Scottish football manager Bobby Williamson once infamously said that fans should go to the cinema instead if they want guaranteed entertainment. It was not a popular statement and incorrect as films come with no such warranty.

I’ve rarely been to the cinema of late. Most commercial films have been a letdown. And that’s in spite of being very selective about what I go to watch. One of the last I saw was ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’. It has had many good reviews but in my opinion, it is a seriously flawed production which is typical of what is wrong with the so-called better quality end of the commercial market.

My main problem with this film by Mexican director, Guillermo del Toro, is that it relies far too heavily on special effects and grotesque visual images for much of its impact. It appears that commercial cinemagoers have come to almost demand this. Meanwhile, the dialogue appears to be very much secondary. I challenge readers who have seen Pan’s Labyrinth to provide examples of sharp or witty dialogue from the script. Not only that but the characters are very one-dimensional. Good guys and bad guys with no shades of grey in between. Perhaps G.W Bush could follow in the footsteps of D.W. Griffith if this is all people want.

So, I would argue commercial cinema is in a bad way. Attendance figures are down, certainly here in Spain where cinemas numbers are falling. I’d imagine that’s true across the board, with downloading, DVD’s, and other diversions competing for film audience’s attention. Inevitably, the commercial cinema industry’s reaction to that will be to give viewer’s more of what they want. Gore (blood not Al) and ever more advanced special effects are likely to feature high on the agenda. But are viewers really getting what they want or is it just a case of settling for what they have come to expect in the belief that that is good cinema?

Admittedly, everyone has different expectations when they go to the movies. Some people merely wish to be entertained and don’t wish to have to think or to confront anything approaching reality. Fair enough, but that is the antithesis of what cinema is about for me. I want to see real life and the ugly struggle it can involve. I want to follow stories that relate to the world as I see it. I want to be mentally challenged and to feel sorrow about how hard life can be as well as to have a laugh. It is often in difficult and harrowing situations set in a gritty and realistic environment that the human spirit shines through most convincingly.

Two of the best films I’ve seen in the cinema this year were ‘A Dama de Chandor’ (1998), a documentary about an old woman in Goa who was a living relic of the Portuguese empire in India. It was a poignant and simple production portraying the everyday life of the woman and the people around her. The other film that impressed me greatly was ‘Lichter’ (2003), a piece of German realism about Eastern European immigrants trying to adapt to the new Europe. These films cost a grand total of zero Euros to watch and the cinemas were far from packed.

And that brings me to Dogme, the project created by Danish duo Lars Von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg in 1995. If you’ve seen any of these films then you will probably not be too surprised to hear I sympathise with the aims of the project given what has been said up to this point.

Let’s focus on the rules – the Vow of Chastity. It sounds a bit severe doesn’t it? Get this. No artificial props or sets. Filming must take place in a real location. No music unless it occurs where the film is being shot. Even filming in black and white is not permitted, as it is a kind of special effect. Genres are out. You want murders and weapons? Forget it.

There has to be a place in groundbreaking modern cinema for films without excessive amounts of blood and death. It almost seems at times as if Tarantino set a precedent for the necessary ingredients of a cool, contemporary movie. The Dogme manifesto, created a year after ‘Pulp Fiction’, challenges that. Before criticising the project for laying down a set of rules, which are basically just guidelines for film-makers looking for a challenge in any case, we should perhaps ask how commercially successful a film is likely to be if it does not conform to certain modern standards.

And how prevalent is extreme violence in our daily lives? Depends where we live of course but I am fortunate enough to be able to say not often, and doubt if I am alone in that respect. However, there is no shortage of violent films based on violent crimes for those who want them and this will continue to be the case.

Dogme considers such action superficial on the whole. The project is not for those lusting to see characters being battered to death with a crowbar or having their head blown off with a sawn-off shotgun. Not that Dogme films are gentle or comfortable viewing. The first, Thomas Vinterberg’s ‘Festen’ (The Celebration), includes plenty of fisticuffs and is one of the most devastating and hard-hitting films about family life I’ve ever seen. Yes, it is still possible to make a film that can cut to the bone without the need for severed limbs and so on.

Despite their apparent simplicity, Dogme is not about amateurs making cheap films. ‘Festen’ cost 1.3 million dollars to make. Not exactly a ‘Spider-Man 3’ type budget but only slightly below the average cost of a Danish feature film. And Dogme is generally an alternative avenue for professional filmmakers who already have experience of making a more conventional film.

Music can only appear in Dogme productions if it occurs naturally where the scene is shot. ‘Festen’ for example has a piano in the dining room and loads of drunken Danes making their own merriment all over the pIace. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the absence of soundtracks. I recently watched ‘Easy Rider’ again. It’s a great film with some fascinating dialogue but it wouldn’t be half the film it is without the music. When used properly and in general that means economically, music can really add to a film. But there are many where music seduces and basically glosses over the lack of substance. ‘Leaving Las Vegas’, which I reviewed on this site, is a case in point. Whenever a film goes into a lull or runs out of ideas why not stick on a nice song to wake the viewer from semi-slumber? It’s an overused device in modern cinema. Perhaps we have gotten too used to that and have been fooled into thinking mediocre movies were actually quite decent for that reason.

Dogme uses no flashbacks to the olden days or futurist visions. The action takes place in the here and now. This is quite a challenge for filmmakers and indeed scriptwriters. In that sense the film has to become a kind of snapshot of modern day life, rather like a short story or piece of microfiction.

But at the end of the day why would filmmakers wish to put such restrictions on their work? Whatever happened to artistic freedom? This is what Thomas Vinterberg has to say on the Dogme 95 website: “I wanted to counter or moderate certain tendencies in modern filmmaking. I wanted to counter the mediocrity and the conventional in the most conservative art form of our times – namely filmmaking. But not only in other people’s filmmaking – most definitely also my own. Filmmaking must be linked to a certain degree of risk. Dogme 95 is my attempt to undress film, to reach the ‘naked film.”

In fact, the Dogme project goes as far as to say that directors should no longer even think of themselves as artists. The director is in theory supposed to become so involved in the characters and settings that there is no time for such luxuries as the artist’s ego.

Vinterberg adds: “The advantage of the Dogme 95 rules is also that they ensure great freedom of movement during shooting.” (Probably a reference to the use of hand-held cameras.) “While nearly all other film-making instruments have been stripped away what remain are the two most essential of instruments to a director, the story and the acting talent. Dogme 95 allows me to focus on these instruments in the extreme.”

There is nothing to stop a director claiming their film is Dogme (although they are likely to be found out by critics and Dogme enthusiasts). Vinterberg said directors should be honest about this. If a film doesn’t conform to the manifesto then the director should have the balls to point this out.

It’s interesting that Lars von Trier has never rigidly followed his own manifesto. Only one of his films, ‘The Idiots’, is technically a Dogme film. To be frank, I do not think it is one of his best. When I first saw ‘Breaking the Waves’ back in the early nineties it blew me away. Another, ‘Dogville’, is a wonderfully striking film where the viewer is forced to focus on the dialogue and characters due to the spartan set. There is little eye candy, Nicole Kidman apart. ‘Dogville’ looks almost like a play. Much of the spirit of Dogme is there but rules are there to be broken and Trier has never shied away from doing so.

I hope you will have a look at what is on offer and try to get hold of a few from the list while taking note of how international this project now is. Even if you do not become a convert, a visit to your local cinema complex may never be the same again.

---

Steve Porter is a Scottish author living in A Coruña, Spain. His articles, often on Spanish culture, travel and sport have appeared in publications such as The Sunday Herald, Travelmag, soccerspain.com and threemonkeysonline.com. His ebook entitled 'The Iberian Horseshoe' is available from Barcelona-based www.badosa.com. He runs several blogs including www.galidonia.blogspot.com and www.catadonia.co.uk. More details and links to writing can be found at www.myspace.com/stevenjporter.

---

© 2008 Laura Hird All rights reserved.