Well I found 'Lock Stock' entertaining enough. Not v. demanding, but fun nonetheless.

I just don't get it with Dogme. It seems like a tremendous waste of time to me. Let's take an exciting, visual medium like cinema and strip it of everything till it looks dull and present 'difficult' stories. Art for art's sake? I dunno. Another blind spot I guess...

I agree with you about 'Lock Stock...' (much to my chagrin. I really wanted to hate that movie.), but I disagree about Dogme. Haven't actually seen any of the films yet, but I think the idea is to eschew the flashiness of modern cinema and concentrate more on the substance... content over style? That is what I had been led to believe anyway.

Right - but the 'flashiness' is often 'direction'. I mean OK - forget Con Air and so on (which I love anyway but that's another thread) but take stuff like Lee's 'Summer of Sam' or Scorcese's 'Bringing Out the Dead' - these guys know how to direct and they use all the techniques at their disposal. Why restrict yourself? I just don't get it. One of the best 'arthouse' (hate that word) movies I've seen recently was 'Pi' - it is terrific and it uses a wide range of techniques. The only point I can see to Dogme is some po-faced Guardian reading two fingers up at the US. Which bores me to be honest.

I don't have problems watching Dogme - but then again I'm also happy watching a good North American film - action blockbuster, or straight drama. I agree that European arthouse is often used as an excuse to give a V-sign to Americans - which is petty politics, and the films are seen as cultural weapons, rather than just pieces of printed celluoid used to tell a story.

Whilst I'm on the subject, I'd have to agree with Suiii when she stated that C4 made a complete arse-job of The Idiots when it was recently.

As for the UK film industry at present, it seems to be dangerously falling into two stereotypes, either grim up north, or gangstas in *sarf* London.

>Whilst I'm on the subject, I'd have to agree with Suiii when she stated that C4 made a complete arse-job of The Idiots when it was recently shown on C4.

Sorry about that, it's a little late and I'm a bit tired.

Get it out of your system George, it'll do you good.

C4 puzzle me somewhat. They started off as an avant garde, risk taking channel providing programmes for minorities, and now they're almost three quarters of the way toward becoming ITV.

I thought Lock, Stock was awful and really badly acted. I really can't understand why it was such a success.

Channel 4 HAD to censor The Idiots or the ITC would've slapped them with a hefty fine. You just CAN'T show an erect penis on terrestrial TV.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

But at one time they would have shown it anyway, for the sake of artistic freedom, and then paid the fine. They've become spineless.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Dogme is the only way to make films, but it at least means that there is no disguising shoddy acting and writing. "Direction" is about more than having the film freeze as some Mockney stroker deals cards, or ripping off bits from Scorsese films that you think nobody will recognise (for example). See Festen and note that it's visually more interesting than most mainstream films. See The Idiots and note that it is funnier than all Hollywood comedies, and more affecting than all Hollywood weepies.
I notice that nobody's said "I saw The Idiots and I didn't like it", just "I don't like the sound of it, and Lock Stock was 'undemanding'". You sound like some friends of mine who refused for months to rent Clerks on the grounds that it was in black and white.
To be honest, I don't think blurring a couple of erections really harmed it that much - or did they cut more than that?

Uh, so to speak.

>I notice that nobody's said "I saw The Idiots and I didn't like it", just "I don't like the sound of it, and Lock Stock was 'undemanding'". You sound like some friends of mine who refused for months to rent Clerks on the grounds that it was in black and white.

No it's not that at all. I just think this idea of a 'manifesto' is highly questionable. I do love a lot of mainstream cinema which I think is often slagged due to rather unnecessary high/low art distinctions in cinema. Maybe 'The Idiots' is funny, but it'll have to go a long way to beat 'Animal House', or 'Clerks' come to that.

I wouldn't call Clerks mainstream exactly, and if it wasn't for the hastily pasted-on "cool" soundtrack which cost more than the rest of the film put together, it could *be* a Dogme film.
Whatever you think of the manifesto, the two films I've seen are very good and I recommend them.

Mind you, in the right hands high production values have their place - Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, say.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply I thought 'Clerks' was mainstream - twisted syntax!

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought that the purpose of Dogme was to experiment with new ideas under specified constraints. It's another form of film making, that's all: to see what can be achieved under different conditions. This type of creative experimentation has been around for centuries, and I don't think has been specifically engineered to piss off the Americans.

or am I being naive?

>Sorry to interrupt, but I thought that the purpose of Dogme was to experiment with new ideas under specified constraints. It's another form of film making, that's all: to see what can be achieved under different conditions. This type of creative experimentation has been around for centuries, and I don't think has been specifically engineered to piss off the Americans.
>
>or am I being naive?

No probably not. I've just got a small film-related chip on my shoulder. It's probably all highly worthwhile - it just doesn't appeal to me I guess.

>Sorry to interrupt,

Hey, this isn't the Dr. H. and Al forum, you know. You have every right to post.

specifically engineered to piss off the Americans.
>
>or am I being naive?

I don't know what motivated the original "vow of chastity", but it does seem like a reaction to Hollywood eyecandy and film-making by committee and test-screening.
And what's wrong with that? Most Hollywood films are insultingly bland or stupid.

> I don't know what motivated the original "vow of chastity", but it does seem like a reaction to Hollywood eyecandy and film-making by committee and test-screening.
> And what's wrong with that? Most Hollywood films are insultingly bland or stupid.

You see that's what pisses me off. I just can't agree with that statement. It's simply repeated and repeated until it becomes true. Yes there are plenty of bad Hollywood films, but there are plenty of bad European ones too. Have you seen 'Orlando' for instance? The excesses of European cinema are simply those of the US reversed. Where bad US movies are stupid, bad European ones are pretentious. Where bad US movies have 'cliched happy endings', bad European movies have contrived miserable endings. I teach Film Studies and one thing that really annoys me is the expectation of some academics that the only point of teaching modern US film is to point out how crass and commercial it all is. Most of my favourite movies of the last ten years are American, come to that most of my favourite movies ever are American. Yes there are plenty of insidious marketing reasons why European movies don't get enough exposure but that's not the point I'm concerned with here. The fact is a reasonable proportion of Hollywood films are OK, a sizeable minority every year are actually pretty good. Have you seen Three Kings? Heat? The Truman Show? Even supposedly dumb films - it's become de rigeur to knock The Matrix now for instance - are often interesting for a whole lot of reasons. Visual spectacle is a perfectly valid part of the movie exprerience; it's how cinema began. Why is a film bland or stupid because it is designed to entertain, excite, offer an experience that cannot be found elsewhere? This does not stop Dogme films getting made. It may deny them a wider audience, but they are not meant to have one. They are avant-garde, experimental. If they became mainstream then it would be necessary to invent some other new form.

The other thing is how people squirm of the hook when you point out films like Fargo or Grosse Point Blank - "oh they're not really Hollywood films" - why? Because they're independents? So what - they still have major distributors. Because they're not blockbusters? Because they're good? In the 20th century, whether we like it or not, Hollywood has been responsible for a sizeable proportion, at least half, of the best movies made. The Americans make a lot of cinema. A fair amount is no good, but they also have some of the finest directors, screenwriters, cinematographers, and yes, special and visual effects teams in cinema. Why deny it? We have no problem acceprting the French make great food, or that the Italians play good football.

The majority of Hollywood films are bland and stupid - but of course there are exceptions. People like Miramax do fund good films and they are part of Hollywood. But most films assume that you are a drunken teenager. I thought the Matrix was visually good but dumb. Most "artsy" films may be bad in other ways, but at least they're not written by a team of accountants.

>The majority of Hollywood films are bland and stupid - but of course there are exceptions. People like Miramax do fund good films and they are part of Hollywood. But most films assume that you are a drunken teenager. I thought the Matrix was visually good but dumb. Most "artsy" films may be bad in other ways, but at least they're not written by a team of accountants.

But my point is if something is visually good then it *isn't* dumb. Cinema is a visual medium, the success of a film (not box office success but its success in being a good film) to a large extent stands or falls on its ability to communicate to an audience visually.

And the majority of Hollywood films bland and stupid? I don't know, I've never sat down with a calculator to work it out. But as far as I'm concerned the fact that a film is written produced and directed by self-appointed 'artists' does not automatically make it better than a Hollywood blockbuster. 'Die Hard' for instance is a superb film. It is not literary in the classical sense, it is not social realism, but it is a great, great movie. I enjoyed it as a drunken teenager, and now, as a sober adult. Entertainment is not by definition dumb.

>To be honest, I don't think blurring a couple of erections really harmed it that much - or did they cut more than that?

Sorry to bring up something the discussian has passed but they did cut more than that. There were two further cuts made however both scenes are available (or at least were a month ago when I got them) for download from the filmfour site.