In recent years a ghost of industrialization has haunted the word of film. What we wish to define with the term industrialization is a substantial change in attitude toward a subject or activity, and we do not wish to confuse industrialization with commercialization.

Film production was the first victim of the recent appearance of industrialization. The role of the producers has changed dramatically, particularly in the attempts of producers to create film budgets that reach the outer parameters of the possible. For evidence of this we point to the enormous increases in film budgets in relationship to the quality of films being produced.

Distribution has also fallen victim to industrialization, with an obvious tendency to radically influence the content and form of films. Recently, a prevailing number of big-budget, low quality productions have coincided with the development of multiplexes, which we believe illustrate a fundamental change in the attitude of filmmakers toward the audience.

A final victim of the industrialization of film is the film festival – an event originally designed to protect film from industrialization. The enormous influence of producers has entered this final protective defense of film, and symptoms of gradual industrialization have begun to appear in festivals. Increased budgets and the attempts of producers to influence programming are only two examples of the most visible symptoms.

PROTECTION
To date, the most distinctive example of a measure designed to protect film from encroaching industrialization is DOGME 95 – the manifest of a group of Danish filmmakers. DOGME 95 has worked to express a desire to change a director’s attitude toward his/her work. DOGME 95 has pushed for a strengthening of a director’s responsibility for the final result of filmmaking, and a weakening of producer’s role in this process. DOGME 95 has served as the inspiration for this manifesto, and can serve to encourage other such manifestos, aimed at protecting film festivals and the distribution process from industrialization.

DOGME 2002 – FESTIVALS
In the past several years, we have noticed an increasing number of film festivals and large film exhibitions. We believe this illustrates the encroachment of industrialization, as the following statements will show:
Festival budgets have grown, accompanying the development of new companies that derive profit from festival budgets.
Festival atmospheres have changed: films have become products, and festivals standard trade fairs. This statement is supported by the prevailing developmental participation of large sponsors in festival planning.
New barriers have been created between ‘normal’ audiences and ‘special’ groups of festival participants (journalists, VIPs, guests, sponsors, etc.).
New obstacles have been created between the audience and participating filmmakers. An illustration of this statement is the replacement of the traditional ‘Question and Answers’ session with a press conference, open only to VIPs and journalists.
Available information about films has been continuously simplified, festival catalogues resemble fair guides with prevalent commercials and pictures, and form has replaced content as the dominant virtue.
An accent has been placed on side programs (e.g. concerts, performances, private parties), to which ‘normal’ audiences are not invited.
An increasing number of festivals have been introduced, paradoxically, creating a specific distribution of films. New festivals concentrate mainly on new films, making many festival programs very much alike. In a growing number of examples, one film appears in numerous festivals, creating a lucrative distribution chain for the film producer. A paradox presents itself in the fact that new festivals actually prevent many films from being distributed, the opposite of the intended goal of film festivals.
Due to industrialization, a natural tendency for film festivals to cooperate with each other has disappeared, and a spirit of competition has developed, preventing an exchange of experience and ideas between festivals.

Locating objective proof of the industrialization of film festivals is difficult, as it is with filmmaking and distribution. Festival organizers can always find ways to justify the above-mentioned tendencies in order to make them seem natural and understandable. This is why—as was the case with DOGMA 95—we believe it is necessary to develop a basic set of rules to protect festivals from the negative tendencies of industrialization. The impetus for abiding by these rules and protecting the purity of festivals must come from the individual festival organizers. Festival organizers must realize they will be under a certain degree of public pressure, and will have to resolve transgressions arising from signing declarations, as was the case with DOGMA 95. Festival DOGME can serve as an outer framework for a collective festival conscience, but ultimate responsibility for action rests with the individual festival organizers.

SET OF RULES BY DOGME 2002
Below is the first motion of rules that is subject to change and specification.

1 DISCRIMINATION
1.1Dividing films into ‘new’ and ‘old’ categories must be stopped
Dividing films into categories of ‘new’ and ‘old’ is typical for many new events and festivals. In many cases ‘new’ films are given exclusive priority, with little to no criticism. The possibility to directly compare ‘new’ and ‘old’ films, a standard method of determining the merit of a film, has been neglected by festival organizers.

1.2 The barrier of distinctions between audience members and festival participants (VIPs must be destroyed)
The biggest injustice committed by festival organizers in past years is the division of the audience. More and more participants have become attracted by non-film related privileges and special events, e.g. VIP status, parties, etc. These participants are not attracted by films or the opportunity to interact with filmmakers, and their presence in the paying film audience creates and unhealthy festival atmosphere.

1.3 A festival program should be intended mainly for the audience
The number of not-paying audience members must never be larger that the paying audience. The paying audience should not be prevented from attending facets of the festival (ceremonies, discussions, etc.) by the non-paying audience.

2. LOGIC
2.1 The formation of more fully developed and integrated festival sections
Many festivals divide films into specialized sections, but these sections are broad and rely solely on general film classifications (e.g. competing films, documentaries, animated films, etc.). The possibility of grouping films according to non-traditional categories (e.g. literary adaptations, musicals, theater) is neglected. This natural way of integrating cross genre films can be instigated as a way of attracting a new type of audience to a film. From this non-traditional format of developing festival sections, many new enthusiasts and critics will be opened to previously neglected films.

2.2 The liquidation of film competitions
The growing number of film festivals has been accompanied by a growing number of film awards. The sheer number of these new awards has taken away from their uniqueness and perceived quality. In many cases, films appear in competition that are not considered to be of a high or artistic quality. The attention that these unsuitable films in competition receive takes away from the perception of other films. In many cases, these new film competitions and prizes diminish the reputation of many films in competition.

2.3 Non-film presentations as part of the program
Non-film, side presentations should contribute to a logical part of the festival and should not simple serve as a special event for a specific group of chosen attendants.

3. RESPECT
3.1 ‘Question and Answer’ sessions, open to the entire festival audience, should replace press conferences
Instead of only being introduced to audiences at the beginning of a film showing, filmmakers present at festivals should participate in full ‘Question and Answer’ sessions.

3.2 Concentrating efforts on the creation and distribution of quality texts that fully describe all festival films and invited guests
We feel that many film festivals have neglected the content of festival publications, in particular the catalogue and daily publications. Many publications are quite rich in form (colorful presentation, expensive paper), but very little investment has been made into the content of these publications. Critical information about the festival films is short and unprofessional, a fact that is disguised by large, colorful photos. As more and more sponsors’ advertisements are included, festival catalogues bring to mind catalogues of specialized goods—where presentation is more important that content.

4. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
4.1 Festivals should aim at keeping within the parameters of the lowest possible expenditure (maximum USD 500,000)
Main expenditures of the festival should focus on acquiring films, publishing professional-quality journals and other costs related to developing quality programs. The above-mentioned total corresponds to the cost of buying 20-30 feature films for nationwide distribution—a total that also correlates to 20-30 films being presented in a festival.

4.2 Reduction of a sponsor’s share in programming influence
A sponsor’s share of financial responsibility cannot exceed 50% of a festival budget. It is important not to allow sponsors financial dominance in festivals in order to prevent the above-mentioned festival negligence (categorization of the audience, uninformative publications, unrelated private events and screenings, etc.).

Jiri Kralik + Ivo Andrle
February 4, 2002