Talk:Dogme 95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Dogme 95 falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

---

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)

Contents 1 clipped from article 2 Dogma? 3 "Ladma" 4 list of dogme films 5 General Maintenance/Improvements 6 Fair use rationale for Image:King is alive.jpg

[edit] 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/

---

[edit] 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.

---

[edit] "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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)