via Denmark

I like questions, confusion and changing opinions that show doubt. I have more difficulty with answers. Mainly because answers have to be clear, and therefore exclude gray areas and doubt. Therefor I will not give a direct answer to the question of how the ‘Ulm concept’ can manifest itself in this day and age. I would rather make a flanking maneuver and talk about a Danish experiment that got out of hand.

“Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a ‘work’, as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations. Thus I make my Vow of Chastity. [ 1 ]

In 1995, Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, Kristian Levring and Soren Kragh-Jacobsen wrote the Dogma 95 Manifesto. It was a response to the dominant trend in the film industry which, with audiovisual effects and visual violence, had abandoned the core of what film-making is. The four film-makers drafted a Manifesto, sealed with a ‘Vow of Chastity’ – a list of 10 rules for making films. The Dogma 95 Manifesto became a hype, and would eventually become a genre in itself. It is difficult to say exactly how many ‘Dogma’ films have been made. On the ‘official site’ the counter shows 357. But the site has not been edited for six years, so it can no longer really be considered ‘official’. My guess is that around a hundred ‘serious’ Dogma films have been made. Of that 100, less than ten are really interesting. Despite this meager result, it has still been a successful experiment. The Dogma 95 Manifesto shows us that it is impossible for outsiders to sign up to a manifesto. A manifesto is not intended to be followed; it is only meant to inform.

The most successful Dogma films are "Festen" (1998), "Idioterne" (1998), "Mifunes Sidste Sang" (1999) and "The King Is Alive" (2000). According to the tenth commandment of the Vow of Chastity, directors should never be mentioned, but it is no secret that these films were made by Thomas Vinterberg, Lars von Trier, Soren Kragh-Jacobsen and Kristian Levring, respectively. By the very people who drew up the rules. That is not so strange. For them, the rules were not so much rules as a description of an ideal; their own ideal. Consequently, the films are completely as they should be, and their focus lies where the Manifesto requires it to lie: with the story.

The majority of the other Dogma films have been notably less successful. In most cases, the rules have been applied as a prescription, a solution. Some even used the Vow of Chastity as an lame excuse for clumsiness. Many amateurs saw their opportunity to make a ‘real film’. What, until then, had been simple bungling, had suddenly become Dogma 95! But, besides a few exceptions, like "Italiensk For Begyndere" (2000), even the more serious attempts are not worth mentioning. The rules are often used to achieve an effect in themselves, with the focus on the technical construction rather than on the content – which is, after all, what set the whole thing off in the first place. In these cases, the Manifesto is not interpreted as an approach, but as a set of statutory rules which ultimately boil down to absolute values such as right or wrong, Dogma or not Dogma.
Initially all film-contributions were ‘tested’ by the four initiators of the Manifesto before being given the official Dogma stamp of approval, but that proved a futile mission. Lars von Trier noted that ‘the only person who can determine whether it is a Dogma film or not, is the maker’.[ 2 ] It is after all the intentions that count and not the visual outcome of those intentions.

The four initiators have in fact only made one film each according to the rules of the Dogma 95 Manifesto. That is in itself not so surprising; a manifesto is after all nothing more than a crystallized reflection of a moment. The following day it is obsolete. A question can remain the same, but the circumstances around it change, and with them the answer. That is what makes questions so interesting: time has no effect on them. Answers, on the other hand, no matter how conclusive and absolute they may sound, always have a restricted shelf life.

Yet it is striking to see the extent to which Vinterberg pulls out all the Hollywood stops in films like "It’s all about love" (2003) and "Dear Wendy" (2005). It is difficult to find any traces at all of the Dogma ideals. In "Dancer In The Dark "(2000), "Dogville" (2003) and "Direktøren For Det Hele" (2006), Lars von Trier also goes off on a different tack, but there are still visible signs that he continues to seek the frontiers of the film, especially the genre film. "Dancer In The Dark" is an opera in operetta form, "Dogville" is a play, and "Direktøren For Det Hele" is a cynical comedy. A striking feature of the latter film is the technique used by Von Trier, which he himself calls ‘Automavision’. Von Trier set the camera up himself, but then left it to a computer program to decide at random when the camera should tilt, pan or zoom. This method produces improvised and jerky images, which are also typical of many Dogma films, but the intention behind it is completely different. [ 3 ]

The Dogma 95 experiment shows us that a manifesto is nothing more than a personal opinion. And that this should not be confused with a set of rules and laws, even though it may look like one. No rule that has been written in the past can be applied wholesale in the present. That is too simple, especially when it comes to ideals or attitudes. Ideals cannot be encapsulated in a framework, and ticked off. Ideals float to the surface while you are going about your daily work. In the margins. In the gray areas.

Hans Gremmen
January, 2009