THE VOW OF CHASTITY: I vow to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 25:
The script must be original and handwritten by the director. We compel ourselves to write the script by hand in order to nurture the kind of intuition that flows most freely from the dream, channelled through the hand onto the paper.
At least half the film must be without dialogue. We insist on a cinematic approach to filmmaking, because we believe in visual storytelling and have faith in the audience.
The internet is off limits in all creative processes. We commit to produce the films relying on real people within our physical reality – rather than in a digital one infused with algorithms.
We’ll only accept funding with no content altering conditions attached. We assume responsibility for keeping budgets down so the team retains final say in all artistic decisions.
No more than 10 people behind the camera. We commit to working in close collaborations to build trust and strengthen our shared vision.
The film must be shot where the narrative takes place. Film as an art form becomes artificial and generic when we portray a location in a false light.
We’re not allowed to use make-up or manipulate faces and bodies unless it’s part of the narrative. Just as we strive to maintain the authenticity of the location, we also want to portray the human body without a filter. We celebrate it – warts and all.
Everything relating to the film’s production must be rented, borrowed, found, or used. We commit to making films using objects that already exist and renounce the ahistorical and self-destructive culture of consumerism.
The film must be made in no more than one year. We abstain from any lengthy processes that stand in the way of creative flow.
This seems to differ quite a bit from Dogme 95, which had clear and concise rules. Vague rules with conditions beg to be broken. Not that it matters since all of this is made up of course, but...
This seems to differ quite a bit from Dogme 95, which had clear and concise rules. Vague rules with conditions beg to be broken. Not that it matters since all of this is made up of course, but it'd have been nice to have the list consisted of rules and goals similar to that of Dogme 95 updated for this era.
I also think the original Dogma rules made more sense to stimulate creativity. There's a big difference between not being able to shoot on black and white or having a score, and being like "you...
I also think the original Dogma rules made more sense to stimulate creativity. There's a big difference between not being able to shoot on black and white or having a score, and being like "you can't use any of the equipment you own" and "you must handwrite the script."
I think the only new rule that offers anything of interest is the lack of dialogue (even if this goes against pretty much what the original dogma was).
That's the rule/goal I like the most. It's very hard to find films that trust their audience and realize that cinema, at its very core, is a visual medium.
That's the rule/goal I like the most. It's very hard to find films that trust their audience and realize that cinema, at its very core, is a visual medium.
That is true, though the original 95 rules were also broken in creative ways. Like they weren't allowed to add music unless it was actually played on set, so in one of the movies, they put a...
That is true, though the original 95 rules were also broken in creative ways. Like they weren't allowed to add music unless it was actually played on set, so in one of the movies, they put a violinist in a tree outside the frame to play something for the scene.
From what I remember reading, most of the "official" Dogme 95 films broke or bent at least one of the rules anyway. I'm sure some didn't, but I bet they were in the minority.
From what I remember reading, most of the "official" Dogme 95 films broke or bent at least one of the rules anyway. I'm sure some didn't, but I bet they were in the minority.
Yeah, that's right. I think I misspoke. What I meant to say instead was, "vague rules/goals with conditions can lead to misinterpretation". There are some rules/goals on there that I doubt can be...
Yeah, that's right. I think I misspoke. What I meant to say instead was, "vague rules/goals with conditions can lead to misinterpretation". There are some rules/goals on there that I doubt can be interpreted the same way by different people.
It is probably more a code of honor kind of thing. No one can verify whether they used the internet or started writing the script 2 years ago anyway, so in the end it is just an inspirational code...
It is probably more a code of honor kind of thing. No one can verify whether they used the internet or started writing the script 2 years ago anyway, so in the end it is just an inspirational code of conduct for filmmakers that want to challenge themselves creatively.
I struggled to appreciate the original Dogma 95 and struggle to think Dogma 25 is any better, at least for the type of films or entertainment I want to see. Right at the start of the Manifesto...
I struggled to appreciate the original Dogma 95 and struggle to think Dogma 25 is any better, at least for the type of films or entertainment I want to see.
Right at the start of the Manifesto they claim they want to "preserve the originality of cinema" which strikes me as being in direct contrast to the rules, such as number six: "The film must be shot where the narrative takes place". Imagine a world where we couldn't have A Trip to the Moon or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy!
That said, of course some amazing pieces can come out of working under constraints. Pushing back against the current tide and showing it is possible to make films without all the trappings we think we need is important, sure. But I don't think I could ever be inspired to make a film under these conditions myself.
I personally think a lot can come out of being restrained. I think some of the best movies are the ones where they were forced to make certain choices because they couldn't do everything. And the...
I personally think a lot can come out of being restrained. I think some of the best movies are the ones where they were forced to make certain choices because they couldn't do everything. And the movies that today are made with practically unlimited budget, are in my mind often quite boring. Though of course there are plenty of bad movies made under constraint because they have no budget, so you still good people behind the camera.
In this list of rules, I am very curious to see what especially rule 9 will mean, where there is a time limit of a year. Many films today takes years where the script goes through several studios and rewrites, so when it finally lands, the people behind have maybe already mentally moved on to something else. Have a constraint of going from initial thought to final product in a shorter time is something that has the potential to create something more personal and immediate from the directors.
I cannot but absolutely agree with you, as it concerns these rules 6 and 7. As an enjoyer of SFF and history this just feels like a "no fun allowed" ruleset: Certainly no LotR, neither Star Wars...
I cannot but absolutely agree with you, as it concerns these rules 6 and 7.
As an enjoyer of SFF and history this just feels like a "no fun allowed" ruleset:
Certainly no LotR, neither Star Wars nor Dune(whether you prefer Lynch or Villeneuve, neither was physically on Arrakis). Barely anything medieval(-esque) or otherwise (pseudo-)ancient since while you do certainly have some sites that look "contemporary" most of what you have is ruins, so no Ben Hur or Life of Brian. Nothing in space in general, actually, unless you fly up your cast and go where no man has gone before, I guess.
And even rule 2 would deny us some excellent films which cannot but center around the spoken word, things like 12 Angry Men or The King's Speech.
All of this is to say that while I can applaud the spirit beyond some of the rules (4, 9, 10, maybe parts of others) this, to me, just comes off as a very pretentious definition of what cinema is/ought to be and does so in a way that very much restricts not only the method of film-making but through it also the content thereof.
This seems to differ quite a bit from Dogme 95, which had clear and concise rules. Vague rules with conditions beg to be broken. Not that it matters since all of this is made up of course, but it'd have been nice to have the list consisted of rules and goals similar to that of Dogme 95 updated for this era.
I also think the original Dogma rules made more sense to stimulate creativity. There's a big difference between not being able to shoot on black and white or having a score, and being like "you can't use any of the equipment you own" and "you must handwrite the script."
I think the only new rule that offers anything of interest is the lack of dialogue (even if this goes against pretty much what the original dogma was).
That's the rule/goal I like the most. It's very hard to find films that trust their audience and realize that cinema, at its very core, is a visual medium.
That is true, though the original 95 rules were also broken in creative ways. Like they weren't allowed to add music unless it was actually played on set, so in one of the movies, they put a violinist in a tree outside the frame to play something for the scene.
From what I remember reading, most of the "official" Dogme 95 films broke or bent at least one of the rules anyway. I'm sure some didn't, but I bet they were in the minority.
Yeah, that's right. I think I misspoke. What I meant to say instead was, "vague rules/goals with conditions can lead to misinterpretation". There are some rules/goals on there that I doubt can be interpreted the same way by different people.
It is probably more a code of honor kind of thing. No one can verify whether they used the internet or started writing the script 2 years ago anyway, so in the end it is just an inspirational code of conduct for filmmakers that want to challenge themselves creatively.
I struggled to appreciate the original Dogma 95 and struggle to think Dogma 25 is any better, at least for the type of films or entertainment I want to see.
Right at the start of the Manifesto they claim they want to "preserve the originality of cinema" which strikes me as being in direct contrast to the rules, such as number six: "The film must be shot where the narrative takes place". Imagine a world where we couldn't have A Trip to the Moon or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy!
That said, of course some amazing pieces can come out of working under constraints. Pushing back against the current tide and showing it is possible to make films without all the trappings we think we need is important, sure. But I don't think I could ever be inspired to make a film under these conditions myself.
I personally think a lot can come out of being restrained. I think some of the best movies are the ones where they were forced to make certain choices because they couldn't do everything. And the movies that today are made with practically unlimited budget, are in my mind often quite boring. Though of course there are plenty of bad movies made under constraint because they have no budget, so you still good people behind the camera.
In this list of rules, I am very curious to see what especially rule 9 will mean, where there is a time limit of a year. Many films today takes years where the script goes through several studios and rewrites, so when it finally lands, the people behind have maybe already mentally moved on to something else. Have a constraint of going from initial thought to final product in a shorter time is something that has the potential to create something more personal and immediate from the directors.
I cannot but absolutely agree with you, as it concerns these rules 6 and 7.
As an enjoyer of SFF and history this just feels like a "no fun allowed" ruleset:
Certainly no LotR, neither Star Wars nor Dune(whether you prefer Lynch or Villeneuve, neither was physically on Arrakis). Barely anything medieval(-esque) or otherwise (pseudo-)ancient since while you do certainly have some sites that look "contemporary" most of what you have is ruins, so no Ben Hur or Life of Brian. Nothing in space in general, actually, unless you fly up your cast and go where no man has gone before, I guess.
And even rule 2 would deny us some excellent films which cannot but center around the spoken word, things like 12 Angry Men or The King's Speech.
All of this is to say that while I can applaud the spirit beyond some of the rules (4, 9, 10, maybe parts of others) this, to me, just comes off as a very pretentious definition of what cinema is/ought to be and does so in a way that very much restricts not only the method of film-making but through it also the content thereof.