an entire movement that spawned an even bigger one that we now know today as «home movie making» I’m sure John Cassavettes would be proud. And I am grateful to them for their passion and ambition. It’s easy to do something after everyone else says it’s okay but try being the first one doing it. It’s a lot harder.
Priviet Daniil!
I lived in Russia for almost 2 years, you know?:).
anyway, I am glad to help you for your thesis.
Here are my answer:
What was it for you personally? And why did you choose this style?
In my opinion, it was an interesting way for finding out the depressive city as Milan via dogme rules: no soundtrack, no special effects, etc… as Milan:). I chose that style, because, let’s be honest, if you dont have a big finacial support, it’s quite hard to do something impressive. and Von Trier&Co. gave us this free opportunity for shooting and, of course, promoting easily my works. IT’s important the idea, NOT the budget.
What do you think about Dogme’s social positions, about its influence on the life (maybe politic, young people, education etc)?
Unfortunately, Dogme doesnt’ exist anymore, officially, I think there was a cool boasting, let’s say about 5 years ago. Many artists and directors tried to copy it, but it was a fake attempt. It’s impossible to do it again spontaneously. of course, it leaves its step among young people and, some movies, in politics enviroment. e.g. «italian for beginners» movie or, in some aspect, «Dear Wendy» by Viterberg (screenplay by Von Trier) in a piece of American society. In my opinion, it was necessary being very short term, in order to leave a «deep sign». in Italian context, it didn’t. Television is still very powerfull, and this society is still ignorant and TV addicted. Berlusconi Docet:).
And what about films after Dogme? Is this filmmaking movement topical now? What things modern art-house directors should keep in mind after Dogme?
About Dogme? I am not sure, but the most interesting stuff are in Asia right now and that movie shooted in South Africa just with mobiles. ar.house directors should keep in mind ONLY few things:
1. Keep as far as possibile from Hollywood.
2 Close their wallets till the end of shooting.
3. Delete any kind of catchy scene, no worthywhile for the plot itself, such as: boobs, luxury cars and special effects.
4. Be always critical and updated with what’s goin’ all over the world.
I hope you are glad about my answer. IF you any further question/doubt. just drop me some lines again:).
Spossiba! Poka!
Estimado Daniil
Te cuento y disculpa por no traducir al ingles, prefiero responder rapido. El Film aún no lo he terminado, por falta de recursos y va en un 60 %. Yo soy publicista de una universidad publica de Chile y amante del cine, un día vi Dogma 33 Realizado en Chile también, el cual me parecio genial. es por esto que me parecio buena idea aventurarme en este proyecto y hacer el Dogma.
Me parecio interesante poder contar una historia sin efectos y elementos que ensuciaran lo puro que puede llegar a ser transmitir a un persona o a un publico en el cine, en su casa o en internet y que la gente entendiera que esto es lo mas real que puede llegar a contar el cine, casi un cara a cara, casi en un formato documental. Creo sinceramente que las bases para hacer este tipo de cine no las entrega el Dogma 95, aunque ellos sean los que lo fomentan, esto se hizo en los comienzos del cine, esa imagen mala sin música que para muchos de ese tiempo era una gran maravilla…. Esperemos que no opinen eso de nosotros las personas del futuro…
Creo tambien que el arte o el cine en general debería llegar a ser un arma peligrosa que se la entregue el realizador a la gente. no para hacer daño, si no, para generar ese fuego que alimente sentimientos, sensaciones, sueños y que permitan a la gente mejorar. eso es todo. tratar de ser feliz.
Lo mejor que puede hacer un realizador despues de hacer un dogma o para el joven que tiene ganas de proyectar sus ideas o sentimientos a travez de las imagenes es lo que dicta su corazon y hacerlo ya!! no perder tiempo. crear, inspirarse y salir a buscar lo tuyo.
Espero que te sirva.
Saludos desde este rincon del mundo Chile y espero que te sirvan estas palabras.
At first, I’d like to know about your experience. What was it for you personally? And why did you choose this style?
I had just started making films, it was about 6 years ago.
I saw Harmony Korine’s ‘julien donkey boy’, which is more of a critique of domge95 rather than a by the rule book approach.
‘Julien donkey boy’ is still my favourite film. Korine breaks a few rules but he still keeps the spirit of dogme.
Dogme is an exploration of truth, beauty and ‘reality’ and a discussion of how we represent those things in fiction film.
For me i was always excited by the lo-fi style, it showed me that I could make feature films on a budget.
The viewer is not always looking at the trickery of how the film-maker shot the film, but always at the soul of the characters and the story. This is why is still shoot with dogme in mind.
What do you think about Dogme’s social positions, about its influence on the life (maybe politic, young people, education etc)?
I don’t think of dogme too seriously, not socially or politically.
It is just a way of making good, cheap films. It frees the film maker from the studios and expensive equipment.
And what about films after Dogme? Is this filmmaking movement topical now? What things modern art-house directors should keep in mind after Dogme?
Dogme is not topical, but relevant. Dogme will always be relevant.
The search for truth, beauty etc… will always be relevant.
Dogme is a way of communicating to the viewer like no other.
Dogme films represent reality better than any other… They give the viewer something tangible.
Something closer to truth.
Handheld cameras, raw footage, no tricks.
Hollywood is ok, pathos is ok, but if you want to truely touch and move a viewer read the vows of chastity, live them, breathe them.
Hi Daniil,
Thanks for the e-mail. The film in question was my first student film so I was a bit inexperienced with Dogme and it’s not something that I’m particularly focused on any longer. I guess you can say that I sort of moved on. At least with my own cinema experiences, I find Dogme to not be as widely regarded any longer as it once was when it was first organized in the late nineties (1997 I think). I think filmmakers just got tired of being restricted by it and If I am correct, it is not something that Von Trier focuses much on any longer. Over the years, filmmakers were breaking the rules of Dogme, but that is something that was bound to happen. One might surmise that it just took its natural course. It was here to teach filmmakers and audiences the naturalistic approach to film storytelling.
I myself being naive at the time really did not understand a lot of the implications that Dogme had on me or society, but I think completing the film and studying it a bit more provided me with some understanding of the reason it was created. The reason that I found interest in the style was that in some ways I really felt that it provided filmmakers with a sense of freeing oneself and allowing more of a natural approach as mentioned above. There is something about capturing a man on a journey in the middle of the desert that is really freeing and might even have the ability to capture the soul of filmmaking. If you think about it, filmmakers were out in the elements with nothing more than merely a camera and any other essential gear. That part interested me the most because it allowed for the «realness» to be captured and nothing felt artificial.
In a manner of speaking, it sort of died altogether for me after completing that short film. I moved on to try different things, but at the time still kept an interest in watching those films. A favorite of mine and maybe still to this day is Juliendonkeyboy. I think The Apartment was another great one.
Unfortunately, these days I find that Dogme is really just vanished. I have not heard or seen anything from the movement in quite some time and do not even know if filmmakers are still practicing it. I wish that more young film students knew about it because it is something that definitely warrants attention and even potential study of it.
I am ultimately glad that I found Dogme because it helped me gain a sense of the naturalistic approach to filmmaking which is definitely something to be appreciated. Story should not be artificial, but it feels like a lot of filmmakers have always found ways to blend story with having a strong sense of production value and that is not to diminish Dogme because some of those films I found had just that, a strong sense of production value.
And to add in addendum, I found that it certainly was punned by film historians and critics, which is another reason I find for its ultimate demise. However, I applaud the movement for its experiment. We need more of that because it will only continue to further creativity beyond what anyone could possibly imagine.