Posted by Mr. Killmonkey at 198.109.1.30 on July 07, 2000 at 15:42:36:
In Reply to: Intriguingly enough... posted by Lucifer Lyndon Razoodock on July 07, 2000 at 15:32:39:
: ..."DOGMA" still seems to reach folks that it was meant to touch (well, except from those who abstained from seeing it).
This I don't understand. So, Dogma wasn't meant to touch ME? I don't have a problem with the message, man, it's the style that I'm talking about.
: Do you have access to captions on your viewing-system?
: Watch it with the dialogue on-screen and see if you feel the same.
Yes, I do and I can't see how this would heighten my viewing experience any more. If I want to just appreciate the script, I'll read it.
: As Kevin has said many times, these films are all about the writing...and (at least in my opinion) the writing in "DOGMA" is almost irridescently vibrant.
OK, but (in my humble opinion) the presentation of said writing was not.
: Would you have enjoyed the same flick if had been shot...er, differently?
Yes. Have you ever seen a really bad production of a play that you know is funny? I just saw a deplorable production of "All in the Timing" last month and it was almost painful to watch. Even the funniest script can be rendered completely laugh free if the actors and the comedic timing aren't working.
The script is an important part of a movie, but the visual presentation and the pacing of a film can either add or detract immensely from the script, no matter how brilliant it is.
I'm not trying to flame Kevin or invite myself to dinner and shit on his coffee table (one of my favorite Kev metaphors). I was just asking a question and airing an opinion.
--Fred