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

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

His thoughts on Christians (and I'm an atheist) are the same he had 15 years ago.

How do you know? This was basically the first time he shared his thoughts on religion with an audience... I can't remember many religious references in Clerks, and if there were, then one or two punchlines don't qualify as a broad comedic exploration of the subject, which is what Dogma was intended to be. You can argue whether he succeeded or failed, but not about whether he'd tried something of this nature before... because he hadn't.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 10 years ago

All his movies are garbage and I can't even stand to look at him or his "posse" of retards.

I agree his movies are made for 15 year olds and the scary thing is, most of those 15 year olds are now 30ish and still think he's great.

On the other hand, I did like Red State, but he was out of his element and probably just stumbled into something good there, by accident.

I see Stupid People...

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

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.

Dogma and Clerks are very different movies. Clerks was basically all dialogue and raunchy humor and while Dogma has its share of those things, it's also much more ambitious than any of the films Smith's made at that point(and arguably, more than any of the films he's made since then). Dogma explores themes of religion, faith, choice, free will etc. Even though it's still in the realm of comedy, it's a weighty film that explores a lot of difficult subject matters. Not that Clerks was of no substance, but Dogma is clearly a more thought-provoking and intelligent film. If you think Smith's basically just made the same type of film as Clerks, then I'm afraid you're just not seeing beneath the surface.

[–] chris-wulfers 10 years ago

He does say he was lucky, and he freely admits he doesn't think he's a particularly good film maker pretty regularly. Have you even heard his anecdotes?

It seems you're just bitching for the sake of satisfying your own ego. I'd say if anyone is self indulgent it's you.

Smith is a big comic/star wars nerd, that likes to write dialogue. And he'll never be Spielberg. I appreciate him for what he is. I know what I'm getting when I watch a Smith movie. When I want to watch something else, I'll go watch someone else's movie.