I feel like people are reading this as "this is how the under signers think all movies should be made, and we are judging movies not made this way as a moral failing", when I think a better reading would be "as directors/film makers/story tellers, this is how we think we can maximize our own creativity and joy when we make movies".
>The film must be shot where the narrative takes place.
This one really stands out by exculding whole genres and not really adding anything interesting to work around.
Which genres would that be?
One could also argue that certain genres simply won't ever work as an arthouse movie.
> Which genres would that be?
Space opera, high fantasy and bangsian fantasy are three that come to mind.
I could see bangsian fantasy work if the afterlife were to be located on earth (which opens up some narrative possibilities, though they're a bit unoriginal). The other two are predicated upon portraying their locations inauthentically, which conflicts with the rules Dogme 25 strives to follow.
Exluding them is for the better... we got more than enough
That's ok. The goal is not for every film to fit into this criteria.
I don't think it's meant as a constraint to be worked around, but as a guardrail against being inauthentic.
And it excludes a lot less than its inspiration Dogme 95, which has as one rule "Genre movies are not acceptable."
> "Genre movies are not acceptable."
I find that hilarious, like proclaiming that only other people have an ethnicity or an accent. Because of course Dogme is a genre of its own.
Perhaps Dogme 95/Dogma 25 films are in a genre of their own, but they're not "genre movies." People make the same argument with "literary fiction"/"non-genre fiction" vs "genre fiction." The terms have meaning whether or not you want to acknowledge it.
Dogme is more of a methodology than genre. Genre usually means settings and tropes, like scifi or horror or superhero.
Though I’d argue that rom-com, period pieces, and biopics also are “genre”, at least to the extent a particular movie just paints by numbers within those styles.
It kind of protects against low budget sci-fi I guess, which could be a net good thing.
Under the rules you could attempt to shoot Resident Alien, but not Star Trek.
I'm thinking you could shoot an awesome sci-fi thriller under these rules. Even one that includes space travel. Just don't have any of the narrative take place in space: have only one character off-planet and have them communicate via radio.
I've seen good, low-budget indie sci-fi short films that would presumably meet all of the Dogma 25 rules. So I think it doesn't protect against this category of films and neither would that be a good thing anyways. It just requires creative solutions if you want to e.g. portrait space travel.
Makes sense because it's similar to one of the ones from Dogme95 which explicitly excluded genre files.
My eyes are bleeding reading this CSS
The same way that HN puts tags like [video] or [pdf] in titles, they should have something like [eyestab] for a site like that. I was so not ready for that visual assault.
I believe red and black theme is an artistic choice. Sadly, readability suffers from this choice. Just making the text bold makes it a lot better while preserving its spirit.
My brain is bleeding after reading this strange ass manifesto.
Pretentious, pompous trash.
Can we have just good cinema back?
Not the cookie-cutter safe productions of today, which are essentially 2 hours long advertisements for popcorn and toys.
Not this snob "here's us certifying ourselves about being pure" bullshit.
Just good cinema. You know what I'm talking about.
There is a lot of good cinema out there, it's just not at your fingertips. I too have become too lazy to look further than my nose's length.
There's even some good stuff in the big cinemas. Barbie was excellent for example.
There is great cinema today, sadly a lot of great movies lack proper distribution. Go to film festivals, the quality of movies is only increasing
Name a movie that’s your reference of good cinema
Lars Von Trier is objectively good cinema
I suppose that's not what you meant, but I love the idea of "Lars Von Trier" as a persona being good cinema.
At the very least, it made me understand that I need him to appear as himself in the next Death Stranding game.
egh, as much as I enjoyed his Dogme 95 fayre when I was young and far more self-important, I find his later 'big cinema' output turgid twaddle.
Melancholia was just about bareable but from Mandalay onwards I could barely struggle through to the end of his flicks.
Nymphomaniac made me almost literally angry at its denouement. Just.. shit.
i guess. he's also a misogynistic piece of shit
Who would have thought an auteur would be a fully formed and flawed person where flaws may be as extreme as their talent.
It’s almost as if creativity is connected to emotions, ideology and experience or something.
everyone, i think. doesn't mean auteurs have to make movies glorifying their flaws without a trace of introspection for 20+ years.
Nothing like rules for spurring creativity. Waiting for the manual next.
> Nothing like rules for spurring creativity.
I feel like it's pretty well known in creative spaces that constraints breed creativity.
Creative after creative and artist after artist has said pretty much that constraints and limitations indeed spur creatitivy...
Deliberately imposing constraints on yourself is actually a very well-established way to spur creativity and innovation. For example this movement was inspired by something similar from back in the 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
I feel like people are reading this as "this is how the under signers think all movies should be made, and we are judging movies not made this way as a moral failing", when I think a better reading would be "as directors/film makers/story tellers, this is how we think we can maximize our own creativity and joy when we make movies".
Interesting that they only have one rule in common with the predecessor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
And no signatures in common.
Also: how many films are still produced in line with Dogma 95?
I wonder if they would accept a CGI movie entirely set within a computer, nothing in the rules seem to prohibit it :).
What is happening? What is the difference between Dogma and Dogme? What is this site about?
"dogme" is the Danish, Norwegian, and French spelling of the word "dogma"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dogme
Oooh. That explains my friend named Mathilde. Nice. Thanks.
Dogme is Danish, because it's a manifesto of a founded in Denmark - and it's basically an update of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
>The film must be shot where the narrative takes place.
This one really stands out by exculding whole genres and not really adding anything interesting to work around.
Which genres would that be?
One could also argue that certain genres simply won't ever work as an arthouse movie.
> Which genres would that be?
Space opera, high fantasy and bangsian fantasy are three that come to mind.
I could see bangsian fantasy work if the afterlife were to be located on earth (which opens up some narrative possibilities, though they're a bit unoriginal). The other two are predicated upon portraying their locations inauthentically, which conflicts with the rules Dogme 25 strives to follow.
Exluding them is for the better... we got more than enough
That's ok. The goal is not for every film to fit into this criteria.
I don't think it's meant as a constraint to be worked around, but as a guardrail against being inauthentic.
And it excludes a lot less than its inspiration Dogme 95, which has as one rule "Genre movies are not acceptable."
> "Genre movies are not acceptable."
I find that hilarious, like proclaiming that only other people have an ethnicity or an accent. Because of course Dogme is a genre of its own.
Perhaps Dogme 95/Dogma 25 films are in a genre of their own, but they're not "genre movies." People make the same argument with "literary fiction"/"non-genre fiction" vs "genre fiction." The terms have meaning whether or not you want to acknowledge it.
Dogme is more of a methodology than genre. Genre usually means settings and tropes, like scifi or horror or superhero.
Though I’d argue that rom-com, period pieces, and biopics also are “genre”, at least to the extent a particular movie just paints by numbers within those styles.
It kind of protects against low budget sci-fi I guess, which could be a net good thing.
Under the rules you could attempt to shoot Resident Alien, but not Star Trek.
I'm thinking you could shoot an awesome sci-fi thriller under these rules. Even one that includes space travel. Just don't have any of the narrative take place in space: have only one character off-planet and have them communicate via radio.
I've seen good, low-budget indie sci-fi short films that would presumably meet all of the Dogma 25 rules. So I think it doesn't protect against this category of films and neither would that be a good thing anyways. It just requires creative solutions if you want to e.g. portrait space travel.
Makes sense because it's similar to one of the ones from Dogme95 which explicitly excluded genre files.
My eyes are bleeding reading this CSS
The same way that HN puts tags like [video] or [pdf] in titles, they should have something like [eyestab] for a site like that. I was so not ready for that visual assault.
I believe red and black theme is an artistic choice. Sadly, readability suffers from this choice. Just making the text bold makes it a lot better while preserving its spirit.
My brain is bleeding after reading this strange ass manifesto.
Pretentious, pompous trash.
Can we have just good cinema back?
Not the cookie-cutter safe productions of today, which are essentially 2 hours long advertisements for popcorn and toys.
Not this snob "here's us certifying ourselves about being pure" bullshit.
Just good cinema. You know what I'm talking about.
There is a lot of good cinema out there, it's just not at your fingertips. I too have become too lazy to look further than my nose's length.
There's even some good stuff in the big cinemas. Barbie was excellent for example.
There is great cinema today, sadly a lot of great movies lack proper distribution. Go to film festivals, the quality of movies is only increasing
Name a movie that’s your reference of good cinema
Lars Von Trier is objectively good cinema
I suppose that's not what you meant, but I love the idea of "Lars Von Trier" as a persona being good cinema.
At the very least, it made me understand that I need him to appear as himself in the next Death Stranding game.
egh, as much as I enjoyed his Dogme 95 fayre when I was young and far more self-important, I find his later 'big cinema' output turgid twaddle.
Melancholia was just about bareable but from Mandalay onwards I could barely struggle through to the end of his flicks.
Nymphomaniac made me almost literally angry at its denouement. Just.. shit.
i guess. he's also a misogynistic piece of shit
Who would have thought an auteur would be a fully formed and flawed person where flaws may be as extreme as their talent.
It’s almost as if creativity is connected to emotions, ideology and experience or something.
everyone, i think. doesn't mean auteurs have to make movies glorifying their flaws without a trace of introspection for 20+ years.
Nothing like rules for spurring creativity. Waiting for the manual next.
> Nothing like rules for spurring creativity.
I feel like it's pretty well known in creative spaces that constraints breed creativity.
Creative after creative and artist after artist has said pretty much that constraints and limitations indeed spur creatitivy...
Deliberately imposing constraints on yourself is actually a very well-established way to spur creativity and innovation. For example this movement was inspired by something similar from back in the 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95