Dogme 95 is great in theory but I think it lacks severely in execution.

To me, rules 1 through 5 downplay the cinematic apparatus and therefore leave the spectator to pay attention to the story and the acting. I think this is awesome. Some films today are shallow, visual spectacles with no real depth or passion, so any attempt (though perhaps Dogme 95 is an extreme attempt) to combat that trend is good for cinema as an art form. Similarly, rule 9 standardizes film presentation, which is mostly good even though it limits expression. Rule 10 can even be grouped in with 1-5 simply for the fact that it disrupts the general association between final product and “auteur”. So since these limitations don’t exactly allow the viewer to call a Dogme 95 film likeThe Celebration a visually groundbreaking film, I think that the viewer is left to concentrate on the acting and the plot.

In theory, diminishing superficial action and temporal alienation while also rejecting genre norms is mostly good even though it’s certainly limiting; however, this is where The Celebration and several other Dogme 95 films lose me. They tout great things like cinematic realism, or encourage honest things actual violence amongst the actors, or more generally reject contemporary cinematic norms… but then they base their stories on parents raping their children (The Celebration), unethical and exploitative voyeurism (Fuckland), abled people duping women into engaging in sex under the guise of mental retardation (The Idiots), etc. These plotlines are absolutely absurd. It doesn’t make sense to me that one could jump so quickly from fulfilling the truly honorable ideals in the “Vow of Chastity” to making hedonistic plots that belong on snopes.com.

So I see the theoretical value of Dogme 95. I totally understand why filmmakers would want to reject the cinematic norms. What I don’t understand at all is the Dogme 95 filmmakers’ sick infatuation with absurdity for the sake of shock value. I’d say it detracts from the movement, but the creators of the movement are also the very creators of these disgusting plotlines. Why did Dogme 95 filmmakers feel the need to double-down on their already progressive movement?

On a different note, I think we partially miss out on the ability to thoroughly assess the acting in The Celebration because we aren’t native speakers of Danish. A lot of acting can be attributed to voice and dialogue. With subtitles replacing our auditory capability (and visual attention at times), we are at a severe disadvantage in judging the acting merits of the film. Gbatokai was the only English speaker and he was pretty good, but I hesitate to judge all actors in the whole film based solely on his performance. What I mean to say is this: based on what I said before, I think Dogme 95 places emphasis on acting and plot; without being able to understand what the characters are saying due to language constraints, I cannot wholly cement my assessment of this film movement.