Dogme

I have just seen a film by a director who was a member of Dogme 95 and, I can tell you, it was very good. Called "The Hunt", it was about a youngish man who is accused of a sexual act against a young girl of about six years old and the dreadful consequences of the accusation: people in the village where he lives turn against him, at first just spurning him but later turn violently acting against him. That the accusation is false does nothing to prevent his downfall since, once the accusation has been made, then everyone believes it - no smoke without fire, sort of thing.
The gripping drama of the man's despair and later, when he's on the edge of insanity, is most compelling because in this day and age anyone could find himself (not often herself) facing a similar sort of dilemma. What do you if a child makes an accusation of sexual harassment against you? The child is always believed or even if he or she isn't, the police feel forced to investigate the matter and you find yourself in a similar position to the main character in this film.
Dogme filmmakers set out to go back to basic filmmaking concentrating on story, acting and theme. They set out in a sort of charter called "The Dogme 95 Manifesto" their rules for creating films: all films on location; hand-held cameras; no sound but real sound; no superficial action e.g. murders, weapons; director not credited and so on. No special effects.
The manifesto it seems was dropped in 2005 and the film-makers like Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg are a bit less inclined to keep to the rules they set out originally though the technique is basically the same: hand-held camera, no special effects and so on.
It works. You do get involved in the story and feel for the characters who are caught up in the action.
After seeing "Skyfall", this was a tonic even though the mood of the film is bleak.