Souzek Republic: Great Danes

Great Danes

Dinka and I watched Italian for Beginners on Saturday night and it was quite good. This is the first Dogme 95 film that I had seen and I have to say that although it was hard to see the need for such a method before watching it, the overall effect of the film convinced me that they were onto something. What is Dogme 95? I'm glad you asked.

From my understanding, it is a simple set of rules and ideas, conceived chiefly by Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, intended to rescue film from the familiar (Hollywood) traps of overproduction and technological illusion. They call it the Vow of Chastity:

"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 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."

Also, an excerpt from their statement of purpose, of sorts:

"Predictability (dramaturgy) has become the golden calf around which we dance. Having the characters' inner lives justify the plot is too complicated, and not 'high art'. As never before, the superficial action and the superficial movie are receiving all the praise. The result is barren. An illusion of pathos and an illusion of love.

To DOGME 95 the movie is not illusion! Today a technological storm is raging of which the result is the elevation of cosmetics to God. By using new technology anyone at any time can wash the last grains of truth away in the deadly embrace of sensation. The illusions are everything the movie can hide behind."

All this adds up to a very personal and refreshing way to tell a story. Instead of feeling like you are watching the characters play out the plot, it feels more like you are living it with them. Since there is literally nothing added, there is no magical "movie" sense about it, but what is left is not any less captivating than the $100 million blockbuster of the month and in fact is much more substantial. I'm sure this method can be used poorly as well and the quality of this particular film is not merely a result of the rules used to make it, but marry the method to a good story and well-developed characters and you've got something.