Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.

com

tH E SI G N I FI CA N CE o F d OG M E 9 5 A S A rE SP ON SE T O
h OLLY W OOD ’ S d OM I N A N CE OF T H E f I LM m A RK E T I N eU ROP E .

Today I will be looking at the Dogme 95 movement, and how it made

an impression on the world of cinema. I will pay particular attention to how it
relates to Hollywood cinema, and examine how Hollywood cinema can be
looked upon as the dominant film within the European market.
Firstly we need to establish why Hollywood is seen to have a level of
dominance in the European film market. When talking about the box office
takings in 1999 Volker Schlöndorff claimed that ‘Hollywood's slice of the pie
had expanded to three quarters’ – thereby marginalizing the rest of the
market (including all the European cinemas) which had to split the remaining
market share. On top of this, European movies ‘comprised less than two
percent of the product on US screens’(Hudson, 2000), which inevitably leads
to European cinema struggling to compete financially. As Gerben Bakker
notes, the ‘sheer economic power of Hollywood… rule(s) out an equivalent
European alternative’. (Bakker, 2005, p.25)
As a result of this, European cinema has tended to fulfill the role of an
alternative to what Hollywood has to offer. The differences between
European and Hollywood cinema are labeled as ‘stereotypical binary divides’
(2005, p.300) by Thomas Elsaesser, who argues that Europe represents ‘art’,
‘high culture’ and ‘the festival hit’, compared to the ‘pop’, ‘mass
entertainment’ and ‘the blockbuster’ provided by Hollywood.
The Dogme 95 movement springs no surprises in this respect; it
doesn’t set out to compete with Hollywood cinema by making films expected
to generate huge box office figures. However, Catherine Fowler describes it
“as both typical and unique when it comes to… movements in European
cinema history” (2002, p.51) and the manner in which the Dogme 95 films set
about being expressly alternative is quite different; and certainly the
dominant presence of Hollywood cinema is certainly very significant in its
methods.

1
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

Dogme 95 is a set of ten rules (known as ‘the vow of chastity’) for

filmmaking that were released by a group of Danish directors at Cannes
festival in 1995. The manifesto which was released alongside them states
that they are “a ‘rescue action’ designed to counteract ‘certain tendencies’ in
cinema today” (Chaudhuri, 2005, p.37) and this makes it clear from the
outset that Dogme 95 is a direct alternative to Hollywood, brought about
through a dissatisfaction with the content Hollywood movies and how they
are produced.
The ‘vow of chastity’ for Dogme 95 is as follows:

“1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be
brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a
location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).”
“2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice
versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene
is being shot).”
“3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility
attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place
where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where
the film takes place).”
“4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If
there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a
single lamp be attached to the camera).”
“5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.”
“6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons,
etc. must not occur.)”
“7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say
that the film takes place here and now.)”
“8. Genre movies are not acceptable.”
“9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.”
“10. The director must not be credited.”

2
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

As the list shows, the rules are quite restrictive but almost every single
one of them is a direct result of an aspect of Hollywood filmmaking that is
disliked by the authors, Vinterberg and von Trier. They are written to ensure
that the filmmaker consciously works to break from the artifice and
convention of Hollywood cinema; instead aiming to shoot a more realistic
style.
Rules 1-5 restrict the amount of technical equipment allowed in the
making of the film, and as a result also ensure that the budget is
considerably smaller than you would find in a Hollywood film. This meant
that “all three of the [first] completed Danish Dogma films cost less than $1
million each” (Staw & Kramer, 2006, p.296) coming well under the banner of
a low budget film by Hollywood standards.
Rules 6 & 7 ensure that the film is grounded in a realistic setting and
time. Blockbuster comic book movies, or science fiction epics are ruled out
in favor of narratives set in the here and now. To a similar extent, rule 8 also
restricts the narrative by removing the potential to create a genre movie, from
which you can traditionally estimate at least a modest return thanks to the
fans of its conventions.
The final rule, concerning the removal of the directors credit,
encourages more experimentation when applying the others as the option is
there to undertake it anonymously – removing at the same time one of
Hollywood’s key marketing points, that of the big name director.
There is a lot of debate about the reasoning behind the Dogme 95
movement. To some it is not the “a serious critique of the overblown
excesses of the Hollywood machine” (Murphy, 2000, p.67) outlined by
looking at the rules above; instead people see it as “essentially nothing but
an attention grabbing PR gimmick”. (Berghahn, 2005, p.242)
This is a stance that is supported by the fact that numerous examples
of Dogme 95 certified films that do in fact “proactively break with Dogme
rules”. (Chaudhuri, 2005, p.40) Even films so early in the movement as
‘Dogme #3’ (‘Mifune’s Last Stand’ [1999]) contained so many digressions

3
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

from the rules that director Søren Kragh-Jacobsen was moved to write a
confession for breaking the ‘vow’.
It is the ease of which the Dogme 95 rules were broken, and the lack
of any punishment for those within the group (their films were still certified
Dogme 95) that people quickly took the belief that, rather than a manifesto to
change filmmaking forever, Dogme 95 was “a very successful means of
promoting a group of… films through generating controversy”. (Branston &
Stafford, 2003, p.468)
Indeed, writing at Cannes festival at the time the first Dogme 95
movies were being released, Jonathan Rosenbaum considered ‘the function
of “Dogme 95” [to be] to secure an American release for ‘The Celebration’
and a Hollywood contract for Thomas Vinterberg.’ (2002, p.170) It is a sign
of the dominance of Hollywood when, for European films, conventional
marketing techniques need to be supplanted by something so elaborate as
Dogme 95 and its associated contracts and manifestos, just in order to try
and secure a release in America.
If considered as a marketing strategy, whilst obviously not being
blockbusters, the Dogme 95 films were indeed successful at the box office.
In fact, the success of the Dogme 95 films is something that contributes
heavily to its significance as a movement. Back in Denmark where it was film
it has been said that it “revitalized the entire Danish film industry… and
helped to raise the market share for domestic films in Denmark to 30 per cent
in 2001… and over the next three years”. (Chaudhuri, 2005, p.38)
When you consider that Schlöndorff earlier claimed that, in Europe,
European films overall only had 25% of the market share this is a big
success for one country with a small film industry.
In fact, the Dogme movement was such a success in this regard that
critics said that the Hollywood “hegemony was openly challenged by…
Dogme 95 in the nineties, when it produced many films that were successful,
not only critically but also commercially, using cheap video cameras and
small budgets”. (Pastorino, 2008, p.48)

4
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

Of course, it is a little bit of an over-exaggeration to say that

Hollywood’s biggest powers were genuinely challenged in anything other
than an artistic or moral sense. As Lars von Trier said “Dogme 95 is an
artistic concept, not an economic concept”. (Simons, 2007, p.49) However,
as a result of the low cost of the Dogme 95 films not hindering their success
those in America and other countries were bound to take notice in their hunt
for a profit.
As a result, Dogme 95 quickly became more than a national cinema
movement as others began to work within its constraints. Danish directors
did not solely produce Dogme 95 films, with American Harmony Korine’s
‘Julien Donkey Boy’ (1999) being the first of many Dogme 95 films produced
outside even of Europe. Many of these were, despite not following the rules
to the letter, created in the spirit of Dogme 95. Their modest budgets though
allowed for production, and the spread of Dogme 95 film, to be financially
backed quickly.
The globalization of the world as a whole does play a large part in the
spread of Dogme film too. The spread of Hollywood cinema being a
particularly good example of globalization and as a result Dogme 95 and its
manifesto is something that strikes a chord with filmmakers worldwide, not
just Europe, all of whom are equally affected by the impact of Hollywood
upon their national cinema. In order to provide a true alternative, Dogme 95
needed to be equally accessible for filmmakers globally as the Hollywood
conventions.
As a result of these aims, it is difficult to assess whether Dogme 95 is
truly a European cinema movement, despite its creation in Denmark. In their
production, the early Dogme 95 films are “not about ethnic purity nor Nordic
essence”. (Rombes, 2005, p.104) In fact, it can be said that behind Dogme
95 lies a “desire to globalise film-making” (Rombes, 2005, p.104) and by
removing the idea of the auteur by making filmmakers ‘swear to refrain from
personal taste’, (Simons, 2007, p.48) it seeks to remove such considerations
all together by focusing solely on the action and narrative.

5
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

However, by removing many of the filmmaking conventions and

equipment, the creative mind of the director is brought further to the
forefront, as they have to adapt techniques in their own way. Lars Von Trier
himself concedes that this is something of a paradox, saying that “Dogme
films very much reflect their individual directors” (Hjort & Bondebjerg, p.221)
even though the ‘vow of chastity’ tries to create the impression that the
opposite is the case and a uniform collective would result.
Essentially, Dogme 95 “levels the playing field on which world cinemas
compete with Hollywood” (Chaudhuri, 2005, p.38) by doing three things.
Firstly, the movement talked up those things films could convey
without having to worry about budgetary constraints imposed by working
with smaller film financiers in Europe. This allowed Dogme 95 film to play to
its strengths in the knowledge that those who would see the film thought
highly of them, securing a good critical response. This included placing
“originality and creativity as supreme achievements” and “accentuat[ing] the
performance of actors and the realism of the narrative”. (Rombes, 2005,
p.103)
Secondly, Dogme films positioned themselves securely as an
alternative to the Hollywood movies. This was done through the manifesto
and ‘vow’ that specifically pinpointed areas of Hollywood cinema with which
Dogme 95 and other low budget films could not compete. This was primarily
those which “emphasise[d] spectacle and illusion to the detriment of more
‘profound… issues’. (Rombes, 2005, p.103) By doing this it again helped
position the films for good critical reception in comparison to the Hollywood
films that screen alongside them ensuring the films were judged also against
the weaknesses of the competition.
Lastly, the combination of the first two helped to create a ‘brand in the
United States’ (Staw & Kramer, 2006, p.296) that meant that there was an
interest in this market. This is something, outlined above, which many
European films are not able to generate. As a result the films are a far more
significant point of comparison to Hollywood cinema as they have been
screened far more widely alongside the Hollywood product in America, so

6
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

there is a greater basis to compare the two in terms of audience and box
office.
By engineering this new level on which films can aspire to be
considered, as opposed to being compared with the Hollywood movie and
its production values, the Dogme 95 movement is of great significance as a
response to Hollywood. It provides a realistic framework for the provision of
smaller films that can be seen as successes by critics, whilst also highlighting
many of the deficiencies found within the dominant cinema, which assists in
generating an appetite for the alternative it provides.
In short Dogme 95 is the postmodern progression of the ‘binary divde’
between European and Hollywood cinemas. By looking at what Hollywood
cinema provides, Dogme 95 attempts to supply what it does not. By not
trying to compete with the spectacle and gloss, it is a movement that carves
out its own successful niche in grounded, realistic movies driven by
character and plot.

7
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

BOOKS

Bakker, Gerben (2005). America’s Master – The European Film Industry In the
United States, 1907-1920. In: An Sedgwick, John & Pokorny, Michael (2005).
Economic History of Film. London: Routeledge.

Berghahn, Daniela (2005). Hollywood Behind the Wall: the Cinema of East
Germany. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Branston, Gill & Stafford, Roy (2003). The Media Student's Book. London:
Routledge.

Chaudhuri, Shohini (2005). Contemporary World Cinema: Europe, the Middle

East, East Asia and South Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Elsaesser, Thomas (2005). European Cinema: Face To Face With Hollywood.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Fowler, Catherine (2002). The European Cinema Reader.

London: Routledge.

Mette Hjort, Mette & Bondebjerg, Ib (2003). The Danish Directors: Dialogues
On a Contemporary National Cinema.
Bristol: Intellect Books.

Murphy, Robert (2002). British Cinema of the 90s.

London: BFI Publishing.

Pastorino, Christian C. Vinces (2008). Alternative Modes: Dialectic of the

Hollywood and Dogme 95 Modes of Production and Its Influence in Cuban
Cinema. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.

8
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

Rombes, Nicholas (2005). New Punk Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Rosenbaum, Jonathan (2002). Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media
Limit What Movies We Can See. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.

Simons, Jan (2007). Playing the Waves: Lars Von Trier's Game Cinema.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Barry M. Staw, Barry M. & Kramer, Roderick M. (2006). Research in

Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical
Reviews. London: Elsevier.

9
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com

WEBPAGES

Hudson, David (2000). Europe vs. Hollywood. Available:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,64284,00.html. Last
accessed 05/05/09.

10