Playing the Waves : Lars von Trier's Game Cinema

Abstract

Playing the Waves scenes like simulation plays, and he treats stories as reiterations of always the same game (which went unnoticed by film theorists and critics, but which is quite familiar to game theorists).The most important point this book wants to make is that, contrary to an often heard post-modern maxim that states that 'everything has already been done' in the arts in general and film in particular and that artists and filmmakers can only recycle bits and pieces from the past, there are still filmmakers capable of launching a genuine 'new wave' in filmmaking.All it takes is a new perspective to be able to see that.New perspectives always need to be sharpened, adjusted and fine-tuned.I am much obliged to my colleagues at the NWO-funded research group 'Digital Games' for discussing chapter drafts from the book, also my Department for Media Studies colleagues and students at the University of Amsterdam for their patience and comments in seminars and lectures and Thomas Elsaesser for making the English language publication of this book possible. Amsterdam, March  20Playing the WavesVon Trier and Vinterberg also emphasise that the Manifesto is not aimed at young or novice filmmakers, but atProfessional directors who might need to have a 'purifying' filmmaking experience.In fact, it is not advisable for first-time feature film directors to make a Dogme  film, because one has to be aware of the difference of making a conventional film and making a dogme film.Furthermore, they have also invited directors like Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg to make Dogma films (Kelly : ).Moreover, Dogma  has not rejected the whole of the Nouvelle Vague.According to Kristian Levring, maker of the Dogma # film The King is Alive and one of the founding brothers of Dogma , Godard ought to be the chairman of Dogma  because À Bout de Souffle (Fr ) '(is) probably the best Dogma film that could be made' (in Kelly : ).So, the Dogma  rules do not seem to arise out of a concern for 'reality',asin the aesthetic of André Bazin, or out of a concept of the 'essence' of film, or indeed out of an effort to employ unconventional means in order to bring about the viewer's alienation by presenting reality in less familiar ways.Rather, they are intended to have a therapeutic effect on professional filmmakers who want to purify themselves of conventional cinematic practices, clearing the way for a concept of acceptable film broader than that which prevails today.Von Trier feels that filmmakers ought to be able to ... look at Dogma and think 'If that's a film, then we can make films too'.Instead of just thinking, 'Oh, if it doesn't look like Star Wars, then we can't make a film' (Kelly : ).To banish this illusion the rules prescribe a kind of detox for professional filmmakers, a cold turkey experience, like that undergone by pop musicians in MTV's Unplugged under the motto 'No electric guitars.No keyboards.No special effects' (see Stevenson : ). The filmmaker must forgo all 'cosmetics', all technical tools and stylistic devices that distract the filmmaker from his or her most essential instruments: the actors and the story.Again, certain effects are banned not for their own sake but for the reasons they are usually employed.The restrictions are intended not to curb, but to stimulate:These unusual production circumstances give both restriction and freedom to the director, who is forced to be creative.You eliminate the possibility to 'save' a horrible, not functioning scene with underlying music or voice-over.You have to come up with creative solutions to get, for example, music into your film (von Trier and Vinterberg b).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.