Posted by Mike Porter at hamilton1.ullab.upenn.edu on November 16, 1999 at 16:59:16:
: This message board is great: A large following for a deserved filmmaker. However, it seems as if the participants are more concerned with nuance than substance. (What did Jay say when...?)
The board is not always like this, if you frequent the board more often, perhaps you might notice this fact. At the moment there are a lot of posts like this because A) The movie's release has brought in a lot of completely new faces here as well as bringing back faces that have not been here in a long time and B) Because all these people want to experience the complete Dogma, and sometimes this is not possible in one viewing. In order to have deeper discussions about a film you really do need a complete understanding of what has occured in that film.
: I have been a longtime fan, and have been just that: Not an aspiring writer, filmaker, or "crew". I sell software, but have enjoyed movies for a long time.
No offence here, but I was wondering what the significance of this portion of your post? What does this accomplish?
:I was disappointed with Dogma because I had high expectations. These were not met, although it had nothing at all to do with anything religious or thematic (I found the questions raised about organized religion one of the high points, actually).
I also found the questioning of organized religion a high point, but I found the film to be very thought provoking and entertaining. Although it may be difficult, I think it best not to have predetermined expectations concerning films because this imposes boundries on the film, where in fact there should be none. It is best to go to see films with an open mind, so that the film-maker is able to show you what he/she wants you to see. By having expectations prior to viewing a movie, you go to the movie looking for what you want to see as opposed to what the story teller wants to tell you.
: I guess my problem in the movie is a matter of "suspension of disbelief". Clerks was an appealing film, but at every moment the viewer was aware of exactly what the film was : an effort by a brilliant amatuer. It had a precocious camcorder quality to it, but you never really "bought" into the world presented by the movie.
I am not sure that I understand your point here... What do you mean by your statement, "You never really 'bought' into the world presented by the movie." I personally was drawn into the world of the movie, but I suppose that was because it is so close to my reality... (I am 20 and am from NJ...) Once again, you seem to be putting constraints on the movie, but this time you bound it by the movie makers experience. The experience of the director/writer should not be taken into account (Look at Eyes Wide Shut this summer...). Instead you should view the movie for what it is... I saw Clerks as a wonderful movie, end of story.
: Now Chasing Amy was a huge step forward. The characters were meaningfully written, the environment was entirely believable, and I was totally sucked in. I wanted to continue being party to this world, similar to how you feel after finishing a good book: I felt invested in the characters, and I wanted more.
I also felt that Chasing Amy was a great flick (otherwise I would not have paid 6.50 to go see it 3 times), and I agree that the audience becomes invested in the characters, but from the way in which you frame this I get the idea that this was not the case for you in Clerks? If that is the case I would disagree because the audience definitely becomes invested in the characters of Clerks.
Also, I noticed that you have excluded MallRats from your history of Kevin Smith. Whats up with that? Just because it did horribly in the box office did not make it any less funny.
: I was hoping for the same with Dogma, but it never really got there. The characters sacrificed any depth they might have had for the inclusion of background information and spiritual issues. The pratfalls were over the top. But most of all, you got the sense that some scenes were relished by the author, while others were written quickly to get to the next "pregnant" moment. The subject matter was enormous - anyone would have left a lot on the table. But as a fan, I would have preffered Kevin lopping off a smaller piece (of Dogma) and do an excellent job, than taking on all of Rome and winding up with a tepid product.
Here I defintely had a different take. For starters, background information is necessary in movies so that the audience understands what is going on in the film. I know in some movies this process may be annoying, but I found Kevin's method to be quite entertaining. The enormous subject matter in this movie is actually what I found to be its most endearing quality because not many film-makers have the moxy to take on such a task. In his previous films, Kevin did take on a smaller piece of the world, and he did a hell of a job, but I felt that his attempt here on taking on the world was quite successful. Put simply, Kevin had something he wanted to say, and he did so through this film. I am sorry if you did not enjoy it, and you are entitled to do so, but I think you may have had a better movie experience if you did not go into it expecting something. In making this movie, Kevin was not trying to tell you what you wanted to hear, instead he was trying to tell you what he felt in his heart.
: That being said, I just bought a Chasing Amy movie poster.
I am glad to see you support Kevin and his films and I hope my statements might be cause for you to come back here and look upon the forum in a different light, and perhaps even be cause for you to watch Dogma again with an open mind without preconceived expectations.