At first sight the film is plain idiotic. But there must be a second sight. The second sight is the manifesto behind the film I say the manifesto but certainly not the project because it has no objective OR destination whatsoever.The manifesto first:I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 95: 1- Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found). 2- The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.) 3- The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. 4- The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera.) 5- Optical work and filters are forbidden. 6- The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.) 7- Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.) 8- Genre movies are not acceptable. 9- The film format must be Academy 35 mm. 10- The director must not be credited. 11- Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. 12- My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations. Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY. Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995 On behalf of DOGMA 95 Lars von Trier Thomas VinterbergThe concept of Chastity seems to imply all they refuse is for them nothing but a rape. They are raped by the camera, the director-dom, the actor-dom, etc. In other words they dream about making films without any cinema technology. They thus reduce their films to a mirage inside a delusion. And yet here is one film they made.The film is an absolute illustration of these principles. It describes a voluntary community, if not a commune of some sort, of people systematically called, in the English subtitles since the film is in Danish, idiots, retards and other nice terms of this type. All the actors are acting their own parts, their own reality, their own truth. The retards in the film are retards in society. Does this bring any truth?These people who are going to a restaurant and acting their mental and behavioral handicap against the personnel and the customers in order to be kicked out, after eating of course, without paying does not reveal anything true or truthful since these people are playing what they are to gain an advantage. This is thus a big lie and nothing but racket. In fact it reveals that the only decent people are more or less the innocent witnesses who actually accept the disturbance with patience or even accept to help the differently-abled persons with some empathy and care, like two tattooed bikers who actually take one of them who had been "entrusted" to them by his "educator" to the toilet and help him urinate without any fishiness. Of course the fact that it is filmed is the proof it is all a lie. Too bad for Lars von Trier: we know there is a camera filming the scene that has probably been rehearsed several times.The only moment when we may think something slightly enlightening is provided is at the end when an officially normal woman who is under a strong post-traumatic stress syndrome due to the death of her infant tries to go back to her husband and family. She is accepted, including the real handicapped woman who accompanies her, and yet she is unable to cope and she plays retard with catastrophic consequences. When we know she had escaped into that commune on the day before the funeral of her own child, we can measure how deep her Trauma was but that has little to do with mental handicap.This Dogma thing seems to me to be extremely over-rated.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Idioterne (1998): As I watched the film, I told myself a thousand times, this is definitely a Von Trier film. It is strange, it is provocative, and of course there are scenes where people are actually having sex, no not faking, but actually having sex. Von Trier is one of the few people who can bring such images into a film and make it into a strangely enigmatic film.To be precise, Lars Von Trier wrote the film. However, the activities that are in the plot are just a bit too important. The film has two things. One, it is a great experience. This film could have been Paosolini's 'Salo', in which I hate because even though there is perfection all around, the film is simply a bit too hard to enjoy because of the over the top violence. 'Idioterne' however, is actually quite fun to watch. I can see how some of the moments in the film might have been controversial, but it doesn't go to the extent of being disturbing. It isn't too sexual. It is simply a fun film.The other thing is the theme of the film. Beneath all the chaos, there is still a theme. The problem is, I do not understand the film yet. I simply had such a compelling experience that I haven't really thought about the film. It is so hard to think while watching this film. But let's try. The film is about a group of people intentionally being idiots because they think that it is deep to bring out the inner idiot that is inside everyone and pass around. But that's when it came to themselves and people they didn't know. In the end, when they came back to their original life, they realize how silly they're actions were and how embarrassing it was. But for some reason, a lady who just came into the group, spassed around the moody house in which her family lived. Of course, everybody thought she was insane, but she didn't care. She was the only one who could pass, and she was only in the group for 2 weeks.I can simply say that the film is trying to say that everybody does have an idiot inside of them. It's just how you control it. And I can easily see how much conversation and theories can come out of the film.But for me, it's more of an experience film. It usually was with Palme' Dor nominees. The film is quite a lot of fun. It may disgust you, it may alienate you. However, I had so much fun. I will admit, I was quite alienated myself. But no matter, that simply means that the film is not perfect.3.5/4

At the close of Cannes 2011; Lars Von Trier's reputation as one of the most gifted yet controversial film makers around was firmly intact hitting new levels of outrageousness; however, it wasn't the first time he has managed to get the crowd at arguably the world's most prestigious film festival talking. In 1998 The Idiots aka Dogme #2 made its debut causing mass controversy; mass criticism; and mass discussion. Naturally for a film which caused such a stir it's an unusual watch. It's a strange sensation to be made to feel uncomfortable yet totally engrossed in a film and stranger still, feeling guilty for enjoying it. The term "guilty pleasure" is usually used to hide embarrassment e.g. captain of the school sports team loves a chick flick; yet here the term really is applicable.Credit to the cast who participated largely unaware of what the script would demand of them. We are introduced to Karen (Bodil Jørgensen, playing the films and our conscience) who is then caught up in an anti- middle class gang who spend their time in public 'spassing' out; in other words, pretending to be disabled (PC alarm bells ringing from the off then) in order to release their inner "idiots". Rule three of Dogme 95; a hand-held camera, works particularly well; from the off we are thrown right into the heart of the group, we might as well be made to feel as if we are documenting it.The film certainly makes an interesting comment on how social behaviour can restrict us and, for lack of a better word, the "licence" given to those struggling with mental illnesses to behave more outlandishly. The character's main release is to pose as those without social confinements in public; however the gang eventually do away with only doing it in view of the public eye; is it a hobby or an addiction? Certainly different members of the group enter into it with different motifs and levels of seriousness.The Dogme 95 movement on the whole polarised audiences so to say that The Idiots; one of the most famous of all Dogme films, will not be to everyone's tastes is an understatement. The actual subject matter will be off putting to some; a topic such as this being played for laughs in certain parts makes for uncomfortable viewing; even more so due to the fact that it is funny. The film also asks the question of how disabled citizens are treated by society; nearly fifteen years on and it isn't hard to imagine people still being perturbed at the thought of allowing mentally disabled yet completely harmless people to walk around their garden. Throughout the film Von Trier gives us uncomfortable laughs; mocks the middle class attitude to the disabled; and manages to throw in a shockingly graphic orgy. All of this building up to a real emotional sucker punch of a climax. It isn't until the closing scenes that the film stops trying to provoke the audience's brain and instead aims straight for the heart. If nothing else, The Idiots will get you talking; as if Von Trier would have it any other way. 8/10

The first thing that has to be said is that The Idiots is definitely NOT for simple entertainment. But yet I doubt there is any other film out there quite like it...Von Trier is a great director, able to get the best possible performances from his actors. Unlike the other films that I have seen from him, the performances here come from the ensemble cast as a whole, and each is powerful in their own way. There is not one false note here. When reading the plot I thought that maybe this would be Von Trier's funniest film. Yet I was wrong. If anything, the obvious Dogme movement gives it an affecting and shocking look. I have to note that the plot itself is quite brave and completely unnerving, which is why I think that this is perhaps his most challenging film yet, and in a way, his most disturbing. From the five films that I have seen from him, this probably ranks last, just because as a film it doesn't quite get going, yet by the ending it still manages to have a great effect.