#dogme 95

[doesmadssurvive]

Elsker dig for evigt (2002)

Character: Niels Film: Elsker dig for evigt (eng. Open Hearts) Year: 2002 Language: Danish Lenght: 113 minutes

Is he alive at the end? YES

Sidenote: This film is filmed with Dogma 95 rules.

[cetal]

Lars von Trier - The Idiots, 1998

[capyrancher]

music video i directed came out today

Ryder Bach - Need U

dir. Adam Leier

[pb-dot]

I agree, and let me tell you a surprising group that agrees with me: The Dogme 95 directors.

Now, for those of you not in the know, Dogme 95 was a Danish film movement headed by Director And All Around Pretty Fucked Up Dude Lars Von Trier. Dogme 95 was an effort to put the craft of filmmaking, storytelling, and acting into focus in a film world where studio control, special effects and gimmicks had taken primacy.

The Dogme rules are rather strict, stating no "superficial" sources of tension such as violence or sex is to be employed in the storytelling, no special effects in lighting or post-processing, no taking the plot forwards or backwards in time, music is only allowed if it is produced on location and in the plot, and so on. If one were a cynical soul one could call it a "no fun allowed" kind of list, but there is no denying it makes things a great deal more realistic.

HOWEVER, the rules of lighting states the following:

(If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera.) from Wikipedia

This is to say that even in the most restrictive rulesets for filmmaking in the name of realism ever codified, at least to my knowledge, exceptions are made to allow extra lighting if the alternative is pitch fucking black. Film is, after all, an audiovisual medium.

directors using colorful or "impossible" lighting to convey mood and meaning and beauty my beloved. directors making night scenes impossible to see for the sake of realism my beloathed.

[ciltilladeltilla]

Feel like there should be a polar opposite of Dogme 95. Most films break some of the rules, but I think there's some mileage in just reversing every rule.

Call this something like Doute 25: only genre pieces somewhere other than the here and now, filmed entirely on sets using special lighting, filters, and non-35mm film in exclusively stationary cameras. All sound must be added in afterwards, the director must be credited as visibly as possible, and there must must must be intervals of superficial, even superfluous action.

[eaktionsshaytan]

The King Is Alive 2000   Kristian Levring

[jinjurloaf]

never watched a lars von trier film but im under the impression that he was insane. who looks at 80s & 90s movies and goes Film Has Been Bad Lately. and then comes up with a movement with filmmaking criteria that results in pple making movies that look like they were shot by seven year olds using a camera for the first time

[fabiansociety]

this is such a triflin' jag reason to not do stuff, anyway. like, it's your movie, my dude, if you're so hung up on realistic, plausible light, maybe do the fucking legwork to come up with ways to justify the light

like, why does tinkerbell glow? fairies are bioluminescent, boom done, you're welcome

why is this intense emotional scene happening in the lighting department of a home depot? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE GOOD LIGHT IS

why do they let the worlds most boring people direct movies

[loneberry]

The Mistakist Declaration by Harmony Korine

1. i have never been one to gravitate toward the labelling of things. But i feel forced to declare my adherance to a mode of creation known as "mistakism." 

2. i am a "mistakist" and all the work I produce adheres to the tenants attached to the label/movement. 

3. (factors involved include) 

4. All modes of work exist to produce a single body of work. each facet builds upon the other. 

5. you can never differentiate between the seperate modes of creation. 

6. A completely unified aesthetic. 

7. Mistakes are good. 

8. there is no such thing as a true mistake. only a more modern rethinking. 

9. Suicide is a show of strength. 

10. only in randomness and "mistakes" can one truely announce what is too deep to express in a direct and true way. 

11. football games, science projects and explosions. 

12. rather than direct a scene - document the action 

13. Provocations 

14. Heritage - Lineage - Prejudice. 

15. grammer means more when words are mispelled and used incorrectly in the traditional sense of the word. 

16. ---------------- 

17. Jokes without Punchlines. 

18. Hermits and rural Lonliness 

19. A "Mistakist" must believe in God over all else. 

this is how I made Julien Donkey Boy  The DOGME 95 is early "Mistakism."

.

.

.

As I wrote in my poem I FOUND MY SOUL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL: mistakes were exciting, inroads in the art of unknowning, the rush of not rushing, of just being, how marvelous!, this appointment: to be alive. 

let your mistakes be a way of remembering what it takes to be free.

[pinkeoni]

Arguing for realism in Stranger Things

So whenever the take "Mike and Will can't be together because it's not realistic" comes up, usually from twitter or reddit, I often find it met with the argument on here of "Well, this is a supernatural show about monsters so who cares about realism!" or something similar along those lines.

While I understand the the sentiment behind it, and yes advocating for realism in a sci-fi fantasy show may seem silly, but I find this argument to be kind of flawed.

The initial take isn't coming a genuine advocacy for realism, but instead using "realism" as a flimsy cover for their homophobia. The more appropriate response should be to question why they believe a happy resolve for homosexuality is unrealistic in the first place. You countering their argument by claiming that the show is unrealistic is only backing up their belief that a happy ending for gay people is also unrealistic.

Stranger Things is a realistic show.

And, okay, ST does not fall into the same category of cinéma-vérité-dogme-95-esque-hyper-realism that a show like Succession may fall under, but it does try to capture real emotions and real experiences using supernatural elements as a vehicle to explore such things. Sure, alternate dimensions and tentacle monsters are not realistic, but the American government trying to coverup and undermine the suffering of queer people, as well as the constant fear of an encroaching foreign power, is incredibly realistic to that time period.

It's not often caught on from the casual viewer because it's carefully placed under layers of subtext, although in the show's defense for some of these viewers the Reagan/Bush signs from season 2 are purely just set pieces and don't have any further meaning. But the supernatural elements are not arbitrarily placed and the show doesn't take place in the 80's simply for the nostalgia factor, these facets all work together to speak to real experiences.

And sure, sometimes even the non-supernatural elements can come off as exaggerated, such as the Russian storyline, but one could argue that this is a dramatization of very real Cold War anxieties that did exist at this time.

So, when it comes to displaying realistic emotions, why should the way the show handles queer identity and relationships be any different?

And the show does handle queerness in an almost tragically realistic way. The show’s queer characters must adhere to the precedents of the 1980’s, and the supernatural element is one way to exemplify some of those fears. Will lives in fear of something slowly taking over and killing his body, while the Reagan Administration government scientists treat his possible death as a non-issue.

If then, the show is realistic and aiming to portray queer experiences as such, does this mean that byler can’t happen because that would be unrealistic?

Well, I think that people might he conflating “realism” with “pessimism.” I think if the show wanted to have an ending with a pessimistic outlook, then I could see byler not happening. Yes, there are plenty of gay people who died during the 80’s. But there also plenty of gay people who got in relationships and lived too. What people consider realistic may also be influenced by the type of media they have consumed in the past as well. “Well, gay people usually die/end up alone, so that must be what the realistic outcome is.”

So, with all that being said, when considering the ending of the show, it now just comes down to everything else. What is the show trying to say thematically? How has the show handled other character’s storylines in the past? How is the show being written? What kind of ending is being foreshadowed? What type of ending would best serve to fulfill the needs of the themes and storybeats, while still maintaining relatability?

[goodluckclove]

Tangentially related to my last post, if you ever see me kind of dissing the population of writers solely obsessed with angst/whump/pain/trauma, it is absolutely not because I think they shouldn't write those things.

I've been around the block. I have listened to a reading of a script I wrote and considered that maybe middle of page two is slightly too soon for a monologue about finding a partially-formed fetus who is still alive but outside the body. What I mean when I post criticism towards that phenomena is that it is crucial for writers to give equal thrill and attention to writing things other than pain.

Not because pain is bad or trite or cliche. It's because I have proven experience that if you can get really solid in your grasp of a comforting, safe, or even neutral tone, you make the shift to pain so much more effective.

I have read a lot of writing where it's clear they're only interested in the trauma part to the degree that everything else is wobbly as shit to get to the part they like. That's what I'd call trauma porn! I cannot think of a quicker way for me to lose interest in a story!

The exception to this is Lars Von Trier's Dancer in the Dark, which is a movie that starts upsetting and gets progressively worse. But like that's fucking Lars Von Trier. If there's an artist I trust to be absolutely masochistic and sadistic with every movie he makes it's the co-creator of the Dogme 95 movement. But that's a separate rant.

[desperatelyseekingcannibals]

A Mads poll with a difference!

A poll of Mads Mikkelsen movies where the selection is based on range of factors, including but not limited to: genre, writer/director, country of release, date of release and 🎉vibes 🎉

Some of the movies may fit in more than one category, so vibes have mostly informed those decisions.

Round One:

Choose your fave!

Mads on home turf (mostly...)

Elsker dig for evigt (Open Hearts) is a 2002 Danish drama using minimalist filmmaking techniques of the Dogme 95 manifesto. The story follows a man paralyised in a car accident, the woman who hit him and the strange love triangles that follow. Mads plays Niels, a doctor, and husband of the woman who caused the accident.

Prag (Prague) is a 2006 Danish drama following Christoffer as he goes to Prague to retrieve the body of his recently deceased father. The trip results in the tensions, strained relations and secrets. Mads plays main character Christoffer.

Exit is a 2006 Swedish thriller about investment businessman Thomas who is arrested for the suspected murder of his business partner. When he tries to call his lawyer, the phone is answered by someone he believed to be dead. Mads plays main character Thomas alongside Alexander Skarsgård.

Efter brylluppet (After the Wedding) is a 2006 Danish-Swedish drama following a man who moved to India to avoid commitment, only to discover years later that he has a grown daughter. Mads plays Jacob, the main character, who returns to Denmark on a fundraising trip only to find it is a ruse in order to introduce him to his daughter.

It's all drama up in here! Who will you vote for?

[perestroika-hilton]

puppy boy 5 years older than me who critiques film. Call that a dogme 95

[shesnake]

me trying not to explode with a rant about dogme 95 and cinema verité and the thick of it and multi-camera set-ups whenever someone calls succession an ugly show

[madguth]

Is it just me, or could the animated NATM movie be better? Trust me, I’m a BIG fan of the movies but I honestly think it was a big let down compared to the last three movies. And also, I think Jed and Octy could be gayer

I had a lot of fun with the movie, but there would definitely be things I would have liked to be different in terms of creating a thematically complex and cohesive piece of cinema. But like. Also. That’s now how disney treats their properties. It was obviously a backdoor pilot so it felt like they were just spitting out a bunch of ideas and hoping one would be enough to get execs like “hey that could be a tv show”. And yes, obviously I am a fan of the natm franchise and I was going to have fun with the movie basically no matter what, and I wasn’t expecting it to be a Dogme 95 surrealist take on the franchise, but I would have liked it if Disney had given the team the resources and freedom to take creative risks and elaborate on a genuinely compelling world in a unique and intriguing way.

Also yeah. Gay people.

[alivehouse]

they should make a marvel movie under the dogme 95 rules next