Fruitless

There is something Pharisaic about Dogme 95.

It appears as if in the process of trying to preserve the thing they cherish the most - art - they are killing it.

The primal motive the members of Dogme 95 have is noble: they wish to save the art of storytelling from unnecessary, and often harmful, technological tricks.

However, in creating all the "rules" of film making, they severely limit an artist's potential. By applying the naturalism they call for to film, filmmakers will only be able to elicit a limited range of responses and emotions from the audience. It is comparable to telling a painter to make a picture, but only allowing her to use the colors black, white, and red. It will be impossible to create certain colors from these three colors, and thus it will be impossible to create certain connotations.

In addition to creating stifling rules, these filmmakers are also choosing to ignore and discard a large part of the history of film. Much of the film that has been created has been created with the intent of taking audiences away from reality (even if reality is only tweaked slightly), not to show them an exact reflection of their own reality. I am speaking on limited knowledge, as I have never seen any of these films, so perhaps I would be better informed on the issue of reality in these films if I were able to watch one of them.

The one thing I am puzzled about is in relation to the identification of the director. Rule 10 says that the director must not be credited. How do we know, then, who the directors are who are creating these films? Perhaps I am just confused about terminology, but if I am not it seems as if these Dogme 95 directors are being hypocritical as we can associate them with their work.

As I read about this group I am reminded about something C.S. Lewis said in The Abolition of Man: "They castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful." It seems as if the members of Dogme 95 are demanding genuine art, and then removing the tools needed to create it.