It's mentioned in 'goofs' that in the scene where people are viewing Stoffers' Uncle's house that you can see camera people. That is NOT a goof, it is part of the Dogme film manifesto to subvert the whole premise of how films are made. A back to basic approach - not a goof!!
share[deleted]
I don't think that's part of the manifesto.
shareIts not part of the manifesto, but its quite obviously done on purpose. Also godard used to do similar things, like showing the cameraman or the ciak.
Its just an "estrangement" technique, to not hide that it is a film and avoid that the audience identify's themselves too much with the film caracters, and observe and judge them from a distance. Bertolt Brecht is the one who invented this tecnique in theatre (by not hiding the lights for example).
Von Trier also does something similar in Dogville: by putting the caracters on a stage, dealing with invisible doors and stuff, its difficult for the spectators to identify with them.
The technique is very useful in movies where there aren't any really positive caracters and there is a moral, like dogville (in the end Grace proves she is not any better then the dogville people). In Kubrick's the clockwork orange (another film with no positive caracters) the estrangement is obtained by the strange acting of all of the caracters.
This self-awareness thing seems to be associated very much with postmodernism. There's a similar thing in Bergman's Hour of the Wolf. Nothings shown, but at the beginning of the film you can hear the crew on the set getting ready to make another film. I didn't care for it because it seemed very incongruent with the rest of the film. Bergman introduced that idea at the beginning of the film, then dropped it completely for the rest.
share
Does it matter really? Ed Wood did it all the time, he thought that it added extra value to the movie. I agree when it comes to independent and Dogma movies, but it could never work in Hollywood.
Never underrestimate the power of diadara
To a limtied extent this was also the point of the love it/hate it ending of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
"I first became aware of it Mandrake, during the physical act of love."
[deleted]
I agree that it shouldn't be regarded as a goof. The same with the choppers shadow in the opneing scene in 'The shining' I suppose.
shareSurely the equipment is visible in various shots because the dogma 95 did not permit editing? I don't believe that it was deliberate, however to edit the shots would be breaking from the dogme 2 rules.
Only my opinion...
I think the visible film making equipment is deliberate but the editor and director would know for sure. No visible film making equipment gets by any editor worth their salt. In reply to above poster, I never imagined that Ed Wood included the visible camera making equipment on purpose, though now that has crossed my mind for an instant.
I'd say all the dogma films I've seen are edited like all films, though I don't want to get into hair splitting. I guess technically if there are no cuts inside or outside the camera one could say there isn't editing though that's an editing choice I think.
Obviously, having equipment visible destroys illusion to some degree, and for me it distracted from the story. If I were the editor I'd have fought to have the scenes with equipment visible removed.
Of course with a film like this a tight mindset gets blasted in about a second anyway, scary but for me very cool.
Yeah it's not a goof, you see the boom a bit too!
shareIt's not a part of the manifesto but I though it was a great scene, just "natural". Really cool.
_____________________
--- BE TROLL 2!!! ---
www.myspace.com/anzycpethian
There's only one goof - if we choose to call it that, and, paradoxically, it's the most glaring example of Von Trier breaking Dogme 95 rules. The unsimulated sex scene involves a stand-in - or, more accurately, a character who has appeared from nowhere (after all, she's not 'standing-in' for anyone). At first, her hairstyle suggests she's Anne Louise Hassing (Susanne), until of course Hassing herself pops up in front of her (her arm resting on the mystery woman's back), in order to deliver the line, "Katrine, aren't you jealous?" Presumably, at the request of Von Trier, Trine Michelsen (the late porn model/actress who plays Nana, and who's happily f*&cking away next to our unnamed party guest) brought in a friend from the industry.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
Isn't the accordion music added over the top a breaking of the dogme manifesto... Need to go look up the rules again...
shareThis is strange that people didn't get it in a first place, when I saw that guy is was so great, because he added more, I'd say, realism to the movie...
By the way, someone corrected this goof
By the way, someone corrected this goof.
What do you mean? What goof? And 'corrected' in what sense? And by whom?
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
so many questions :)
What goof?
That good. ""in the scene where people are viewing Stoffers' Uncle's house that you can see camera people. ""
And by whom?
how can I know by whom :)
And 'corrected' in what sense?
On the goofs page here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154421/goofs
You know, this magic button "UPDATE"...
My apologies - I have a habit of not following threads too closely. I now realise to which 'goof' you're referring (and that it's no goof at all). Nonetheless, your syntax isn't helping: if a 'goof' has been 'corrected' we wouldn't know of its existence, because.. er.. it wouldn't be there.
Thus, I think what you meant to say is: an explanation has been provided for what, previously, had mistakenly been assumed to be a cock-up.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share