Cannes 2003

[godardian]

Yup, exactly. That's most people's definition of realistic look. But what I feel should be called "realistic" is to replicate what our eyes can see. And most times you need to add a fill light, otherwise the lighting contrast is too much for the media (film or vid) to handle, and it ends up being way too dark in spots, too light in others. That's why I say natural lighting is hard to make look realistic. I've tried with every short I've done, and have finally admitted that I need a DP to light like crazy for me.

I don't necessarily think of it as "realistic," but it has its own sort of beauty, in my opinion. I think the "Favorite Things" bit in Dancer in the Dark is really beautiful.

Handheld is not a panacea, and I think that the Dogme movement shouldn't have treated it as such. They should've acknowledged that it's not morally superior; it's certainly not right for every sort of film. But for those who think this shooting style can't sometimes be exactly the right thing and beautiful to boot, three words: Husbands and Wives.

[SoNowThen]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love hand-held. When used properly (ie. our fav new wave french director). But it's become WAAAAAYYYYYYY overused as a "look it's documentary realism" tool.

[Ernie]

Funnily enough, I find underlit/dirty/handheld films to be the LEAST "realistic" of all movies. It takes a really sure hand to light a film to make it look like reality.

Yeah man, it's like...when I look through my eyes it doesn't look all ugly and shaky like DITD. It looks clear, not grainy. Even when I'm convulsing in dark places it doesn't look as shaky and dark as DITD.

Films like DITD are the most unrealistic-LOOKING films can look imo. Completely disregarding the subject matter I mean.

So I'm going to I have to go w/ SoNowThen with this whole thing. Handheld can be fucking great...dogme is a little much for me...I think it's an insult to cinema and really lazy filmmaking...that even I could do (and kinda have done). <why kinda? - I do use props and costumes.

Film = the best format at this point in time

[©brad]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love hand-held. When used properly (ie. our fav new wave french director). But it's become WAAAAAYYYYYYY overused as a "look it's documentary realism" tool.

soderbergh is da man with handheld shit. re- traffic.

[Ghostboy]

I think it's an insult to cinema and really lazy filmmaking...that even I could do (and kinda have done).

Insult to cinema? Yikes. Before you call it lazy, you should check out the behind the scenes doc on the DVD. You may not like the result, but 100 camera setups are pretty far from lazy.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't think I like Von Trier. I finally watched Dancer in the Dark recently and I really can't say I liked it. It wasn't boring like the majority of people that disliked it said it was. I just hate the camerawork and the digital format and all that . . . And then the CONSTANT handheld...it just seemed like Von Trier didn't give a fuck about the audience.

Dancer in the Dark has to be one of my favorite movies... try it again... if you can get past the digital/handheld thing, it's really great. I wouldn't want it any other way.

[Sal]

The shaky camera lended itself very well to Dancer In The Dark because it became a subjective part of the characters.  One instance was when Bjork sat down with the new defense attorney, and the moment he mentioned she'd have to pay for his services, the camera began to go to him, and the moment he said it, it STOPS.  It was like a double back.  Brilliant, and excusable because the rest of the movie created a precedent for it.  There are many other instances where the handheld motion aids in the emotional scales of the characters.

[RegularKarate]

Ebeaman seems to have a problem with harsh films... movies that kind of wake you up.

He likes to be caught in the fantasy of film, which is fine... (you can call DV unrealistic, but film is just a glorification of the way reality looks... a painting... DV is closer and more realistic because it says "this isn't bullshit, we've got it right here on video, mother fucker!  Now watch this shit like it's your family")

Dancer in the Dark is great and I personally really like Breaking the Waves as well (though not as much as DITD).  Not all films should be done like this, but calling DITD and BTW lazy is just ignorance... the raw emotion that bleeds from these movies is proof enough for me that some hard fucking work went into them.

[BonBon85]

Well, perhaps "realistic" was the wrong word, as I think "raw" is perhaps a better one. Another thing von Trier does to enhance the emotional scenes is to have the contrast between the highly saturated colors of the musical sequences and the bleakness (or "ugliness" as you call it) of the other scenes. The dreariness, and even the grainy look of the film add to its roughness, and I think this adds to the emotion. I have to say I can't believe you look at this as lazy filmmaking. Like JB said, a lot of work went into this film.

[Gold Trumpet]

You know what, I'll stand up and second the call that both Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves are very lazy films. The technical achievement of having a hundred cameras for a given scene is impressive technically only, but not very important. I'll take up the french director Patrice Leconte and say the argument is that all that does is try to mask lack of vision on what you want to shoot. Thing is, storywise, both films are rather typical simplistic dramas and the identification of this dogme importance says that these films capture "realism". What is realism in movies? Sam Fuller described it as bullshit and gave the example that the only way you could make a war film realistic is by having people shooting at the audience every now and then during the movie. Movies exist outside this realism and when trying to go for realism, it better captures its own realism though other forms of realism like heightened or mellowed realism. Thing is, both movies are no more bleak or striking than a film like Leaving Las Vegas and that was made with purpose and imagination in finding the moments when to show documentary footage and when to use the film and let the color of Las Vegas bleed onto the characters and other such examples. Point being, purpose and passion was in the filmmaking, editing and drive of the film in how it wanted its subject being. Von Trier's dogme esque efforts in question just begin with the idea if you remove all things associated with higher production movies and have a 100 dv cameras everywhere for each given scene, you can capture the realism in any given story. This is nonsense and both movies are a run throw of this procedure and of no understanding in how to being able to better each movement of the films to utilize the strength of the story the best. Some movements may utlize aspects of dogme, some not, but it just isn't a simple flood over for everything in a simple story. That's just insane. Thinking of this, lazy is really a nice word for these films.

~rougerum

[Recce]

Changing the topic a little bit:
'Les Invasions Barbares' was an amazing film. One thing that bothered me about the editing, however: At the end of every major sequence, they would fade to black. That kinda threw me off and sort of messed up the pacing a little bit, I think.  They should have saved the fades for, say, the end of every act. Or when there's a large passing of time. Other then that, an amazing film. I'm pretty much desensitized to everything nowadays, but that one really shook me up.

[Pubrick]

You know what, I'll stand up and second the call that both Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves are very lazy films. The technical achievement of having a hundred cameras for a given scene is impressive technically only, but not very important. I'll take up the french director Patrice Leconte and say the argument is that all that does is try to mask lack of vision on what you want to shoot. Thing is, storywise, both films are rather typical simplistic dramas and the identification of this dogme importance says that these films capture "realism". What is realism in movies? Sam Fuller described it as bullshit and gave the example that the only way you could make a war film realistic is by having people shooting at the audience every now and then during the movie. Movies exist outside this realism and when trying to go for realism, it better captures its own realism though other forms of realism like heightened or mellowed realism. Thing is, both movies are no more bleak or striking than a film like Leaving Las Vegas and that was made with purpose and imagination in finding the moments when to show documentary footage and when to use the film and let the color of Las Vegas bleed onto the characters and other such examples. Point being, purpose and passion was in the filmmaking, editing and drive of the film in how it wanted its subject being. Von Trier's dogme esque efforts in question just begin with the idea if you remove all things associated with higher production movies and have a 100 dv cameras everywhere for each given scene, you can capture the realism in any given story. This is nonsense and both movies are a run throw of this procedure and of no understanding in how to being able to better each movement of the films to utilize the strength of the story the best. Some movements may utlize aspects of dogme, some not, but it just isn't a simple flood over for everything in a simple story. That's just insane. Thinking of this, lazy is really a nice word for these films.

~rougerum

just cos u write more lines about sumthing doesn't mean u put more thought into it.

RK put it succinctly. and how do u, GT, suggest one properly capture "reality" or "realism" on camera, in film, in cinema? i opine that it's in the emotion of the story and the charecterization, the ideas and the clarity of communication with the audience. in this regard i place Breaking the Waves as one of the realest films ever made, there was more going on there than an occasionally shaky camera. but that's all u seem to focus on. i personally don't throw up everytime i get in a car.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Movies exist outside this realism and when trying to go for realism, it better captures its own realism though other forms of realism like heightened or mellowed realism.

[children with angels]

[children with angels]

Although I actually agree with what GT has to say. I wouldn't say Dogme films are "lazy", just that the realism they hope to capture through their techniques will never work the way they intend it to.