DOGME 95: A Small Country’s Effort to Challenge Hollywood

Every so often a film movement is formed with the intention of challenging the dominant conception of what constitutes “viable or legitimate film-making” (Hjort, p.403). This was one of the intentions of Dogme 95, a movement created by four Danish filmmakers, Lars Von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, Soren Kragh-Jacobsen and Kristian Levring. Dogme 95 came with a manifesto and a set of rules or constraints called the Vow of Chastity. These rules needed to be followed in order to receive the official Dogme 95 certificate. The ‘brethren’ behind this movement was not made up of novice directors; most of them had already established themselves as filmmakers, notably Lars Von Trier. The constraints were not the result of an amateur trying to make it in the film industry; it was about experienced filmmakers challenging themselves and pushing their own boundaries, like writer George Perec did when he wrote “A Void”, a lipogrammatic novel written without using the letter ‘e’ once. Theorist and philosopher Elser invokes the notion of constraints as an aid in enhancing creativity (“Small Nation’s Response […]”, p.400). This is not the only reason though, as Mette Hjort invokes in “Purity and Provocation”, the constraints are also a symbol of a desire to return to the fundamentals of filmmaking, and democratize the process by removing all the costly apparatus. Comparing Thomas Vinterberg’s Festen (1998), the first of the Dogme 95 films, with the Hollywood box office hit Apocalypse Now (1979) by Francis Ford Coppola is an effective way of highlighting the resulting salient stylistic features of the Danish films. Dogme 95’s intentions, in addition to being an “exercise in style”, had a radical and political side. With their desire to democratize the filmmaking process, as well as go back to its roots, the ‘brethren’ were making a conscious effort to “level the playing field” for smaller nations wanting to “participate in the game of cinematic art” (Hjort, p.401). Dogma 95 really succeeded in challenging Hollywood’s monopoly on the film industry without resorting to “ethnic nationalism” as its bankable trait.

Elser, in ‘Conventions, Creativity, Originality’ (1992), discusses the different kinds of constraints that exist, and that could be placed on an artist’s ideas and work. Elser believes that the category of ‘self-imposed’ constraints “can stimulate precisely the kinds of creative problem-solving, flow and insight that are needed to produce valuable new works.” (Hjort, p.400) Vinterberg is quoted saying, “the rules – the limitation – turned the work into the most enjoyable and actually the most liberating project I’ve ever been involved in.” (Interview by Bo Green Jensen) Lars Von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, when writing the manifesto for Dogme 95, decided on the rules by following the maxim, “Identify the very means of cinematic expression on which you habitually rely and then make the technique or technology in question the object of an interdiction.” (Hjort, p.401) The point wasn’t to have any particular constraints, but just for them to exist. So Von Trier and Vinterberg wrote the Vow of Chastity, the name of their list of constraints, a mix of technical and more conceptual rules.

Von Trier and Vinterberg wrote the manifesto in 1995, after the former called the latter with the offer to participate in “the start of a ‘new’ new wave to replace the ‘old’ new wave” (Nestingen and Elkington, p.88). Von Trier is mostly referring to the French New Wave of the 1950s and 60s because he believes that their “goal was correct but their means were not! The New Wave proved to be a ripple that washed ashore and turned to muck.” (Hjort, p.385) Although Von Trier believes that the French New Wave did not succeed in their goal to counter established filmmaking tendencies, because of their gradual assimilation with the brougeois lifestyle; he still was very inspired by its style. For example, one of the New Wave’s favourite approaches is to follow a group whose life is laid-back, improvised and spontaneous. In Von Trier’s film, the second Dogme film Idioterne (1998), he inspires himself from this idea. The story consists of “an anarchistic group of loafers who play and have fun” (Nestingen and Elkington, p.88). So on March 22nd, 1995, at the Odéon Théâtre de l’Europe in Paris, for the hundredth anniversary of cinema, Von Trier announced the creation of Dogme 95 then threw red pamphlets into the crowd with the Manifesto on one side and the Vow of Chastity on the other (Nestingen and Elkington, p.75). It was simple enough, if one respected all of the rules of the Vow of Chastity, after being reviewed by the ‘brethren’, they received a Dogme 95 certificate. The invitation was open to everyone, and since digital video was used in Festen, although not explicitly stated in the Vow of Chastity, digital video became the staple for films being made under the Dogme 95 banner. Digital video meant a wider accessibility, and a democratization of filmmaking. Anyone had the possibility to make a Dogme film.

The Dogme 95 collective was forced to overcome many obstacles before it really became a movement. Von Trier announced its existence in 1995, but the first Dogme film Festen did not come out until 1998. What elements and events slowed down the process? Namely, an issue the collective had with finding funding for the films. The social democratic Minister of Culture in 1995, Jytte Hilden, strongly endorsed the Dogme 95 proposal, because she saw it as “a potential path to artistic renewal, international recognition and economic growth” for Danemark. She made a verbal promise to give them 15 million kroner. In Danemark though, it is the DFI, Danish Film Institute, which allocates money to specific projects based on merit. The money was then given to the Institute, who was “eager to protect its autonomy” (Hjort, p.392) so they told the Dogme filmmakers that to receive funding they would have to apply. None of the filmmakers applied, because that would have gone against the idea of a collective, rather than an individual auteur. It is thanks to the director of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, Bjorn Erichsen, that Dogme 95 was able to have funding. The collaboration between the two proved extremely fruitful, and was “a clear example of the kind of successful collaboration between film and TV that politicians and administrators, including those at the DFI, so frequently had cited as desirable.”

This way of finding funding contrasts greatly with the way the funding system would work in the United States with Hollywood. An example of this different system can be seen with Francis Ford Coppola when he made Apocalypse Now. Timothy Corrigan talks about Coppola’s struggle to balance his artistic integrity, all the while working within the Hollywood studio system. With Apocalypse Now, a film known for its enormous cost and the time and effort it took to make, required a lot of convincing of Coppola’s part. Coppola says, “A lot of the energy that went into the film went into simply trying to convince the people who held the power to let me do the film my way.” (Corrigan, p.209) Coppola despite his status as a great director, he had already proved himself with The Godfather, had to make a “subversive use of the paraphernalia of studio complacency to articulate a personal vision.” (Corrigan, p.206) In contrast with the filmmakers at Dogme 95, Coppola worked within the system, appropriated it and made it his own. Von Trier and the rest of the ‘brethren’ refused to label themselves as auteur, and compromise their manifesto’s integrity at the peril of not having any funding.

Another effective way of contrasting the Danish process of funding and making a film with the Hollywood system is to look at two products from each side. Comparing Vinterberg’s Festen with Coppola’s Apocalypse Now makes it easier to notice the Vow of Chastity’s rules put into practice. The first fundamental difference lies in Vinterberg’s use of digital and Coppola’s use of 35 mm film. The result is that Festen has a grainy, home movie quality to it, while Apocalypse Now was shot in the standard, letterboxed film stock that creates a distance or gap between the audience and the film because it makes everything and everyone look unrealistically beautiful.

In the first scene of Festen, Christian the eldest son is walking down a road, talking on a cell phone. After an establishing shot of sorts, it switches to an over the shoulder shot of Christian on the phone. It looks a bit like an amateur shot; the corners of the cameras lens can be seen in the frame, and there’s a bit of overexposure. Then it cuts to a low angle shot of Christian still on the phone. The camera is hand-held, in abidance with the rules, and it visibly shakes and quickly switches between Christian’s hand putting away his phone, and then follows his hand as he grabs his brief case. Instead of using numerous shots, Vinterberg uses one. He moves the camera towards whatever action is going on, as if the camera was a person witnessing everything. Peter Schepelern describes it well in “Transnational Cinema in a Global North”, “Vinterberg’s film presents this family drama as a flexible cinematic flow, constituted by the searching and interrogating camera that does not give up, an incessant tool for reaching the truth in accordance with the Vow of Chastity from Dogma 95.” In terms of on location shooting, the whole story takes place in and around a huge mansion. These techniques create strong immediacy, and emotion especially during the first dinner scene (00:31:05). Many elements of the narrative as well as dynamics between characters are revealed through a series of small gestures, actions, and seamlessly useless dialogue. For example, when Helene is talking to a bespectacled man, her willingness to have a conversation with him, despite its less than interesting subject matter (the air conditioning in his car making his lips dry), shows her kind-heartedness and her sense of humor. Michael’s behaviour, the youngest son, shows he has not been faithful to his wife. He flirts with another woman, and then Michelle, an employee of the mansion, pours water on is lap to express her anger and frustration at his ignoring her. As soon as he sees it’s her, he changes his tone and suddenly looks very uncomfortable. The camera then focuses on the eldest sibling Christian. Having a close up of his face, which is riddled with anxiety, emphasizes his discomfort. In addition, someone else’s face enters the frame on the left foreground and completely takes it over. This could indicate his possible claustrophobia and definite anxiety at being surrounded by people.

Apocalypse Now could not be more on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of salient stylistic features. The first shot of the film is indicative of its magnitude. It is an establishing shot of the jungle combined with the use of a popular song of the time, The End by the Doors. In addition, he slows down the sound of the helicopter, which makes for a deep, whooshing sound that creates anticipation. The anticipation then ends when the jungle violently begins being bombarded with bombs and flames ravage everything. The first shot of the film in itself breaks at least eight of the eleven rules from the Vow of Chastity. This scene is also illustrative of Coppola’s use of artifices, including expensive technological developments and non-diegetic sound in the form of mainstream pop music, to create dramatic tension. The film is narrated by a voice-over of Martin Sheen’s character, Captain Willard. This breaks the “no added sound” rule. Apocalypse Now can be defined as an “aesthetic approach enhanced of course by the long-lived existence of a studio system.” (Braudy, p.19)

One of the most important aspects of the Dogme 95 movement is its radical, political side. One thing that the ‘brethren’ made clear is that Dogme 95 is a response, or a reaction to the globalization phenomenon, and its effects on the film industry.  Although small in terms of geography and population, the Nordic countries, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Danemark, “are integral sites in increasingly globalized film markets.” (Nestingen and Elkington, p.1) As a result from the pressure of studio-based Hollywood films, these countries have developed strategies to try and find a niche, or a marketable trait to be able to distribute their films around the world. This is really necessary when only 20 percent of domestic ticket sales are Nordic films. Dogme 95 was “unabashedly tongue-in-cheek” and created a wave of fascination with digital video, and the Dogme style (Nestingen and Elkington, p.18). When Festen came out, everyone loved it, from critics to audiences. It was proof that Dogma’s main concepts were appealing to different kinds of people, “film could be technically simple and restrained, and yet still be effective.” The Vow of Chastity allowed for a new perspective on film, unclouded by special effects, big dramatic scores and big name actors. With the success of Festen, “the cinematic validity of digital video became synonymous with a revolutionary stance against Hollywood.” For instance, David Lynch made use of digital video in his latest film Inland Empire, a film about “a woman in trouble”, as the evil Hollywood empire looms over her.

The rules featured in the Vow of Chastity are not just constraints to enable more creativity, they “amount to a novel and insightful response to the inequities of globalising processes.” (Hjort, p.399) By making rules, the cinematic process is standardized and made accessible to anyone. It is not about those specific rules carrying any special importance, it’s about having rules, which defy and redefine Hollywood’s hegemony over the film industry. “Dogma 95 makes most sense as a defence of cinematic art, one designed […] to resist the ongoing globalisation of certain mainstream ‘art regards.'” (Hjort, p.405) Dogme 95, although short lived, from 1995 to 2002, stirred things up, and has even had an influence on Hollywood.

The project of Dogme 95 can be compared to, in one regard, Raymond Queneau’s “Exercise de Style”, established artists challenging themselves by creating restrictions or obstacles to bring something out of them which wouldn’t manifest itself under normal conditions. In addition, these restrictions take on a bigger meaning, symbolizing a minimalist trend in opposition to the never-ending development and technological progress, which can become cumbersome and drown out the original concept of a film. Since Dogme 95, the ‘brethren’ has gone on to different projects. For example Thomas Vinterberg directed a film starring two American actors, Claire Danes and Joaquin Phoenix, and calls the film an “effort to show a moment of peace”, and a “story from the heart.” The film could be considered the opposite extreme of his first film Festen, but it shows versatility, and a great amount of skill, to be able to experiment with different genres and styles.

Works Cited

Braudy, Leo. “The Sacraments of Genre.” Film Quarterly 39.3 (1986): 17-28. JSTOR. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Corrigan, Timothy. “The Commerce of Auteurism.” A Cinema without Walls: Movies and Culture after Vietnam. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1991. Print.

Hjort, Mette. “Appendix I: Dogma 95 and Its Progeny.” Purity and Provocation Dogma 95. London: BFI, 2006. 199-209. Print.

Hjort, Mette. “Introduction.” Purity and Provocation Dogma 95. London: BFI, 2006. 1-14. Print.

Hjort, Mette. “Dogma 95: A Small Nation’s Response to Globalization.” Purity and Provocation Dogma 95. London: BFI, 2006. 31-47. Print.

“Interview with Thomas Vinterberg.” Interview by Bo Green Jensen. Weekendavisen Apr. 1998. Print.

Nestingen, Andrew, and Trevor G. Elkington. Transnational Cinema in a Global North: Nordic Cinema in Transition. Detroit: Mich., 2005. Print.