has the dogme vow been changed recently? this film not only has korrines name all over it, i also noticed some artifical light being used. whats the deal?
not a dogme film in my eyes.
The people who created Dogme 95 sure thought it was. I might side with them. Which scenes did you think had artificial lighting? Do you mean 1999 as recently?
share[deleted]
You are my hero.
shareObviously lots of the Dogme rules were broken ("The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa (music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot)", "Optical work and filters are forbidden", "the film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur)"...) in Julien, although i think it's important to note that a lot of them are defined very vaguely (i'm sure this was intentional). I think the bottom line is that Dogme was never really meant to be taken so seriously. All of the Dogme films i've seen have broken at least one of the rules in their strictest sense, including The Celebration and The Idiots, which were directed by Thomas Vinterberg and Lars Von Trier respectively, the two founders of Dogme to begin with. This can only suggest that it's just not that big of a deal to them.
i bet you have no more friends than an alarm clock
[deleted]
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but the lighting in the confessional was bright. I remember wondering if the Priest was aware that a film was being made, and then reconsidered when I saw a bright light shine toward the Priest's window, I don't see how the Father could have NOT noticed it.
Just my two cents......
[deleted]
This movie had heavy digital work done on it intended to give it a super 8 film look. That is totally against the Dogme 95 manifesto. So is the audio work carried out in post production.
"How's that for a slice of fried gold"
It's definitely not a Dogme film in the strict sense of the original rules laid out in the Manifesto. Aside from stuff already pointed out, it's shot in 1.78:1 which is another Dogme rule that it breaks.
Despite being originally refused a Dogme Cert, Korine lobbied for it and was eventually given one, probably because Von Trier et al. don't take the whole thing as seriously as some might think. They subsequently changed the 'rules' to put the onus on the director of the work itself to certify that it meets the Dogme criteria.
[deleted]
The manifesto also says the director decides what is "Superficial Action" and what isn't.
Like the killing in the first 5 minutes of the movie, I didn't find that to really fit into the dogma code.
But is was still a awesome movie.
Also, What the guy said about them messing with it is not true, It was shot on digital, Then blown up to 35mm.
That gives you all that you need to look really f'd up without the special effects.
Every Dogme film breaks the rules somehow, even the original ones. Festen had a dream sequence (if that doesn't break a Dogme rule than i don't know what does), and took place in what i'd consider an "isolated location". Idioterne was intercut with interviews with the characters talking about what had already happened, thus completely destroying the whole "right here, right now" thing. The plot doesn't happen linearly. Mifune had some non-handheld shots, and again took place in an isolated location. The King is Alive again had a few non-handheld shots, had voiceover narration (!), and yet again took place in a very isolated location. And so on and so on...
The only Dogme film i can thing of that probably didn't break any of the rules whatsoever was Italian for Beginners, and that was undoubtably the worst film of the whole bunch.
http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=11491
Wrong, sir! All camera shots in "Mifunes Sidste Sang" were handheld! It's just that Anthony Dod Mantle's (great Scottish cinematographer that lives in Copenhagen, Denmark) approach to the cinematography was more stylized than in "Festen" (which Mantle also worked on) or "Idioterne". And even though (or perhaps because) it's more traditional, it looks great!
And I disagree with you about "Italiensk For Begyndere". I find that movies like "En Kærlighedshistorie" or "Et Rigtigt Menneske" had great premisses that just weren't exploited really well. But the tone in Lone Scherfig's movies is very Danish, and I think that's why some foreigners are turned off by it, or at least, don't understand it as well as us Danes. It's a great study in the human soul, but mostly it's study in the Danish human soul.
But interestingly enough, I think the best Dogme movies were the Danish ones. In some form or another, they all had qualities to them. Perhaps it's because the traditions of Danish cinema were more adaptable to the Dogme principals. I actually think Danish cinema NEEDED Dogme, because we had for a long time done character-based movies, but most of them sucked. Only Bille August and Nils Malmros were artistically (and commercially) successful with it. So, in a sense, Dogme "loosened up" the Danish movies (along with the mid-90's wave of Danish bad-boy punk movies like "Pusher", "Portland" and "De Største Helte")...
My favorite Dogme movies are: "Festen" (Thomas Vinterberg, 1998), "Idioterne" (Lars von Trier, 1998), "The King is Alive" (Kristian Levring, 2000), and "Forbrydelser" (Anette K. Olesen, 2004). The lastmentioned is a not-so-well-known prison drama that deals with these huge themes like: religion, faith, guilt, and ethical issues. If you haven't watched it, I higly recommend "Forbrydelser".
My YMDb Top-20 Movies List: http://www.ymdb.com/ulrikone/l37847_ukuk.html
Congratulations, Dustin, for your concise response to all of the blithering poseurs who consider these matters of consequence. Remain vigilant.
"Signature quotes are feeble." Me
So, so, SO many of the dogme 95 films broke rules, the overall product is there. The end justifies the means.
Technically, under the dogme ruling, you could make a hollywood rate production, play it on a tv and film it on a dv and technically it would count, no?
"Someone has to die Leonard, in order that the rest of us should value life more."
[deleted]
korine has admitted that this film isn't totally dogme 95, he said he bought tinned food to be used in one scene, that's all he's said.
sharei seriously doubt it
seems like dogme has more to do
with the director's intention than
the actual film itself
something quite far from hollywood
how does playing on a tv
and shooting in dv make it dogme?
whats the definition of hollywood rate?
why do films have to be counted in groups?
I thought his confession was better than the film itself. At least it was clever and funny
shareIt seems like Dogme is a lot like "punk". It's sort of a state of mind. Maybe not every dogme 95 film LOOKS 100% dogme, or obeys ALL the rules, but the heart of things is totally there. So we don't need to get into all these semantic games, because "in spirit", Julien totally IS a dogme film...
Also, someone said that they used artificial light in this movie. But I understand that you CAN use a single artificial light attached to the camera. They did this in Festen quite a bit if I recall. So THAT particular use of artificial light might not have been a dogme violation. But again, does it really f*ing matter?....
[deleted]
[deleted]