MovieChat Forums > Dogma (1999) Discussion > Another mark of Smith's banality

Another mark of Smith's banality

posted 14 years ago by model-ford
29 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen Dogma for years but was prompted to write something after being forced to sit through Clerks 2.

I chose Dogma because it was the movie that plunged the nail in the coffin for me in regards to Smith's surprisingly successful career.

I know Dogma is a big thing for Smith fans but it was such a hackneyed, lazy, low brow, self indulgent turd that I truly can't understand why.

Did I expect too much after the hilarious (when I was 16) Clerks?

Dogma is trite, forced, laborious and worst of all unfunny.

The problem with Smith is, and this infects all his movies, he thinks his mundane observations on life can sustain not just two or three hours, but a whole catalogue of films.

Clerks worked because it was fresh, amateurish, and somewhat fearless. It was the first time audiences were exposed to Smith. He came out and said this is what I think about censorship/porn, jocks, religion, the system. It was a movie about rebellion and this resonated with a lot of white 15 year old males. But you can't make movie after movie on the same premise. Filmmakers are meant to grow (Cohen brothers) and take audiences with them. In this sense those 15-year-olds who followed Smith, and who he owes his career to, have been cheated. His thoughts on Christians (and I'm an atheist) are the same he had 15 years ago. Yet he still has his faithful followers shell out to see them writ large, yet again.

His growth, or lack of it, as a filmmaker is outpaced by his budgets. When $10,000 (Clerks) suddenly becomes $10 million (Dogma) and yet all you get are the same gags, surely audiences have a right to feel cheated and short-changed.

I feel sorry for Smith. I'm sure sitting through one of his films is as frustrating and unpleasant for him as it is for me. Here is a filmmaker who tried to branch out (Jersey Girl) but failed catastrophically. This forced him to revert back to dick jokes and resort to Hollywood mechanisms – sequels, star cameos – to sustain a career. The very things he thrashed against in Clerks. He wants to be taken seriously as a filmmaker but at the same time uses gay jokes and bestiality to get a laugh. While this is quite obviously a sign of a director lacking vision or inspiration Smith claims these devices are his way of keeping it real, a kind of ‘hey I’m still the same guy I was 20 years ago, success hasn’t changed me’. Damn straight.

And that’s where my real annoyance with Smith comes from. If he just put his hand up and admitted to being lucky because he built a career off one film and now gets paid to do what he loves, I’d be happy. Instead he is a conceited git who tries to pass off his films as something more than uninspired garbage. I see his latest film is about a cop (Bruce Willis) whose baseball card is stolen. Oh the hilarity

[–] astindextor 14 years ago

Cool story bro =)

[–] spliced-1 14 years ago

he admits to the things you say he should admit on his podcast : smodcast
he IS lucky and also he made dogma for the money and does not consider himself to be the caliber of coen brothers

[–] sramanik 14 years ago

Agreed 100%.

It's really hard for me to understand how on earth someone could throw this pretentious, forced, clumsy, very lazy,and yeah, *terribly* unfunny effort at people and get away with it. Is it the pretty faces of hollywood superstars that just hypnotizes people into thinking it must be great, or is there really such a wide audience of modern day beavis & buttheads cracking up every time someone says "*beep*"? argh, this movie just gave me a headache... even calling it a movie feels a bit weird.

(i sat through the boredom out of mild curiosity raised by alanis-morrissette-as-god... what a waste. ah, the almighty showed up all sassy and made everything good again! what a great witty twist!)

1/10...

[–] Zorro-3 14 years ago

And it was DOGMA!

Didn't care for Clerks. Probably becase I was well over fifteen when I saw it. You seem to notice only the low-brow part of Dogma. There's a lot of intelligence in there too. Particularly when Rufus and Serendipity (and to a certain extent, the Metatron) are talking. It isn't all dick and fart jokes like Clerks, Clerks II and Mallrats. But very funny and biting social and theological commentary.

And the scene in the Mooby boardroom... I thought I'd bust a gut! And not because of any low-brow humor, but the script and Damon's and Afflek's performances. The interplay between Bartleby and Loki was masterful.

Maybe you should see it again.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen "Red State". It could be good too.

[–] minimusdecimus 14 years ago

(Attention - possible spoilers!)

'Dogma' has some really bad acting in otherwise great scenes, and behind some interesting ideas, like the one with the female god - Alanis Morissette. For me, this was a surprising one. I mean... it's so obvious and still!... Looking up the issue I found out that indeed, at the beginning, the inventors of Christianity weren't sure what sex should bear their god; they took a decision later, after some millennia of hard thinking, and probably blaming themselves for the hasty decision to simplify the things by changin lanes, from polytheism to monotheism. And there are less than intelligent jokes in the movie, too. And so on... But it's an overall great movie, one fine comedy, in my opinion - a bit better than the 7.3/10 at this time on IMDb.

The sense of humor is a cultural thing, a function of the notions a person is used to. One very well educated person could find a certain thing to be funny and, at the same time, another very well educated person won't understand what's so funny there. And so, a comedy will allways have a different appeal to different persons.

On the other hand, lots of people never really grow up, in a bad way. They inherited taboos from their childhood and their sense of humor missfires whenever somebody touches one of them. Like most of the folks where I saw the criticism comes from, and who think this film is actually an attack on whatever god, idol, hero or Santa Claus they believe in, and waste their time on sending hate letters instead of giving it a laugh and focusing on doing some good, as they (all) claim their (Whatevericism) religion teaches them... Err...on a second taught, let's forget about that last suggestion - it might spark some... interesting good deeds, like one or two crusades, or suicide bombings :))

...And beside the various forms of Catholicism from which the film picked randomly, there are hundres of other major beliefs out there. Of course, each one's followers are sincerely and deeply convinced that theirs is the right one and are very sensitive about it. I am, myself, a strong believer in Icecreamism and very sensitive in this regard, but still I can take a joke about the ice cream, and most definitely an extremely amusing movie on that particular subject. And btw, I'm sure there are a lot of people who believe that my religion is ridiculous. Or even worse, they'd think this is a joke!... (...however, if you think so, then this movie is for you :)...)

I guess I'm one of the guys who never grow up too, but I also think there is a good way of doing that, i.e. I've enjoyed every moment, even the lesser ones, in this big huge joke they called 'Dogma', and by doing so my life was brighter for at least... I don't know... about 90 minutes? :) The boardroom scene is one of my favs too :)) And Alan Rickman, George Carlin, Jason Lee, even Linda Fiorentino or Matt Damon... unforgettable! :)) Their great performances alone can make you forgive the 'low-brow part'.

[–] Miss_Sui_Generis 14 years ago

Dogma has serious flaws. Technically, the film is extremely clumsy-third year film students would be ashamed of some of the shots Smith set up-and there is an excess of dialogue. Smith did not remember that film is visual. He couldn't show instead of tell no matter how big the film budget was.

Despite that, the film is very entertaining. Some of the performances are excellent and it is extremely funny (except the scatalogical humor, which I LOATHE).

[–] Zorro-3 14 years ago

I'm with you on that. I would have totally removed the Excremental from the story. There's a deleted scene that has him reappearing. Thank God it was deleted; that would have been waaaay too much.

[–] Zorro-3 14 years ago

Now as for film being visual... you must've hated "My Dinner With Andre."

[–] They_have_no_reflections 14 years ago

So what do you think of Tarantino? His basically the same.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES trailer -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHQsmt_yUsI

[–] zhimbo 13 years ago

Tarantino is a amazing VISUAL filmmaker, as well as a lover of (sometimes too much) dialogue.

[–] Tequila_Eclipse 14 years ago

I am going to have to go and disagree with you.

Chasing Amy and Dogma are his two best films. the Original Clerks is interesting, for sure, but not his best. Mallrats has its moments but is overall, a bad movie. Jay and silent bob strike back is probably the most self indulgent of his movies, but is funny albeit crude. Clerks 2 was a horrible idea. Worse than Jersey Girl (which was not a bad film, just not good). Cop Out was awful. Zack and Miri was surprisingly good.

But overall, Smith has failed to live up to my expectations, and my expectations were forged on Chasing Amy and Dogma. Two of my all time favourite films. Maybe they are guilty pleasures, but I think both of them have something meaningful in them that the best movies have.

I like a wide range of films, Dr. Strangelove, Yojimbo, Tender Mercies, Star Wars and Dodgeball. I realize some are artistically crafted and resonate almost spiritually and others serve an immediate purpose and do it well, but does not aspire to art. I acutally put Dogma and Chasing Amy somewhere in between.

I wish Kevin Smith could return to that style of movie, but yes, I agree with you on this, an evolution of philosophy/theory/focus rather than rehash on an old theme.

[–] indyhu 13 years ago

I think if any of you are going to throw out pretentious ideas of critiques on Smith's work, you should do what he did: MAKE A MOVIE!

You throw out your thoughts to display an intellect that you think you possess. You bark out a pedigree of what you believe are good films.

But you are slamming on a guy who made a film with credit cards.

If you feel you can do better, you have the blue print on how to start.

Do it, or go to the Mensa site to get someone there to provide you with what you really want, which is someone to tell you how smart you are, or show you what you are missing.

[–] zhimbo 13 years ago

Fanboys get so cute when riled up.

[–] Frequency270 13 years ago

Really? The whole 'if you can't make a movie you daren't complain' approach?

Damion Crowley
All complaints about my post go to Helen Waite.

[–] MrBook_ 13 years ago

Really? The whole 'if you can't make a movie you daren't complain' approach?

I think it was more an "if you complain you should make a movie" approach, which I wholeheartedly support.

I'll bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

[–] puschit-1 13 years ago

okay, do I get this right - when Smith did Clerks you liked it but when he got more famous and did more movies around the same concept you don't like them anymore!? I like his approach to movies and as you said almost nobody else does it in Hollywood, so if Smith "grows" and changes his style, I have to endure the regular Hollywood food again, no, thanks. If you don't like Smith's work, then don't watch his movies, but don't blame the man for having his own style, that's kind of silly. Dogma and Chasing Amy are on par with the first Clerks in my book, Mallrats is ok, too. Clerks 2 was kindof weak compared to the others but it's a sequel after all, for a sequel and compared to regular Hollywood sequels Clerks 2 was still a win. To compensate for that we got Zack & Mirri make a porno which was excellent.
I admit that some elements of his movies are overused by now, for example meanwhile, while watching the movie, you'll be waiting for the part where they introduce you to a new kinky sex practice with a goofy name that you haven't heard of. But so what, every director has his trademark, complainng over that is like complaining about feetshots in Tarantino movies.

If you posted this in the Clerks 2 forums, okay, I would not have agreed but would have seen where you come from and could at least have respected that. But Dogma? Lazy, brow, turd, unfunny, trite, forced? What? Please tell me you picked Dogma because you know it would generate some heated responses. That's the only excuse I can think of.

[–] jason-boaden 13 years ago

You attacked him for not growing then you attacked him for moving onto doing something different and failing (Jersey Girl).

You said that watching his films is painful for you...and must be also for him. I'm sure he finds his own films painful (sarcasm). That's why he keeps making them (successfully) and people like you keep on whining about them.