Schepelern, Peter. “Film According to Dogma: Ground Rules, Obstacles, and Liberations.” Ed. Andrew Nestingen and Trevor G. Elkington. Transnational Cinema in a Global North. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2005. 73-107.

“Dogma 95 rejects both the bourgeois theory of auteur (i.e., the notion that the film director is the prime creator), as well as the concept of film as a work of illusion. According to the manifesto, film art can be saved by adopting two strategies: 1) by making films with directors who reject the role of artist and remain anonymous, and 2) by following 10 rules of production. The goal of the latter strategy, also known as the Vow of Chastity, is to combat predictable plots, superficial action and cosmetic technological trickery, in other words all the illusionary razzmatazz that is so dominant in film today” (2).

“The important thing is still to find artistic liberation in cinematic/technical asceticism and rebel against dominant mainstream film making” (2).

“Dogma aims to pursue reality, the unembellished truth, the genuine and the real (Neo-realism, the New Wave). Dogma 95 can in fact be regarded as a kind of cinematic fundamentalism, a back-to-nature movement, an attempt to return to the cinematic innocence and simplicity of the Lumières, a time when the gardener got sprayed with water and workers simply left their factory. It is all about liberation through renunciation” (4).

“This explanation only stretches so far, however, especially when one considers the work of that other great film pioneer, Méliès. His films prove that trickery and special effects are just as original and just as fundamental a part of film art as the realism of the Lumières. But the most telling philosophical weakness in the argument is the fact that the most logical but paradoxical consequence of Dogma’s initiative to spurn technology would involve elimination of the camera itself. In other words, if we are intent on getting rid of all the technical aids which are employed to make films, why should we spare the most dominant? The camera is the object that is most contrary to the natural order! And what about the actors? Why should the locations and the props be authentic when the people – i.e., the actors - are not? No explanation is forthcoming. Since Dogma is designed to be taken as religious doctrine, a set of rules that one follows but does not question, this aspect of the argument remains teasingly hidden within Dogma 95 - because there is in fact a direct conflict between the dogmatic and the innovatory sides of the movement” (4-5).

“We now hear debates featuring new hybrids such as dogma architecture, dogma theatre and dogma literature” (6).

“Vinterberg does not take this approach. Instead, we are treated to a continuous flow of visual imagery created by the inquiring, all-intrusive camera; a camera which tirelessly peels back all the hypocrisy to reveal the family’s terrible secret. In accordance with the tenets of Dogma 95, the truth is finally revealed despite all the obstacles. In this respect, the film’s cinematographic form matches the narrative project” (Schepelern “film according to Dogma 9).

“The aesthetic methodology is reflected in the plot, which includes a parallel experiment with social norms. The game the ’Idiots’ play is both anarchistic and rule-bound. They abandon their own normality, but only in accordance with established rules. Once the old order has been eliminated, the new order begins to appear. In this respect, The Idiots has become the prototypical Dogma film” (10).

“When the film explores and transgresses middle-class conventions regarding nudity and sex, it is an indicative expression of this theme. This matches the film’s transgression of norms and conventions regarding the art of film making itself” (11).

“Since the 1960s, the hand-held camera – as a stylistic feature – has usually been confined either to expressing intense feeling in a character (subjective camera) or to reporting demonstrations or rioting (political documentarism). In Dogma films, its role has been expanded to become an all-intrusive tool, untiringly seeking out the truth, which despite all the odds must be revealed. This is in accordance with the vows taken by the members of Dogma and The Celebration is the best example of this method. However, it is also used to mark a conscious abandonment of formalist control over the image and image composition (framing)” (11).

“’Composition – that’s when you are interested in the framing of the images, but if all you do is point the camera, this means you are interested in the content. (...) When you compose a picture, this usually means you want to take control. But if you are able to forget this for a second and try to work yourself into the image and figure out what’s going on in the center of it, then you should be able to sense where the action is and point directly at it...’” (11).

“The development of Trier’s work can be regarded as the development of cinematic expression via artistic and technical liberation. It corresponds to his efforts to demystify film production for ordinary people (initiatives such as Film Town, armybase.com and 101 StormTroopers)” (12).

“Trier cannot completely break free of his own nature. Trier apparently acknowledges this fact himself when he writes in his diary that: ’It is of course a film that is not nearly as calculated as ’Breaking’ but nonetheless much, much, much more calculated.’” (13).

“All this despite the fact that Dogma’s tough restrictions emanated from Trier himself. In the end, artistic control was never relinquished, regardless of whether the ‘official’ director was Lars von Trier or a person not credited at all” (14).

“It was not in the screenplay and would have undermined another part of the story, as Sachs Bostrup was scheduled to play a big confrontational scene with Stellan Skarsgård only a few minutes later at another address. This episode suggested how chaotic things could get if the ’puppets’ really decided to revolt. There were also technical and communication glitches. Trier was unable to inform Sachs Bostrup that she was to slap her sister for instance. The sister escaped unscathed and this made it more difficult for the audience to make any sense out of the mysterious letter ’D’ in the calendar (the sister’s name was Dorte, but this is mentioned nowhere in the film)” (17)

“Trier’s film crew was met by a crowd in Copenhagen’s Central Station chanting ’Dogma film! Dogma film!’ But, the general feeling afterwards was that the experiment had been more of a curiosity than a success. Some of the problems had to do with the films’ technical and aesthetic construction. There were too many long boring shots of empty streets and too many scenes where nothing much happened” (19).

“Dogma 95 started as a Trier extravaganza, an ironic experiment aimed at being a sort of glorious spoof. Then, thanks to their innovative and stimulating approach to cinema, the first Danish Dogma films began to achieve success - way beyond initial expectations. Trier’s spoof was suddenly reassessed as a trailblazing new concept in film art. Its new goal was to explore new creative possibilities based on a method built upon tough technical restrictions, the liberation found in arbitrariness, and most of all the demystification of the cinematic process itself” (20).