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?
35 in total as of last year, with the most recent released in 2004
https://web.archive.org/web/20250215082603/http://www.dogme9...
That said, I'm not sure if new certifications are still being accepted. So there may have been uncertified Dogme95-compliant films made since that was never been in the official list.
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".
So this is my art degree coming out, but I feel like invoking the name of Dogma 95 and the "vow of chastity" without what appears to be any of the original people involved or blessing feels a little lame, especially when the actual rules are pretty different from the original. At least, I don't see any indication of like a real personal connection to the original.
I feel like they probably should have come up with a different name and just noted the connection in the manifesto
>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
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.
That's ok. The goal is not for every film to fit into this criteria.
Makes sense because it's similar to one of the ones from Dogme95 which explicitly excluded genre files.
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"
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
I maybe shouldn't judge their ideas about film by their choice of illegible background and text colors, but I do.
My eyes are bleeding reading this CSS
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.
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.
My brain is bleeding after reading this strange ass manifesto.
[flagged]
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.
Same as with the "good internet". It's still out there, only under layers and layers of mediocre and/or terrible stuff nobody has the time to go through.
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
Lars Von Trier is objectively good cinema
Agreed.
Also Lars Von Trier is objectively not involved in this (only in Dogma 95, which this is "based on").
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.
[flagged]
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.
Name a movie that’s your reference of good cinema
Inland Empire
Pretentious, pompous trash.
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