There should be a new filmmaking movement called DOGME 2020 which outright bans:
1.) Greenscreens in any way, shape or form 2.) Any hint at identity politics, even the slightest one 3.) Films with less than 120min running time 4.) Films that do not(!) engage/overburden the average viewer intellectually 5.) Films with less than one million or more than ten million USD budget 6.) Films with any amount of cynicism or bitter(!) irony
Camera equipment would need to be analog, aspect ratio would need to be Ultra Panavision 70 exclusively.
Directors eligible for being part of Dogme 2020 would have to prove a 20y+ marriage (first any only marriage, except when former partner died in a nonsuspicious way) with deep FBI-tier background checks with family and neighbors about health and exclusivity of the marriage.
Sound of Dogme 2020 films must be brutally compressed: The dynamic range must be small enough that the same film with the same sound mix can be watched in a large cinema as well as at home at night in an apartment building with thin walls and intolerant neighbors.
Cinemas being allowed to play Dogme 2020 films must serve ONLY the things an opera house serves during breaks (Champagne, salmon bagels etc.). There is a strict, total, brutally heavily fined "no food, no drinks" policy in the screen room itself. Food and drinks are consumed during the breaks only. The beginning and end of a break is introduced with a brass bell. A Dogme 2020 is mandated to have at least 1 break.
Advertisement for Dogme 2020 films is allowed in (renowned) newspapers only. The format of said advertisments is a full-page, text-only ad consisting of a 500 word treatment of the film's premise and some(!) of the artistic deliberations of the director. Specifically, trailers/teasers are outright forbidden.
Each Dogme 2020 film is required to spend at least 20 consecutive minutes of the running time meditating over the conditio humana in general or the role of the West in a globalized, multipolar society in particular. It is allowed to do this by focusing on smaller aspects of recent history.
Dogme 2020 films must feature at least a 20 word text (dialoge or otherwise) in Latin: The text must be original; it thus must not be a googleable proverb. It must be flawless in style (omissions, e.g. ablativus absolutus or gerundivum) and grammar. It also must convey a nontrivial thought.
People desiring admission to Dogme 2020 films must pledge to never watch "Hollywood Blockbuster" movies at any occasion. They must sign a contract allowing for stiff pecunary penalties, should they be witnessed breaking that pledge.
Dogme 2020 have an absolutely strict "no sex" policy, with the only exception being sophisticated innuendo. A jury of peers decides whether such an innuendo is sophisticated or not.
Dogme 2020 directors are required to throw invitations to the Academy Awards into the trash, unopened.
Dylan Bennett
Yeah, so how do you earn money doing this. It's not so easy to have +1 million USD budget. You can't do an anti-system art movement without actually destroying the (((system))), brainlet. It's not a matter of film aesthetics, it's a matter of societal ideology.
Noah Harris
>Yeah, so how do you earn money doing this. Patrons. Rich people with ivy league degrees who will give a part of their wealth to the cause. While being allowed to be profitable, profitability for Dogme 2020 films is not necessary and should even be discouraged as to prevent screenwriters to introduce ideas that montetize easily instead of ideas with intellectual value.
Caleb Thomas
...
Austin Gray
As I said: brainlet. (((Rich people))) with ivy league degrees are the ones who have lead our society to moral collapse through modern entertainment media, thus leading to the degeneration and almost disappearance of cinema as an art form. It's not cinema that's corrupted, it's the whole thing. You wanna change artistic aesthetics, you must change moral aesthetics first. You live in a Mammon-worshipping world with monetary needs. Unless you find a loophole to satisfy them, you literally cannot make a film in the terms you describe. Unless you radically invert the political mentality of the masses, nothing like a renaissance of kino can happen.
>(((Rich people))) with ivy league degrees are the ones who have lead our society to moral collapse Sorry, I stopped reading there because I concluded that you are not cognitively or intellectually equipped to hold yourself in a debate with me and I feel that no insight is to be gained by listening to your ramblings. On a personal note, you might find more approval over at /pol/. All the best to you in the future.
Joseph Scott
How much does 70mm film cost per hour? I am willing to factor that in, with an explicit appropriation of the money for film rolls.
Michael Price
>I want to make the most uninteresting movie possible while guaranteeing it will fail
what a dumb idea.
Christian Cooper
>I want to make the most uninteresting movie possible while guaranteeing it will fail
Interesting that you should find intellectually stimulating/engaging films "uniteresting". Maybe your attention span cannot bear it?
>while guaranteeing it will fail
Also quite telling that by "fail" you obviously mean "fail in terms of revenue generated", which, in my opinion is indicative of a very sad and worthy of pity ideology.
Maybe stick to your superhero movies and munch popcorn while at it, while we grown-ups talk?
Lincoln Cook
Imagine spending your day like this. Writing nonsensical bait threads on Yea Forums. Sad.
Noah Gomez
based
post this on letterboxd as a Dogville review to trigger all the trannies and start a shitshow
Jaxson Smith
I, on the other hand, contend that this is time well spent. I feel pity for your sadness, which I claim is misguided and based on a warped view of productivity and purpose.
Jason Thomas
>makes a large effort for this sophisticated viewing experience >make it so a peasant living in thin paper thin walled apartments watching it on a dinky flat screen with no sound set up can enjoy it at the same level
>no hint identity politics >must talk about modern western society
>must include latin that can't be googled despite latin being a dead language that everyone can google >can't include a basic human function because it scares the virgin >most people will be banned from even seeing the movie because almost everyone has seen a "Hollywood Blockbuster" >movies has a break >if this adult version of a baby's cartoon somehow wins an award, the director isn't suppose to go collect it
Your idea is stupid. Just go to the theater instead.
Nathaniel Cox
>any hint at identity politics will be banned
You're not going to be seeing a lot of movies
Jonathan Miller
I shall address your points of concern: >makes a large effort for this sophisticated viewing experience >make it so a peasant living in thin paper thin walled apartments watching it on a dinky flat screen with no sound set up can enjoy it at the same level Yes I think sophisticated works of art heightening our spirits should be available across class borders.
>no hint identity politics >must talk about modern western society Correct on both counts, please note that there is no inherent contradiction in those two requirements
>must include latin that can't be googled despite latin being a dead language that everyone can google People can google latin proverbs. The latin used in Dogme 2020 films must not be one of those proverbs.
>can't include a basic human function because it scares the virgin The part starting at "because" is your own bad-faithed addition and I wonder why you would feel the urge to distort my statement in such a way. If my original statement has flaws, you would not need to resort to underhanded tactics like this one. I should also let you know that I have sex frequently. Furthermore, please note that I do not feel the need to make assumptions about your sex life.
>most people will be banned from even seeing the movie because almost everyone has seen a "Hollywood Blockbuster" Yes. I am eagerly awaiting further statements elaborating on how this should pose a major problem.
>movies has a break Yes. I am eagerly awaiting further statements elaborating on how this should pose a major problem.
>if this adult version of a baby's cartoon somehow wins an award, the director isn't suppose to go collect it Yes. I am eagerly awaiting further statements elaborating on how this should pose a major problem.
>Your idea is stupid. Just go to the theater instead. I'm gonna go ahead and state that you posited no viable arguments allowing for that conclusion.
Nicholas Bennett
>You're not going to be seeing a lot of movies Yes. I am eagerly awaiting further statements elaborating on how this should pose a major problem.
Adam Jackson
There is a contradiction though
Adrian Rivera
What's the point of making strict rules to preserve your specific idea of quality in movies if you're not bothered about watching movies anyway?
Elijah Moore
Please elaborate, in detail, wherein the contradiction lies.
Adam Gutierrez
If nothing else, to make a better world by refining the senses of the audiences.
But the audience's senses won't be refined, because they're not watching many, if any, movies either
Juan Fisher
Making the focus on specifically Western society is in itself a form of identity politics
Jeremiah Williams
Exclusivity is a strong motivator. People will like to be part of this. No because it does not necessarily have to do with identity and mistaking geopolitical thoughts with identity politics is a rather embarassing faux pas of yours. Please refrain from enganging in the discussion if you are not equipped to carry your own weight in it.
Owen Cooper
Be part of what? The people who do get to watch movies? Because that will be no one
William Long
Ok, give me one example of an issue in western society that has nothing to do with identity politics
Easton Russell
Nuclear proliferation.
Tyler Allen
'Geopolitical thoughts' is exactly the same as identity politics
Funny but I’ve been waiting for this to be a thing. Bout time
Luke Cox
Why is nuclear proliferation an issue? Because those with different nationalities (I.e. identities) may pose a threat to us. You cannot have a film about nuclear proliferation without conflict, which requires contrasting identities.
Also, a film about nuclear proliferation in the real world would likely feature Iran or North Korea, neither of which are Western societies. Wouldn't this break your rule of only focusing on Western societies?
Ethan Lewis
I wish you'd taken a real crack at it Here's my Dogme 2020
1) must use a prosumer or consumer grade digital camera made before 2009 2) the characters must be unaware they are in a movie (no quips, no references) 3) each shot must be a minimum of one minute in length (this is one of those rules made to be broken at certain points in a film) 4) all audio must be recorded on location, but any manipulation of the audio is fine 5) no post production vfx 6) the aspect ratio must be 4:3 or similar 7) all sets must be real locations, but props don't have to be 8) lighting must also be solely from the location 9) camera must be handheld 10) the director must not be credited
Benjamin Rogers
>Why is nuclear proliferation an issue? Because those with different nationalities (I.e. identities) may pose a threat to us.
That is a terribly dishonest and contorted sophism and you should feel ashamed over it.
Juan Fisher
Man, everytime Yea Forums wants to act sophisticated they reveal how dumb they really are.
Dylan Myers
>There should be a new filmmaking movement called CŪCKME 2020
>Films that do not(!) engage/overburden the average viewer intellectually Imagine wanting to be coddled like this. Fucking brainlet
Jacob Bennett
>no identity polticis >this entire conspect is based on identity
LMAO, /pol/cels are hilarious.
Robert Campbell
Von Trier is a hack
Kevin Ortiz
Nice digits, but why else would nuclear proliferation be an issue at all if no threat comes of it?
Camden Hughes
My money is on you not being able to explain or provide evidence supporting your conclusion.
Matthew Richardson
Please provide an outline of what a dogme2020 movie would look like. Don't worry, nobody will steal your movie idea.
Joshua Fisher
dogme 95 was an inherently shit movement, about as devoid of talent as punk or any other brainless reactionary movement >art is supposed to be about trivial everyday life imagine if the illiad or the mahabharata was just about tilling the soil and milking the cows
Samuel Walker
Random idea: The first 20 minutes would feature a single scene, without cuts, where a supporting role reads a magazine article about a war out loud. Kinda like the scene in Apocalypse Now Redux where Kurtz reads Time Magazine Sept. 26, 1967 Vol. 90/12: "The War: On the Horizon" (content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837284,00.html). See youtube.com/watch?v=_rBUv7eMTjw Only 20 minutes instead of 3. Also with less polemic comments.
Joseph Miller
>dogme 95 was an inherently shit movement Festen was arguably one of the greatest films of all time and it could only work within the strict constraints mandated by Dogme 95. Please refrain from partaking in discussions about topics where you are not nearly educated enough.
Benjamin Stewart
>Vinterberg "confessed" to having covered a window during the shooting of one scene in The Celebration (Festen). With this, he both brought a prop onto the set and used "special lighting". Not Dogme 95, kys
Asher Hall
How can you have war without polemicy? And war is one of the most obvious examples of identity politics in action.
Anthony Gray
this is pure zack snyder except for point one, based
Nathaniel Lopez
That seems to be an attempt in bad faith to badmouth a work of art by means of overzealous orthodoxy, if I ever saw one. I suggest you try this little tactic of yours among like-equipped minds. You are rather embarassing yourself here.
Xavier Morales
>overzealous orthodoxy, literally what padme 95 was, kys again
Adam Brooks
First of all, it's either "polemic" (noun) or "polemics". And of course you comment on a war without employing polemics.
Nathan Kelly
You still haven't answered my question bro
Justin Gutierrez
I wasn't commenting on a war, I was commenting on the nature of war as a concept, and that seems to be polemic enough given it's clearly rustled your jimmies
Jose Torres
It was neither overzealous in its attempts now orthodox in its stated goals.
Carter Hall
Threats can be envisioned that do not have an aspect of identity politics to it, to return to the original context of your sophistry.
Jason Foster
Such as? There can be no threat without conflict, and all conflict involved in western societal issues is derived from identity politics
Matthew Sullivan
And that also still doesn't answer the question of how nuclear proliferation can be an issue if no threat comes of it
Julian Miller
>20 minutes of reading
No wonder your movie idea needs breaks, its boring as fuck.
Such as the threat of the huge negative impact to the environment and the ecosystem that nuclear proliferation poses, e.g. with the construction of a nuclear power plant. You can watch The Most Electrified Town In Finland (2012) by Mika Taanila for further reference. Look, kid, I'm getting tired of educating you. It's nothing against you personally but I believe you are out of your depth here and you are slowing things down.
William Jones
oh come on now OP is a pretentious shithead (to whom I wish the best of luck) but you can easily decide to focus on another facet of war. Social commentary from external sources will be inevitable but the movie itself can easily not have idpol as a sunject in any way.
Now, as another user pointed out, excplicitly avoiding idpol is in itself a comment on identity politics and at this point it's the best comment anyone could make on the subject.
Ian Reed
As a person routinely reading 1000+ pages books of world literature (the last one being The Man Without Qualities), I politely disagree.
Michael Morales
This is probably the funniest thread i've read in a while. There is more amusement to be found in this thread than in any awful Sneed or Maskpost that the kiddies like to push on this shitboard. Thank you to everyone who has posted in this thread.
Lincoln Gray
That's a worldwide societal issue, not just a western one, thus breaking your rule
And given that such a plant would likely be created by either a corporation or a government, this creates a rich v poor/powerful v powerless identity-based conflict
And if I'm so out of my depth, how come you haven't yet disproved a single one of my points?
Colton Kelly
Literature and movies are different worlds.
Angel Flores
Well we weren't talking about war in that conversation, but what facets of war are unrelated to identity politics?
Connor Torres
You're welcome
Leo Green
>Any hint at identity politics, even the slightest one >even the slightest one that means movies with only white males. Why do you lust for white males so?
Juan Taylor
Have sex.
Dylan Cruz
Please tell me OP is larping my sides can’t take this anymore
John Stewart
I fully approve, and not even in ironic manner.
Leo Foster
Extremely based
Connor Gonzalez
nuclear proliferation is the cleanest of the energy forms.
issues is the non-whites and people who would make bombs
Liam Evans
>Films with less than 120min running time t. capeshit fan
Samuel Cooper
Yep. This one is going in my cringe compilation.
Brayden Scott
>handheld y-uck
Kayden Baker
>1) must use a prosumer or consumer grade digital camera made before 2009 silly.
Joshua James
>1) must use a prosumer or consumer grade digital camera made before 2009 >9) camera must be handheld >10) the director must not be credited Pretty good other than these 3 rules. 1. - If you changed it to 2019, I'd be okay with it. But prosumer/consumer digital cameras from that period have a litany of flaws, most obviously being pattern noise and resolution. There's no real reason for this rule either. It's like the Amish and their view towards technology but even more arbitrary. Personally, I'd change it to saying you can't use a camera that cost more than 3 grand. 9. Static shots can be amazing. Jerky handheld shots can look absolutely terrible. Especially if you struggle to find someone with a steady hand. There should be no reason why you can't put your camera on a cheap ten dollar tripod. I'd amend this in line with the above rule about pricing, to prevent overly elaborate/bulky stabilisation methods from being used 10. I can't see a single reason for this other than to deny the importance of the director. On some films the director is just the exectuive who signs off on everything on set. On other films, the director is the sole driving force that gets the film made. They deserve credit in both cases.
