Have You Seen "The Idiots"?
- Thread starter shoddysolutions
- Start date
jodal
Well-Known Member
The rules are there to facilitate a focus on story and development of character by deliberately excluding effects and superficial violence. It is a reaction of independent and foreign cinema against the financial power-house that is Hollywood which seeks to redefine what is important in film-making by shifting the focus from huge production budgets and star power onto good storytelling and acting.siarc said:well try and argue against it
Yes the whole Dogma thing was overblown and used as a marketing tool.
Yes it has produced some terrible films.
But, lets remind ourselves that it was conceived as a way of making independent cinema commercially viable.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
well, it would rather contradict the claim that Dogme added anything to the theoretical understanding of film. There is nothing in dogme that isn't in excisting film-makers work. Now, okay, for a dane, having a homegrown Loach or Cassavetes is something to be a bit excited about I suppose. Certainly better than having someone try and copy Hollywood very badly.
but that still doesn't make it original. Still less 'good'.
but that still doesn't make it original. Still less 'good'.
jodal
Well-Known Member
belboid said:
When did I claim that Dogma added to the "theoretical understanding" of film?
Anyway, Dogma pretty much saved the Danish film industry from extinction and it is now one of the healthiest in Europe. Ken Loach is an amazing filmmaker who makes vitally important, politically charged films that should be seen by everyone (myself included even though I've missed a few recently
). If he came up with something like Dogma that helped get his films to joe public and singlehandedly saved the British film industry, would it matter if all the ideas were stolen from past masters?kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Britain and film has always been a weird relationship and once it all went arsewards in the 70s (and then went arsewards again with the lottery funded Cok-er-nee/Essex Boi Gangster drizzle) TV has become the primary creative medium for writers/directors who remain in the UK (altho there are a few encouraging signs - the chap who made Dog Soldiers and the potholing women with monster one), while filmmakers tend to serve their apprenticship in advertising and then fuck off to LA where the money is.
The big contributions the UK makes in film now are more techincal and craft based rather than 'big vision art' type stuff...IMV anyhoo.
BTW - I don't think 'Dogma' added anything to understandig film and is a partial blot on Kevin Smith's copy book...yo ho ho...
The big contributions the UK makes in film now are more techincal and craft based rather than 'big vision art' type stuff...IMV anyhoo.
BTW - I don't think 'Dogma' added anything to understandig film and is a partial blot on Kevin Smith's copy book...yo ho ho...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah, I'm bright but not that bright
jodal
Well-Known Member
siarc said:
What this bit? Admittedly I only said 'bullshit' to that coz the Danish government demands it.
What does Siarc even mean by: "adds nothing to the substantial theoretical understanding of film realism."? If he's talking about 'realism' in film theory then we are getting into a whole different argument. If he's talking about the audience's understanding or perception of realism in film then I disagree. The style of film-making that Dogma adheers to is, although initially jarring, actually more 'real' than the crap Hollywood churns out imho.
Or am I completely missing the point?
sort of ~ your binary of 'substantial' social(ist) realism against 'superficial' demotic eye candy (hollywood) is self congratulating and middlebrow ~ nothing in your posts would suggest films are different to theatre beyond their economic function. the absence of aesthetics may be an aesthetic, but it's not a very interesting one.
the only one i've seen is julien donkey-boy, which i really enjoyed. i set a tape one night for the idiots, but when watching it back found that the bbc or ch4 (CANT REMEMBER THE CHANNEL BUT DONT RECKON IT WAS ITV OR 5) had decided not to show it for some reason. would like to see julien donkey boy again sometime, had nearly forgotten about it. at the time i don't know if i had heard of dogme though, i think i more went cos i had enjoyed seein ewan bremner in other stuff.
edited to add: and i dont think the poll will remotely be able to confirm or nullify the original statement of less than 5% of u75 having seen the idiots, as it'll be skewed so much by the fact that a bigger percentage of the ones who have seen it will vote than of those who haven't. so unless we make the voting compulsory, there aint gonna be no way of knowing.
edited to add: and i dont think the poll will remotely be able to confirm or nullify the original statement of less than 5% of u75 having seen the idiots, as it'll be skewed so much by the fact that a bigger percentage of the ones who have seen it will vote than of those who haven't. so unless we make the voting compulsory, there aint gonna be no way of knowing.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
This is my main issue with dogme - for me a cinema screen is the ultimate artists canvas, combining art&design, music, writing, acting and other crafts/arts that are usually only taken in isolation into something incredible. Dogme essentially says 'no' to making the fullest use of that canvas and tries to turn it into something akin to theatre.
Now there's nothing wrong with that per se but why not just make cheap TV instead? Look at films like 12 Angry Men or Glengarry Glenross - depsite being theatre adaptations both break the 'rules' laid down by dogme to make and take full advantage of the additonal colour and tone offered by the medium, while still having the rock solid core of great writing and characterisation. Indeed, these last two are why the Pixar and early Disney animations are so good - writing, plot and character should always come first because once you have that you can add as many bells and whistles as you want!
jodal
Well-Known Member
kyser_soze said:
I can see what you mean Keyser. I have always been more interested in story and character than the aesthetics.
From Von Trier's point of view, I know that he turned to Dogma after being very focused on the aesthetic and technical side of film-making in his early career (see europa, element of crime, etc) and getting slightly disheartened as he was finding that whilst he was obsessing about minute technical details the integrity and realism of the story was getting lost. In order to force himself to focus on the dramaturgical elements of the story he forced himself to follow a few rules when working on Breaking The Waves (his best film IMO). This reignited his passion for film-making and when he talked to Vinterberg about it they decided to form Dogme 95.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Wow, what a generally civilised thread...
Bunch of CUNTS
Bunch of CUNTS
Similar threads
