I thought that some of the ideas presented in Dogma 95 were extremely interesting. However, I am not sure I agree with all of them. I thought that the rule about a film not containing superficial action was funny. But I didn't like the idea of restraining the aesthetic so much, in keeping it in color.
I like the idea of the Lumiere article. It seems that in the simplicity of the videos that it is asking for there could be something really beautiful. When I think of this style of video I think of the very old films when there is no sound and no zoom and people just jump in front of the camera and wave and then go on with their activities. The Lumiere video, to me, seems to represent something nostalgic, almost.
The Mekas Manifesto was, by far, my favorite. I love how he spoke about how videos can be individually based instead of trying to please the broader public. I think that addressing film as a more personal artist outlet is a wonderful idea and that maybe there are more things we should be looking at on a smaller more personal level. Especially with the subject matter and character of our films.

Dogme95 is an extreme twist on today's reality television. In fact, Dogme95 is in every sense of its meaning a reality film. Reading this manifesto made me chuckle at the relative lack of reality we actually see on television. I wonder what these current shows, such as "The Real World," or my personal favorite, "The Hills," would look like if they followed Dogme95. Our reality shows are filled with voice overs, shooting that is done in a studio for visual effect, and the use of special lighting/effects. I do disagree with the hand-held aspect of the shooting. I feel that placing the camera on a tripod would only further the realism of the film.

The Lumiere Manifesto focuses on one's individual ability/desire to contemplate the film. In such, the director does not zoom, use audio, or any effects, in order to convey a specific message. I am not sure as to how the 60 seconds limit plays a role in the Lumiere films. If someone has an opinion, please let me know. Could it simply be to follow the initial principles of the Lumiere brothers?

Truthfully, I found that the Mekas article was not too convincing. The article, first off, was written 12 years ago. The digital era was not as prevalent then. I read Mekas' article as extremely bitter; He does not see that the evolution of the camera and films are beneficial to our society. Maybe he just wants to give some credit to those that deserve it. Nevertheless, Mekas treats current film as non-art and does not give it the credit it deserves.

Reading 4

The Dogme95 manifesto sets out rules to follow to break the cycle of bourgeois film production. These rules include banning of artificial lighting, color, effects and sounds, stating that these are the tools of fake 'high art'. While the approach seems somewhat limiting, it implies that there is absolutely nothing of value to be found in a film which uses these techniques, which I find to be completely wrong. Certainly, technical prowess does not make a movie, but it can help in many ways, and there's nothing wrong with interesting visual stimulation alongside intellectual stimulation. Film still is a visual medium isn't it? Why restrict yourself to filming what the eye can already see (admittedly, not with the same artistic sequencing)?

The Lumiere manifesto has a similar, albeit more tactfully proposed, purpose. Again, while an exciting endeavor - producing film stripped of visual distractions, filled instead only with meaning and 'analytical truth', it falls into the trap of completely denouncing modern techniques as lies, as 'propaganda'.

The Mekas manifesto seems a little outdated, seeing that digital media are becoming an increasingly accepted artform, that video art is quite prevalent, and that many independent filmmakers do get recognition. It's not perfect yet, but it's going somewhere. If this were written 15 years back, maybe they've got a point, but in today's context it seems a little alien.

Sure independent film is nice. But an exploration of the inner soul and of human existence is not all I want from my film experiences. While I do agree that there are many, many works out there which do not function without their cinematic effects, these are also the movies that are dismissed for their stupidity (often...not always).

Reading 3

Both Mao and cage strive for a certain expansion of the mind through the techniques they offer. They specify guidelines which advocate exploration of the world's, physical, personal and interpersonal aspects to give the artist the inspiration with which to use his tools. Both in particular advocate interaction with others, which I myself consider a tremendous help when forming ideas - Creating in a vacuum has always seems impossible.

Reading 4

I found that the manifestos were very different from what I was initially expecting. So much emphasis nowadays is placed upon creating the perfect shot in a movie or producing a "reality" show, when really it is for the most part completely staged. As others before me, I felt that the Dogme95 was the most extreme example of not interfering with what naturally occurs in film- most likely because of the strict outlines that were proposed for making a correct piece of realistic film. While I can see what this manifesto is saying, I don't think that interference from the director as well as music, etc. takes away from the reality of a piece necessarily. The content is still there if one was to film truthfully and adding music or perhaps just showing bits of a documentary type piece would in my opinion, simply enhance the reality of the piece and cause the viewer to think about the intent more.
Overall though, I found the Lumiere most relatable and understandable. While I don't necessarily have anything against editing, I can most definitely enjoy the simple and realistic documentary (American Movie is a good one). Watching a piece for 60 seconds with no editing, music, etc. seems like something that could be completely inspiring if done the right way, and I enjoyed the stress placed upon the simplicity of life and how simply a butterfly flapping its wings could be earth shattering.

Reading 4

The Dogme95 manifesto was definitely the most radical of the three, and the least helpful compared to the other two. Probably mainly because of the didactic and pretentious voice of the author, which seemed to cause his statement to sound almost ridiculous.

I liked the Mekas manifesto for it's emphasis on the 'invisible history'; Mekas did a good job of providing credit where it was due and providing a general overview of the controversies of the history of film. The Lumiere manifesto was also interesting because of the honest nature of making towards a kind of purified film genre, where the general documentary genre is approached more carefully with the artist's eye. To me, that is a fun way of approaching film, with a parameter to achieve a certain goal. At the same time, i think a good film can still be humble, as the Lumiere manifesto strives for, while having a more flexible palatte available.

Reading 4

After reading all the manifestos I found that most of them were very similar. Even though they seemed very similar I think that the rules to follow from Dogme95 were definitely the most radical. The medium had developed extremely fast and has/is becoming more and more accessable. Like still images I feel that perfect images can be created.
I found it interesting that all of the manifestos focus on the representation of people and spaces as it is occurring instead of using special effects. Today people are don't realize how much film has changed and that today we are exposed mostly to hollywood films. Mekas manifesto mentions, people aren't exposed to other independent films that don't incorporate special effects because they dont appeal to the popular expectations that Hollywood has created. Basically it comes down to the fact that the market is made for the consumer and this makes it difficult for directores to go against what makes money and gains recognition thus making independent films hard to notice in a society where Hollywood is taking over the movie making industry.

Reading 4

All the manifestos where very similar. I think that the Dogme95 was the most "radical" of the three as far as the specific rules that one had to follow. It is incredible how fast this medium has developed and how accessable it is to everyone. I feel that just as with still images, the makers can create perfect images for sake of asthethiics, but I think that more and more people are focusing on everyday life.( this can still be the part of peoples life the creator wants us to see.)
I like that all of them focus of the pure reprentations of people and spaces as they happend or as for some that the settings are real and not to be created with a green screen.
I feel that today we are mostly exposed to hollywood films and that just as the mekas manifesto mentions, we are not exposed to other independent films that do not dependt on special effects because they do not meet the popular expectation.
We are in a consumer era and it is very hard for directors to shy away from money and popularity and recognition, wich makes it difficult for others to stand out.

Reading 3

Both readings are helpful. They are good guidelines for keeping an open mind when starting a new project. Specially for those of us who do not have as much experience with video and some photoshop feature. Its good to know that experimenting is OK and that making mistakes is acceptable. I lot of times we get caught over analysing everything we do instead of just doing it and then step back and analyse what we have done.