The Vow of Chastity: Festen's Formal Commitment to Social Commentary.

I still vividly remember watching my first “Dogme 95” film (I use inverted commas as I realise that Lars Von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark does not exactly classify as an official Dogme 95 film) right at the beginning of my summer vacation three years ago. It was recommended and described to me by the shopkeeper of my local DVD rental place as a striking and powerful picture, so naturally my eager, impressionable and uninformed fifteen year old self was immediately sold. Despite the low-spirited start to my school holiday due to the lingering melancholy the film had abandoned me with, I was able to recognize the eminence and layered social analysis carried by the cinematic work, and my overpowering appreciation for the film snowballed into me developing an acute fascination for the film movement and style. I even decided to write my high school graduating essay on the salient motif of despair within Von Trier’s Golden Heart trilogy, however my work’s thematic focus strayed away from the movement’s primary intention of social engagement. Prompted by my university syllabus, this year I watched Thomas Vinterberg’s Festen, and apart from the slight similarities to some of my family gatherings, I noticed continuous nods to greater social issues made apparent through Vinterberg’s obedience to Dogme 95’s filmic guidelines, leaving me once again in awe of the ruminative qualities, potency and ethics of the film style and ultimately of cinema as a whole. 

Founded by the two Danish film directors and screenwriters Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg in 1995, “Dogme 95 is a rule-governed, back-to-basics film initiative” devised to counter the fantastical and fictional tendencies of Hollywood cinema at the time. With Hollywood still reaping the financial rewards from the striking and sensationalist pictures that constituted its Blockbuster era, von Trier and Vinterberg’s contempt for the direction cinema was taking manifested in the development of a movement whose dedication “to truth, authenticity, realism and contemporaneity” worked to subvert Hollywood’s cinema “of illusions, trickery and predictability.” Being heavily rooted in realism, the narratives of Dogme 95 films “deal with actual contemporary life issues so as to criticise and question the social, political and ideological” contexts of the time and place of their production; establishing the Dogme 95 movement not only as a “cinematic intervention” but also as a channel for social commentary. In order to fulfil their “proposed means of countering the film of illusion” and to consequently engage with social issues in a truthful manner, von Trier and Vinterberg devised the Dogme 95 manifesto, a written statement composed of three sections. The second part, titled ‘the Vow of Chastity’, contains ten formal rules directors creating films in accordance with the movement had to submit to. The stylistic criteria enforced location shooting, use of diegetic sound, hand-held cinematography, Academy 35 mm format whilst forbidding geo-temporal alienation, the incorporation of special lighting, optical work, genre codes, ostensible actions and the crediting of directors. Thus, by stripping a film of its mainstream aesthetic conventions the filmmaking team behind a Dogme 95 production would “force the truth out of [its] characters and settings'', essentially setting up a blank canvas for social issues to be exhibited and for social commentary to emerge. Thomas Vinterberg’s 1998 film Festen was the first “to have been certified under the rigours of the Vow of Chastity”, and tells the story of a family reuniting at their father’s birthday celebration, during which his secrets come to light. Although the film’s narrative is primarily concerned with the family’s unfolding conflict, Vinterberg uses the family’s tumultuous dynamics as a microcosm for the increasing prevalence of racism and facism in 1990s Denmark due to the emergence of populist groups, who strongly supported the Danish monarchy and rejected immigration and multiculturalism within Denmark. Considering Vinterberg’s directorial intentions behind his accredited Dogme 95 film will allow for its distinct formal style to be examined in accordance with the film’s ambitions of social analysis and therefore help determine the movement’s efficiency and significance as a medium for commentary.

With the purpose of critiquing the prevalence of racist and fascist thought within late twentieth century Danish society, Vinterberg abides to the Vow of Chastity by incorporating location shooting, hand-held cinematography and diegetic sound within Festen. The theme of racism is highly prevalent in Festen during the scene in which Helene’s boyfriend, Gbatokai arrives at the birthday dinner and Michael, confused as to who he is, attempts to distance him from the family home. Initially a tame interaction, tensions quickly rise once Michael takes jabs at Gbatokai by calling him racist nicknames and referencing racial stereotypes. Vinterberg captures this encounter using a series of hand-held, over the shoulder shots, which aid him in juxtaposing the opposing sides engaged in the argument. When filming Gbatokai from over Michael’s shoulder the camera follows Michael’s agitated body movements, making the hand-held shots appear more jittery than when Vinterberg is shooting from the perspective of the calm and static Gbatokai. By carrying out immoderate and angsty camera movements when depicting him, Vinterberg visually renders the distress Michael experiences when interacting with an individual of a different race, establishing Michael’s character as a testament to Danish far-right political beliefs. Thus, by cinematically portraying Gbatokai as more collected, his peaceful characterisation transcends the film’s narrative, allowing Vinterberg to represent the diplomacy and non-aggression with which immigrants enter a foreign country. Essentially expressing his support for open immigration by demonstrating its harmless nature in a climate in which migrants were perceived as “a serious threat against [Denmark’s] distinctive national character.”

Throughout the sequence, the camera’s lack of stability causes many of the shots to have an off-centred subject, resulting in the background becoming the shot’s focal point. Due to Vinterberg’s abidance to Dogme 95’s location shooting rule, the family house and the open backdrop seep into frame, granting Festen’s unfabricated mise en scene social significance. By setting Michael’s racist actions to the background of the home, his attempt to distance Gbatokai for his family’s privacy acquires a wider implication. Michael, who has already been recognised as an allegorical site for conservative Danish politics, aggressively defends the house’s seclusion from an outsider, causing the house to adopt institutional and monarchical connotations and for Michael’s behaviour to be perceived as a reflection of Danish right-wing supporters’ aim to safeguard Denmark’s “national identity” from multiculturalism. Contrastingly, the bare surroundings Gbatokai is set against are representative of the underdeveloped and deprived environments many immigrants hope to escape from by seeking refuge in a foreign country, aiding Vinterberg in conveying his sympathy for displaced persons and also reaffirming his work’s primary objective of social commentary. Moreover, the entirety of this scene is accompanied by the diegetic sound of the taxi’s running motor. Although its noise is soft and overpowered by the scene’s dialogue, its rumbling and resonant sound substantiates the charged and aggressive nature of Michael and Gbatokai’s interaction, echoing the socio-political tension erupting in 1990s Denmark.

However, the racial prejudice Gbatokai is initially met with from Michael swiftly evolves into blatant discrimination. Following Christian’s forceful and violent dismissal from the family function, Gbatokai provokes Michael by praising his absent brother’s righteous actions, triggering Michael to retaliate by singing a racist folk song. As required by the Vow of Chastity, Michael’s and the rest of the family’s strong intolerance for Gbatokai is concretized through heavily spasmodic camera movements which are applied to shots framing various members of the family joining Michael in song. Although the cinematography conveys similar meaning within the racially charged scene previously mentioned, its accentuation in movement and scattered use to provide secondary characters with interiority, mimics the ferocity and dissemination of bigotry in Denmark, an attitude Vinterberg is aware and highly critical of. Paradoxically, Gbatokai is yet again captured in restrained shots compared to Michael despite the escalation of his abuse. The light movements that come as an inevitable result of the required handheld cinematography technique relay Gbatokai’s restlessness and apprehension within the context of the scene, yet the overall stillness of his shots seize the hopelessness and lack of action Gbatokai can take against racism as a minority in a foreign country. The socially engaged cinematography is accompanied with the diegetic audio of the family singing; the untouched recording picks up their loud clapping and stomping, resulting in the creation of an vehement and aggressive sonic atmosphere that adds depth to Vinterberg’s perception of an extremist and exclusionary Denmark. Additionally, by situating this scene on location, within the dining room of the family home, a location which metaphorically alludes to Vinterberg’s country of origin, Vinterberg identifies “ethnonationalist xenophobia” as being a centralised political affair with its roots in the Danish parliament, as opposed to just  being an issue of ignorance amongst Danish civilians. 

With regards to Festen’s fascist discourse, the issue is explicitly raised during the film’s apotheosis in which Christian storms into the dining room to further expose his father’s acts of sexual abuse and condemn his mother’s bystanding. To stay true to the Vow of Chastity, Vinterberg continues to employ hand-held shooting throughout this scene. As Christian is forcefully removed from the house by Michael and others of “his father’s loyalists”, the camera interjects the momentous scene by being located right in the middle of the action. Vinterberg’s strategic placement of the cinematographer makes him vulnerable to collision and impact with the actors, agitating the shots thoroughly and assigning social implications to the camera’s utilisation. Through the execution of heavily perturbed shots, Vinterberg amplifies the violent and threatening consequences Christian faces as a result of his justifiable objection to his family’s troubled dynamics whilst also making reference to a principle characteristic of a fascist regime, the forcible and brutal suppression of rebellion. This scene’s Dogme 95 specific cinematography is also coupled with unaltered diegetic sound, who’s utilisation causes Christian’s yelling to be overpowered by the voices of the men carrying him away; once again alluding to the subduing of opposing voices or thoughts within fascist rule. Furthermore, the restriction to set and shoot this scene within the family house, a defined emblem for the Danish legislature, sheds light onto and ultimately criticises the growing tolerance for fascist behaviour within the Danish government. 

Another notable (but solely optical) nod to Fascism can be noticed during the mother’s, Else, stifling speech which she primarily uses to praise Christian’s imagination and creative abilities in order to reduce the credibility of his jarring accusations. Else’s monologue is performed within the confines of a close up shot that assigns visual importance to her head and shoulders, emulating the depiction of Fascist authorities and leaders in propagandistic art during World War II which commonly portrayed stylised renderings of their upper bodies. Else’s speech is delivered in a fragmented manner, with occasional reaction shots of Christian, not only disrupting the scene’s visual continuity but also creating a dichotomy in their portraiture. Else’s ‘talking head’, who here is being perceived by Christian, is motionless despite being filmed handheld, whilst the shots containing Christian are significantly more mobile. This nuanced manipulation of Dogme 95’s staple cinematography uncovers Festen’s Fascist subtext by denoting that Else, the segment’s Fascist symbol, desires to inflict discomfort and insecurity upon Christian so as to prevent him from causing further damage to the family’s reputation. Christian on the other hand, undisputedly the opposing agent, fearlessly resists her threats and manages to stay true to his heroic intentions, permitting Vinterberg to replicate a Fascist dynamic within his socially burdensome film and urge his Danish viewers to question and rebel against the country’s controversial politics.

Ultimately, Dogme 95’s distance from the codes and conventions of popular cinema at the time and the radical cinematic experience it provides, causes the movement to become a medium of its own; a medium that embraces and prioritises cinema’s neglected potential for activism instead of its oversaturated use for escapism. Vinterberg’s complete submission to the manifesto’s stripped down style has allowed Festen’s foremost socio-political issues to transparently reveal themselves to its viewers. It is also due to his efficient manipulation of Dogme 95’s three most perceptible cinematic qualities that he was able to deepen his criticism of social dynamics and consequently produce thought-provoking and sincere social commentary. Therefore, establishing the Dogme 95 movement as an undeniably important medium for social commentary whilst also being meaningful and captivating in its form.

Filmography:

1. Festen (Thomas Vinterberg, 1998).

Works cited:

1. Livingston, Paisley. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film. London: Routledge, 2008. 

2. Giralt, Gabriel. “Dogme 95 and the Reality of Fiction.” Kinema 20, (Fall 2003): 113-119. 

3. Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, “The Manifesto,” (Copenhagen, 1995).

4. Goss, Brian Michael. “Rebel Yell: The Politics of The Celebration/Festen (1998).” Studies in European Cinema 6, no. 2 (Winter 2009): 215-227. 

5. Rydgren, Jens. “Radical Right-wing Populism in Denmark and Sweden; Explaining Party System Change and Stability.” The SAIS Review of International Affairs 30, no.1 (Winter-Spring 2010): 57-71. 

6. Thomson, Claire. Thomas Vinterberg’s Festen. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2013.