Talk:Dogme 95

Key & Peele mention Dogme 95 in sketch

Key & Peele is a sketch comedy show on Comedy Central and YouTube. There is a sketch about guys talking in a cinema where they compare the film playing to "Dogme" in reference to handheld shots, scolding the film's director (presumably not even attempting a Dogme film) for not also following the rule that temporal and geographic alienation are forbidden (the alienation is not specified).

Key & Peele - Movie Hecklers (YouTube)

Seems to me it's relevant enough for the "Use of Concept" section, if only because they chose one of the less stereotyped rules (temporal and geographic alienation) to work into the joke.

Here's a transcription of the relevant dialog:

1: This movie's got an inconsistent visual language! 2: Half the time this mother****** is just shooting all handheld like he a Dogme filmmaker. That's funny, since Dogme clearly forbids temporal or geographical alienation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyclarke (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

From the article:

1. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

Huh? Festen (The Celebration) was shot on a Sony PAL miniDV camera. --KQ

I seem to remember that one of them (Lovers, I think, I'm not sure) is in black and white, which is also disallowed. Rules are there to be broken, I guess... --Camembert

Actually, it looks like I'm completely Rong about that, Lovers does appear to be in colour, not sure where I got that idea from. I definitely remember seeing somewhere, though, that none of the certified Dogme films had followed all of the rules. Though admittedly, it seems none of them were actually in b&w. I think I need to go to bed... --Camembert

That would be an interesting trivia tidbit to work in. Recently Joel Schumacher directed a war film which was supposedly also a Dogme95 film (which explicitly disallow genre films). Other than that, I don't know much about the films, except one of them (the 2nd?) was a comedy which got a warm critical reception. Of the Dogme films, I've only seen Festen. --KQ

I think that Festen broke another one of the rules too, if I remember. Lighting, or placement, or something. No big deal. I think that the directors should have a "follow 9 out of 10" rider.
- Tubby

When Dogme 95 was first described to me, the person said the rules were broken sometimes MechBrowman 01:37, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

clipped from article

I removed the following material from the article. It smacks of original research, and contains many weasel words and phrases like "it is speculated..." and "among filmmakers and true filmgoers..." that I would consider unacceptable for an encyclopedia article. But if somebody want to dig up sources for this, it would be cool to put some of it back in, as there's valuable context there. --Misterwindupbird 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Appeal

The genre gained international appeal partly because of its accessibility. It sparked off an interest in unknown filmmakers by creating the possibility that one can make a recognised film without being dependent on commissions or huge Hollywood budgets. The movement has been criticised for being a disguised attempt to gain media attention. It could be said that as the founding Dogme directors have declined offers to work in Hollywood they are not interested in media (or commercial) attention to further their career or gain recognition. Dogme was initiated to cause a stir and to make filmmakers and audiences re-think the art, effect and essence of filmmaking. It has been said that Dogme has strong roots in the radical New Wave movement of the sixties.

Woody Allen

It is speculated that much of the influence of the Dogme 95 concept derived from the films of legendary American director Woody Allen, specifically his film Husbands and Wives (1992). The film centers around two couples (Allen/Mia Farrow and Judy Davis/Sydney Pollack) whose lives are thrown into delayed hysteria when Davis and Pollack announce their separation. The film garnered most of its attention from some of the subject matter, which involved a relationship between Allen and a younger student (Juliette Lewis), a situation that mirrored very real events in his personal life. But among filmmakers and true filmgoers, the film appeared as a chink in the chain that was conventional Hollywood filmmaking. It used subdued lighting techniques, hand-held cinema veritè cinematography and mid-sentence editing cuts to establish a sense of stark realism. The form was adopted by Allen for a few subsequent films.

New Puritans

A related British literary movement, called the New Puritans, espouses similar values for the writing of fiction. A totally unrelated group calling themselves 'Dogme ELT' attempted to link the Vows of Chastity idea to English language teaching, but later admitted that they had not meant their 'Vows' to be taken literally.

Criticism

The movement has been criticized for breaking one of the major rules of free-form art: There are no rules. By making rules for filmmakers to follow, some say the leaders of Dogme are simply instructing impressionable, up-and-coming filmmakers to be more like them.

Though the argument may have merit, the only perk of a Dogme 95 filmmaker is recognition by the movement.

When Hen Fap Was What We Wanted.

Who, or what, is 'Hen Fap'? Martyn Smith 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Might want to mention the Icelandic film "Salt." Very Dogme - though not officially a part of the genre I believe. See: http://imdb.com/title/tt0357127/

---

Dogma?

The list of current dogme 95 films' third entry is "Dogma." The imdb link next to the title directs the reader to the Kevin Smith movie of the same name. There is absolutely no way this movie is possibly a Dogme 95 film. Is this vandalism or simply an error? In any event, someone who is actually informed about Dogme #3 should fix this.

UPDATE//

I looked it up and fixed it. Dogme #3 had been moved to the #4 spot and #4 was removed entirely. It is also worthy to note that #4, Europa, was directed by Lars Von Trier, which counters the article's assertion that Von Trier's only Dogme film is Idioterne.

EDIT//

Alright, sorry. I had a bad source. I've seen it, and Europa is in no way a Dogme 95 film. I checked my sources again, and I think someone just thought it would be clever to insert Dogma into the list. No entries were deleted.

---

"Ladma"

The reference to "Ladma," a group which was claimed to have inspired Dogme, is obviously patent nonsense and self-promotion. Please delete on sight any references inserted in the future. (131.111.243.37 00:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

list of dogme films

The "List of Dogme Films" sections comes across a bit crufty, not to mention it is simply an out-of-date version of the list on the dogme95 web site. What would people think of making it "Well-Known Dogme Films", and listing the films that have wikipedia articles or are otherwise notable? --142.103.211.144 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a special reason why Dogville isn't listed?--Jeff79 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are the last 3 entries on the list? Why not choosing real important movies, like on the German Dogma 96 site... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_95#Wichtige_Dogma-Filme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.25.144 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

General Maintenance/Improvements

I'm going to be working on fleshing out this article and altering some sections. I just started, and don't have the primary resources with me for the time being, but will be citing them shortly. I just felt that this article was lacking in a lot of areas and could use some work done on it. The sources I intend to use mostly consist of interviews with the directors themselves (as found in The Name of this Book is Dogme 95). Also, it may become glaringly obvious that I am not Danish and I would welcome any input from Danish contributors as I think the international experience with dogme is markedly different than the danish one. Goingtoalaska 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also looking at the pages on italian neorealism/french new wave/other national film movements in order to clean up the article. I still have to cite things but I am new to wikipedia editing so i am holding off until i know how to do it properly. Goingtoalaska 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:King is alive.jpg

Image:King is alive.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent removal of "mudkipz" related film

Although the film added by the last user was extant on the Dogme 95 site, it is incredibly likely that it is simply a false movie that had been added on there, as it had various 4chan content, along with a false address. In line with the previous films used as a demonstration which did have valid addresses and film-makers mentioned, I removed it. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of term

I added a note on the origin of this unfamilar term (Danish for dogma).
See http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme95 , http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma .
If anybody has a great cite for this definition, please add it. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The criticism ...

from an unknown guy, who cares? are so important ? remove, is an encyclopedia, not a gossip paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.3.78 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed. But the article needs a section about the reception from producers, critics and the public. Sjö (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol, Armond White is a three time chair of the New York Film Critics Circle, not an "unknown guy". Return. 188.127.101.248 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• South Korean director Byun Hyuk in Aug 25 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

History

The fifth paragraph under History (about Juan Pinzás, the departure of the founders, and the end of Dogme 95) reads oddly and lacks context or, rather, the context is lower in the article.

"Since 2002 and the 31st film, Spanish director Juan Pinzás is no longer needs to have their work verified by the original board to identify it as a Dogme 95 work after finishing up his own trilogy. The founding "brothers" have begun working on new experimental projects and have been skeptical about the later common interpretation of the Manifesto as a brand or a genre. The movement broke up in 2005." 2601:246:5C00:6070:A146:2DF2:82F6:EB81 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)