Christensen, Ove. “Authentic Illusions—the Aesthetics of Dogma 95.” P.O.V.no. 10 (2000) <>

“Polanski’s answer sounds like a typical reaction to abstract art: ‘Even a child could paint that’[2]. But as is the case with abstract art, it would be a mistake to confuse the artifact with the rules governing its production, even if the resulting product suggests a lack of conventional craftsmanship” (1).

“At least apparently, the Dogma Manifesto and The Vow of Chastity express a longing for a kind of cinéma vérité, films without the traditional trickery of filmic illusions” (2).

“The logical contradictions within cinéma vérité in relation to fiction films are, however, also inherent in Dogma 95. The badly produced images of the hand-held camera and insufficient lighting make use of a documentary style. But the filmed subject is in no way presented as reality in itself” (3).

“According to The Vow of Chastity, the subjects of Dogma films are presumed to be fictitious and there is no intention to lure the audience to believe otherwise. Where does this dichotomy between the real and the fictitious place the desired authenticity of Dogma 95?” (3).

“And it is also obvious that Dogma 95 is a rejection of a post-modernist stance, favoring an attitude of irony and playfulness, which takes nothing seriously” (3).

“Reading the Dogma Manifesto it becomes evident that filmic techniques are regarded as the main obstacles to the creation of genuine films” (3)

“But by its minimized aesthetic and even more so by the insistence on hand-held camera, Dogma 95 ensures that the audience is made aware of the film as an artifact and thereby of the implied mise-en-scene and filming. Contrary to the Hollywood convention, the style of Dogma 95 is very visible in that it precisely disappoints audience expectations and prevents automatized reception. In short, the Dogma principles give the films a kind of self-awareness by creating a minimal meta-filmic effect” (4).

“But it is not the applied techniques that prevent a film from being a work of art or a sincere work of authenticity. Dogma 95 does not even claim to be the only way of making films but is merely regarded as one alternative possibility. This undermines the critique of the cosmeticizing effect of technology” (5-6).

“Dogma 95 is very unclear and abstract in its criticism of contemporary cinema and the development of cinema since 1960. But it does not formulate a positive alternative either” (6).

“The rules are more a way for each of the directors to rethink their own filmmaking and not least of drawing attention to the participating director’s films. Most important, Dogma 95 is a way of emphasizing the obligation of filmmakers to rethink the language of cinema” (6).

“The director uses many conventional techniques in arranging the events and actors before the camera. What is filmed is by no means true to reality proper. Films are illusions but they might be authentic illusions revealing a truth bigger than life – or just a game of make-believe. The oscillation between these two positions is what counts and Dogma 95 contributes with its insistence on true stories” (6).