Chasing Amy
Brian M Williams
Hey all,
I finally got to see Chasing Amy; I was very disappointed. I
liked it, laughed all the way through, even came close to crying at one
point 8:::(. All that said, it seemed to me just the same story as
Clerks, but with better looking people. I'm surprised it got such good
reviews; maybe not enough of the reviewers remember clerks. . .
|Brian Williams
christian d. ninsananda
If the movie invoked so much emotion in you, then how can you be
disappointed? Maybe they gave it good reviews because they laughed all
the way through and came close to crying. Sure the story was similar to
Clerks, but it wasn't that similar.
christian
Brian M Williams
christian d. ninsananda (f...@leo.infi.net) wrote:
:If the movie invoked so much emotion in you, then how can you be
:disappointed? Maybe they gave it good reviews because they laughed all
:the way through and came close to crying. Sure the story was similar to
:Clerks, but it wasn't that similar.
I can easily be disappointed. I'm glad I went to see it; it was better
than most films I've see this year. However, it is the same story
rehashed that was in Clerks (and apparently, from private email, Mallrats).
That makes a 4 star movie a 3 star movie in my book. I don't see how you
can call the stories not that similar. You have
1) romantic involvement
2) homosexual friend
3) career decision that is being interfered with by (1) and (2)
4) probable loss of romantic involvement due to male immaturity
That's the whole story. The dialogue is great, but the story is the
same, with lesbians added into the mix. Originality is part of what
makes a movie good, not just touching moments and clever dialogue. So
the movie is a three star movie for me; I'm disappointed but still
recommend it.
--
You can get blood | Brian Williams
from a stone; | bwil...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
you just have to | Temple University
throw it hard enough. | Department of Religion
Julia F N Altshuler
I'm not so sure that Holden was bothered either by Alyssa's greater
experience or her experience with men. Maybe it was her deception that
was bothering him.
Let me make an absurd analogy to make my point: To the best of my
knowledge my boyfriend comes from a small family in Western Canada.
I've talked about my family, asked about his and always learned that he
has only one sister out in Edmonton. Now let's pretend that after dating
for two years I learn that he has another five siblings that he's never
mentioned. Now of course I have no particular prejudice towards small
families or large ones, but after learning that he's neglected to mention
five whole people, I start to wonder what HIS prejudice is. It's not
enough for him to say that it's just his personal past. A person's past
is, in a large way, responsible for his present.
Now look at Holden and Alyssa. Alyssa brings up the subject of her
sexual past in the swing set scene. She specifically says that if
they're going to be great friends he should know about her. She goes
into a frank description of lesbian sex. Holden phrases the question
badly, but he specifically asks about sex with men. Alyssa runs off
topic with her digression about virginity. She's deliberately
deceptive. Isn't it possible that when Holden finds out that she has
slept with men, he isn't bothered so much by the fact as by the
deception? It isn't so much that Holden minds Alyssa's previous
experience with men as Alyssa minds her own previous experience with men.
Then Alyssa takes the attitude that he's all at fault for checking up on
her. Well, his suspicions were right, weren't they? This is why I
maintain that it's sad that Holden loses both Alyssa and Banky by the
end. Banky was just trying to steer his friend in the right direction.
Alyssa had the chance to come clean, but she chose to get angry and leave
instead.
--Lia
--
Please send no junk or spam to this address. I don't care for any, thank
youd0...@dc.seflin.org
vjmorton
tor...@interport.net (phil rupp) wrote:
>
>3)Treatment of lesbians? heavy breathing porn curiosiyt--isn;t she a
>free spirit/cool.
Well, did not gay liberation ride in on the coat tails of the sexual
revolution, the free-love-and-sex, if-it-feels-good,-do-it sixties?
Further, this is hardly compatible with your complaint below about the
gay man being a stereotype. Holden's initial interest (from which the
rest of the plot flows) is only plausible because Alyssa DOESN'T fit the
dominant image of the lesbian, which is the short-haired, ugly,
masculine, grease-monkey/women's studies major.
Ttreatment of gays? Ridicule, stereotypes, basic
>queer bashing.
Oh come on. You like him. He is by far the wisest of the four major
characters. And further, SOME homosexuals DO live up to the stereotype
(just as some don't) ... I've seen examples of both. I suggest people
should quit looking at every homosexual character as Homosexuality
Incarnate. The homosexual political establishment, after all, keeps
telling everyone "how diverse we are" and how, in ever other respect,
"we are just like everyone else."
When Alyssa kisses her girl, its heavy, primal, deep.
>When Holden kisses Banky, its closed mouth, dry, quick, emabarresd.
>Thats called prurient interest for girl girl, quick and obligatory for
>boy boy.
No, it's called characterization. When Alyssa gives the girl, Alyssa
"is" an open lesbian and is seeing her girlfriend after a long
separation, if I recall. So she kisses her passionately. In the other
case, the whole point is that Holden and Banky are not at that stage. So
quick and perfunctory ... as if acknowledging with the mind what the
soul will not yield.
phil rupp
>That's the whole story. The dialogue is great, but the story is the
>same, with lesbians added into the mix. Originality is part of what
>makes a movie good, not just touching moments and clever dialogue. So
>the movie is a three star movie for me; I'm disappointed but still
>recommend it.
I was pretty suprised at how bad this movie was. There was one
almolst great scene ( the confrontation at the end) but here's my 20$
1)absolutely zero visually. I mean nothing going on in terms of
compostion, rhythym, image, nothing. Same goes for sound--nothing.
This movie was like watching a line reading of a play.
2)The lesbianism hook feels like a test marketing strategy--lesbian
chic has beein in for aboput 2 years now.. This is a movie about a
lesbian directed at straight 18-35 year males--it reeks of marketing
strategy, not personal statment.
3)Treatment of lesbians? heavy breathing porn curiosiyt--isn;t she a
free spirit/cool. Ttreatment of gays? Ridicule, stereotypes, basic
queer bashing. When Alyssa kisses her girl, its heavy, primal, deep.
When Holden kisses Banky, its closed mouth, dry, quick, emabarresd.
Thats called prurient interest for girl girl, quick and obligatory for
boy boy.
4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite. The charcters all seem
the same kind of.
5)see 1.
I was just really un-impressed. I cna't believe that movie cost 250Gs
either. It looked like a NYU thesis film.
Brian M Williams
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
:
:1)absolutely zero visually. I mean nothing going on in terms of
:compostion, rhythym, image, nothing. Same goes for sound--nothing.
:This movie was like watching a line reading of a play.
It was better than _that_, although I do agree that it wasn't much in
terms of cinematography.
:2)The lesbianism hook feels like a test marketing strategy--lesbian
:chic has beein in for aboput 2 years now.. This is a movie about a
:lesbian directed at straight 18-35 year males--it reeks of marketing
:strategy, not personal statment.
Well, that is the rub isn't it: does making a movie with lesbians in it
mean that "what it means to be a lesbian" is a central or even side
issue? So, on one hand, you can make a movie that deals with what it
means to be a lesbian (and get criticised for making a "lesbian" film),
or you can gloss over it (and get criticised as above). I think that the
real problem with the film is that by the end of the movie Allyson (sp?)
is the only interesting charactor on the screen, and she doesn't get any
of the focus.
:3)Treatment of lesbians? heavy breathing porn curiosiyt--isn;t she a
:free spirit/cool. Ttreatment of gays? Ridicule, stereotypes, basic
:queer bashing. When Alyssa kisses her girl, its heavy, primal, deep.
:When Holden kisses Banky, its closed mouth, dry, quick, emabarresd.
:Thats called prurient interest for girl girl, quick and obligatory for
:boy boy.
Yeah, but at least there was a theme of general acceptence of
homosexuality on the screen, which is some progress.
:4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
:bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite. The charcters all seem
:the same kind of.
At times yes, but still, I was rolling in the aisle during the "What
about that cracker Luke Skywalker" scene. Plus there are a couple
touching moments along with lots of laughs. All in all uneven, but still
much better than the stinkers that hollywood usually produces (I know,
poor measuring stick).
Yuri Wuensch
> Yes some do, 99% don't. I'm talking about the treatment in the film.
> The only male gay is a ridiculous stereotype. The only attractive
> lesbian is straight. These are stereotypes that stretch back decades,
> not what I would expect in a modern film.
>
My only real problem with the film was the overwhelming heterosexual
stereotype of lesbians. Basically, and to be blunt, all a dike really
needs is some cock and she'll magically become straight.
As much as I respect Smith's inventiveness and capacity as a writer he
still couldn't mask this basic good 'ol boys belief. The dialogue was
priceless, but that fact irritated me throughout the film. I would have
much preferred seeing Holden hit a brick wall at every attempt he made.
That would have been a far more interesting film. It wouldn't have caved
into the fantasies of male power. It would have also left the lesbain
community with a victory of sorts. Lesbians are lesbians - period. Why
do they need an excuse?
-yuri
phil rupp
> Holden's initial interest (from which the
>rest of the plot flows) is only plausible because Alyssa DOESN'T fit the
>dominant image of the lesbian, which is the short-haired, ugly,
>masculine, grease-monkey/women's studies major.
Yes--and she turns out not to be a lesbian--other than extras, the
lesbian characters in the film are homely "there goes another one".
>Ttreatment of gays? Ridicule, stereotypes, basic
>>queer bashing.
>Oh come on. You like him. He is by far the wisest of the four major
>characters. And further, SOME homosexuals DO live up to the stereotype
>(just as some don't)
Yes some do, 99% don't. I'm talking about the treatment in the film.
The only male gay is a ridiculous stereotype. The only attractive
lesbian is straight. These are stereotypes that stretch back decades,
not what I would expect in a modern film.
ir
>No, it's called characterization.
>
>In the other
>case, the whole point is that Holden and Banky are not at that stage. So
>quick and perfunctory ... as if acknowledging with the mind what the
>soul will not yield.
I thought Holden had gone through some sort of transformation?
Anothger thing that really bothered me is that the fact that Alyssa
was lying to Holden from day 1 was a non issue---and that she refers
to Holden as "some guy I knew" at the end means she's also lyign to
her friend.
And anotehr thing--Holden struck me as a model--nice to look at, well
groomed and dressed by where was his character? Banky had
personality, Holden was a nudd. Unbelievable that Alyssa would be
attracted to him, so taken when his personality was so flat.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
tor...@interport.net (phil rupp) wrote:
>>That's the whole story. The dialogue is great, but the story is the
>>same, with lesbians added into the mix. Originality is part of what
>>makes a movie good, not just touching moments and clever dialogue. So
>>the movie is a three star movie for me; I'm disappointed but still
>>recommend it.
>I was pretty suprised at how bad this movie was. There was one
>almolst great scene ( the confrontation at the end) but here's my 20$
>1)absolutely zero visually. I mean nothing going on in terms of
>compostion, rhythym, image, nothing. Same goes for sound--nothing.
>This movie was like watching a line reading of a play.
Well, what do you expect from someone who learned how to direct from
watching old movies? To me, the movie was sufficently _script_ driven
that I didn't much mind everything else. It was a kewl movie.
>2)The lesbianism hook feels like a test marketing strategy--lesbian
>chic has beein in for aboput 2 years now.. This is a movie about a
>lesbian directed at straight 18-35 year males--it reeks of marketing
>strategy, not personal statment.
I strongly disagree. The Lost World "feels like a test marketing
strategy." This movie was organic -- straight from the heart. It was a
little rough around the edges but it was well worth the money to go
see.
>3)Treatment of lesbians? heavy breathing porn curiosiyt--isn;t she a
>free spirit/cool. Ttreatment of gays? Ridicule, stereotypes, basic
>queer bashing. When Alyssa kisses her girl, its heavy, primal, deep.
>When Holden kisses Banky, its closed mouth, dry, quick, emabarresd.
>Thats called prurient interest for girl girl, quick and obligatory for
>boy boy.
Man, did you see the same movie I did? The movie was quite aware of
how differently the two versions of homosexuality are treated by our
culture -- in fact, I seem to recall there being a monolog by the
African-American-Gay do0d about that very thing. This was not a gay
porno, it was about real people having real problems. Maybe Holden
didn't nibble on Banky's tonsils because he was a somewhat
uncomfortable about what he was doing - he ain't gay. But Alyssa on
the other hand _IS_ gay (or at least bisexual) and she was really into
the chyx she was smoochin on.
>4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
>bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite. The charcters all seem
>the same kind of.
Huh? Again, did you watch the same movie I did? The dialoge was GREAT!
Very funny, very memorable.
lee
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
[Please remove "REMOVETHIS" from my email to respond to my posts]
Jason C. Charnick
>>4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
>>bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite. The charcters all seem
>>the same kind of.
Anyone who says that Kevin Smith's dialogue wasn't brilliant, proves that
he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up. Sorry
to be so blunt, and flame me if you must, but the boy can write dialogue
better than nearly any young filmmaker today. Only Tarantino might be in
the same league diagloue-wise (idea-stealing notwithstanding).
Jason
--
Jason Charnick
E-mail: jason-c...@worldnet.att.net
WWW: http://home.att.net/~jason-charnick/
David Mamet Info Page
http://home.att.net/~jason-charnick/mamet.html
Any opinions contained here within are subject to the ownership of Major League Baseball. Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or retransmission of the these opinions without the express written consent of Major League Baseball or its subsidiaries is strictly prohibited. Or something like that.
Chan Benson
: >>4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
: >>bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite. The charcters all seem
: >>the same kind of.
:
: Anyone who says that Kevin Smith's dialogue wasn't brilliant, proves that
: he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up. Sorry
: to be so blunt, and flame me if you must, but the boy can write dialogue
: better than nearly any young filmmaker today. Only Tarantino might be in
: the same league diagloue-wise (idea-stealing notwithstanding).
You've got to be kidding me. I didn't see "Chasing Amy", but "Clerks" had
some of the most ham-handed writing I've seen in a feature film.
-- Chan
Pat Flek
: >>4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
: >>bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite. The charcters all seem
: >>the same kind of.
:
: Anyone who says that Kevin Smith's dialogue wasn't brilliant, proves that
: he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up. Sorry
: to be so blunt, and flame me if you must, but the boy can write dialogue
: better than nearly any young filmmaker today. Only Tarantino might be in
: the same league diagloue-wise (idea-stealing notwithstanding).
Wheee... I'm a big Kevin fan, but _Clerks_, _Mallrats_, and _CA_
all had some sections of pretty awkward dialogue. And, as for
Tarentino... his monologue is much better than his dialogue:
~"Who's motorcycle is this?"
"It's not a motorcycle, baby. It's a chopper."
"Who's chopper is this?"
"Zed's."
"Who's Zed?"
"Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."~
Oi. A better example is his scene in Four Rooms. Whenever he was
ranting, it was interesting. Whenever there was "di"alogue, things
got too choppy to keep the flow.
alter,
pat
--
40 SPECIALLY TRAINED
ECUADORIAN MOUNTAIN LLAMAS
Vincent Pereira
Jason C. Charnick wrote:
>
> >>4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
> >>bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite.
>
> he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up. Sorry
> to be so blunt, and flame me if you must, but the boy can write dialogue
> better than nearly any young filmmaker today. Only Tarantino might be in
> the same league diagloue-wise (idea-stealing notwithstanding).
Amen brother. Now prepare to be flamed by the regulars here for daring
to defend Kevin Smith's work.
0=======================================O
O VINCENT PEREIRA O
O vper...@monmouth.com O
O Vinkie...@hotmail.com O
O http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent.html O
O O
O Official motivator/technical guru O
O VIEW ASKEW Productions O
O O
O writer/director/editor O
O A BETTER PLACE O
O O
O Co-Producer O
O BIG HELIUM DOG O
O (production start 10/97) O
O O
O=======================================O
Vincent Pereira
phil rupp wrote:
> I find his dialog labored, flashy, formulaic , contrived and it sounds
> like all the characters are the same person conversing with himself in
> the mirror.
The interesting thing about this comment is that people who often meet
Kevin or myself, or any of his other friends, often remark that we (and
I'm quoting here) "talk like Kevin writes". And, oddly enough, people
seem to like me and like talking with me- I've never been told that my
speech is labored, flashy, formulaic, orcontrived, and I've never been
accused of sounding like I'm conversing with myself in the mirror. So
what does that say vis a vis Kevin's writing? It says that Kevin has
captured the way that the people around him speak- thus, the dialogue is
realistic.
> I could see nothing in Holden to attract Amy. I don't recall them
> having any sort of conversation other than bartalk before she "found
> her one and only " in him.
And said bartalk was utterly realistic. Not to mention, Phil, sometimes
people just fall in love. Is that so hard to comprehend?
> > Only Tarantino might be in
> >the same league diagloue-wise (idea-stealing notwithstanding).
>
> I absolutely agree--Tarantino and Smith are in the same league.
And they both write great fucking dialogue.
O=======================================O
Vincent Pereira
Chan Benson wrote:
>
> : Anyone who says that Kevin Smith's dialogue wasn't brilliant, proves that
> : he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up. > : the boy can write dialogue
> : better than nearly any young filmmaker today.
>
> some of the most ham-handed writing I've seen in a feature film.
> -- Chan
No, dude, he's not kidding you- Kevin is a really great writer.
Jason C. Charnick
In article <5mkgsu$pm9$1...@broadway.interport.net>, tor...@interport.net
(phil rupp) wrote:
>I find his dialog labored, flashy, formulaic , contrived and it sounds
>like all the characters are the same person conversing with himself in
>the mirror.
Although similarities can be seen in some characters (Brodie from MR and
Banky, from CA) each has shown distinct characteristics unique to each
one. And keep in mind that these people are all friends, they have things
in common, and discuss them frequently. Me and my friends talk very much
alike, and yet no one would say that we're conversing with ourselves in a
mirror.
>I could see nothing in Holden to attract Amy. I don't recall them
>having any sort of conversation other than bartalk before she "found
>her one and only " in him.
YOU could see nothing, but the montage in the middle of the film
demonstrates that the two of them spent a whole hell of a lot of time
together, and did things that we never saw on-screen. Obviously, during
the time that they were pseudo-dating (in Banky's terms) she saw
somethings that clicked in her. You should always realize that they
characters exist in their own universe (or rather Askew-niverse) and they
do things that although we don't see on-screen, still exist in their
universe.
Ian McDowell
On Thu, 29 May 1997, phil rupp wrote:
> Yes--and she turns out not to be a lesbian--other than extras, the
> lesbian characters in the film are homely "there goes another one".
There were several attractive women in the bar, most noticeably the lead
singer, played by GO FISH star Guinevere Turner. The book SPIKE, MIKE,
SLACKERS AND DYKES describes how Kevin Smith became good friends with, and
developed a big crush on, Turner (who is gay in real life) while
promoting CLERKS on the film festival circuit. While that book was written
well before Smith's current film was conceived, it's easy to see the
autobiographical genesis of his script.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Turner helped Smith cast the
"lesbian" scenes, getting friends of hers to appear in the film and trying
to help keep it "authentic." A transexual friend of mine who saw it in
Atlanta with a largely dyke (her word, not mine) audience says that they
didn't seem offended and adored the movie, although of course this sort of
anecdotal argument doesn't count for much.
>
> Yes some do, 99% don't. I'm talking about the treatment in the film.
> The only male gay is a ridiculous stereotype. The only attractive
> lesbian is straight. These are stereotypes that stretch back decades,
> not what I would expect in a modern film.
The gay press, or at least what I've seen of it, has been pretty fond of
the film, as have my queer and dyke friends, but again, that's all
anecdotal, and since I'm straight, mine is necessarily an outsider's
viewpoint. I found the film's one male gay character to be not only funny
but quite sympathetic, and he only struck me as "flaming" in contrast to
his butch professional persona.
For anyone who knows comics, he's an added hoot. In recent years, Kevin
Smith has been a regular guest at DragonCon, perhaps the third largest
science fiction/fantasy/gaming/comics con in the country. A few years
ago, another regular guest was the publisher of an independent comic book
line called "Dark Zulu Lies." He was an obnoxious racist homphobic loon,
who strutted about the convention in his skimpy leopard skin "zulu"
costume and who frequently denounced the writers and artists who worked
for DC Comics Milestone imprint, a competing and _far_ superior line of
Afrocentric comics, as "house niggers."
His books were full of evil mincing white southern Nazi punk transvestite
villains who were always trying to rape his noble studly African hero --he
pretty much came out and said that homosexuality was a white plot to rob
the black man of his masculinity. In issue after issue of his comic, his
scantily clad black hero ran evil white "faggots" through with his mighty
spear (yeah, I think the guy had some issues to work out).
This guy was the talk of DragonCon and I know that Kevin Smith must have
noticed him, and may even have been on some panels with him. It was hard
for not to see Holden and Bunky's friend as a reaction to this. What
surprised me was that Smith could take a character who was clearly created
in reaction to the antics of an obnoxious loon and make him so likeable.
Agree with you about Holden being pretty bland and uninteresting, but
still quite enjoyed the film and was pleasantly surprised about the
rawness and honesty of a couple of scenes. It certainly deals far more
openly with the pain of falling in love with your best friend than, say,
WHEN HARRY MET SALLY. And all the comics stuff is spot on, and it's
always a pleasure to see a subculture caught so well on film (even if it
was distracting seeing a big out of focus poster of a friend of mine
looming over Alyssa's shoulder during her final scene).
Ian McDowell
Greensboro, NC
**********************
"Every bone in the victim's body was broken, even the penis!" THE NAKED
KILLER
**********************
Read my my second novel, MERLIN'S GIFT, available in August fron Avon
Books.
phil rupp
>Anyone who says that Kevin Smith's dialogue wasn't brilliant, proves that
>he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up.
I find his dialog labored, flashy, formulaic , contrived and it sounds
like all the characters are the same person conversing with himself in
the mirror.
I could see nothing in Holden to attract Amy. I don't recall them
having any sort of conversation other than bartalk before she "found
her one and only " in him.
> Only Tarantino might be in
>the same league diagloue-wise (idea-stealing notwithstanding).
I absolutely agree--Tarantino and Smith are in the same league.
phil rupp
>? It says that Kevin has
>captured the way that the people around him speak- thus, the dialogue is
>realistic.
Doesn't work for me in the films, whether its an accurate portrayal of
"real" dialog or not. It didn't make the translation from reality to
film.
>
>> I could see nothing in Holden to attract Amy. I don't recall them
>> having any sort of conversation other than bartalk before she "found
>> her one and only " in him.
>And said bartalk was utterly realistic. Not to mention, Phil, sometimes
>people just fall in love. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Its pretty easy to comprehend, but in the movie it was not
believeable, it seemd contrived, flat.
>And they both write great fucking dialogue.
I disagree.
Try to watch the condescension. It belies insecurity in your
beliefs.
phil rupp
>YOU could see nothing, but the montage in the middle of the film
>demonstrates that the two of them spent a whole hell of a lot of time
>together, and did things that we never saw on-screen.
Would have been nice to see a moment or two of these things.
I found the movement from strangers to "man of my dreams" quite a
jump with no development.
>. You should always realize that they
>characters exist in their own universe (or rather Askew-niverse) and they
>do things that although we don't see on-screen, still exist in their
>universe
Sure, but I still found the relationship contrived and unbelievable.
Derrick Hopkins
> Wheee... I'm a big Kevin fan, but _Clerks_, _Mallrats_, and _CA_
> all had some sections of pretty awkward dialogue. And, as for
> Tarentino... his monologue is much better than his dialogue:
> ~"Who's motorcycle is this?"
> "It's not a motorcycle, baby. It's a chopper."
> "Who's chopper is this?"
> "Zed's."
> "Who's Zed?"
> "Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."~
> pat
Whoa. That's one of my favorite scenes in Pulp Fiction. In fact, I
usually find a way to work a few of those lines into casual
converstaion a couple of times a week.
Tarantino is great at dialog, but his real talent is weaving a story.
Kevin Smith on the other hand is okay at storrytelling but his TRUE
gift is dialog. Clerks and Chasing Amy prove this...even Mallrats had it's
moments.
D
(Hey, you fucked up my cabbage patch!)
Derrick Hopkins : :
dhop...@infi.net: Blank Space :
IASCA NOV 1-150 : :
==========================================================================
The Cynthia Rothrock Fan Site--http://www.infi.net/~dhopkins/rothrock.html
Atreyu
On Fri, 30 May 1997, phil rupp wrote:
RE: Realistic Dialogue
> Doesn't work for me in the films, whether its an accurate portrayal of
> "real" dialog or not. It didn't make the translation from reality to
> film.
Not only that, but the problem with Smith's dialogue is that -- while
realistic -- it's not at all something that anyone with any sense of moral
decorum would even really want to hear. This was an argument brought up
back when MY SO-CALLED LIFE was airing on television: people lauded the
show for portraying high-schoolers as they 'really talked' and then
wondered why the ratings were so low. Well, the simple fact of the matter
is that most high-schoolers are idiots. Nobody -wants- to hear them talk.
Likewise, the characters in Kevin Smith's films are mostly idiots -- and
no one with any sense of honest, intellectual decency should want to
listen to such mindless cursing and pointless bickering except as an
exercise in aural masochism.
RE: The Romance
> Its pretty easy to comprehend, but in the movie it was not
> believeable, it seemd contrived, flat.
To me, what was flattest about *Chasing Amy* was that Amy even -listened-
to Holden, or that Holden made such a gruesome request of Amy at the end
of the film. If he really loved her, as the entire film seems to keep
trying to suggest -- would he make such a proposal?
Daniel Welch
Jason C. Charnick wrote:
> >>4) The dialoge wasn't brilliant, or event that great. It seemed
> >>bombastic and grandiose, needed a rewrite.
> better than nearly any young filmmaker today.
Are you seriously talking about "Chasing Amy"? I haven't seen his other
two films, so I can't judge them, but the dialogue in "Chasing Amy" was, by
and large, terrible. NO ONE talks like that. It was asinine. You could
almost hear the song "Vogue" during most of the scenes. ("Strike a
pose...") It was like watching a classical Greek drama. The dialogue was
incredibly limiting to the characters.
Comparing it to Tarentino's work is a grave insult to the totally
believable, natural flow of words in "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction".
--
Daniel Welch
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at
http://www.cauce.org/ and tell your Congresspeople how Spam mailings hurt
you. Help protect genuine Internet commerce: Outlaw UCE Spamming.
To reply by e-mail, you'll have to change my address. I work for MS, for
whom I do not speak, incidently.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
see-m...@for.my.real.address (Jason C. Charnick) wrote:
>>I could see nothing in Holden to attract Amy. I don't recall them
>>having any sort of conversation other than bartalk before she "found
>>her one and only " in him.
>YOU could see nothing, but the montage in the middle of the film
>demonstrates that the two of them spent a whole hell of a lot of time
>together, and did things that we never saw on-screen. Obviously, during
>the time that they were pseudo-dating (in Banky's terms) she saw
>somethings that clicked in her. You should always realize that they
>characters exist in their own universe (or rather Askew-niverse) and they
>do things that although we don't see on-screen, still exist in their
>universe.
Yeah, movies exist in their own little universe (although there is a
point where they can't use this excuse any more...see also The Lost
World.)
L. Shelton Bumgarner
tor...@interport.net (phil rupp) wrote:
>>Anyone who says that Kevin Smith's dialogue wasn't brilliant, proves that
>>he shouldn't be listened to when a discussion of the man comes up.
>I find his dialog labored, flashy, formulaic , contrived and it sounds
>like all the characters are the same person conversing with himself in
>the mirror.
ARRRG! How could you watch this film and see that? Its first 15
minites were twice as interesting as The Lost Worlds entire 2 hours!
>I could see nothing in Holden to attract Amy. I don't recall them
>having any sort of conversation other than bartalk before she "found
>her one and only " in him.
They did have that afternoon together. Besides, maybe it was love at
first sight. I mean, she IS very kewl chyx.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
Yuri Wuensch <bdom...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>> Yes some do, 99% don't. I'm talking about the treatment in the film.
>> The only male gay is a ridiculous stereotype. The only attractive
>> lesbian is straight. These are stereotypes that stretch back decades,
>> not what I would expect in a modern film.
>>
>My only real problem with the film was the overwhelming heterosexual
>stereotype of lesbians. Basically, and to be blunt, all a dike really
>needs is some cock and she'll magically become straight.
Actually, the movie refered to it as a "deep dickin'" In this regard,
this movie is a lot like When Harry Met Sally...People THINK that
movie is about how men and women can Just Be Friends...but its not.
(H&S fall in love..), while in this movie Alyssia doesn't magically
become straight. Maybe she's bisexual. Maybe Holden (perhaps named for
Holden Caulfield in "Catcher...?") was such a nice guy she realized he
was the one. Also, she's back to being a lesbian by the end of the
film.
>That would have been a far more interesting film. It wouldn't have caved
>into the fantasies of male power. It would have also left the lesbain
>community with a victory of sorts. Lesbians are lesbians - period. Why
>do they need an excuse?
They don't. The movie was a comedy, it wasn't about giving power to
the lesbian community.
Dan Bongard
Atreyu (atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: On Fri, 30 May 1997, phil rupp wrote:
:> Doesn't work for me in the films, whether its an accurate portrayal of
:> "real" dialog or not. It didn't make the translation from reality to
:> film.
: Not only that, but the problem with Smith's dialogue is that -- while
: realistic -- it's not at all something that anyone with any sense of moral
: decorum would even really want to hear.
I like to think that my still-married-after-28-years middle-class
Episcopalian parents have a sense of "moral decorum" and they both
thought that "Clerks" was hysterical. As did I, although I'm a little
fuzzier in the morality department. :) I think what you're trying to
say is that the dialogue "isn't something that anybody who is uptight
about their morals would want to hear."
: Likewise, the characters in Kevin Smith's films are mostly idiots -- and
: no one with any sense of honest, intellectual decency should want to
: listen to such mindless cursing and pointless bickering except as an
: exercise in aural masochism.
What is "intellectual decency" and what does it have to do with the
ability to enjoy a comedy? Even Shakespeare's plays contained profanity
and toilet humor.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
:> YOU could see nothing, but the montage in the middle of the film
:> demonstrates that the two of them spent a whole hell of a lot of time
:> together, and did things that we never saw on-screen.
: Would have been nice to see a moment or two of these things.
: I found the movement from strangers to "man of my dreams" quite a
: jump with no development.
It is something that all romantic dramas and comedies do. There isn't
enough time in an hour and a half, or two hours, or eight for that
matter, to actually accurately show two people falling in love. "Chasing
Amy" takes their relationship from "just met" to "in love with each
other" very sensibily: they meet, they become friends, they start spending
more time together, they start going everywhere together to the exclusion
of all else (friends of both Holden and Alyssa remark that they never
see them anymore), and then we get to the scene where Holden confesses
his love.
You can only show so many "shared moments building up to love" before
it becomes incredibly boring to the viewer -- it is best handled
by skipping over (or montage-ing) all but the most important points.
: I still found the relationship contrived and unbelievable.
Ok. But why?
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
:> Holden's initial interest (from which the
:> dominant image of the lesbian, which is the short-haired, ugly,
:> masculine, grease-monkey/women's studies major.
: Yes--and she turns out not to be a lesbian--other than extras, the
: lesbian characters in the film are homely "there goes another one".
What do you mean, "other than extras, the lesbian characters in the film
are homely"? Alyssa's girlfriend from Meow Mix isn't homely in the slightest,
nor (IIRC -- I was paying attention to the story, not appraising the
women's appearances) were any of her friends from the "there goes another
one" get together, nor is her partner at the comic convention at the end
(if you assume she's a lesbian). Now granted, nobody is as beautiful as
Alyssa, but this is a movie. If you want a romantic film with an unattractive
female lead your choices are (a) John Waters or (b) nothing. :)
:>> treatment of gays? Ridicule, stereotypes, basic queer bashing.
:> Oh come on. You like him. He is by far the wisest of the four major
:> characters. And further, SOME homosexuals DO live up to the stereotype
:> (just as some don't)
: Yes some do, 99% don't.
Depends on which stereotype you're talking about. If you're talking about
the "acting vaguely effeminate" stereotype -- well, that's a hell of
a lot more than 1% of the homosexual population (although it certainly
isn't the majority by any means).
: The only male gay is a ridiculous stereotype.
What's a "ridiculous stereotype" about him? Harvey Firestein he ain't.
His "stereotypical" moments are when he's interacting with Banky, and
my take on that was that he was doing it just to piss Banky off. His
conversation with Holden in the record store was an ordinary conversation
between two guys.
: The only attractive lesbian is straight.
Either you missed the other dozen attractive lesbians or you have overly
exactly standards for what constitutes "attractive". Sure, Alyssa was the
only drop-dead-gorgeous woman in the film, but (to paraphrase Cliff
Claven) I wouldn't kick the rest of them out of bed for eating animal
crackers, either.
: These are stereotypes that stretch back decades, not what I would expect
: in a modern film.
You'd prefer new, politically correct stereotypes. :)
:> In the other
:> case, the whole point is that Holden and Banky are not at that stage. So
:> quick and perfunctory ... as if acknowledging with the mind what the
:> soul will not yield.
: I thought Holden had gone through some sort of transformation?
You thought wrong. Holden had _failed_ to go through a transformation;
he was still obsessing about the whole "experience" issue and thus
concocted this bizarre scheme to "solve everybody's problems" with a
threesome. He kissed Banky "for Banky's benefit", not because he was
suddenly sexually attracted to Banky.
: Anothger thing that really bothered me is that the fact that Alyssa
: was lying to Holden from day 1 was a non issue---and that she refers
: to Holden as "some guy I knew" at the end means she's also lyign to
: her friend.
She's not "lying to her friend" -- she's just not revealing every painful
detail of her life in a casual conversation. Holden is, after all, a
guy she once knew, and it is entirely possible (and IMO likely) that
Alyssa has written off the entire relationship as a painful mistake.
Even if she hasn't, withholding deeply personal information in a
casual chit-chat conversation was not, the last time I checked, considered
"lying" by anybody.
Of course if you assume that (a) the woman is Alyssa's new love interest
(or lover, anyway) and that (b) the woman thinks Alyssa is gay, not bisexual
then Alyssa's refusal to name Holden as her ex-boyfriend might be part of
a longer-term lie.
: And anotehr thing--Holden struck me as a model--nice to look at, well
: groomed and dressed by where was his character?
: Banky had personality, Holden was a nudd. Unbelievable that Alyssa
: would be attracted to him, so taken when his personality was so flat.
I feel the same way about Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and Bill Pullman,
too, but they keep getting cast in romantic roles. Personally I thought
that Holden was an introverted but basically friendly and nice person.
This, of course, is what causes trouble later on in the film.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Yuri Wuensch (bdom...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: My only real problem with the film was the overwhelming heterosexual
: stereotype of lesbians. Basically, and to be blunt, all a dike really
: needs is some cock and she'll magically become straight.
Your theory kind of clashes with the fact that Alyssa switched to
women after more than a little bit of exposure to "some cock". If the
point of Alyssa falling for Holden was that "all lesbians secretly
crave men", Alyssa would not have had a heterosexual past at all (or,
if she had, she would not have ever been interested in women in the
first place).
The point is that Alyssa was neither heterosexual nor homosexual; she
was just looking for somebody she could love. Her previous relationships
had all, apparently, been purely sexual in nature.
: As much as I respect Smith's inventiveness and capacity as a writer he
: still couldn't mask this basic good 'ol boys belief. The dialogue was
: priceless, but that fact irritated me throughout the film. I would have
: much preferred seeing Holden hit a brick wall at every attempt he made.
I'm really very surprised that you didn't get any satisfaction from the
shock and dismay Holden feels at the fact that he _didn't_ "convert
Alyssa from homosexuality" at all. That's what made the whole thing
real to me.
: That would have been a far more interesting film. It wouldn't have caved
: into the fantasies of male power.
Last I checked, men didn't fantasize about finding out that their girlfriends
had had a lot of sexual partners before them, nor do they fantasize about
getting dumped by their girlfriends because of their inabilities to deal
with those previous partners.
: It would have also left the lesbain community with a victory of sorts.
: Lesbians are lesbians - period. Why do they need an excuse?
Because lesbians aren't necessarily "lesbians, period" any more than
heterosexuals are "heterosexuals, period". Mr Cheerleader for
Heterosexuality himself (aka Banky) turns out to have perhaps more-than-
entirely platonic feelings for his long-time male friend, Holden. How
does THAT factor in to the "male fantasy" idea? Last I checked "finding
out that your male friends are in love with you" wasn't making the
Top Ten Heterosexual Male fantasies; neither was "finding out that you
have sexual feelings for another man".
The politically correct belief at the moment is that all homosexuals are
homosexuals because "that's just how they are". That's both wrong and
stupid. Sure, some are, just like some heterosexuals are. But plenty
of people on "both sides of the fence" are there by choice or personal
inclination, not because God stepped in and said "Hey, you -- girls only."
You're also overlooking the fact that Alyssa isn't a lesbian; she's bisexual.
The thing that amuses the hell out of me at all this is that so many
people are decrying the fact that Alyssa isn't an accurately portrayed
lesbian -- well, no shock there, she ISN'T a lesbian. Why does nobody
ever stand up to bitch about the portrayal (or lack thereof) of bisexuals
in the cinema? Alyssa's stated philosophy -- even BEFORE Holden finds out
she has a heterosexual history -- is that true love is hard to find, and
it is stupid to restrict yourself to one gender. That might piss off a
lot of lesbians, but it sure sounds a lot like what I've heard bisexuals
say on the subject.
Ie, Alyssa isn't a great "lesbian role model" because she's not a lesbian.
She's a pretty good BISEXUAL role model, though, because she's interested
in love instead of gender.
-- Dan
Rowan-Morrison
Yuri Wuensch wrote:
> As much as I respect Smith's inventiveness and capacity as a writer he
> still couldn't mask this basic good 'ol boys belief. The dialogue was
> priceless, but that fact irritated me throughout the film. I would have
> much preferred seeing Holden hit a brick wall at every attempt he made.
>
> That would have been a far more interesting film.
It wouldn't quite have been a love story then, though, would it? Sounds like
you wanted a different movie. I get the impression that Smith wanted to make
a movie about a romance, and the sexual orientation issues were just a way
of bringing that genre into the 90's.
-Christine
Rowan-Morrison
Atreyu wrote:
> Likewise, the characters in Kevin Smith's films are mostly idiots -- and
> no one with any sense of honest, intellectual decency should want to
> listen to such mindless cursing and pointless bickering except as an
> exercise in aural masochism.
You lost any argument you had with your use of the "D" word. You sound like Jerry
Falwell!! If you thought the movie was vulgar or obscene, at least cop to it; don't try
and bury your conservative outrage under the guise of thoughtful criticism. Now,
Chasing Amy may not be something I'd want to sit through with my grandmother,
but fortunately I don't consider that as any measure of a film's merit.
> To me, what was flattest about *Chasing Amy* was that Amy even -listened-
> to Holden, or that Holden made such a gruesome request of Amy at the end
> of the film. If he really loved her, as the entire film seems to keep
> trying to suggest -- would he make such a proposal?
Duh? Were you watching? Why the heck do you think she reacts the way she does?
It was a nearsighted proposition, and Holden found out the hard way how stupid
it actually was. As for the "if he really loved her" part - people in love do pretty
dumb stuff, especially when they're afraid their world is falling apart. Regardless
of how half-baked his idea was, it seems less to negate his feelings than to show
his desperation in repairing his relationships. I'm not supporting what he did;
he deserved to get dumped. I'm just defending the story.
-Christine
phil rupp
>It is something that all romantic dramas and comedies do.
I understand all that "language of the cinema" stuff. I just found
the character Holden to be flat and bland, and I found Amy's immediate
intense attraction to him unbelievable and unbelievable.
>Ok. But why?
I don;t know why.--maybe because Holden had so little personality. It
just didn't penetrate.
>-- Dan
phil rupp
>What do you mean, "other than extras, the lesbian characters in the film
>are homely"?
>Alyssa, but this is a movie.
Exactly. The only really attractive lesbian is the one who is
actually not a lesbian.
>Depends on which stereotype you're talking about. If you're talking about
>the "acting vaguely effeminate" stereotype -- well, that's a hell of
>a lot more than 1% of the homosexual population (although it certainly
>isn't the majority by any means).
I know plenty of gays and very few of them fit any stereotype.
>You'd prefer new, politically correct stereotypes. :)
No. But for a "cutting edge modern romance" the film is cut from the
same old glop.
>I feel the same way about Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and Bill Pullman,
>too, but they keep getting cast in romantic roles. Personally I thought
>that Holden was an introverted but basically friendly and nice person.
>This, of course, is what causes trouble later on in the film.
I hate all those guys too. "And Harrison Ford as......Harrison
Ford!!!!"
>-- Dan
Vincent Pereira
phil rupp wrote:
> Try to watch the condescension. It belies insecurity in your
> beliefs.
What condescension? I've re-read my post and see none- I was merely
stating my view of the film, which differs from yours. Does the fact
that my opinion differs from yours, and that I expressed said opinion,
make me "insecure"? I don't see how. Perhaps you could explain to me
who expressing ones views makes them insecure? I'd really like to know.
schr...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: You've got to be kidding me. I didn't see "Chasing Amy", but "Clerks" had
: some of the most ham-handed writing I've seen in a feature film.
Ham Handed? Looks like we need to re-write Chan's dialogue.
I thought Clerks was funny, but I really think that calling the dialogue
"ham handed" is a little excessive. Bill Clinton's speeches are Ham
Handed. The next ham that handed me the ham handed dialogue is going to
get a ham in the hand.
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
First of all, it is rude to remove the attributions when quoting Usenet
articles; it makes it hard for people to track down the previous articles.
: >It is something that all romantic dramas and comedies do.
: I understand all that "language of the cinema" stuff. I just found
: the character Holden to be flat and bland, and I found Amy's immediate
: intense attraction to him unbelievable and unbelievable.
Ok. I disagree, as does everyone I know who has seen the film. Yeah,
he's not Hugh Grant or anything, but quiet and introverted people
can also be loved. :)
:> Ok. But why?
: I don;t know why.--maybe because Holden had so little personality. It
: just didn't penetrate.
I thought he had a lot of personality. He was just an ordinary person,
which makes him seem dull by movie standards.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: >What do you mean, "other than extras, the lesbian characters in the film
: >are homely"?
: >Now granted, nobody is as beautiful as
: >Alyssa, but this is a movie.
: Exactly. The only really attractive lesbian is the one who is
: actually not a lesbian.
I se this argument is drifting a bit -- first your complaint was that
the only attractive woman was a non-lesbian, now you're complaining
that the only "really attractive" woman in the film is a non-lesbian.
What's up? There were plenty of attractive women in the movie, virtually
all of whom were lesbians (because, well, I'm having a hard time thinking
of non-lesbian female characters in the film besides Alyssa herself).
What, a person can't make a movie containing lesbian and non-lesbian female
characters unless he's careful to make sure than the lesbians are _more_
attractive than the non-lesbians? Where's the logic in that? Alyssa is
the most beautiful because she's the female lead. She's not a lesbian
because, well, she's the female lead, and if she were a lesbian this
couldn't be a romantic comedy about Holden and Alyssa's relationship.
Yeah, it is a Hollywood stereotype to have the female lead be the most
beautiful one, but it isn't part of a conspiracy to portray lesbians
as being "less attractive" than non-lesbians. Alyssa has to be
beautiful because she's the lead, and she has to be a non-lesbian because
she has to fall for Holden before this can be a romantic comedy.
:> Depends on which stereotype you're talking about. If you're talking about
:> the "acting vaguely effeminate" stereotype -- well, that's a hell of
:> a lot more than 1% of the homosexual population (although it certainly
:> isn't the majority by any means).
: I know plenty of gays and very few of them fit any stereotype.
I know quite a few gays and almost ALL of them fit this stereotype,
although I'm certain there are plenty of gay men I know whose homosexuality
is not known to me. Your claims aside, gay men who act like the
black comic author character (whose name escapes me, unfortunately)
aren't rare by any stretch of the imagination. So why the complaints?
: But for a "cutting edge modern romance" the film is cut from the
: same old glop.
I must have missed when Kevin Smith said he wanted this to be a "cutting
edge modern romance". It is a simple and realistic movie about a
relationship, end of story. If it doesn't present your version of
homosexual characters, well, I'm very sad about that.
-- Dan
Brian Hughes
> :> Depends on which stereotype you're talking about. If you're talking
about
> :> the "acting vaguely effeminate" stereotype -- well, that's a hell of
> :> a lot more than 1% of the homosexual population (although it certainly
> :> isn't the majority by any means).
>
> : I know plenty of gays and very few of them fit any stereotype.
>
> I know quite a few gays and almost ALL of them fit this stereotype,
> although I'm certain there are plenty of gay men I know whose
homosexuality
> is not known to me. Your claims aside, gay men who act like the
> black comic author character (whose name escapes me, unfortunately)
> aren't rare by any stretch of the imagination. So why the complaints?
I agree. A majority of my many gay friends do fit into the stereotypes.
There are some that don't, but there are more that do. That's why they're
stereotypes, because people do act that way, and we as a society recognize
that.
--
Brian Y?
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/1237/
Remove -NOSPAM- from my E-mail to reply.
Brian Hughes
> NO ONE talks like that.
I do. All of my friends do. I could relate to the character's
conversations because I've had those same conversations before. Even the
comparing sex wounds one.
John Bode
In article <338FCB...@panhand.com>, Rowan-Morrison <ch...@panhand.com>
wrote:
> Atreyu wrote:
> > Likewise, the characters in Kevin Smith's films are mostly idiots -- and
> > no one with any sense of honest, intellectual decency should want to
> > listen to such mindless cursing and pointless bickering except as an
> > exercise in aural masochism.
>
I didn't count any idiots in "Chasing Amy". I saw real human beings acting
like real human beings. As Berke Breathed so eloquently put it, "Love
makes us buttheads." There were times I wanted to grab Holden by that
stupid goatee and slap him senseless because I *knew* he was going to do
something stupid, because I've done the exact same stupid things.
That legitimized the film for me.
> You lost any argument you had with your use of the "D" word. You sound
like Jerry
> Falwell!! If you thought the movie was vulgar or obscene, at least cop
to it; don't try
> and bury your conservative outrage under the guise of thoughtful
criticism. Now,
> Chasing Amy may not be something I'd want to sit through with my grandmother,
> but fortunately I don't consider that as any measure of a film's merit.
>
The dialog was crude, but damned if it wasn't honest. And I didn't find it
all that gratuitous. It wasn't being used for shock value so much as for
emphasis.
> > To me, what was flattest about *Chasing Amy* was that Amy even -listened-
> > to Holden, or that Holden made such a gruesome request of Amy at the end
> > of the film. If he really loved her, as the entire film seems to keep
> > trying to suggest -- would he make such a proposal?
>
Alyssa. Her name was Alyssa. "Amy" was Silent Bob's ex-girlfriend. And
she knew what was coming, and she was begging him not to say it, and you
could see that he had lost her at that point.
Holden was making the mistake too many of us make in fixating on the past,
thinking that because she had done it before, she would be willing to do it
again, and was committing the inherently male mistake of thinking that
*sex* would be the answer to everything (I should know, I've done it too
often).
> Duh? Were you watching? Why the heck do you think she reacts the way
she does?
> It was a nearsighted proposition, and Holden found out the hard way how stupid
> it actually was. As for the "if he really loved her" part - people in
love do pretty
> dumb stuff, especially when they're afraid their world is falling apart.
Regardless
> of how half-baked his idea was, it seems less to negate his feelings than
to show
> his desperation in repairing his relationships. I'm not supporting what
he did;
> he deserved to get dumped. I'm just defending the story.
>
Again, love makes us buttheads, and Holden was "Butthead el Grande". But
as I said above, he was making mistakes that all of us have made, maybe not
asking someone to participate in a threesome, but allowing ourselves to get
hung up over a person's past, or being so self-centered as to believe that
"she could never have had sex any other man before me", or thinking that
people are locked into a particular mode of behavior forever.
--
John Bode
"Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale" -- Strange Days
To email me directly, remove the 'nospam.' from my address.
phil rupp
On Sat, 31 May 1997 19:52:45 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>What's up? There were plenty of attractive women in the movie, virtually
>all of whom were lesbians (because, well, I'm having a hard time thinking
>of non-lesbian female characters in the film besides Alyssa herself).
>What, a person can't make a movie containing lesbian and non-lesbian female
>characters unless he's careful to make sure than the lesbians are _more_
>attractive than the non-lesbians? Where's the logic in that? Alyssa is
>the most beautiful because she's the female lead. She's not a lesbian
>because, well, she's the female lead, and if she were a lesbian this
>couldn't be a romantic comedy about Holden and Alyssa's relationship.
My point is that the most attractive woman in the movie who is
supposed to be a lesbian turns out to be bi or straight or just sort
of confused, confirming the common fantasy that most attractive
lesbians are just waiting for the right man.
That the film makes its leads the most good looking is just the usual
Hollywood shit, not exactly "View-Askew," actually very mainstream.
>Yeah, it is a Hollywood stereotype to have the female lead be the most
>beautiful one, but it isn't part of a conspiracy to portray lesbians
>as being "less attractive" than non-lesbians. Alyssa has to be
>beautiful because she's the lead, and she has to be a non-lesbian because
>she has to fall for Holden before this can be a romantic comedy.
>I know quite a few gays and almost ALL of them fit this stereotype,
>although I'm certain there are plenty of gay men I know whose homosexuality
>is not known to me. Your claims aside, gay men who act like the
>black comic author character (whose name escapes me, unfortunately)
>aren't rare by any stretch of the imagination. So why the complaints?
My point is that the only gay male in the film is a broad stereotype.
I found it stilting and immature. My experience is that most gay men
act the same as most staright men. I know plenty of effeminate
straights.
>I must have missed when Kevin Smith said he wanted this to be a "cutting
>edge modern romance". It is a simple and realistic movie about a
>relationship, end of story. If it doesn't present your version of
>homosexual characters, well, I'm very sad about that.
I'm responding to the critical lauds. I found the film unrealistic in
its stereotypes, the central characers flat and unbelieveable.
I don't know what you mean by "my version" of homosexuals. "My
version", in 1997 in a "realistic" romance by an alleged "great
writer" does not include these sort of flaws.
>-- Dan
Skander Halim
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) writes:
> My point is that the most attractive woman in the movie who is
> supposed to be a lesbian turns out to be bi or straight or just sort
> of confused, confirming the common fantasy that most attractive
> lesbians are just waiting for the right man.
Alyssa pretty much had to be beautiful because conventionally attractive,
feminine lesbians are the ones most likely to be actively pursued by
straight men. If Alyssa was ugly, there would be no movie. If you want
to complain that men place too much value on physical attractiveness then
complain away, but don't fault the movie for accurately representing reality.
The fact that Alyssa is cute is the least of Chasing Amy's many problems.
(And it's not like the other lesbians in the film were hags -- Alyssa's
groupie at the bar, for instance, looked pretty good to me.)
--
Skander Halim
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
:> What's up? There were plenty of attractive women in the movie, virtually
:> all of whom were lesbians (because, well, I'm having a hard time thinking
:> of non-lesbian female characters in the film besides Alyssa herself).
: My point is that the most attractive woman in the movie who is
: supposed to be a lesbian turns out to be bi or straight or just sort
: of confused, confirming the common fantasy that most attractive
: lesbians are just waiting for the right man.
My what bizarre stretch of your imagination does this "confirm the
common fantasy that lesbians are just waiting for the right man"?
Alyssa's not a lesbian. She had slept with plenty of guys before Holden
and, so far as I could tell, before she ever tried women. Since she's
NOT a lesbian, how canher falling for Holden "confirm" this "common
fantasy"? That's like saying that Holden's character confirms the
common fantasy that all black men are stupid. Alyssa's not a lesbian,
and Holden's not black. Get it yet?
Yes, at the start Alyssa tells Holden she's a lesbian. She lied. That's
all there is to it -- she's not a lesbian who "converts to heterosexuality",
no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
: That the film makes its leads the most good looking is just the usual
: Hollywood shit, not exactly "View-Askew," actually very mainstream.
Name one romantic comedy where the female lead isn't beautiful. The only
one I can think of is "Hairspray" by John Waters, and I know people who
found the female lead in that to be attractive.
: "My version", in 1997 in a "realistic" romance by an alleged "great
: writer" does not include these sort of flaws.
There are no flaws; you'[re just blinded by your own bigotry.
-- Dan
The Ole Squat n Gobble
I find it really amusing that some people claim that "people don't talk
like that", in reference to the dialog in Chasing Amy.
They should hang out with me and my friends.
Well, actually, they shouldn't, but at least it would show them that just
because THEY don't know anyone who talks like that, it doesn't mean that
people like that do not exist.
Oh well, enough flogging this dead animal.
-vph
phil rupp
>Alyssa pretty much had to be beautiful because conventionally attractive,
>feminine lesbians are the ones most likely to be actively pursued by
>straight men.
I disagree. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I've fallen for
some prettty not conventioannly pretty girls because of their scents,
personalities, the way they crossed their legs, talked, etc.
phil rupp
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:27:04 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>My what bizarre stretch of your imagination does this "confirm the
>common fantasy that lesbians are just waiting for the right man"?
>Alyssa's not a lesbian.
Hello. The pretense of the movie is "straight man falls for
lesbian--now what happens?" What happens is she turns out not to be a
lesbian, a confirmation of the common male fantasy that attractive
lesbians are not actually lesbians, but heteros waiting for the right
man.
>Yes, at the start Alyssa tells Holden she's a lesbian. She lied. That's
>all there is to it -- she's not a lesbian who "converts to heterosexuality",
>no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
That is not what I said. I said she was actuallly straight, just
waiting for the right man. Again, the popular fanstasy that
attarctive lesbians are just straight women waiting for the right man.
You asked me to name a few romantic comedies where the female lead was
not attractive:
A New Leaf
Harold and Maude
Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon
anything with Sandy Dennis (from my perspective)
Last Summer
Sweetie
the Aussie movie with the line "he kissed my stretchmarks", she won an
Oscar, damn I cam't rememebr the name"
Roseland (1978)
Mame (do musicals count?)
thats off the top of my head.
>There are no flaws; you'[re just blinded by your own bigotry.
ad hominem attacks generally belie insecurity.
You claim I am bigoted because I dislike the use of stereotypes in a
movie?
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
:> Alyssa pretty much had to be beautiful because conventionally attractive,
Yes, that's fascinating. Most men, however, are attracted to "conventionally
beautiful" women. That's why they call it "conventionally beautiful".
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
: >My what bizarre stretch of your imagination does this "confirm the
: >common fantasy that lesbians are just waiting for the right man"?
: >Alyssa's not a lesbian.
: Hello. The pretense of the movie is "straight man falls for
: lesbian--now what happens?" What happens is she turns out not to be a
: lesbian, a confirmation of the common male fantasy that attractive
: lesbians are not actually lesbians, but heteros waiting for the right
: man.
Are you stupid? She's not a lesbian, ergo she cannot be considered
an example of a "lesbian who is not actually a lesbian". The premise
of the movie is not "straight man falls for lesbian". It is "straight
man falls for somebody he thinks is a lesbian, finds out she has had
an 'adventurous' past, and cannot deal with it". Did the ads make it
seem like this was a movie about a lesbian who falls for a straight
guy? Yes. But the ads are not the movie, and you can't blame the movie
for studio marketting blunders. "Trainspotting" was advertised as a
lighthearted wacky Gen-X comedy, after all -- does that mean that
"Trainspotting" sucks?
:> Yes, at the start Alyssa tells Holden she's a lesbian. She lied. That's
:> all there is to it -- she's not a lesbian who "converts to heterosexuality",
:> no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
: That is not what I said. I said she was actuallly straight, just
: waiting for the right man. Again, the popular fanstasy that
: attarctive lesbians are just straight women waiting for the right man.
She's not a lesbian, you stupid motherfucker. She's bisexual. If you
don't think there's a difference, I suggest you track down one of the
gay acquaintences you claim to have and ask them what the difference is.
: You asked me to name a few romantic comedies where the female lead was
: not attractive:
: Harold and Maude
Um... which was the unattractive woman in this one?
: the Aussie movie with the line "he kissed my stretchmarks", she won an
: Oscar, damn I cam't rememebr the name"
Haven't seen this one, so you might be right. The other movies feature
attractive women. By the way, could you name a _good_ movie featuring
an unattractive female lead? Almost all the movies you listed were bad.
:> There are no flaws; you'[re just blinded by your own bigotry.
: ad hominem attacks generally belie insecurity.
It is only an ad hominem attack if you _aren't_ a bigot. You refuse to
acknowledge that bisexuality is a legitimate sexual preference -- there
is no other explanation for your repeated claims that Alyssa's love
for a man is an example of "the myth that lesbians are just waiting for
the right man". That's like saying that Tiger Woods is "afraid of his
race" because he says he's multiracial, not black.
: You claim I am bigoted because I dislike the use of stereotypes in a
: movie?
No, claim you ae a bigot because you slam movies for not supporting
your OWN stereotypes.
-- Dan
phil rupp
>one I can think of is "Hairspray" by John Waters, and I know people who
>found the female lead in that to be attractive.
Muriels Wedding, Strictly Ballroom, Annie Hall, Funny Lady, On Golden
Pond, Casual Sex, Sammy+Rosie Get Laid, shall I continue?
phil rupp
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997 06:29:31 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>-- Dan
I'm responding to the thought that a woman has to be convntionally
attractive to be pursued by straight men--there are many more
attributes than "conventional beauty" that attract people to one
another.
I disagree that most men are attracted to "convent." beautiful women.
They may find them pleasant to look at, pretty and all, but not feel
an intense pull. I mean I can look at 100 woman and say sure, they're
all pretty, but if I am equally attracted to all of them I ain't to
picky than, am I?
My Opinion
Well, I just saw this film recently and, while I won't call it "big
stinky poop," I will say that I was disappointed in it and consider it a
nice try on Kevin Smith's part, but mostly a mediocre result. Perhaps I
heard too much about the plot beforehand and found it too predictable,
but, despite the gay elements, it still seemed to fall into that
conventional style of: the guy is too immature and insecure; he gets
upset over his woman's past sex partners; he acts like a jerk; he loses
the loving, intelligent woman because he doesn't know what he's got
until it's too late. I found the scene where Holden suggests the menage
a trois to Alyssa to be utterly ludicrous. It was more like a
screenwriter's idea of cleverness rather than anything that would
actually come from the character. I mean, come on, is this guy that
much of an idiot? He seemed intelligent and sensitive before, and all
of a sudden he turns into an utter moron at the end. Did he really
think Alyssa would go for his proposal? I could imagine his best friend
thinking up a ridiculous idea like that, but not him. He deserved to
get slapped 150 times. As for the performances, they were uneven. Ben
Affleck was good, but the other perfs ranged from average to annoying.
The two scenes where Alyssa goes ballistic (when Holden blurts out his
love to her, and later when he gets her to confess about her past) felt
shrill, melodramatic, and totally unconvincing. I could understand the
character being angry, but the scenes just seemed too theatrical. More
subtlety would have been much more effective, I believe.
As for the dialogue, a lot of it struck me as fake sounding--lacking
rhythm, lacking spontaneity, and forced out of the actor's mouths.
Having written a couple of screenplays myself (unproduced of course, heh
heh), I can sympathize with a writer trying to pen substantial dialogue
without being ponderous and pretentious. While watching CHASING AMY, my
mind wandered back to Richard Linklater's BEFORE SUNRISE, which had its
share of contrived, long winded dialogue, but where the talk seemed to
flow so much more smoothly and spontaneously (though the calibre of
actors might have helped there--although, didn't Ben Affleck look like
Ethan Hawke's character?). (BTW, I think Tarantino is good but
overrated, and I still regard HEATHERS [written by that pre-Tarantino
videostore-clerk-turned-writer, Daniel Waters] to be the awesomest
example of hip, killer dialogue--both written and delivered). Here the
"deep" talk just seemed phony, and I'm not so sure it was just the
dialogue itself as it was the actors' deliveries. Because I felt the
most effective and natural bit of dialogue was that delivered by Kevin
Smith himself--the "Chasing Amy" story.
As for the humor, I liked some of the comic book bits, but much of the
jokes fell flat for me. Honestly, I've heard a quite a few of them
before (the "Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc." joke is stale), and a lot
of the one liners were groaners. The denouement was decent, though I
expected THE WAY WE WERE theme to pop up at any moment. Overall I
thought the film was visually flat and and the crosscutting (the hockey
game mixed with Holden and Alyssa in the crowd) was clunky. Anyway,
that's just my opinion. You can agree with it or disagree with it, but
you can't change it...unless you have a greater mind than I do.
Peter DeWolf
My Opinion <myop...@lava.net> wrote:
>Well, I just saw this film recently and, while I won't call it "big
>stinky poop," I will say that I was disappointed in it and consider it a
>nice try on Kevin Smith's part, but mostly a mediocre result. Perhaps I
>heard too much about the plot beforehand and found it too predictable,
>but, despite the gay elements, it still seemed to fall into that
>conventional style of: the guy is too immature and insecure; he gets
>upset over his woman's past sex partners; he acts like a jerk; he loses
>the loving, intelligent woman because he doesn't know what he's got
>until it's too late.
I disagree with your description of the movie as "mediocre". I found
the writing and characters fantastically realistic. I also wouldn't
call the plot predictable. Just because a flick is filled with
universal truths, does not mean that it is predictable. Smith
displayed feelings that many of us have had to deal with in the past,
and in a way that was both enlightening and entertaining.
I found the scene where Holden suggests the menage
>a trois to Alyssa to be utterly ludicrous. It was more like a
>screenwriter's idea of cleverness rather than anything that would
>actually come from the character. I mean, come on, is this guy that
>much of an idiot?
My take on this was that Smith was trying to show just how much of an
idiot someone can be when it comes to love. Although, I am not sure
if I would have done the same thing in Holden's place, I am damn sure
the thought would have crossed my mind.
>As for the dialogue, a lot of it struck me as fake sounding--lacking
>rhythm, lacking spontaneity, and forced out of the actor's mouths.
I think this comes down to what kind of conversations you hear in your
day to day life. Personally, when I hear/read Kevin Smith's dialogue,
I feel that he has been listening to my own conversations with my
friends. And that scares me :)
>mind wandered back to Richard Linklater's BEFORE SUNRISE, which had its
>share of contrived, long winded dialogue, but where the talk seemed to
>flow so much more smoothly and spontaneously (though the calibre of
>actors might have helped there--although, didn't Ben Affleck look like
>Ethan Hawke's character?).
I also enjoyed Before Sunrise, but the characters were different types
of people than those in Kevin Smith films. The obviously had
different backgrounds and sensibilities. Therefore the dialogue was
more representative of their characters and apparently of yourself as
well. and I think you are greatly under estimating the work done by
Affleck and Adams.
(BTW, I think Tarantino is good but
>overrated, and I still regard HEATHERS [written by that pre-Tarantino
>videostore-clerk-turned-writer, Daniel Waters]
Heathers was a great flick.
> Overall Ithought the film was visually flat
I don't think anyone, including Kevin Smith himself, would argue with
the fact that his greatest strentgh is not in his visual style.
While I did disagree with many of your points, I do respect the fact
that you took the time to actually reason out how you felt about the
film and why, rather than just jumping on obscure points and taking
them at face value.
Pete
M. Whittier
> : Dan Bongard wrote:
> Are you stupid?
<snip>
> She's not a lesbian, you stupid motherfucker.
<snip>
By the way, could you name a _good_ movie featuring
> an unattractive female lead? Almost all the movies you listed were bad.
<snip>
> No, [I] claim you ae a bigot because you slam movies for not supporting
> your OWN stereotypes.
>
> -- Dan
You really should consider taking a short break before you post, to:
A) Collect your (fairly insulting) thoughts.
B) Think of an actual argument or point that you wish to make.
C) Reconsider posting at all.
Skander Halim
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) writes:
> I'm responding to the thought that a woman has to be convntionally
> attractive to be pursued by straight men--there are many more
> attributes than "conventional beauty" that attract people to one
> another.
>
> I disagree that most men are attracted to "convent." beautiful women.
> They may find them pleasant to look at, pretty and all, but not feel
> an intense pull. I mean I can look at 100 woman and say sure, they're
> all pretty, but if I am equally attracted to all of them I ain't to
> picky than, am I?
I never suggested that a woman _has_ to be conventionally attractive to be
pursued by men, but merely that, for most men, physical beauty is a very
important factor. For Chasing Amy to work, we had to believe that Holden
and Amy not only clicked personality-wise, but that he was also attracted
to her physically.
To put it bluntly, it would not be believable for a guy as good-looking as
Holden (not to mention fairly shallow and immature) to fall head over heels
for an ugly woman. Such a thing can and has happened, of course, but it's
rare: you can't just throw out a buff guy/homely girl coupling in a movie and
expect audiences to take it in stride. You'd have to deal with that issue
in greater depth, and it would become another movie entirely (like,
possibly, Circle of Friends, which I haven't seen).
I think your heart is in the right place here, but you're not being very
realistic. Yes, it would be nice to see more unconventional-looking
actresses in movies...but the story of Chasing Amy, such as it is, _required_
that Alyssa be a babe. If she wasn't beautiful, Holden may not have felt
the initial spark of attraction; and, later on, it would have been much
easier for him to maintain a platonic relationship with her. And there
would have been no movie.
How did I end up defending Chasing Amy anyway...
--
Skander Halim
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/
"A BRILLIANTLY FUNNY AND BRILLIANTLY INTELLIGENT COMEDY!"
-- quote from a "critic" in ad for Trial and Error
Laura Miller
I haven't posted to the Chasing Amy thread in a while, but I was
wondering if anyone out there is in the position I'm in. I was the first
person I knew to see the film, and (if anyone remembers) I wasn't overly
fond of it. But, everyone I know is asking me "Have you seen Chasing Amy
yet?" and asking me if it's worth seeing.
I've recommended it to all of them. And I tell them: "You may hate it,
but at least you'll think more about it than you would about 'The English
Patient.'" And I think that is probably the thing I like best about the
film. At least you'll come out of it and want to sit around and discuss
it, whether or not you like it. Most movies don't do that for me.
Usually the discussion is a rehashing of the film, what worked, what
didn't, and if my friends and I liked the film we'll recite some of the
good lines.
The "Chasing Amy" discussions I've had are a little different. The film
inspires strong feeling. And that's certainly something that I like,
even though I didn't like the film.
-Laura
Vincent Pereira
Peter DeWolf wrote:
>
> My Opinion <myop...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, I just saw this film recently and, while I won't call it "big
> >stinky poop," I will say that I was disappointed in it and consider it a
> >nice try on Kevin Smith's part, but mostly a mediocre result.
> that you took the time to actually reason out how you felt about the
> film and why, rather than just jumping on obscure points and taking
> them at face value.
> Pete
I agree with Pete- My Opinion wrote the best negative review of CHASING
AMY that I've read here, because it looked like he actually put some
THOUGHT into it unlike most of the other ones I've read.
Juergen
You forgot Tromeo and Juliet.
Atreyu
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> I think we've found the missing corn cobs.
How odd that you would answer my criticism of Shakespeare with a
toilet-joke response. Why not go back and -really- respond to the
message, or are you trying to prove me correct?
Jeffrey Davis
Atreyu wrote:
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
[on A's assertion that Shakespeare's scatology (!?!) harms his works]
>
> > I think we've found the missing corn cobs.
>
> How odd that you would answer my criticism of Shakespeare with a
> toilet-joke response. Why not go back and -really- respond to the
> message, or are you trying to prove me correct?
The proof is in the pudding.
Chan Benson
: : You've got to be kidding me. I didn't see "Chasing Amy", but "Clerks" had
: : some of the most ham-handed writing I've seen in a feature film.
:
: Ham Handed? Looks like we need to re-write Chan's dialogue.
: I thought Clerks was funny, but I really think that calling the dialogue
: "ham handed" is a little excessive. Bill Clinton's speeches are Ham
: Handed.
Do you even know what the word means?
-- Chan
Dan Bongard
You should probably continue until you name a movie with an unattractive
woman in it, at least. The female lead in "Muriel's Wedding" was widely
lauded as a "non-attractive woman" at the time the movie came out, but
that's just Hollywood talk; you can see similar stuff in "The Truth
About Cats and Dogs". As for "Annie Hall" -- where's the unattractive
woman in that? Dianne Keaton? What were you smoking when you decided
she wasn't attractive? And "On Golden Pond"... what does Jane Fonda have
going for her _besides_ her looks and her father's rep? Furthermore
since when is "On Golden Pond" a romantic comedy?
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Juergen (Jue...@confidential.net) wrote:
:> On Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:27:04 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
:> Name one romantic comedy where the female lead isn't beautiful. The only
:> one I can think of is "Hairspray" by John Waters, and I know people who
:> found the female lead in that to be attractive.
: [snip]
: You forgot Tromeo and Juliet.
I'll concede you that one. :)
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Atreyu (atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Davis wrote:
:> I think we've found the missing corn cobs.
: How odd that you would answer my criticism of Shakespeare with a
: toilet-joke response. Why not go back and -really- respond to the
: message, or are you trying to prove me correct?
There's nothing to respond to. Your entire argument is based on the
idea that there is something "wrong" with lowbrow humor and/or
conversation. That's both laughable and wrong; your argument falls
apart because of the invalidity of your premises.
In your email to me you mentioned your dislike of Michael Medved; what,
in your mind, makes you different from him? Both of you hold similar
opinions on movies, and make similar objections... is the problem
simply that his objections are based in religion and yours are based
in "philosophy"?
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
:>: I disagree. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I've fallen for
:>: some prettty not conventioannly pretty girls because of their scents,
:>: personalities, the way they crossed their legs, talked, etc.
:> Yes, that's fascinating. Most men, however, are attracted to "conventionally
:> beautiful" women. That's why they call it "conventionally beautiful".
: I'm responding to the thought that a woman has to be convntionally
: attractive to be pursued by straight men--there are many more
: attributes than "conventional beauty" that attract people to one
: another.
Virtually none of which can be conveyed in an hour-and-a-half-long movie.
Which is why movies go with "personality and looks", both of which Alyssa
had in spades. If you want to make a movie about a man who falls in love
with an ugly woman because she smells nice, go right ahead, but I'd love
to know how you'll convey smell using film.
: I disagree that most men are attracted to "convent." beautiful women.
Let me get this straight -- you're denying that men are attracted to
beautiful women? Because that's all "conventionally beautiful" means:
"what most people consider to be beautiful". Most men are attracted
to beautiful women, and "conventionally beautiful" women are the women
most widely considered to be beautiful... you do the math.
: They may find them pleasant to look at, pretty and all, but not feel
: an intense pull. I mean I can look at 100 woman and say sure, they're
: all pretty, but if I am equally attracted to all of them I ain't to
: picky than, am I?
If you're looking for a woman based _exclusively_ on her looks, you'll
have this problem. But personality plays a part, too. Notice how the
"attractive asshole" is virtually never the one to get the girl/guy in
romantic comedies? It is always the NICE attractive people who hook up.
Holden pursues Alyssa because she's a babe. She tells him she's a lesbian,
but he keeps after her anyway. Eventually, after he spends a lot of time
with her, he falls in love with her because of who she is (or who he thinks
she is, anyway). This would not have been believable if she had been ugly.
If Alyssa had been ugly, the following would have happen:
(a): We would have had to listen to even _more_ inane posts about "negative
portrayals of lesbians in film", except this time it would have
been because Smith was "perpetuating the stereotype that all lesbians
are ugly".
(b): Holden would have found out she was a lesbian and would have STOPPED
PURSUING HER, thus ending the film at that point. Remember, at the
time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian he has spent a total
of ten minutes talking to her. What audience is going to believe
that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly lesbian's love on the
basis of a ten-minute conversation?
-- Dan
Atreyu
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
> There's nothing to respond to. Your entire argument is based on the
> idea that there is something "wrong" with lowbrow humor and/or
> conversation.
My entire argument is based on the idea that lowbrow (sic) humor and/or
conversation isn't something I would particularly enjoy engaging. And
that Kevin Smith's films, while humorous, do not represent human beings as
positive models of how man should behave. However, this does not diminish
from the quality of the work. I enjoyed *Chasing Amy*. I would have
enjoyed it more if every **** had been substituted for a blankety-blank.
What need, the infamous Eff?
> In your email to me you mentioned your dislike of Michael Medved; what,
> in your mind, makes you different from him?
Michael Medved argues for an enforced adherence to a specific code of
behavior in the movies. I'm suggesting that there's certainly a better
way of presenting a film than by filling it with gratuitous and
unnecessary sex, violence and language. If those elements serve the
story, then so much the better -- but if they are simply there to earn a
rating or to "represent a type of culture more accurately," then they're
not really part of the story, but part of the mis-en-scene or aesthetic of
the work. Put another way, picture a garden of your favorite flowers --
with a giant wad of chewed-up bubble-gum in the centre.
Paula Mickevich
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970602...@godzilla2.acpub.duke.edu> Laura Miller <laur...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
I haven't posted to the Chasing Amy thread in a while, but I was
wondering if anyone out there is in the position I'm in. I was the first
person I knew to see the film, and (if anyone remembers) I wasn't overly
fond of it. But, everyone I know is asking me "Have you seen Chasing Amy
yet?" and asking me if it's worth seeing.
I've recommended it to all of them. And I tell them: "You may hate it,
but at least you'll think more about it than you would about 'The English
Patient.'" And I think that is probably the thing I like best about the
film. At least you'll come out of it and want to sit around and discuss
it, whether or not you like it.
<snip>
Well, there's thinking and then there's thinking. I liked Smith's Clerks and
would see it again and did appreciate many things in Amy but I would NOT
see it again because of what I consider major flaws (1. Amy justifying
falling for Holden and 2. Holden's solution) I did think about it
after the movie for a few days, but more because I found these flaws
offensive and upsetting, but not really worth much discussion.
But TEP I have seen 10 times and would see again - it really spoke to my
heart and soul. After first viewing I could not get the images out of my
head and had to see it a second time. The other times I have taken friends
and family to see it. Great movie about redemption. But it is true it
is not a film I would recommend to everyone. Actually, neither is
Chasing Amy - I can just imagine my mother at either one - yikes!
--
chuckr
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970602...@godzilla2.acpub.duke.edu>, Laura Miller <laur...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
|> The "Chasing Amy" discussions I've had are a little different. The film
|> inspires strong feeling. And that's certainly something that I like,
|> even though I didn't like the film.
I kinda agree here. I thought the first half of the film was hilarious.
"What's a Nubian?" Killed me. I thought the story fell apart in the second
half. But the breakup/fight scenes were very emotional. A bit over the top
but very emotional.
the chuckr
Dan Bongard
Atreyu (atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
:> There's nothing to respond to. Your entire argument is based on the
:> idea that there is something "wrong" with lowbrow humor and/or
:> conversation.
: My entire argument is based on the idea that lowbrow (sic) humor and/or
: conversation isn't something I would particularly enjoy engaging. And
: that Kevin Smith's films, while humorous, do not represent human beings as
: positive models of how man should behave.
"it's not at all something that anyone with any sense of moral decorum
would even really want to hear." -- Atreyu, in regard to Kevin Smith's
dialogue.
If there's nothing "wrong" with it, why is it that "moral" people wouldn't
want to hear it?
: However, this does not diminish from the quality of the work. I
: enjoyed *Chasing Amy*. I would have enjoyed it more if every ****
: had been substituted for a blankety-blank.
Does _every_ film have to be a fantasy, or are some films allowed to
portray humans as they _are_ instead of how Ayn Rand thinks they should be?
: What need, the infamous Eff?
Very quasi-poetic of you. "Fuck" is a word which appears regularly in
everyday conversation, particularly when the people having the conversation
are young men, and even more frequently when those young men are talking
about sex. I'm sorry if you don't approve, but so far as I can tell the
world doesn't exist to please you.
:> In your email to me you mentioned your dislike of Michael Medved; what,
:> in your mind, makes you different from him?
: Michael Medved argues for an enforced adherence to a specific code of
: behavior in the movies.
He argues for _adherence_, not "enforced adherence". In this respect you
are no different from him.
: I'm suggesting that there's certainly a better way of presenting a film
: than by filling it with gratuitous and unnecessary sex, violence and
: language.
That's exactly what Michael Medved argues -- have you actually READ his
book and/or reviews?
: If those elements serve the story, then so much the better -- but if
: they are simply there to earn a rating
Which is never the case, except for a small number of movies which
want a PG-13 instead of a PG...
: or to "represent a type of culture more accurately," then they're not
: really part of the story,
Realism cannot be a part of a story? That's very interesting.
: Put another way, picture a garden of your favorite flowers -- with a
: giant wad of chewed-up bubble-gum in the centre.
Life is not a garden full of flowers -- it has dirty parts as well as
clean parts. Sure, a wad of bubble-gum looks out of place in a bed of
roses, but it looks perfectly appropriate in a downtown alley. "Clerks"
is not set in a French noble's court in 1765; it is set in a run-down
suburb in New Jersey, in a third-rate convenience store staffed by
ordinary college dropouts, in the 1990s. Naturally there is a lot
of profanity. If everything was nice, polite, and spotless there would
be no way for the audience to suspend its disbelief. "Clerks" wouldn't
take place in Asbury Park; it would take place in CandyLand. If that's
what you want, go ahead -- make the movie, and watch it go belly-up.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
:>: On Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:27:04 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
:>:> Name one romantic comedy where the female lead isn't beautiful. The only
:>:> one I can think of is "Hairspray" by John Waters, and I know people who
:>:> found the female lead in that to be attractive.
:>: Muriels Wedding, Strictly Ballroom, Annie Hall, Funny Lady, On Golden
:>: Pond, Casual Sex, Sammy+Rosie Get Laid, shall I continue?
:> You should probably continue until you name a movie with an unattractive
:> woman in it, at least.
: I named a whole bunch where the female lead, while I found some
: certainly attractive, were not beautiful by Hollywood/mainstream
: standards.
What do you mean? Barbara Streisand, Dianne Keaton, and Jane Fonda are
certainly all considered beautiful. I would certainly call the lead in
"Strictly Ballroom" "beautiful".
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote
:> phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
:>: I'm responding to the thought that a woman has to be convntionally
:>: attractive to be pursued by straight men--there are many more
:>: attributes than "conventional beauty" that attract people to one
:>: another.
:> Virtually none of which can be conveyed in an hour-and-a-half-long movie.
: huh? "Dogfight", "Moon for the Misbegotten", about 1000 others.
I haven't seen "Moon for the Misbegotten", but "Dogfight" is an excellent
example of what I'm talking about -- a terrible movie, with zero
magnetism between the main characters.
: "beauty is only skin deep" is a motion picture standard.
:> with an ugly woman because she smells nice, go right ahead, but I'd love
:> to know how you'll convey smell using film.
: Half the fun of filmmaking is conveying off kilter ideas.
Cute, but it still can't be done. By the way -- while have the fun of
filmmaking might, IYO, be "conveying off-kilter ideas", that is NOT
"half the fun" of romantic comedies as far as the rest of the world
is concerned.
:>: I disagree that most men are attracted to "convent." beautiful women.
:> Let me get this straight -- you're denying that men are attracted to
:> beautiful women?
: No, I am denying that a woman has to be "conventionally beautiful" for
: a man to be attracted to her.
That's not what you said -- read your own quotation. "[you] disagree
that most men are attracted to "convent." beautiful women."
: "Conventionally beautiful" (lets call it Conv.Beu)
Let's call it "conventionally beautiful"; easier to read and just as
easy to type. :)
: sounds to me like Cindy Crawford, Alicia Silveratone, you know, movie
: star/model type, striking.
Let's use Joey Lauren Adams as an example, since your initial criticism
was based around the idea that she's "conventionally beautiful".
: Most women do not look like that.
So what? Most don't, but many do. Most men aren't as good-looking as
Brad Pitt, but since he's a good actor who gets cast in good movies I'm
not going to start bitching about it. It is just as bigotted to condemn
a movie for casting a beautiful actress as it is to condemn an actress
for being ugly.
:> If Alyssa had been ugly, the following would have happen:
:> (a): We would have had to listen to even _more_ inane posts about "negative
:> portrayals of lesbians in film", except this time it would have
:> been because Smith was "perpetuating the stereotype that all lesbians
:> are ugly".
: We are not discussing "ugly", we are discussing "most attractive woman
: in the film" vs. average looking.
Ah, ok. Let me see if I get this straight: in order to pass inspection
by the Phil Rupp Thought Police, Alyssa would have to:
(1): be average-looking or moderately attractive, but not blonde/beautiful
(2): be less attractive than at least some of the lesbians.
(3): reject Holden's every overture, despite the fact that she's bisexual.
All of this despite the fact that the blonde-and-beautiful Joey Lauren
Adams, the Holden-like Kevin Smith, and their relationship are the
real life basis for the film. Hey, fuck reality -- Phil Rupp doesn't
approve. Bring on the less-attractive women and have them reject the
men; its boring and pointless, but Phil Rupp would like to see it.
:> (b): Holden would have found out she was a lesbian and would have STOPPED
:> PURSUING HER, thus ending the film at that point. Remember, at the
:> time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian he has spent a total
:> of ten minutes talking to her. What audience is going to believe
:> that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly lesbian's love on the
:> basis of a ten-minute conversation?
: Mighty superficial characters--oh, she's ugly, no interest.
Are you trying to claim that most men -- or anything more than a tiny,
tiny minority of men -- would actively pursue an ugly lesbian on the
basis of a ten-minute conversation? Please -- wake up. Holden's no
more "superficial" than the rest of the human race.
: This is what I mean when I say the characters are bland, stereotypes,
: no depth, 2dimensiional.
Real life must bore the hell out of you.
: A good writer can explore these intricacies, well made films leave you
: thinking, feeling. CHASING AMY left me wondering why Smith is
: referred to as a great writer when I found the film to be
: conventional, predictable and flat.
No writer can make a stiff and close-minded individual feel anything
he isn't willing to feel. Try watching "Chasing Amy" _without_ your
personal agenda and see if you don't like it a lot more.
-- Dan
Skander Halim
The Ole Squat n Gobble (j...@winona.cs.miami.edu) writes:
> I find it really amusing that some people claim that "people don't talk
> like that", in reference to the dialog in Chasing Amy.
>
> They should hang out with me and my friends.
>
> Well, actually, they shouldn't, but at least it would show them that just
> because THEY don't know anyone who talks like that, it doesn't mean that
> people like that do not exist.
>
> Oh well, enough flogging this dead animal.
No, not quite. I must say I'm perplexed by the number of people who
insist that the dialogue in Chasing Amy is realistic. You and your
friends may be articulate. You may be vulgar. You may be pop-culture
savvy. But I simply don't believe you talk the way the characters in CA
do. Take a hidden tape recorder with you one night when you hang out with
your friends. If, when you play the tape back, it sounds even remotely
like the turgid, stilted, and painfully formal dialogue characteristic of
Kevin Smith films, I will offer my hasty apologies (and will also inquire
what colour the sky is in The Land of Bad Screenwriting).
When real people talk, no matter how smart or eloquent they are, it's
messy. They leave unfinished thoughts and dangling sentence fragments.
They rarely come up with the best words to express themselves. They
almost never talk in complete, grammatically-correct sentences. They talk
at the same time and constantly interrupt each other. Smith's characters
certainly don't talk this way; and attempts at representing this kind of
realism in narrative films usually end up being very boring.
The best naturalistic screenwriters are those whose dialogue _sounds_
realistic, but isn't really: they're subtly paring away all the messiness
of real conversation. Richard Linklater and Steven Soderbergh are two
current writers who are very good at this. Another way to go entirely is
to write dialogue with such distinctive flair and style that even though
you never believe real people could be uttering it, it becomes a joy to
listen to. This is extremely difficult to pull off, and very few writers
can do it. Among current writers of this school, I like Tarantino, some David
Mamet, early Daniel Waters and Hal Hartley, and this new Scott Rosenberg
guy is promising.
Some people think Smith is good enough to fit in the latter category. If
you want to claim that, fine: it's a matter of opinion. But you're on
very shaky ground in claiming that his dialogue is realistic. I doubt
even Smith himself would agree with you. Here's a quote from him I dug up:
"Trust and Unbelievable Truth are the movies where I say, `This is my
dialogue model.' Hartley's a guy that's playing with dialogue and his
audience doesn't seem to mind."
If Smith was aiming for realism, why would he choose Hartley as his
"dialogue model?" Why wouldn't he choose _reality_?
(And why am I devoting so much time to discussing this lousy movie?)
Atreyu
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
I said:
> "it's not at all something that anyone with any sense of moral decorum
> would even really want to hear." -- Atreyu, in regard to Kevin Smith's
> dialogue.
You said:
> If there's nothing "wrong" with it, why is it that "moral" people wouldn't
> want to hear it?
For the same reason that an honest person doesn't support corruption.
It's a matter of principle, a matter of course. Enjoying Smith's work for
what it is -- that's fine. However, I'd be the first to tell him (like
he'd care) that he could make the same movies he makes now without the
cursing and the unnecessary-to-the-plot blatant innuendo. If Smith were
to suggest that his work -could- be made without that material, then he's
owning up to the idea that his work doesn't need this. If he says that
the swearing and cursing is integral to his work, then I'd ask him to give
reasons why. "Because other people act that way-" is not reason enough,
nor is "Because it's a comedy." Smith would be admitting that he wallows
in corruption if he gave the answer that his films are entirely dependent
on swearing and sexual innuendo to succeed -- that he couldn't tell a
story without them. In either case, it would be an admission of some
degree that Smith's work can stand to improve. I think Smith is an
excellent writer of dialogue. It's simply unfortunate that he has to
choose the easy road to a quick "di**" joke or an easy "giggle."
If you missed it, the reason why it's morally corrupt isn't that Smith is
using a particular swear-word or innuendo. The reason is because Smith is
essentially doing something unnecessary to his plot -- to what end? And
if it is necessary to his plot (ie, it's key to the story) -- what does
that say about the story?
> Does _every_ film have to be a fantasy, or are some films allowed to
> portray humans as they _are_ instead of how Ayn Rand thinks they should be?
Human beings are whatever we make of ourselves. I don't swear. You may.
You do, in this message (I have deleted it) I am replying to (shock!
horror! And it added so much to your argument, too!). Who we are depends
entirely on what we do. Would you rather look up to Silent Bob, or
President Whitmore from *Independence Day* (for a very silly example).
Sure, *Independence Day* isn't a great movie -- but Whitmore refuses to
back down, is heroic and strives always for success. Would you rather
look up to Karl from *Sling Blade* or *Forrest Gump*?
RE: What need, the infamous Eff?
> Very quasi-poetic of you.
Thanks.
(expletive deleted by me)
> is a word which appears regularly in everyday conversation,
> particularly when the people having the conversation are young men,
> and even more frequently when those young men are talking
> about sex. I'm sorry if you don't approve, but so far as I can tell the
> world doesn't exist to please you.
No, the world exists. It can't "please" anyone. I don't approve of women
being treated like machines, nor do I approve of men treating them that
way. But what they want to think is their business. But I ask you this:
why isn't Kevin Smith making a picture about the other men down a few
tables who are talking about the cure they've developed for cancer or the
development of the cloning process? Don't knee-jerk on this one. WHY is
Smith focusing on Holden and Silent Bob? What is his preoccupation with
these characters (well, aside from the fact that Smith -is- Silent Bob, in
a way . . . ).
> He argues for _adherence_, not "enforced adherence". In this respect you
> are no different from him.
I don't argue for adherence. I've seen *Love! Valor! Compassion!* and
loved it. I'm sure Medved went screaming from the aisle. Now, this film
is filled with innuendo and harsh dialogue -- but the -characters- who
speak this dialogue are characters that have real purpose -- they want
something out of life, and they know what they want. They're realized.
They have ambitions, desires and dreams. Do the characters in *Chasing
Amy* have those same ambitions? Now, be careful -- both are considered
comedies . . .
RE: There's a better way to make movies than to fill them with excessive
violence, swearing and sex.
> That's exactly what Michael Medved argues -- have you actually READ his
> book and/or reviews?
I haven't read his book, but I've read and seen enough of his reviews to
know where he stands in his Capra-Stasis. And I don't agree with it. All
film is about progress in the genre at its core. Medved would rather we
made *It's a Wonderful Life* (literally) over and over and over again. I
have no objection specifically to swearing, violence and/or sexuality.
Medved would attack any film containing such material. Some of my
favorite movies (*Motorama* would be one) have all -3- in abundance. But
the difference is that, in the case of *Motorama*, for instance, the
portrayals of these things serve a -purpose-.
RE: "Represent a type of culture more accurately," = invalid reasoning
> Realism cannot be a part of a story? That's very interesting.
It's got nothing to do with realism. Characters should be as realistic as
possible. However, the question needs to be asked: what kind of
characters are being celebrated in the popular cinema? Howard Stern.
Austin Powers (didn't see the former, the latter was a riot IMO). These
characters (and yes, I consider Howard Stern-cum-radio-show to be a very
fictional chaaracter) have every right to exist, and should exist.
However, they're not the sort of thing that should be the
be-all-and-end-all of cinema. Whereas Medved argues they should be
eliminated, I argue that there should exist a balance, and that the film
should recognize at some point -- as *Austin Powers: International Man of
Mystery* does, actually -- that this sort of character won't succeed
unless he gets more in tune with reality.
> Life is not a garden full of flowers -- it has dirty parts as well as
> clean parts.
Yes, it does.
> Sure, a wad of bubble-gum looks out of place in a bed of roses, but it
> looks perfectly appropriate in a downtown alley. "Clerks" is not set in
> a French noble's court in 1765; it is set in a run-down suburb in New
> Jersey, in a third-rate convenience store staffed by ordinary college
> dropouts, in the 1990s.
And I enjoyed *Clerks* as well, and even *Mallrats*. However, I do not
consider those characters heroes.
> Naturally there is a lot of profanity.
Wrong -- there was profanity because characters like this like to use it.
There's a difference. These characters have the choice to use profanity,
or not, as they see fit. And they choose to use it. Why? What is the
reasoning behind it? Give an answer to -why-.
> If everything was nice, polite, and spotless there would be no way for
> the audience to suspend its disbelief.
And it'd be one he** of a boring movie where the Special Edition ending
would generate cheers in the audience, most likely.
> "Clerks" wouldn't take place in Asbury Park; it would take place in
> CandyLand. If that's what you want, go ahead -- make the movie, and
> watch it go belly-up.
I do make movies. In them, my characters only swear when necessary to the
story, and a sound-effect like a passing car usually blots out what they
say -- or they're interrupted -- or any number of the methods used. There
are a million ways to avoid cursing or going too far on a double-entendre.
The problem is that Hollywood cinema refuses to use its own tools. Yeah,
you heard me.
- Atreyu
phil rupp
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 03:08:44 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
>: On Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:27:04 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
>:> Name one romantic comedy where the female lead isn't beautiful. The only
>:> one I can think of is "Hairspray" by John Waters, and I know people who
>:> found the female lead in that to be attractive.
>: Muriels Wedding, Strictly Ballroom, Annie Hall, Funny Lady, On Golden
>: Pond, Casual Sex, Sammy+Rosie Get Laid, shall I continue?
>You should probably continue until you name a movie with an unattractive
>woman in it, at least.
You asked "name one romantic comedy where the female lead isn't
beautiful."
I named a whole bunch where the female lead, while I found some
certainly attractive, were not beautiful by Hollywood/mainstream
standards.
My point is that one can make a romatic comedy where the leads are not
beautiful, as in unusually attractive, standouts, but average,
pleasant.
phil rupp
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 03:28:05 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
>: I'm responding to the thought that a woman has to be convntionally
>: attractive to be pursued by straight men--there are many more
>: attributes than "conventional beauty" that attract people to one
>: another.
>Virtually none of which can be conveyed in an hour-and-a-half-long movie.
huh? "Dogfight", "Moon for the Misbegotten", about 1000 others.
"beauty is only skin deep" is a motion picture standard.
>with an ugly woman because she smells nice, go right ahead, but I'd love
>to know how you'll convey smell using film.
Half the fun of filmmaking is conveying off kilter ideas.
>: I disagree that most men are attracted to "convent." beautiful women.
>Let me get this straight -- you're denying that men are attracted to
>beautiful women?
No, I am denying that a woman has to be "conventionally beautiful" for
a man to be attracted to her. "Conventionally beautiful" (lets call
it Conv.Beu) sounds to me like Cindy Crawford, Alicia Silveratone, you
know, movie start/model type, striking. Most women do not look like
that.
>If Alyssa had been ugly, the following would have happen:
>(a): We would have had to listen to even _more_ inane posts about "negative
> portrayals of lesbians in film", except this time it would have
> been because Smith was "perpetuating the stereotype that all lesbians
> are ugly".
We are not discussing "ugly", we are discussing "most attractive woman
in the film" vs. average looking.
>(b): Holden would have found out she was a lesbian and would have STOPPED
> PURSUING HER, thus ending the film at that point. Remember, at the
> time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian he has spent a total
> of ten minutes talking to her. What audience is going to believe
> that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly lesbian's love on the
> basis of a ten-minute conversation?
Mighty superficial characters--oh, she's ugly, no interest.
This is what I mean when I say the characters are bland, stereotypes,
no depth, 2dimensiional.
A good writer can explore these intricacies, well made films leave you
thinking, feeling. CHASING AMY left me wondering why Smith is
referred to as a great writer when I found the film to be
conventional, predictable and flat.
>-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Atreyu (atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
:> "it's not at all something that anyone with any sense of moral decorum
:> would even really want to hear." -- Atreyu, in regard to Kevin Smith's
:> dialogue.
:> If there's nothing "wrong" with it, why is it that "moral" people
:> wouldn't want to hear it?
: For the same reason that an honest person doesn't support corruption.
Typical Randian invalid logic. There _is_ something wrong with corruption.
The very word "corruption" itself refers to an alteration in the correct
state of things.
So I'm afraid I don't see the parallel here -- "honest people" don't
support corruption because they feel it is wrong. You refuse to
acknowledge that you think there is anything "wrong" about the dialogue
in Kevin Smith's films. So why, then, should people with "moral decorum"
not like it?
: It's a matter of principle, a matter of course.
Or a matter of pragmatism, or any of a number of other things. None of
which have any detectable relationship to cinema.
: Enjoying Smith's work for what it is -- that's fine. However, I'd be
: the first to tell him (like he'd care) that he could make the same
: movies he makes now without the cursing and the unnecessary-to-the-plot
: blatant innuendo.
That's like saying Michaelangelo could have painted the same paintings
using black and white paint -- Smith's films would not be the same
without the profanity and the innuendo. Hell, "Clerks" wouldn't even
_exist_ if you took out the profanity and innuendo; you can count the
non-profane, non-sexual bits of humor in that film on one hand. One
of the lines that consistantly got some of the biggest laughs from the
audience every time I saw "Clerks" was:
"Jesus Christ, what the fuck do you do for an encore? Anally rape my
mother while pouring sugar in my gas tank?"
Could you please explain how you could keep this in the movie, and keep
it funny, without using profanity and "inappropriate" speech? "What's
next? Assaulting my mother and pouring sugar in my gas tank?" Har har --
you sure can tell 'em, Atreyu.
Another bit that consitantly got the big laughs was:
"Try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot!"
What do you replace that with? "Please don't engage in inappropriate
sexual activity with other men?" Har de fucking har.
: If Smith were to suggest that his work -could- be made without that
: material, then he's owning up to the idea that his work doesn't need
: this. If he says that the swearing and cursing is integral to his
: work, then I'd ask him to give reasons why. "Because other people act
: that way-" is not reason enough, nor is "Because it's a comedy."
Both of those are "reason enough". Artists have no moral or ethical
obligation to justify artistic decisions to Thought Police like yourself.
Kevin Smith does movies his way because they are funny that way. Could
he make them funny another way? Maybe. Maybe he doesn't know any other
way to make movies funny, so he's going with what works. If you don't
like it, don't watch his films -- end of conflict.
: Smith would be admitting that he wallows in corruption if he gave the
: answer that his films are entirely dependent on swearing and sexual
: innuendo to succeed -- that he couldn't tell a story without them.
Thanks for the moral lesson, Reverend Falwell. Kevin Smith is extremely
funny; you are merely laughable. Kevin Smith tells funny -- and sometimes
moving -- stories; you spout half-baked philosophy cooked up by
untalented Romantic writers. If "purity" makes you what you are, and
"corruption" lets Kevin Smith tell the stories he does, then I eagerly
await the day when the world becomes more completely corrupted. :)
: In either case, it would be an admission of some degree that Smith's
: work can stand to improve.
Is anybody but me reminded of the polka-playing lietennant in "Good
Morning, Vietnam"? Removing profanity and sex from films does not
autmatically improve them. Even "gratuitous" profanity and sex do not
automatically make a movie worse; profanity and sex that are central
to the plot/humor of the film certainly do not.
: I think Smith is an excellent writer of dialogue. It's simply
: unfortunate that he has to choose the easy road to a quick "di**"
: joke or an easy "giggle."
There is no such thing as "the easy road to a quick dick joke" or
"an easy giggle". Bizarre as it may seem to somebody with your
Victorian mentality, it is actually quite difficult to get an audience
to laugh -- profanity doesn't automatically make it easier. Timing
and delivery are everything; profanity works in situations that
polite speech would not.
: If you missed it, the reason why it's morally corrupt isn't that Smith is
: using a particular swear-word or innuendo. The reason is because Smith is
: essentially doing something unnecessary to his plot -- to what end?
Rewrite his films without the sex and profanity -- THEN tell me it
isn't "necessary".
: And if it is necessary to his plot (ie, it's key to the story) -- what
: does that say about the story?
Why does it have to be "necessary to the plot"? Plot isn't everything,
whatever "romantic realists" may think. The essential aspects of Smith's
films are the characters, dialogue, and setting -- not the plot. You can
summarize the plot of "Clerks" and "Mallrats" in about a sentence and a
half per film; "Chasing Amy" is more complicated, but still basically
character-driven. If your only concern is advancing the plot, most movies
could be conveyed in about five minutes by having a narrator on-screen
summarizing the events that took place -- anything beyond that is
unnecessary.
So... is profanity and frank sexual discussion essential to the plot
of Kevin Smith's films? No. But it _is_ essential to the films as
overall works of art, because it is deeply ingrained in the characters
and the way they interact with one another.
:> Does _every_ film have to be a fantasy, or are some films allowed to
:> portray humans as they _are_ instead of how Ayn Rand thinks they should be?
: Human beings are whatever we make of ourselves. I don't swear. You may.
Some humans are albino. That doesn't mean all people in movies should
be albinos. If you don't use profanity, that's fine. But you're an
oddity in this world -- you shouldn't expect movie characters to
duplicate your behavior.
: You do, in this message (I have deleted it) I am replying to (shock!
: horror! And it added so much to your argument, too!).
I use profanity because it is natural to me, not because I feel it
improves my argument any. If you were somebody whose opinion I cared
about I would make an effort to be more polite. If it makes you
feel any better, though, I don't feel that the _lack_ of profanity
makes your arguments any more absurdly invalid than they already are. :)
: Who we are depends entirely on what we do. Would you rather look up
: to Silent Bob, or President Whitmore from *Independence Day* (for a
: very silly example).
Why should I look up to either one? Both are fictional characters.
Even if they _were_ real people, neither is worth looking up to --
Whitmore has zero personality, Bob is a drug dealer.
: Sure, *Independence Day* isn't a great movie -- but Whitmore refuses to
: back down, is heroic and strives always for success. Would you rather
: look up to Karl from *Sling Blade* or *Forrest Gump*?
Again, both fictional characters -- being as I don't live in fantasyland,
I don't strive to emulate fictional characters. If, for some reason,
I _did_ want to emulate a fictional character it certainly wouldn't
be Gump; he's passive and makes no attempt to improve or understand the
world around him. I haven't seen "Sling Blade", but from what little
I've heard I doubt Karl is much of a role model either. :)
: RE: What need, the infamous Eff?
: (expletive deleted by me)
(expletive added back in by me -- grow up, Atreyu)
:> "Fuck" is a word which appears regularly in everyday conversation,
:> particularly when the people having the conversation are young men,
:> and even more frequently when those young men are talking
:> about sex. I'm sorry if you don't approve, but so far as I can tell the
:> world doesn't exist to please you.
[misc off-topic responses snipped]
: But I ask you this: why isn't Kevin Smith making a picture about the
: other men down a few tables who are talking about the cure they've
: developed for cancer or the development of the cloning process?
Because he's making movies about people in their twenties. By the way,
if you don't think that brilliant scientists can be _just_ as profane
as any 20-year-old you're deluding yourself. Restricting yourself
to non-profane terms just limits your vocabulary; it doesn't make you
more intelligent, and it doesn't mean that you already _are_ more
intelligent.
: Don't knee-jerk on this one. WHY is Smith focusing on Holden and
: Silent Bob? What is his preoccupation with these characters (well,
: aside from the fact that Smith -is- Silent Bob, in a way . . . ).
Holden's not in the first two films. Smith focuses on him in "Chasing
Amy" because "Chasing Amy" is a romantic comedy (sort of) about
Holden and Alyssa. I think the dramatic use of focusing on the main
character should be self-apparent.
Why does Smith focus on Silent Bob? He doesn't. Silent Bob is simply
a character in all three of Smith's films. He gives useful advice to
the main characters in "Clerks" and "Amy", yes, but neither of those
films focuses on him -- he doesn't do or say anything else in either
film. In "Mallrats" he serves as comic relief, but no more than Jay
or the 3d-picture-guy.
:> He argues for _adherence_, not "enforced adherence". In this respect you
:> are no different from him.
: I don't argue for adherence.
Don't insult our intelligence -- of course you do. You just got finished
writing, a few paragraphs back, that (according to your morality) use of
profanity and sexual innuendo makes Smith's films either inferior or
"corrupt", depending on his motives. Are you honestly trying to claim
that you _haven't_ been arguing that Smith should do his films differently?
If so, you are a damned liar -- that's "a really really big liar" to those
of you who can't abide profanity.
:> That's exactly what Michael Medved argues -- have you actually READ his
:> book and/or reviews?
: I haven't read his book, but I've read and seen enough of his reviews to
: know where he stands in his Capra-Stasis. And I don't agree with it.
You agree with most of it; most of what you've written in this thread
could easily have come straight out of a Medved review.
: All film is about progress in the genre at its core.
Wrong. No film is about "progress in the genre at its core", because
"genres" are a concept external, not internal, to films. Genres
exist to help fans and critics classify films; films themselves do not
require genres, nor do they exist to further the interests of genres.
: Medved would rather we made *It's a Wonderful Life* (literally) over
: and over and over again. I
Hyperbole on your part. He, like you, criticizes films for not adhering
to his own preconceived and arbitrary notions of "appropriateness".
What each of you considers "appropriate" quite similar, based on everything
you've said in this thread and in your email to me.
: have no objection specifically to swearing, violence and/or sexuality.
: Medved would attack any film containing such material.
Quite untrue.
: Some of my favorite movies (*Motorama* would be one) have all -3- in
: abundance. But the difference is that, in the case of *Motorama*, for
: instance, the portrayals of these things serve a -purpose-.
The difference is that you THINK the sex, violence and profanity in
"Motorama" serves a purpose and the sex and profanity in Smith's films
does not. That's not a demonstrably true statement.
: RE: "Represent a type of culture more accurately," = invalid reasoning
:> Realism cannot be a part of a story? That's very interesting.
: It's got nothing to do with realism.
It has everything to do with realism. You made the claim that "representing
a type of culture more accurately" could not excuse the inclusion of
non-Atreyu-approved material in a story.
: Characters should be as realistic as possible. However, the question
: needs to be asked: what kind of characters are being celebrated in
: the popular cinema? Howard Stern.
A very good movie, but it would be a stretch to call him "celebrated".
"Private Parts" didn't do terribly well in the theater.
: Austin Powers (didn't see the former, the latter was a riot IMO). These
: characters (and yes, I consider Howard Stern-cum-radio-show to be a very
: fictional chaaracter) have every right to exist, and should exist.
: However, they're not the sort of thing that should be the
: be-all-and-end-all of cinema.
They aren't the "end-all and be-all" of cinema. "Forrest Gump", whose
main character you seemed to be suggesting as a role model a while back,
made more money than "Private Parts", "Austin Powers", and Kevin Smith's
collective body of work all rolled into one. Most big blockbusters
tend to be "sanitized for your protection".
:> Sure, a wad of bubble-gum looks out of place in a bed of roses, but it
:> looks perfectly appropriate in a downtown alley. "Clerks" is not set in
:> a French noble's court in 1765; it is set in a run-down suburb in New
:> Jersey, in a third-rate convenience store staffed by ordinary college
:> dropouts, in the 1990s.
: And I enjoyed *Clerks* as well, and even *Mallrats*. However, I do not
: consider those characters heroes.
Neither does Kevin Smith, or any other person I'm aware of. They aren't
heroes, aren't meant to be heroes, and shouldn't be expected to be heroes.
Only a fool or a child looks to fiction for his heroes.
:> Naturally there is a lot of profanity.
: Wrong -- there was profanity because characters like this like to use it.
Like I said: "naturally, there is a lot of profanity". Clerks has the
characters it has -- given that, there is profanity. The movie could
have had different characters in a different setting, but then it
would have been a different film. Given the film as conceived, profanity
is perfectly natural and appropriate.
: There's a difference. These characters have the choice to use profanity,
: or not, as they see fit. And they choose to use it. Why?
Why not?
: What is the reasoning behind it?
It is how they learned to speak and interact with their peers. There is
no reason _not_ to talk like that, so why not? They don't know that
there is an uptight objectivist in the audience cringing at every
"unnecessary" use of profanity -- if they did, they might try to
tone things down a bit. :)
: I do make movies. In them, my characters only swear when necessary to the
: story, and a sound-effect like a passing car usually blots out what they
: say -- or they're interrupted -- or any number of the methods used.
Glad to hear it -- the world needs more bad, contrived cinema to balance
out the recent boom in quality independent productions. :)
: There are a million ways to avoid cursing
...and no reason to use any of them, unless you're going for a "G" rating.
Ok, so you're afraid of profanity. Yay. So what? It doesn't bother most
people much at all, which is why most people found "Clerks" to be hysterical.
-- Dan
Jason C. Charnick
In article <5n1qqv$b...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Skander Halim) wrote:
>Another way to go entirely is
>to write dialogue with such distinctive flair and style that even though
>you never believe real people could be uttering it, it becomes a joy to
>listen to. This is extremely difficult to pull off, and very few writers
>can do it. Among current writers of this school, I like Tarantino, some David
>Mamet, early Daniel Waters and Hal Hartley, and this new Scott Rosenberg
>guy is promising.
>
Most of the names you mention are people that write a joy to listen to and
yet I believe that their dialogue is no better than Kevin Smith's. Now I
am a huge fan of David Mamet (see my page dedicated to him - address
below) but his dialogue is often more of an exercise in rhythm and
conflict than in the words themselves. His wonderful ability is to have
the banter sound so real, and have the conflict build without it really
being noticed, but the fact of the matter is, if you look at the words he
writes in and of themselves - no one talks like that. Scott Rosenberg
also, an alum of my beloved B.U. writes much more stylistically than
realistically. Now I believe Kevin Smith sacrifices that super-stylistic
dialogue so he could portray his characters in a more realistic light.
It's a balance that has worked out well for Kev, and the balance of those
other writers has worked out well for them - for better or worse.
Jason
--
Jason Charnick
E-mail: jason-c...@worldnet.att.net
WWW: http://home.att.net/~jason-charnick/
David Mamet Info Page
http://home.att.net/~jason-charnick/mamet.html
Any opinions contained here within are subject to the ownership of Major League Baseball. Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or retransmission of the these opinions without the express written consent of Major League Baseball or its subsidiaries is strictly prohibited. Or something like that.
Jason C. Charnick
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan
Bongard) wrote:
>No writer can make a stiff and close-minded individual feel anything
>he isn't willing to feel. Try watching "Chasing Amy" _without_ your
>personal agenda and see if you don't like it a lot more.
>
>-- Dan
I agree wholeheartedly with every argument that Mr. Bongard has made in
regards to this wonderfully entertaining and on-going thread. Part of film
criticism is applying your life experiences to what you have just viewed.
There's simply no way to see a movie "blind" so to speak. That being said
however, I feel that sometimes people tend to be a little to critical of
films. They expect and rightfully so, that what they see on the screen
will be more fantastic than what they experience in real life. So when
someone (Kevin Smith, especially) portray what I, and many others believe,
to be real people in real life situations, some folks tend to think of
those characters as flat and 2 dimensional. Film by its very nature cannot
be a perfect representation of the real world. It is the greatest
challenge therefore, I believe for those who want to try to use the medium
of film to represent the real world. Film is an relatively easy medium
when you want to have dinosaurs chasing Jeff Goldblum. Kevin Smith should
be lauded for his ability to have his films so closely mirror the real
world.
Derrick Hopkins
>When real people talk, no matter how smart or eloquent they are, it's
>messy. They leave unfinished thoughts and dangling sentence fragments.
>They rarely come up with the best words to express themselves. They
>almost never talk in complete, grammatically-correct sentences. They talk
>at the same time and constantly interrupt each other. Smith's characters
>certainly don't talk this way; and attempts at representing this kind of
>realism in narrative films usually end up being very boring.
Hell, no one in -any- movie talks like that. It's highly unlikely you'll
ever hear a movie character go "Ummm" in the middle of a sentence. And
if I had to sit through a film where characters kept uttering unfinished
thoughts, I'd walk out. I get enough of that in real life.
Derrick Hopkins : :
dhop...@infi.net: Blank Space :
IASCA NOV 1-150 : :
==========================================================================
The Cynthia Rothrock Fan Site--http://www.infi.net/~dhopkins/rothrock.html
Jason C. Charnick
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.970603...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, Atreyu
<atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>Smith would be admitting that he wallows
>in corruption if he gave the answer that his films are entirely dependent
>on swearing and sexual innuendo to succeed -- that he couldn't tell a
>story without them. In either case, it would be an admission of some
>degree that Smith's work can stand to improve. I think Smith is an
>excellent writer of dialogue. It's simply unfortunate that he has to
>choose the easy road to a quick "di**" joke or an easy "giggle."
>
Kevin Smith I'm sure would be the first to say that he has the swearing in
there because he can do it. He is the epitome of an independent filmmaker,
and he writes and films what he wants to. He has seen what can happen when
the studios take charge of his creative control (Mallrats), and has said
that he will never again let that happen (Yay!!!). Sure, some of what they
characters say don't further the plot, but in his attempt to portray the
real world, he includes some off-the-cuff remarks that often are said in
the real world. You must be a big fan of Syd Field if you think that every
word always must go to further the plot.
>No, the world exists. It can't "please" anyone. I don't approve of women
>being treated like machines, nor do I approve of men treating them that
>way. But what they want to think is their business. But I ask you this:
>why isn't Kevin Smith making a picture about the other men down a few
>tables who are talking about the cure they've developed for cancer or the
>development of the cloning process? Don't knee-jerk on this one. WHY is
>Smith focusing on Holden and Silent Bob? What is his preoccupation with
>these characters (well, aside from the fact that Smith -is- Silent Bob, in
>a way . . . ).
Boy, am I glad you made this comment because it (unfortunately for you)
shows the weakness of your argument. Now, while Kevin Smith plays Silent
Bob in the film, he has said flat-out on many occasions that he, himself,
is indeed the basis behind Holden. (please visit http://www.viewaskew.com/
for all the proof behind my argument, straight from the horse's mouth) His
preoccupation with these characters is this and exactly this: he wrote the
film as a cathartic way to deal with his girlfriend's past. His
girlfriend, if you didn't know, is Joey Lauren Adams, who played Alyssa
Jones. He couldn't deal with all that experience that Ms. Adams had,
compared to his relatively tame upbringing, and it was the source of much
friction between the two of them. Instead of going to a counselor to work
it out, Smith took the better approach (for him) and dealt with it by
writing the film. 'Nuff said. Simple as that.
>Wrong -- there was profanity because characters like this like to use it.
>There's a difference. These characters have the choice to use profanity,
>or not, as they see fit. And they choose to use it. Why? What is the
>reasoning behind it? Give an answer to -why-.
>
>- Atreyu
This will sound stupid, but I can only say that they use profanity because
they want to. I curse all the time, and it's not because I have a limited
vocabulary as many people who accuse those who curse say. I curse because
I want to and I even like it sometimes. There doesn't have to be such a
deep reason to why people use profanity. People cause because they want
to. Profanity is only deemed such because it is another of society's
conventions. Now you should be polite when it's an issue of respect
(courtroom, talking with a child or a boss), but just because society says
fuck (only a single syllable!) is such a horrible word. Bitch used to be
considered a curse word, but the changing times showed how it's not so bad
after all. Asshole, although I believe it to be a little over the top, is
even coming into the mainstream as TV shows like NYPD Blue have shown. And
dick, I can call my uncle Richard, Dick, but I can't use it to refer to my
penis, which is even overused nowadays! That is the most obvious reason
demonstrating the stupidity of profanity. And while the moral majority
would say that the increase in the evryday public use of profanity
demonstrates a decrease in society in general, I would point out that you
should spend more time denouncing the actions of Timothy McVeigh and John
Salvi, who claim to be in that "moral" group, than on the speech patterns
of those whom you don't even know.
My Opinion
Derrick Hopkins wrote:
>
> Hell, no one in -any- movie talks like that. It's highly unlikely you'll
> ever hear a movie character go "Ummm" in the middle of a sentence. And
> if I had to sit through a film where characters kept uttering unfinished
> thoughts, I'd walk out. I get enough of that in real life.
Boy, you must walk out on a lot of Hugh Grant movies.
Atreyu
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
> Typical Randian invalid logic. There _is_ something wrong with corruption.
> The very word "corruption" itself refers to an alteration in the correct
> state of things.
Yes.
> So I'm afraid I don't see the parallel here -- "honest people" don't
> support corruption because they feel it is wrong.
Yes.
> You refuse to acknowledge that you think there is anything "wrong"
> about the dialogue in Kevin Smith's films.
It's perfectly in-keeping with the corrupt characters he writes about.
> So why, then, should people with "moral decorum" not like it?
It's corrupt.
> That's like saying Michaelangelo could have painted the same paintings
> using black and white paint --
No, it's not.
> Smith's films would not be the same without the profanity and the
> innuendo.
No. Smith -- being a sentient human -- has every opportunity to be as
corrupt as he wants, or as honest as he wants. He can elevate the human
spirit, or focus on those people he chooses. It's entirely up to him.
> Hell, "Clerks" wouldn't even _exist_ if you took out the profanity and
> innuendo;
It'd be an entirely different movie.
> you can count the non-profane, non-sexual bits of humor in that film on
> one hand.
Exactly. It's corrupt, as I've said before.
> One of the lines that consistantly got some of the biggest laughs from
> the audience every time I saw "Clerks" was: "Jesus Christ, what the
> fuck do you do for an encore? Anally rape my mother while pouring sugar
> in my gas tank?" Could you please explain how you could keep this in the
> movie, and keep it funny, without using profanity and "inappropriate"
> speech?
Set up a funny situation -- show it. Then, "What do you do for an
encore?" with a suitably shocked look. Of course, that'd be *Atreyu's
-Clerks-.* Not *Clerks*. And *Clerks* isn't a film I'd particularly
make in the first place.
> Another bit that consitantly got the big laughs was: "Try not to suck
> any dick on your way through the parking lot!"
Riotous, especially when not said aloud. One of the benchmark rules for
me in a script is that it has to be funny when it's read -- without the
actor putting any emphasis on the line. If the line can only be funny
when improvised with the inflections and such, it's not a funny line.
> What do you replace that with?
"Get out of here!"
> Both of those are "reason enough". Artists have no moral or ethical
> obligation to justify artistic decisions to Thought Police like yourself.
No. Artists only have obligations to themselves. What they create,
however, says a great deal about their artistic sense of life.
Kevin Smith wrote his movies for a reason, and that reason may be
legitimate, but I feel legitimate pity for the man if he had to deal with
people like he portrays in his works. Let me say it this way: I wouldn't
want any of the people in any of his films so far to be friends with me,
and I certainly wouldn't be friends with them.
> Kevin Smith does movies his way because they are funny that way.
That's valid. He's a developing talent.
> Could he make them funny another way? Maybe.
Don't confuse your premises. HE may or may not be able to make a movie in
a different way. But SOMEONE could take those same plotlines and make
them humorous without using profanity unnecessarily.
> Maybe he doesn't know any other way to make movies funny, so he's going
> with what works.
So, if someone can only feed themselves by going out and committing
murder, because it's all they know, does that make it right?
> If you don't like it, don't watch his films -- end of conflict.
I've never once said I didn't like it. Smith expertly portrays the
corruption of his characters. I find it fascinating that you object so
strenuously to a positive review of all three of the 'New Jersey Trilogy'
films. I've written numerous times that I think these are good films for
what they are. But trying to say these are not corrupt characters is
wrong. Why do I enjoy them even though they're not morally honest?
Because they're about morally dishonest people -- and the world they
inhabit is portrayed absolutely accurately.
> Thanks for the moral lesson, Reverend Falwell.
I'm an atheist.
> Kevin Smith is extremely funny;
Never met the man. His films are.
> you are merely laughable.
That's a response I'd expect.
> Kevin Smith tells funny -- and sometimes moving -- stories;
Yes, he does.
> you spout
I write --
> half-baked philosophy
About Objective philosophy (as best I understand it) --
> cooked up by untalented
Which comes from Ayn Rand, who was extremely talented --
> Romantic writers.
Correct.
> If "purity" makes you what you are, and "corruption" lets Kevin Smith
> tell the stories he does, then I eagerly await the day when the world
becomes more completely corrupted. :)
I'm sure.
> Is anybody but me reminded of the polka-playing lietennant in "Good
> Morning, Vietnam"?
I don't care too much for polka.
> Removing profanity and sex from films does not autmatically improve
> them.
True.
> Even "gratuitous" profanity and sex do not automatically make a movie
> worse;
True.
> profanity and sex that are central to the plot/humor of the film
> certainly do not.
True.
> There is no such thing as "the easy road to a quick dick joke" or
> "an easy giggle".
Andrew "Dice" Clay made it to the movies on artistic merit, I forgot. :/
> Bizarre as it may seem to somebody with your Victorian mentality,
Romantic, not Victorian.
> it is actually quite difficult to get an audience to laugh --
Not so -- people will giggle at hearing the screams of someone getting
electrically shocked and possibly killed (there was a psychological study
done on this). People will laugh when someone flattulates. People laugh
at most National Lampoon movies.
> profanity doesn't automatically make it easier.
False. People laugh nervously when someone swears, in general.
> Timing and delivery are everything;
True.
> profanity works in situations that polite speech would not.
True.
> Rewrite his films without the sex and profanity -- THEN tell me it
> isn't "necessary".
I'll stick to writing my own films.
> Why does it have to be "necessary to the plot"?
Anything that doesn't support the artist's intent is superfluous in a
film. It's style based on the arbitrary. If it's part of the film's
purpose, it will support the plot.
> Plot isn't everything, whatever "romantic realists" may think.
The plot is the device which allows the characters to express themselves
about a given situation and make moral and ethical delimnas. How they
respond to these delimnas determines their character.
> The essential aspects of Smith's films are the characters,
Corrupt.
> dialogue,
Corrupt.
> and setting --
Banal.
> not the plot.
True.
> You can summarize the plot of "Clerks" and "Mallrats" in about a
> sentence and a half per film; "Chasing Amy" is more complicated, but
> still basically character-driven.
You can do this with any movie. *Stargate*: Scientists find a gateway to
a mystical world. *Independence Day*: Aliens invade the planet and kill
lots of people, but mankind survives.
> If your only concern is advancing the plot, most movies could be
> conveyed in about five minutes by having a narrator on-screen
> summarizing the events that took place -- anything beyond that is
> unnecessary.
That would be excessively boring. That's what novels are for -- the
author having the only voice one hears in what is done and said
(hopefully, sans editors).
> So... is profanity and frank sexual discussion essential to the plot
> of Kevin Smith's films?
Yes. You just got done saying that without that profanity they'd be
totally different films, presumably with totally different plotlines.
Remember your "Candyland" scenario?
> No. But it _is_ essential to the films as overall works of art, because
> it is deeply ingrained in the characters and the way they interact with
> one another.
So we should look up to these people, then? They're to be celebrated?
> Some humans are albino. That doesn't mean all people in movies should
> be albinos.
True.
> If you don't use profanity, that's fine.
Thank you for your permission.
> But you're an oddity in this world --
Thank you for the compliment.
> you shouldn't expect movie characters to duplicate your behavior.
I don't expect anything out of cinema except that it be true to itself.
Smith's films are internally consistent.
> I use profanity because it is natural to me, not because I feel it
> improves my argument any.
How naturalist of you.
> If you were somebody whose opinion I cared about I would make an effort
> to be more polite.
You shouldn't care about my opinion; you shouldn't care about anyone's
opinion. And you certainly shouldn't change who you are around other
people. That's dishonest.
RE: Why isn't Kevin Smith making pictures about brain-surgeons?
> Because he's making movies about people in their twenties.
So? Buckaroo Banzai was a born going in two directions at once, and
turned out just fine.
> By the way, if you don't think that brilliant scientists can be _just_
> as profane as any 20-year-old you're deluding yourself.
I have no illusions. Especially with quantum physics, science has shown
its own internal corruption quite well. And people of all occupations can
be corrupt.
>.Restricting yourself to non-profane terms just limits your vocabulary;
> it doesn't make you more intelligent, and it doesn't mean that you
> already _are_ more intelligent.
True.
> Holden's not in the first two films.
Well, not as Holden. I'm talking about *Chasing Amy*.
> Smith focuses on him in "Chasing Amy" because "Chasing Amy" is a
> romantic comedy (sort of) about Holden and Alyssa. I think the dramatic
> use of focusing on the main character should be self-apparent.
Yes, but why is he telling us Holden's story? You did knee-jerk; you
didn't answer my question. Why is the story of Holden important? Why is
the story of Silent Bob important? Why do these people matter in life?
RE: I Don't Enforce Morality
> Don't insult our intelligence -- of course you do.
I don't, but feel free to explain to me why I do --
> You just got finished writing, a few paragraphs back, that (according
> to your morality) use of profanity and sexual innuendo makes Smith's
> films either inferior or "corrupt", depending on his motives.
And that forces him not to make films? Or to make 'g'-rated films? Smith
is free to make any kind of film he wants! I certainly don't object to
it. I think you fundamentally misunderstand my argument. I'm very
reasonable -- Smith can make any kind of film he chooses. I will say he
needs improvement in the technical venue, but that comes with a budget and
a studio that'll trust him and not interfere.
> Are you honestly trying to claim that you _haven't_ been arguing that
> Smith should do his films differently?
What Smith should or shouldn't do isn't my business. I'm merely saying
what I think about profanity and innuendo. I'm amazed that it has
generated such a negative response. Smith could substitute "Cheese
Sandwich" for every curse-word he uses, and it'd still be corrupt. But
Smith has every privilege in a free society to follow his own best
interest and make the movies he wants to make.
> You agree with most of it; most of what you've written in this thread
> could easily have come straight out of a Medved review.
A religious film critic, an *Independence Day* alien, and an Objectivist
student might all say "The sky is blue." The question comes from their
reasoning behind what they say.
The critic might suggest the sky is blue because it's good and pretty that
way. Or because God wants it to be that way. Or who knows why-?
*Independence Day* Alien might say it's blue because of the Great G'quali
who made all skies blue with the power of his Mighty Tentacle.
Objectivist student might say the sky is blue, too -- but he's going to
have articulate, physical evidence to back up his statements, versus the
arbitrary ideas possessed by the other two.
> Hyperbole on your part. He, like you, criticizes films for not adhering
> to his own preconceived and arbitrary notions of "appropriateness".
Never have I said that Smith's films are inappropriate. I've said they're
corrupt. There's a big difference.
> What each of you considers "appropriate" quite similar, based on everything
> you've said in this thread and in your email to me.
See the example above, again. and then read what I said below:
I said:
> : I have no objection specifically to swearing, violence and/or
> : sexuality. Medved would attack any film containing such material.
RE: *Motorama*
> The difference is that you THINK the sex, violence and profanity in
> "Motorama" serves a purpose and the sex and profanity in Smith's films
> does not.
Incorrect. Both serve purposes. One is corrupt, the other is not. And
this is my personal value judgment. Yours may vary. That's called "free
will." And you have every right to exercise it. One of us, however, is
right and the other is wrong.
> It has everything to do with realism. You made the claim that "representing
> a type of culture more accurately" could not excuse the inclusion of
> non-Atreyu-approved material in a story.
False.
> They aren't the "end-all and be-all" of cinema. "Forrest Gump", whose
> main character you seemed to be suggesting as a role model a while back,
Not at all, but go on --
> made more money than "Private Parts", "Austin Powers", and Kevin Smith's
> collective body of work all rolled into one. Most big blockbusters
> tend to be "sanitized for your protection".
You are making a common mistake reactionary individuals make (and I'm not
calling you a reactionary individual -- the mistake is simply the same).
I'm not saying these films of Smith's -should- be sanitized. I'm only
asking you to recognize the corruption in these characters. You seem to
refuse, pointing them out as sterling examples of what humanity has to
offer that should be lauded and celebrated.
> Only a fool or a child looks to fiction for his heroes.
False.
RE: Why use profanity?
> It is how they learned to speak and interact with their peers.
So, if someone learns to kill people at a young age -- it's all right? If
they learn it from their peers? Does the word "Hitler Youth" mean
anything to you?
> There is no reason _not_ to talk like that, so why not?
So, what about any immoral act? Is there any reason not to committ any
immoral act, or does our universe support the very worst man has to offer?
> They don't know that there is an uptight objectivist in the audience
> cringing at every "unnecessary" use of profanity -- if they did, they
> might try to tone things down a bit. :)
Hardly. Smith's characters would likely swear more. That's the nature of
their behavior. It's for attention, since they have nothing else of value
to offer up in the way of communication. And I'm not cringing.
RE: I Do Make Movies
> Glad to hear it -- the world needs more bad, contrived cinema to balance
> out the recent boom in quality independent productions. :)
A grin and an insult? In keeping with Smith's cinematic universe. No
respect for one's fellow human beings? Again, in keeping with Smith's
cinematic universe. And what is so badly contrived about my method of
eliminating swear-words?
Dan Bongard
Atreyu (atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
:> You refuse to acknowledge that you think there is anything "wrong"
:> about the dialogue in Kevin Smith's films.
: It's perfectly in-keeping with the corrupt characters he writes about.
Your failure to acknowledge that you think there is anything "wrong"
with Kevin Smith's dialogue is perfectly in keeping with the characters
he writes about? :)
The point is, you think his dialogue is "wrong". Sometimes you claim
that it is appropriate for the characters he writes about; sometimes
you imply that it is inappropriate for the characters he writes about.
But in all both cases you continually imply that there is something
"wrong" with the dialogue he writes.
:> So why, then, should people with "moral decorum" not like it?
: It's corrupt.
Can I take this as a much-delayed, much-avoided-on-your-part admission
that you think Kevin Smith's dialogue is "wrong"?
Re: "Hey, just get rid of all the sex & cuss words, it won't change a thing."
:> That's like saying Michaelangelo could have painted the same paintings
:> using black and white paint --
: No, it's not.
Sure it is. You're saying "go ahead and completely change the characters
and dialogue. It won't change the movie a bit." Only a complete blithering
idiot could possibly think that would be the case. Words are the tools
a writer works with. Eliminate some of those tools, and you eliminate
some of the possible artistic creations that writer can produce. Alter
the words in an existing work and you change that work.
:> Smith's films would not be the same without the profanity and the
:> innuendo.
: No. Smith -- being a sentient human -- has every opportunity to be as
: corrupt as he wants, or as honest as he wants. He can elevate the human
: spirit, or focus on those people he chooses. It's entirely up to him.
That's entirely beside the point -- the fact remains that changing the
characters and dialogue in Smith's films by removing the sex and profanity
would utterly change all three films. They could NOT "be the same".
Could the _plot_ be the same? Yes, but so what? Nobody went to see
"Clerks" for the plot; they went to see it _because_ of what you call
"corruption", ie the funny parts.
:> Hell, "Clerks" wouldn't even _exist_ if you took out the profanity and
:> innuendo;
: It'd be an entirely different movie.
Could you explain why you gave this response when one sentence ago you
said "no" in response to my claim that Smith's film's wouldn't be the
same if you took out the profanity and innuendo? There are only three
possible reasons:
(1): You don't realize that "different" and "not the same" have the
exact same meaning.
(2): You're deliberately missing the point.
(3): You are a fool.
Or, actually, any combination of the above. So I guess that's _seven_
possible reasons. :)
:> One of the lines that consistantly got some of the biggest laughs from
:> the audience every time I saw "Clerks" was: "Jesus Christ, what the
:> fuck do you do for an encore? Anally rape my mother while pouring sugar
:> in my gas tank?" Could you please explain how you could keep this in the
:> movie, and keep it funny, without using profanity and "inappropriate"
:> speech?
: Set up a funny situation -- show it. Then, "What do you do for an
: encore?" with a suitably shocked look. Of course, that'd be *Atreyu's
: -Clerks-.*
"Set up a funny situation" -- what a brilliant idea! "Hey, its a comedy;
let's do something _funny_!" It sure much have taken a rocket scientist's
intellect to figure _that_ one out. I asked for what you would replace
the scene with, you replied with "something funny". That's pretty sad.
The fact is, you can't think of anything funny to put in its place;
your changes to the movie would ruin it.
:> Another bit that consitantly got the big laughs was: "Try not to suck
:> any dick on your way through the parking lot!"
: Riotous, especially when not said aloud.
Riotous ONLY when said aloud. There is nothing funny about Dante watching
his girlfriend walk across the parking lot, not saying anything. Given
that they had just finished a heated argument, in fact, silence on Dante's
part would give a bitter or somber tone to the scene -- it would most
certainly not have been riotously funny.
: One of the benchmark rules for me in a script is that it has to be funny
: when it's read -- without the actor putting any emphasis on the line.
While your remarks are interesting in a look-at-the-little-college-
objectivist sort of way they have no bearing on this discussion. The
line "try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot"
is funny not because of the emphasis Dante's actor puts on it, but
because the line itself is funny. "Dante silently watches his girlfriend
storm off through the parking lot" is not funny on paper OR on film.
"Try not to let your lips come in contact with another man's genitalia
while you're walking through the parking lot" (or however you would
choose to make the scene non-profane) is also not going to be funny.
: If the line can only be funny when improvised with the inflections and
: such, it's not a funny line.
Again, "interesting" but irrelevant.
:> What do you replace that with?
: "Get out of here!"
Ah, I see... you would remove all humor from the scene. Good call.
I've always said: "Dan, when you want to make a really funny comedy,
you've just _got_ to avoid those riotously funny scenes at all costs."
:> Both of those are "reason enough". Artists have no moral or ethical
:> obligation to justify artistic decisions to Thought Police like yourself.
: No. Artists only have obligations to themselves.
You mean "Yes, artists only have obligations to themselves." You're
agreeing with me, see? That means you don't have to say "no" in response
to the statement you're agreeing with, see?
: What they create, however, says a great deal about their artistic sense
: of life. Kevin Smith wrote his movies for a reason, and that reason may be
: legitimate, but I feel legitimate pity for the man if he had to deal with
: people like he portrays in his works.
I'm sure he needs your pity -- he's rich, famous, has a good relationship
with a beautiful and intelligent girlfriend, and everything he does is
loved by millions of people. You, on the other hand, are just another
pretentious college student whose existance _maybe_ ten or twenty people
on Earth actually care about.
: Let me say it this way: I wouldn't want any of the people in any of
: his films so far to be friends with me, and I certainly wouldn't be
: friends with them.
Assuming that they were real people instead of fictional characters... why
should they care that you don't want to be their friend? I'm sure
that Jimmy Swaggert doesn't want to be their friend either, but they
could probably live through _that_ tragic situation as well.
The fact is that Dante and Randall are liked by, quite literally, about
three orders of magnitude more people than have even _heard_ of you. Why?
because they are funny people, and people that others can identify with.
You possess neither of those traits.
: Don't confuse your premises. HE may or may not be able to make a movie in
: a different way. But SOMEONE could take those same plotlines and make
: them humorous without using profanity unnecessarily.
I'm sure they could. So what? "They" are welcome to make films too, you know.
:> Maybe he doesn't know any other way to make movies funny, so he's going
:> with what works.
: So, if someone can only feed themselves by going out and committing
: murder, because it's all they know, does that make it right?
Unless you're saying that murder is equivalent to profanity -- and maybe
you are, it wouldn't be the first absurd claim you've made -- that
particular bit of hyperbole doesn't serve as a very useful parallel.
Better example: "So if someone can only feed themselves by writing certain
kinds of stories, because it's all they know, does that make it all right?"
Answer: Yes.
:> If you don't like it, don't watch his films -- end of conflict.
: I've never once said I didn't like it.
You've said that the films are nothing a morally or intellectually decent
person would want to hear. I apologize for thinking that you thought you
were a morally or intellectually decent person. Fine; Smith's films
are, in your opinion, corrupt, indecent, intellectually dishonest, and
morally comparable to the act of murder. You like them anyway; let's move on.
: Smith expertly portrays the corruption of his characters. I find it
: fascinating that you object so strenuously to a positive review of all
: three of the 'New Jersey Trilogy' films.
Could you please cite one post wherein I objected to a positive review?
My objection is simply to your classification of Smith's dialogue as
"morally wrong".
: I've written numerous times that I think these are good films for
: what they are. But trying to say these are not corrupt characters is
: wrong.
Why? They are only corrupt in your opinion.
:> Thanks for the moral lesson, Reverend Falwell.
: I'm an atheist.
I meant "Reverend Falwell" in the "morally uptight hypocrite" sense, not
the "devout follower of Jesus Christ" sense. :)
:> Kevin Smith is extremely funny;
: Never met the man.
I have. He's extremely funny. You would find him to be corrupt and
morally/intellectually dishonest, but he's considerably more intelligent,
funny, and personable than you. Humor and brains beat your Victorian-era
moralizing any day of the week.
:> you are merely laughable.
: That's a response I'd expect.
I'm not surprised; you probably get it a lot.
:> Even "gratuitous" profanity and sex do not automatically make a movie
:> worse;
: True.
Flip-flopping again, I see.
:> There is no such thing as "the easy road to a quick dick joke" or
:> "an easy giggle".
: Andrew "Dice" Clay made it to the movies on artistic merit, I forgot. :/
He made it to the movies based on name recognition, which he earned
via the media's obsession with his "shocking" comedy routine. In other
words, he "made it to the movies" because he was famous, not because he
was funny. And because he was not funny -- "quick dick jokes"
notwithstanding -- his comedic movie career came to an abrupt end.
:> Bizarre as it may seem to somebody with your Victorian mentality,
: Romantic, not Victorian.
Tomato/tomahto. Fear of sex and profanity.
:> it is actually quite difficult to get an audience to laugh --
: Not so
But it is.
: people will giggle at hearing the screams of someone getting electrically
: shocked and possibly killed (there was a psychological study done on this).
Sometimes they will. Usually they won't. Getting a large number of people
to predictably laugh at something is very difficult.
: People will laugh when someone flattulates.
Assuming we're talking about adults -- no, not usually.
: People laugh at most National Lampoon movies.
Some of them. :) Some of them are quite funny.
:> profanity doesn't automatically make it easier.
: False. People laugh nervously when someone swears, in general.
_You_ might, because you're afraid of profanity. Most of the human race
does not.
:> Rewrite his films without the sex and profanity -- THEN tell me it
:> isn't "necessary".
: I'll stick to writing my own films.
Gee, maybe there _is_ a God. :)
:> Why does it have to be "necessary to the plot"?
: Anything that doesn't support the artist's intent is superfluous in a
: film.
Since "plot" does not equate to "artist's intent", you still haven't
answered my question.
: If it's part of the film's purpose, it will support the plot.
Quite wrong, as usual.
:> Plot isn't everything, whatever "romantic realists" may think.
: The plot is the device which allows the characters to express themselves
: about a given situation and make moral and ethical delimnas. How they
: respond to these delimnas determines their character.
Wrong again; plot is not a necessary to the characters. Neither are
moral and ethical "delimnas" [sic], whatever those may be.
: Corrupt. Corrupt. Banal.
And you liked it anyway. Tsk tsk.
:> You can summarize the plot of "Clerks" and "Mallrats" in about a
:> sentence and a half per film; "Chasing Amy" is more complicated, but
:> still basically character-driven.
: You can do this with any movie. *Stargate*: Scientists find a gateway to
: a mystical world. *Independence Day*: Aliens invade the planet and kill
: lots of people, but mankind survives.
Neither of those films had much of a plot either, true. :)
:> If your only concern is advancing the plot, most movies could be
:> conveyed in about five minutes by having a narrator on-screen
:> summarizing the events that took place -- anything beyond that is
:> unnecessary.
: That would be excessively boring.
That appears to be your goal.
:> So... is profanity and frank sexual discussion essential to the plot
:> of Kevin Smith's films?
: Yes.
No.
: You just got done saying that without that profanity they'd be
: totally different films, presumably with totally different plotlines.
You can "presume" that the plotlines would be totally different if you
want to. The fact is that the plot is only one small part of a film,
and not always the most significant plot. Snipping out the profanity
and sexual innuendo would emasculate "Clerks", remove almost all of the
humor from the film, and utterly change the characters and tone -- but
it wouldn't change the plot in the slightest way.
:> No. But it _is_ essential to the films as overall works of art, because
:> it is deeply ingrained in the characters and the way they interact with
:> one another.
: So we should look up to these people, then? They're to be celebrated?
Could you explain why you think this follows from my remarks above?
:> If you don't use profanity, that's fine.
: Thank you for your permission.
Now brush your teeth and go to bed. :)
:> I use profanity because it is natural to me, not because I feel it
:> improves my argument any.
: How naturalist of you.
^^^^^^^^^^
The correct spelling of that is "human". :)
:> If you were somebody whose opinion I cared about I would make an effort
:> to be more polite.
: You shouldn't care about my opinion; you shouldn't care about anyone's
: opinion.
I'm sorry. I forgot you were a devout Objectivist. I'll try to refrain
from caring about the rest of the human race in your presence. :)
: And you certainly shouldn't change who you are around other people.
: That's dishonest.
In your opinion. And, to follow up your remarks above: why should I care
if you think I'm dishonest?
: RE: Why isn't Kevin Smith making pictures about brain-surgeons?
:> Because he's making movies about people in their twenties.
: So? Buckaroo Banzai was a born going in two directions at once, and
: turned out just fine.
Buckaroo Banzai is a fictional character; Kevin Smith is a real person.
Where's the parallel here? For that matter -- even if Banzai WAS a real
person, where's the parallel here?
:> By the way, if you don't think that brilliant scientists can be _just_
:> as profane as any 20-year-old you're deluding yourself.
: I have no illusions. Especially with quantum physics, science has shown
: its own internal corruption quite well.
QUANTUM PHYSICS is an example of "science's internal corruption"? Could
you score me a half-ounce of whatever you've been smoking? I'm very
sorry the world doesn't work in the predictable way you'd like it to,
but that's just the way the ball bounces.
: > Holden's not in the first two films.
: Well, not as Holden.
He's not in "Clerks" in any sense of the word.
:> Smith focuses on him in "Chasing Amy" because "Chasing Amy" is a
:> romantic comedy (sort of) about Holden and Alyssa. I think the dramatic
:> use of focusing on the main character should be self-apparent.
: Yes, but why is he telling us Holden's story?
Because the story of Holden and Alyssa is a modified version of the
Real Life story of Kevin Smith and Joey Lauren Adams(ie, Alyssa). That
makes it important to Kevin Smith. He wrote the movie both as a cathartic
experience for his own benefit, and in the hopes that the rest of the
world would find the story funny, moving, and interesting. It worked, IMO.
: You didn't answer my question. Why is the story of Holden important?
It is important to Kevin Smith because it relates to his own life. It
isn't necessarily important to anybody else, except inasmuch as they
like Holden as a person. The story doesn't have to be important.
: Why is the story of Silent Bob important?
"The story of Silent Bob"? What "story of Silent Bob"? After three movies
we still no nothing about Bob beyond the fact that (a) he deals drugs,
(b) he's seen the "Star Wars" films at least once, and (c) he once
had a relationship with a woman named "Amy" that fell apart because of his
own inability to deal with her background. (a) explains his presence
outside the convenience store in "Clerks" but has no bearing on any of the
other films; (b) is not important to any film (it is just pop culture
referencing, and sets up the joke at the end of "Mallrats" with the
Jedi Mind Trick); (c) is important because it relates to Holden's situation.
: Why do these people matter in life?
Why do YOU matter in life? Answer: you don't. You're just another person,
like Kevin Smith or myself or whoever. Why does Holden matter in life?
Holden doesn't exist in life -- he's a fictional character. Why does
he (as a fictional character) matter to people? Some people, like myself,
find him interesting or likeable and want to know what will become of him.
RE: "I don't want people to adhere to my moral code".
:> Don't insult our intelligence -- of course you do.
:> You just got finished writing, a few paragraphs back, that (according
:> to your morality) use of profanity and sexual innuendo makes Smith's
:> films either inferior or "corrupt", depending on his motives.
: And that forces him not to make films? Or to make 'g'-rated films?
No. And (despite your pathetic attempts to make it sound like I've been
calling you a "censor") I never said it did. What I _did_ say was that,
like Michael Medved, you support adherence (which I specifically
distinguished from "enforced adherence") to your moral code.
[misc off-topic "Dan's calling me a censor!" nonsense snipped]
:> Are you honestly trying to claim that you _haven't_ been arguing that
:> Smith should do his films differently?
: What Smith should or shouldn't do isn't my business.
Stop dodging the question. I never said it was your business; I said
you've been arguing that Smith should do his films differently. That
is a completely factual statement.
[more off-topic "hey, I don't support censorship" remarks snipped]
:> What each of you considers "appropriate" is quite similar, based on
:> everything you've said in this thread and in your email to me.
: See the example above, again. and then read what I said below:
Results matter. Both of you present similar odious opinions; the fact
that you use a _different_ form of arbitrary and illogical morality
than Medved to "back up" your opinions does not matter.
: RE: *Motorama*
:> The difference is that you THINK the sex, violence and profanity in
:> "Motorama" serves a purpose and the sex and profanity in Smith's films
:> does not.
: Incorrect. Both serve purposes. One is corrupt, the other is not.
Again -- just your opinion. All you are saying is "Motorama is a good
film because I say so, and 'Chasing Amy' is corrupt because I say so".
That's not very helpful.
: One of us, however, is right and the other is wrong.
That's not demonstrably true either. If I say something is beautiful
and you say it isn't, neither or us is either right or wrong. The
same holds true for your statement that "Chasing Amy" is corrupt.
:> It has everything to do with realism. You made the claim that "representing
:> a type of culture more accurately" could not excuse the inclusion of
:> non-Atreyu-approved material in a story.
: False.
True; you made the claim. If you changed your mind that's not my problem.
:> They aren't the "end-all and be-all" of cinema. "Forrest Gump", whose
:> main character you seemed to be suggesting as a role model a while back,
: Not at all, but go on --
You said (paraphrased) "Which is the better role model: Karl from
'Sling Blade' or Gump from 'Forrest Gump'"? Was this an entirely
pointless question? Did you mean to imply that Karl the Serial Killer
was the better role model? Could you please use useful examples?
:> made more money than "Private Parts", "Austin Powers", and Kevin Smith's
:> collective body of work all rolled into one. Most big blockbusters
:> tend to be "sanitized for your protection".
: You are making a common mistake reactionary individuals make (and I'm not
: calling you a reactionary individual -- the mistake is simply the same).
That's pathetic. If you aren't at least _implying_ that I'm a reactionary
individual, why mention it? If the mistake is made by reactionary and
non-reactionary people alike why not just say "You are making a mistake"?
: I'm not saying these films of Smith's -should- be sanitized.
I didn't say you were. Is English your second language? If so, please
make and effort to more carefully read what I write.
: I'm only asking you to recognize the corruption in these characters.
Your version of "corruption" is an artifact of objectivist morality,
which is not somethign I buy into. Are the characters in Kevin Smith's
films without flaws? Of course not; neither is anybody else. You
call them "corrupt"; that's your opinion. I consider them to be
relatively ordinary people, and that's my opinion.
: You seem to refuse, pointing them out as sterling examples of what
: humanity has to offer that should be lauded and celebrated.
Your are a liar, I'm afraid. I've never said that, or even implied it.
If you searched the whole of the Usenet from top to bottom and recorded
every real life conversation I've ever had you would find yourself unable
to find a single example of me citing any character in any movie as
a "sterling example . . . that should be lauded and celebrated".
:> Only a fool or a child looks to fiction for his heroes.
: False.
Prove it. Or did you actually mean "I disagree"?
: RE: Why use profanity?
:> It is how they learned to speak and interact with their peers.
: So, if someone learns to kill people at a young age -- it's all right?
Again, unless you can show that profanity is equivalent to murder you
can't use the above childish bit of hyperbole to draw parallels. Here's
a better example: if somebody learns to speak at a young age, does
that mean it is ok for them to speak? Answer: yes.
: Does the word "Hitler Youth" mean anything to you?
That's two words. But, yes: it means that this particular thread has
reached the "drawing parallels between the matter at hand and Nazism"
stage, and thus is about to sputter out and die. :)
:> There is no reason _not_ to talk like that, so why not?
: So, what about any immoral act?
Use of profanity is not demonstrably immoral, so there's no parallel here.
: Is there any reason not to committ any immoral act, or does our
: universe support the very worst man has to offer?
"Our universe" supports anything that is physically possible. By the
way -- you and I know what bearing you think this has on morality,
but you might want to take a moment to explain your philosophy to
the home viewers. :)
:> They don't know that there is an uptight objectivist in the audience
:> cringing at every "unnecessary" use of profanity -- if they did, they
:> might try to tone things down a bit. :)
: Hardly. Smith's characters would likely swear more
Randall and Banky likely would; Holden and Dante, who always try to
remain polite around strangers, would not.
: That's the nature of their behavior.
I see that we can add "pathetically bad judge of human nature" to the
ever-increasing list of your personal flaws.
: RE: I Do Make Movies
:> Glad to hear it -- the world needs more bad, contrived cinema to balance
:> out the recent boom in quality independent productions. :)
: A grin and an insult? In keeping with Smith's cinematic universe.
Thank you very much.
: No respect for one's fellow human beings?
I have respect for people worthy of respect; you certainly aren't on
that list. If it makes you feel any better, neither are any of Smith's
characters except, possibly, Alyssa Jones.
: And what is so badly contrived about my method of eliminating swear-words?
Gee, a car happens to honk every time somebody uses profanity? Nah,
nothing "contrived" about that -- I don't know what I was thinking. :)
-- Dan
Atreyu
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
I think someone needs to read more carefully. You said:
> :> You refuse to acknowledge that you think there is anything "wrong"
> :> about the dialogue in Kevin Smith's films.
Then, I said:
> : It's perfectly in-keeping with the corrupt characters he writes about.
Then, you said:
> Your failure to acknowledge that you think there is anything "wrong"
> with Kevin Smith's dialogue is perfectly in keeping with the characters
> he writes about? :)
There's nothing wrong with Kevin Smith's -characters- speaking the way
-they- do. It's perfectly in-keeping with the corruption inherent in
these characters. You seem to think 'wrong' is tantamount to 'should be
eliminated' or 'must be changed.' Wrong = wrong, as in 'incorrect.'
> The point is, you think his dialogue is "wrong".
Yes. In the real world, where I live, I would consider characters such as
those Smith writes about as corrupt. Holden and Silent Bob, I wouldn't
want to hang around with.
> Sometimes you claim that it is appropriate for the characters he writes
> about;
It is. Corrupt characters should be described as corrupt.
> sometimes you imply that it is inappropriate for the characters he
> writes about.
Wrong. I've said again and again throughout this discussion that it is
wrong for people to behave the way Smith's characters behave. But that is
my decision -- one I will not enforce. One cannot be forced to think, nor
to be honest. It has to come from the individual. Smith's characters are
who they are, and at the very least Smith as the honesty to portray those
corrupt characters and the consequences of their corruption. That is why
I appreciate his films. None of these characters are positive
role-models. However, I must question why Smith focuses on the negative
elements of human behavior (the corruption I've talked about) versus the
positive elements. Is this an act that attempts to subvert reality?
> But in all both cases you continually imply that there is something
> "wrong" with the dialogue he writes.
It's corrupt dialogue. That the characters say it is in-keeping with
those characters.
> Can I take this as a much-delayed, much-avoided-on-your-part admission
> that you think Kevin Smith's dialogue is "wrong"?
You can take anything any way you want. It's your mind, and you'll either
be right or wrong.
> Sure it is. You're saying "go ahead and completely change the characters
> and dialogue.
No -- I'm saying, "Kevin Smith could develop his style and focus on more
positive characters instead of the negative portrayals he continues to
dwell upon."
> It won't change the movie a bit."
I've never said that.
> Only a complete blithering idiot could possibly think that would be the
> case.
Please don't misquote me or misrepresent me.
> Words are the tools a writer works with.
True.
> Eliminate some of those tools,and you eliminate some of the possible
> artistic creations that writer can produce.
Guns are some of the tools psychotics work with. Eliminate guns, and you
eliminate some of the possible murder-sprees that psychotics can produce.
What twisted logic! I've never advocated anything of the sort.
> Alter the words in an existing work and you change that work.
I've -never- advocated changing Smith's work. I've made suggestions and
critiques on content in a non-review format. You are the person who has
implied constantly throughout this debate what I am thinking, what my
motivations are and why I'm saying this-or-that. Why not listen for a
change? It might help you understand things better.
> That's entirely beside the point -- the fact remains that changing the
> characters and dialogue in Smith's films by removing the sex and profanity
> would utterly change all three films.
You're right.
> They could NOT "be the same".
You're right.
> Could the _plot_ be the same?
Yep.
> Yes, but so what?
See below.
> Nobody went to see "Clerks" for the plot;
I did. I went to see it for the same reasons I go see any movie -- to see
the best cinema has to offer. And I don't let the plot slide because of
the humor, or the cinematography, or anything. I judge each part in
excruciating detail.
> they went to see it _because_ of what you call "corruption", ie the
> funny parts.
Which proves an earlier point I made about how easy it is to get an
audience to laugh if you start swearing and doing nothing else. You've
just stated that there's no real plot to *Clerks* (and have said earlier
that the plot can be summed up in a sentence) and now are saying that
nobody went for that plot. Why did they go? You just said it: because
they wanted to laugh at all the swear-words and sexual innuendo. Hence,
they laugh at all the swear-words and sexual innuendo.
RE: How It's Done
> : Set up a funny situation -- show it. Then, "What do you do for an
> : encore?" with a suitably shocked look. Of course, that'd be *Atreyu's
> : -Clerks-.*
> "Set up a funny situation" -- what a brilliant idea! "Hey, its a comedy;
> let's do something _funny_!"
Well, that's more than Smith did in the example you cite. He simply threw
in a swear-word and got a big laugh -- by your own admittance.
> It sure much have taken a rocket scientist's intellect to figure _that_
> one out.
I guess so.
> I asked for what you would replace the scene with, you replied with
> "something funny". That's pretty sad.
You miss the point. Instead of resting on laurels as Smith is doing here,
why not create a funny -situation- instead of cursatory dialogue that gets
the easy laugh you've admitted? It's harder to -do- something funny
on-screen than to -say- something funny, but it's possible. Physical
comedians have been proving this for years. And they work much harder
than someone who simply reads off a string of Tourette's-esque "dialogue."
> The fact is, you can't think of anything funny to put in its place;
> your changes to the movie would ruin it.
I could think of a million humorous situations that could take place in a
convenience store. None of them depend on dialogue. However, it's
pointless to include any of them, since it takes no energy (save for
dishonesty) for you to simply say, "That's not funny!" Not only that, but
you'd have to see the execution of those scenes in order for them to truly
be humorous. Many of the great silent comedians did some of the best
comedic work in history -- without words. They set up funny situations.
> Riotous ONLY when said aloud. There is nothing funny about Dante watching
> his girlfriend walk across the parking lot, not saying anything. Given
> that they had just finished a heated argument, in fact, silence on Dante's
> part would give a bitter or somber tone to the scene -- it would most
> certainly not have been riotously funny.
And it's more humorous for him to verbally harass her? I find that rather
disturbing in its implications.
> While your remarks are interesting in a look-at-the-little-college-
> objectivist sort of way they have no bearing on this discussion.
And while your remarks are banal in a "look-at-the-person-evading-reality"
sort of way, they have no basis in fact, reality or existence.
> The line "try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot"
> is funny not because of the emphasis Dante's actor puts on it, but
> because the line itself is funny.
I'm not laughing.
> "Dante silently watches his girlfriend storm off through the parking
> lot" is not funny on paper OR on film.
So, as I said before -- set up another funny situation. "Dante silently
watches his girlfriend storm off through the parking lot . . . and then-"
But you opt out for the language as an easier solution. There's no
payoff. It's just a slam against a woman by a man.
> "Try not to let your lips come in contact with another man's genitalia
> while you're walking through the parking lot" (or however you would
> choose to make the scene non-profane) is also not going to be funny.
Like I said above -- set up a funny situation. Silent comedians did it,
as I said before.
> I'm sure he needs your pity -- he's rich, famous, has a good relationship
> with a beautiful and intelligent girlfriend, and everything he does is
> loved by millions of people.
No one needs pity.
> You, on the other hand, are just another pretentious college student
> whose existance _maybe_ ten or twenty people on Earth actually care
> about.
Fortunately, I'm not dependent on whether or not people care about me. I
think it's fascinating you place so much emphasis on how well-liked Smith
is (his relationship, loved by millions, etc). Consider why that is so
important to you.
> Assuming that they were real people instead of fictional characters... why
> should they care that you don't want to be their friend?
They shouldn't.
> I'm sure that Jimmy Swaggert doesn't want to be their friend either, but
> they could probably live through _that_ tragic situation as well.
I wonder - . . .
> The fact is that Dante and Randall are liked by, quite literally, about
> three orders of magnitude more people than have even _heard_ of you.
Your true motivators are starting to show through at last.
> Why?
Who cares?
> because they are funny people, and people that others can identify with.
> You possess neither of those traits.
You have a point here?
> Better example: "So if someone can only feed themselves by writing certain
> kinds of stories, because it's all they know, does that make it all right?"
> Answer: Yes.
BZZT. Hitler could only feed himself as a writer by penning MEIN KAMPH.
Does that make it right?
> Why? They are only corrupt in your opinion.
So corruption is subjective?
> Tomato/tomahto. Fear of sex and profanity.
That's really funny -- probably in a way you could possibly never
understand. Who knows, though. You might -- it's self-evidently absurd.
I said:
> : people will giggle at hearing the screams of someone getting electrically
> : shocked and possibly killed (there was a psychological study done on this).
You said:
> Sometimes they will. Usually they won't. Getting a large number of people
> to predictably laugh at something is very difficult.
Watch AMERICA'S FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS sometime, and watch the audience
react to people falling on their heads, cracking their skulls.
[Much Deleted]
RE: Holden's Story
> : Yes, but why is he telling us Holden's story?
>
> Because the story of Holden and Alyssa is a modified version of the
> Real Life story of Kevin Smith and Joey Lauren Adams(ie, Alyssa). That
> makes it important to Kevin Smith. He wrote the movie both as a cathartic
> experience for his own benefit, and in the hopes that the rest of the
> world would find the story funny, moving, and interesting. It worked, IMO.
Now, ask yourself: why did those experiences happen to Kevin Smith?
And I said:
> : You didn't answer my question. Why is the story of Holden important?
>
> It is important to Kevin Smith because it relates to his own life. It
> isn't necessarily important to anybody else, except inasmuch as they
> like Holden as a person. The story doesn't have to be important.
I don't like Holden.
And I asked:
> : Why do these people matter in life?
> Why do YOU matter in life?
Sentient man matters.
> Answer: you don't.
I do. You do. Everyone does.
> You're just another person, like Kevin Smith or myself or whoever. Why
> does Holden matter in life?
In the context of the film's universe:
He matters because he's a sentient life-form. What he does with his life
determines how much he matters.
> Holden doesn't exist in life -- he's a fictional character. Why does
> he (as a fictional character) matter to people? Some people, like myself,
> find him interesting or likeable and want to know what will become of him.
Not much, I'd imagine, if he keeps on the path he's taken.
> "Our universe" supports anything that is physically possible. By the
> way -- you and I know what bearing you think this has on morality,
> but you might want to take a moment to explain your philosophy to
> the home viewers. :)
I'm a student of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. My words do not
necessarily reflect Ayn's philosophy, as I am a student. I encourage any
who are curious to pick up any of her books on the subject. Compare for
yourself, and see what you think.
MMAT4
>Exactly. The only really attractive lesbian is the one who is actually
not a >lesbian.
Well, Guin Turner (who IS a lesbian, and will be playing pinup Betty Page
in a HBO biopic) played the Singer in the Meow Mix scene- though her
character is not identified as lesbian or straight. As for the other
lesbians in the film, I think people are confusing the "natural look"
(i.e. no make-up, etc.) with being unattractive. Besides, if the costume
designer had made them up to look like Alyssa, people like Lea DeLaria
(the lesbian comic who appeared in _The First Wives' Club_ and on
"Friends") would have accused Smith of pandering to the straight male
fantasies of "lipstick lesbians" and unrealistically portraying lesbians
on film- he can't win either way.
It's interesting that most people would classify Alyssa as bisexual, but
she identifies herself as a lesbian until she becomes involved with
Holden. I agree with people who have commented that Alyssa is more
conflicted about her experiences with men than she admits: true, these
experiences were voluntary, but several of them were negative and
exploitative (she tells Holden "I haven't liked a man for a really long
time.") For her, love is a question of personal connection, not gender;
but perhaps identifying herself as a lesbian rather than bisexual was a
way to break away from that part of her life. FWIW, I loved _Chasing Amy_,
partly *because* (IMO) the characters could not be defined in terms of
labels.
Jeffrey Davis
Atreyu wrote:
[about the "negative" aspects in "Chasing Amy"]
> Is this an act that attempts to subvert reality?
[...]
> I'm a student of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand....
Whew. Why didn't you say so? I thought you were translating
from Latin.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> Great, Daddy-o!
Atreyu
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, phil rupp wrote:
> >Virtually none of which can be conveyed in an hour-and-a-half-long movie.
> >Which is why movies go with "personality and looks", both of which Alyssa
> >had in spades. If you want to make a movie about a man who falls in love
> >with an ugly woman because she smells nice, go right ahead, but I'd love
> >to know how you'll convey smell using film.
Apparently, you've never seen *Scent of a Woman*, or you'd know this can
be conveyed through something called -interaction of characters- and, in a
shorter form, -dialogue- (as opposed to "Da**! What a **** **** ****!").
> >If Alyssa had been ugly, the following would have happen:
> >(a): We would have had to listen to even _more_ inane posts about "negative
> > portrayals of lesbians in film", except this time it would have
> > been because Smith was "perpetuating the stereotype that all lesbians
> > are ugly".
>
> generalization, stereotype.
Ditto.
> >(b): Holden would have found out she was a lesbian and would have STOPPED
> > PURSUING HER,
Huh?
> thus ending the film at that point.
His pursuit of a lesbian is all that matters? His pursuit and interest
was in Alyssa, not in a 'straight girl named Alyssa.'
> > Remember, at the time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian
> > he has spent a total of ten minutes talking to her. What audience
> > is going to believe that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly
> > lesbian's love on the basis of a ten-minute conversation?
Obviously, you've never seen any of the versions of *Love Affair*, one of
the most classic romances of cinema. In case you thought otherwise,
*Sleepless In Seattle* is a direct clone of the original *Love Affair*.
That may make it easier for you to figure out.
- Atreyu
m...@hotmail.com
Kevin Smith's film documents a kind of youthful foulness
that is real in America right now. It is very funny, and quite
important. Important that it be documented in films, I mean.
Clerks and Chasing Amy are historical documents of the foul
language of their time. I have been listening to and learning
how to be creatively foul since I was ten. The foulness of
my youth was as interesting as today's foulness is, and just
as funny, but it remains undocumented, since it was not
captured on film at the time. This is the way a certain genre
of people talk. It is very interesting and ought to be preserved.
All this moralizing and talk about plot being the only thing in a
film, is hollywood bullshit. The way people really are is important,
what their style is, is significant. A novel is much more than
just plot. The warp and woof of your characters should be
captured as well. Kevin Smith is more significant that Martin
Scorcese is likely to be ever again. How come you can't see
that his is a new voice in films. That voice should be listened
to until it begins to repeat itself, like Scorcese's has.
Mike Rice
mr...@centuryinter.net
p.s. what are those zoot suit chains all about in Swingers?
Everyone is dressed fairly normally in the film, except for those
chains. Where are they wearing those God Damn things that
long?
Skander Halim
Jason C. Charnick (see-m...@for.my.real.address) writes:
> Now I believe Kevin Smith sacrifices that super-stylistic
> dialogue so he could portray his characters in a more realistic light.
I find it highly dubious that Smith was holding back on the style in
Chasing Amy. If that's true, I'd hate to hear how his characters would
have talked had he pulled out all the stylistic stops. Actually, if he
_had_ sacrificed some style for realism, CA might have worked for me.
Smith picked a relevant, plausible, and serious topic, but didn't change
his writing style at all from the sophomoric dopiness of Clerks and
Mallrats. The result is, in my opinion, stagey, unbelievable, and pretty
much unbearable: a bunch of people shouting bad high school essays at each
other.
I heard reports that on the set of CA, Smith was discouraging
improvisation, saying "I don't want people to think I wrote that." This
is essentially sacrificing art for ego: Smith doesn't want audiences to
lose themselves in the characters and the story, he wants us to be
constantly aware that we're listening to words written by a clever guy
with a high vocabulary. Someone like Tarantino might be equally guilty of
this, but the difference is, he's _good_ at it. I don't think Smith is in
his league, and I wish he would have tried for realism instead with CA.
m...@hotmail.com
Chasing Amy was not a great flick. But it had a lot of
truthful moments in it. That alone is more than you can
say about almost any American film made today. Smith
is great because he pursues the truth. Heathers was a
satire and a good one, but its screenwriter was not as
serious as Kevin Smith. Smith has trememdous potential.
Phonies like Spielberg ought to pay attention, Lucas too.
People want to be told the truth. They want to LISTEN
to these films too.
Mike Rice
mr...@centuryinter.net
Skander Halim
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) writes:
>>: Muriels Wedding, Strictly Ballroom, Annie Hall, Funny Lady, On Golden
>>: Pond, Casual Sex, Sammy+Rosie Get Laid, shall I continue?
>
> [snip]
>
> My point is that one can make a romatic comedy where the leads are not
> beautiful, as in unusually attractive, standouts, but average,
> pleasant.
I have only seen the first three films you mention, but in all of those,
the unconventionalism of the female leads was a major point of the film,
perhaps _the_ major point. You could not summarize their plots without
making some mention of the female lead's less-than-perfect qualities
("Overweight woman dreams of wedding"; "Dancing star and outcast rise to
fame"; "Intellectual falls for eccentric").
What you're proposing with regard to Chasing Amy, if I understand
correctly, is that Smith replace Joey Lauren Adams with an unattractive
actress, but tell pretty much the same story. This simply wouldn't work,
because the audience would be constantly wondering, "Why is that guy
attracted to that ugly lesbian?"
I suppose Smith _could_ have done what you suggest, but he couldn't have
explained it away with a mere line or two. He would have to spend so much
time convincing us that a handsome straight guy could fall for an ugly
lesbian, he wouldn't have enough time to deal with the other issues that
he was _really_ concerned about in making the film: namely, Holden's
inability to deal with Alyssa's past. In other words, when you suggest
that Smith make Alyssa ugly, or even "average, pleasant," you're suggesting he
make another film entirely.
Oddly enough, this issue is somewhat analogous to another currently raging
debate on the newsgroup, centring around the black girl in The Lost World.
Spielberg and Koepp thought they could just give a white guy a black
daughter and not explain it. Reaction on this newsgroup indicates that
they did not get away with this, any more than Smith could have gotten
away with having Holden fall for an ugly lesbian and not explaining it.
Our society just hasn't reached the level where we accept things like this
in movies without further elaboration. It would be nice if we could, but
it's a case where real attitudes lag behind utopian PC visions.
Skander Halim
Jason C. Charnick (see-m...@for.my.real.address) writes:
> Kevin Smith I'm sure would be the first to say that he has the swearing in
> there because he can do it. He is the epitome of an independent filmmaker,
> and he writes and films what he wants to. He has seen what can happen when
> the studios take charge of his creative control (Mallrats), and has said
> that he will never again let that happen (Yay!!!).
Something odd here. When Smith was doing promo for Mallrats, I distinctly
remember him making comments to the effect that the studio had pretty much
left him alone with his sophomore effort, that when you're making a cheap
film with the studios they're not on your back all the time.
Cut to two years later, after Mallrats proves to be a massive critical and
commercial failure. Now all of a sudden it's "I lost my creative
control!" "I'm never working for the studios again!" You'd think he was
trying to pass on the blame, but meanwhile he's apologizing to critics in
Sundance for Mallrats, saying "I don't know what I was thinking." Make up
your mind, Kevin: was it your fault or Universal's?
I don't know, maybe all this "evil studio" stuff is Weinstein-induced spin
control to help promote Chasing Amy.
My Opinion
m...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Chasing Amy was not a great flick. But it had a lot of
> truthful moments in it. That alone is more than you can
> say about almost any American film made today.
Well, I'm not sure I can agree with that. Depends on how you define
"truthful." I think there's a lot of independent American films (stress
on "independent") that have "truthful moments" in them. Now, I'm not
passing any judgment on the quality of these films, but go to the
Sundance Film Festival sometime (or maybe I shouldn't say that, since it
seems to be getting bashed a lot lately) and I'm sure you'll find a lot
of "truthful" films far removed from the shallow, big budget Hollywood
mainstream flicks.
> Smith is great because he pursues the truth. Heathers was a
> satire and a good one, but its screenwriter was not as
> serious as Kevin Smith.
I would say that HEATHERS is satire at its finest, and that it actually
transcends the simple label of "satire" by revealing a lot of hard
truths about society while maintaining its biting humor.
However, I will say that screenwriter Daniel Waters has not shown much
of a predilection for serious material, judging from his track record
(FORD FAIRLANE, BATMAN RETURNS, DEMOLITION MAN, etc), though I will say
that I quite liked BATMAN RETURNS and even enjoyed some of the humorous
bits of the much reviled DEMOLITION MAN.
> Smith has trememdous potential.
> Phonies like Spielberg ought to pay attention, Lucas too.
> People want to be told the truth. They want to LISTEN
> to these films too.
The boxoffice receipts say otherwise.
phil rupp
This is in response to your statement that I am stiff and closed
minded in my opinion of AMY, and that I watched the film with some
sort of agenda.
What follows are several of your (Dan Bongards) statements, all of
which fit the above description--stiff, closed minded generalizations:
>:> Yes, that's fascinating. Most men, however, are attracted to "conventionally
>:> beautiful" women. That's why they call it "conventionally beautiful".
"most men are attracted to...." generaliation
>Virtually none of which can be conveyed in an hour-and-a-half-long movie.
>Which is why movies go with "personality and looks", both of which Alyssa
>had in spades. If you want to make a movie about a man who falls in love
>with an ugly woman because she smells nice, go right ahead, but I'd love
>to know how you'll convey smell using film.
"none of which can be conveyed in a 1 1/2 hr film" closed minded
"love to know how you'll convey smell...." stiff, inflexible.
>If Alyssa had been ugly, the following would have happen:
>(a): We would have had to listen to even _more_ inane posts about "negative
> portrayals of lesbians in film", except this time it would have
> been because Smith was "perpetuating the stereotype that all lesbians
> are ugly".
generalization, stereotype.
>(b): Holden would have found out she was a lesbian and would have STOPPED
> PURSUING HER, thus ending the film at that point. Remember, at the
> time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian he has spent a total
> of ten minutes talking to her. What audience is going to believe
> that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly lesbian's love on the
> basis of a ten-minute conversation?
"what audience is going to believe..."? an open minded flexible
audience. The audience that would not believe is either stiff and
narrow minded, as you seem to be, or has seen a bad movie.
phil rupp
>> > Remember, at the time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian
>> > he has spent a total of ten minutes talking to her. What audience
>> > is going to believe that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly
>> > lesbian's love on the basis of a ten-minute conversation?
>Obviously, you've never seen any of the versions of *Love Affair*, one of
>the most classic romances of cinema. In case you thought otherwise,
>*Sleepless In Seattle* is a direct clone of the original *Love Affair*.
>That may make it easier for you to figure out.
How about "Tell Me That You Love Me Junie Moon" or "English Patient",
both are love stories about burned people.
>- Atreyu
Dan Bongard
m...@hotmail.com wrote:
: All this moralizing and talk about plot being the only thing in a
: film, is hollywood bullshit.
It isn't "hollywood bullshit"; it is Romantic Realism Ayn Rand bullshit.
The last thing anybody could _ever_ accuse Hollywood of is thinking
that the plot is the most important thing in a movie. :)
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Atreyu (atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Dan Bongard wrote:
:> The point is, you think his dialogue is "wrong".
: Yes. [snip]
Thank you for the admission.
[misc. "corruption"-related nonsense snipped]
[Re: Smith "focusing on the negative"]
: Is this an act that attempts to subvert reality?
Just suggesting the idea that reality COULD be "subverted" shows an
extreme lack of common sense on your part.
:> Sure it is. You're saying "go ahead and completely change the characters
:> and dialogue. It won't change the movie a bit."
: I've never said that.
"he could make the same movies he makes now without the cursing and the
unnecessary-to-the-plot blatant innuendo." -- Atreyu.
This means that, according to you, you could take all of the profanity
and sexual innuendo out of "Clerks", "Mallrats", and "Chasing Amy" and they
would be the same movies they are now. That might or might not have
been what you meant, but it _is_ what you said.
:> Only a complete blithering idiot could possibly think that would
:> be the case.
: Please don't misquote me or misrepresent me.
If I was misrepresenting you you'd come across as intelligent. :)
:> Eliminate some [words artists can use], and you eliminate some of the
:> possible artistic creations that writer can produce.
: Guns are some of the tools psychotics work with.
Unless you're implying that writers are psychotic, that's a useless parallel.
:> That's entirely beside the point -- the fact remains that changing the
:> characters and dialogue in Smith's films by removing the sex and profanity
:> would utterly change all three films.
: You're right.
Not according to you -- according to you, they would be exactly the same.
:> They could NOT "be the same".
: You're right.
I know I'm right -- glad to see you've come around to my way of thinking.
[more "corruption" nonsense snipped]
: You've
: just stated that there's no real plot to *Clerks* (and have said earlier
: that the plot can be summed up in a sentence) and now are saying that
: nobody went for that plot. Why did they go? You just said it: because
: they wanted to laugh at all the swear-words and sexual innuendo. Hence,
: they laugh at all the swear-words and sexual innuendo.
They laugh at the jokes and funny bits in "Clerks". These bits are,
according to you, "corrupt" because they contain profanity and sexual
innuendo; ergo people are laughing and enjoying the corrupt parts of
the movie. This does not mean they are "laughing at the profanity" or
"laughing at the sexual innuendo", and it certainly doesn't mean that
an audience will, as you claim, laugh at ANY innuendo or profanity.
We've already established that you're a damned fool, but even YOU can't
possibly believe people laugh at all profanity.
: RE: How It's Done
:>: Set up a funny situation -- show it. Then, "What do you do for an
:>: encore?" with a suitably shocked look. Of course, that'd be *Atreyu's
:>: -Clerks-.*
:> "Set up a funny situation" -- what a brilliant idea! "Hey, its a comedy;
:> let's do something _funny_!"
: Well, that's more than Smith did in the example you cite.
People laughed; that means Smith wrote something funny into the movie.
: He simply threw in a swear-word and got a big laugh
There's nothing "simple" about it; profanity does not automatically
elicit laughter. Even if we decided to ignore reality and agree with
your statement that profanity automatically elicits "nervous laughter" --
well, the people in the theater didn't laugh "nervously". They laughed
uproariously, because they thought the scene was hysterical.
:> I asked for what you would replace the scene with, you replied with
:> "something funny". That's pretty sad.
: You miss the point.
I didn't miss the point. The point is simply that you are devoid of
comedic talent; you don't know what makes people laugh, so you ascribe
the audience's laughter to "profanity" and rest secure in the knowledge
that you, being pure as the driven snow, would never stoop to try
for such "cheap laughs".
: why not create a funny -situation- instead of cursatory dialogue that
: gets the easy laugh you've admitted?
He already did -- the situation I mentioned above. I realize that you
are too pure to try this yourself, but if you make a friend someday you
could ask him to do it:
Go up to a random person on the street. Ask them if they have seen
"Clerks". If they say "no", say "What the fuck do you do for an encore?
Anally rape my mother while pouring sugar in my gas tank?" See how
many laughs you get.
According to you, everybody should burst out laughing at this point,
because the above line (being profane and sexual) is inherently funny.
The reality, however, is that nobody is going to laugh when you do this,
because the line itself is NOT inherently funny. It is the line, said
by Dante, why sitting on the floor of the convenience store surrounded
by candy from the "food fight", after a long and exasperating day, which
is funny. That's what people who understand comedy (ie, not you) refer
to as "a funny situation".
:> The fact is, you can't think of anything funny to put in its place;
:> your changes to the movie would ruin it.
: I could think of a million humorous situations that could take place in a
: convenience store.
Yeah, and I secretly know the cure for cancer; I'm just not telling
anybody. Why can't you manage to put any of these "humorous situations"
in print? According to you funny lines must be funny on paper -- why is
it that your suggested replacement for Dante's line is completely
non-humorous? Is your lack of a sense of humor the sole reason, or is
there an additional reason besides that?
: However, it's pointless to include any of them,
... since that would require you to do more than spout hot air...
: since it takes no energy (save for dishonesty) for you to simply say,
: "That's not funny!"
That's right, Atreyu. You're hysterical. The rest of the world just
reacts to your work non-humorously out of pure spite.
: Many of the great silent comedians did some of the best comedic work in
: history -- without words.
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that ALL of the great silent comedians
did their work without words. :)
: They set up funny situations.
Congradulations; you've discovered that situations can be funny. This
does not mean you know how to create funny situations or how to film them,
nor does it mean that people who use words to convey humor are producing
inferior work.
:> Riotous ONLY when said aloud. There is nothing funny about Dante watching
:> his girlfriend walk across the parking lot, not saying anything. Given
:> that they had just finished a heated argument, in fact, silence on Dante's
:> part would give a bitter or somber tone to the scene -- it would most
:> certainly not have been riotously funny.
: And it's more humorous for him to verbally harass her?
Vastly more humorous, given the situation. Or had you somehow managed to
forget that the above line is Dante "getting the last word" in a
heated and emotional argument about his(and his girlfriend's) sexual past?
: I find that rather disturbing in its implications.
Only because you're a stranger to human nature. Real people don't act
like Ayn Rand's fictional heroes; they get angry and upset and say
emotional things that are quite often funny to third-party listeners.
:> While your remarks are interesting in a look-at-the-little-college-
:> objectivist sort of way they have no bearing on this discussion.
: And while your remarks are banal in a "look-at-the-person-evading-reality"
: sort of way, they have no basis in fact, reality or existence.
Mm hmm. How exactly am I "evading reality" again? By refusing to
"acknowledge" that profanity and sexual innuendo are inherently corrupt
and intellectually dishonest in the eyes of Ayn Rand and her "reality"?
Let's skim through a few of my "no-basis-in-reality" remarks:
(1): Most people use profanity (true).
(2): Profanity is not inherently humorous (true).
(3): Kevin Smith's movies would not be the same with profanity. (true)
(4): Rewriting Smith's movies would change them (true -- and you agreed
with me, which by your logic means you must be out of touch with
reality).
(5): Michael Medved's opinions are bogus (not demonstrably true, but
I believe it anyway -- and there's that "you agree with me and
ergo must be out of touch with reality" thing again).
etc.
:> The line "try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot"
:> is funny not because of the emphasis Dante's actor puts on it, but
:> because the line itself is funny.
: I'm not laughing.
We've already established that you've got no demonstrable sense of humor.
I saw "Clerks" in the theater eight times, and each time the audience
totally cracked up with that line. The fact that you missed the joke
while everybody else was laughing should be a clue to you that you should
stop trying to understand why the movie is funny.
:> "Dante silently watches his girlfriend storm off through the parking
:> lot" is not funny on paper OR on film.
: So, as I said before -- set up another funny situation.
Why, when the version Smith filmed is already riotously funny?
: "Dante silently watches his girlfriend storm off through the parking lot
: . . . and then-"
Says "try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot!", causing
the audience to burst out laughing. Unless you've got a better suggestion
(which seems extremely unlikely, given that your first "humorous"
suggestion was "he stares at her silently") the world might as well
stick with the one that works. :)
: But you opt out for the language as an easier solution. There's no
: payoff. It's just a slam against a woman by a man.
It is the last line in a long exchange of woman-slams-man, man-slams-woman,
woman-slams-man boyfriend-vs-girlfriend arguing. Welcome to the real world;
it is a pleasant place if you'll lower your nose from its current position
sixty degrees above the horizontal.
:> "Try not to let your lips come in contact with another man's genitalia
:> while you're walking through the parking lot" (or however you would
:> choose to make the scene non-profane) is also not going to be funny.
: Like I said above -- set up a funny situation.
Why should I? _I'm_ not the one being needlessly malcontent about the
content of "Clerks". "Clerks", as it stands, uses funny situations,
interesting characters, and funny dialogue to accomplish its goals.
If you're so concerned about the use of profanity, suggest a funny
situation yourself if you think you're capable of it.
:> I'm sure he needs your pity -- he's rich, famous, has a good relationship
:> with a beautiful and intelligent girlfriend, and everything he does is
:> loved by millions of people.
: No one needs pity.
Ah -- you just offered him your "pity" to give yourself the opportunity
to seem "elevated" and "morally superior" in a public forum, then. My
mistake; carry on. :)
:> You, on the other hand, are just another pretentious college student
:> whose existance _maybe_ ten or twenty people on Earth actually care
:> about.
: Fortunately, I'm not dependent on whether or not people care about me. I
What a shock to hear an objectivist say that.
: think it's fascinating you place so much emphasis on how well-liked Smith
: is (his relationship, loved by millions, etc).
I notice you carefully snipped my _actual_ wording when you wrote that;
this enabled you to "overlook" the fact that I gave just as much weight
to his intelligence and sense of humor as I did to his fame and relationship.
: Consider why that is so important to you.
Kevin Smith's fame isn't important to me at all, except inasmuch as
it gives him the ability to make more movies and be well-rewarded for
making them.
[Re: "Oh yeah?! I don't want to be a friend of Smith's characters!"]
:> Assuming that they were real people instead of fictional characters... why
:> should they care that you don't want to be their friend?
: They shouldn't.
Once again, I wonder: If _you_ don't care if you're they're friend (because
you don't need to be liked or cared about) and _they_ don't care if you're
their friend, why on earth did you bother mentioning you wouldn't want to
be their friend? Are you under the mistaken impression that the REST of
the world cares if you're Dante's friend? What use is that particular
bit of information to anybody or anything? Sure, it gave me the opportunity
to spend a little extra time mocking you, but I'm having a hard time
believing that that was just part of your plan.
:> The fact is that Dante and Randall are liked by, quite literally, about
:> three orders of magnitude more people than have even _heard_ of you.
: Your true motivators are starting to show through at last.
My "true motivators"? You mentioned that you wouldn't want to be
Dante or Randall's friend. Since nobody (except possibly you) actually
cares for one second whether or not you want to be Dante's friend, I
assumed that you were trying to imply that not being liked by you
was a bad thing; thus, the above remarks about being liked by plenty of
people.
:> Why?
: Who cares?
Beats me. You're the one who brought it up.
:> because they are funny people, and people that others can identify with.
:> You possess neither of those traits.
: You have a point here?
Yes; five lines up from this one.
:> Better example: "So if someone can only feed themselves by writing certain
:> kinds of stories, because it's all they know, does that make it all right?"
:> Answer: Yes.
: BZZT. Hitler could only feed himself as a writer by penning MEIN KAMPH.
: Does that make it right?
Yes, completely. Hitler had the right to write Mein Kampf, Marx had the
right to pen the Communist Manifesto -- why, Ayn Rand even had the right
to produce bad pseudo-philosophical fiction! Isn't literature great?
By the way, Hitler didn't write "Mein Kampf" to feed himself. Minor point.
:> Why? They are only corrupt in your opinion.
: So corruption is subjective?
"Corruption" refers to an inappropriate condition; one can only refer
to something as "corrupt" in relationship to a predefined state. You
use this to label profanity as "corrupt"; that's fine, but it is only
your personal definition. From the point of view of the German beer
purity laws Saxer's Lemon Lager is corrupt; from the point of view
of the USFDA it isn't.
:>: people will giggle at hearing the screams of someone getting electrically
:>: shocked and possibly killed (there was a psychological study done on this).
:> Sometimes they will. Usually they won't. Getting a large number of people
:> to predictably laugh at something is very difficult.
: Watch AMERICA'S FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS sometime, and watch the audience
: react to people falling on their heads, cracking their skulls.
There is a big sign in the studio that lights up with the word "Laugh".
Moreover the audience at an AFHV showing is, quite naturally, composed
largely of fans of the show. Claiming that AFHV's ability to get a cued
studio audience of fans to laugh as proof that laughter is easy to
evoke is like holding up a David Duke rally as "proof" that white
supremacy naturally appeals to everybody.
Try getting a home audience to laugh at the show -- much harder, which is
why the show's ratings went into the can when the novelty wore off.
: [Much Deleted]
: RE: Holden's Story
:>: Yes, but why is he telling us Holden's story?
:> Because the story of Holden and Alyssa is a modified version of the
:> Real Life story of Kevin Smith and Joey Lauren Adams(ie, Alyssa). That
:> makes it important to Kevin Smith. He wrote the movie both as a cathartic
:> experience for his own benefit, and in the hopes that the rest of the
:> world would find the story funny, moving, and interesting. It worked, IMO.
: Now, ask yourself: why did those experiences happen to Kevin Smith?
To paraphrase Jay in an Atreyu-approved non-profane way: "What am I, his
biographer?" I happen to know, being a fan, that the "Chasing Amy" story
is derived from Smith's own life. I feel no need to know more, because
I like the movie on its own merits. Smith's private life is his own
business.
: And I said:
:>: You didn't answer my question. Why is the story of Holden important?
:> It is important to Kevin Smith because it relates to his own life. It
:> isn't necessarily important to anybody else, except inasmuch as they
:> like Holden as a person. The story doesn't have to be important.
: I don't like Holden.
That's fascinating, but so what? Why should anybody care if you like
Holden? You've stated quite specifically that you don't care what
anybody thinks about you; why do you expect them to care what you think
about them. Assuming that you don't care about THAT either, why are
you telling the entire Usenet who you like and don't like?
:> Holden doesn't exist in life -- he's a fictional character. Why does
:> he (as a fictional character) matter to people? Some people, like myself,
:> find him interesting or likeable and want to know what will become of him.
: Not much, I'd imagine, if he keeps on the path he's taken.
I'll grant you that comic book authors don't make much money, but he
proably finds a lot of personal satisfaction in it. :)
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: This is in response to your statement that I am stiff and closed
: minded in my opinion of AMY, and that I watched the film with some
: sort of agenda.
: What follows are several of your (Dan Bongards) statements, all of
: which fit the above description--stiff, closed minded generalizations:
I'm wondering why you added "generalizations" to the list, as if it
was possible to individually address the opinions of each of the
millions of people who've seen "Chasing Amy". But, whatever:
:>:> Yes, that's fascinating. Most men, however, are attracted to
:>:> "conventionally beautiful" women. That's why they call it
:>:> "conventionally beautiful".
: "most men are attracted to...." generaliation
Not generalization: definition. The very fact that the word "conventionally"
is being used -- first by you, BTW -- means that the definition of the noun
following "conventionally" must be one which fits with majority opinion.
What I said was akin to saying "most people are in the majority"; it
isn't a generalization, it is a tautology.
:> Virtually none of which can be conveyed in an hour-and-a-half-long movie.
:> Which is why movies go with "personality and looks", both of which Alyssa
:> had in spades. If you want to make a movie about a man who falls in love
:> with an ugly woman because she smells nice, go right ahead, but I'd love
:> to know how you'll convey smell using film.
: "none of which can be conveyed in a 1 1/2 hr film" closed minded
Closed-minded? Is it "closed-minded" of me to suggest that you can't
fly by jumping out of a plane and flapping your arms really fast? If
you think that attraction to an ugly woman via smell can be conveyed
successfully in a movie, be my guest -- try it. If I saw a film that
ostensibly contained such a thing and sat there steadfastly refusing
to believe it, THEN I would be closed-minded. But the movie hasn't
even been made yet.
: "love to know how you'll convey smell...." stiff, inflexible.
That's not "stiff and inflexible"; that's me expressing disbelief that
you could convey such a thing. You haven't done it and you haven't
suggested how it could be done, so I can hardly be blamed for refusing
to take your word for it (particularly in light of the generally
absurd and monomaniacal nature of your other posts).
:>If Alyssa had been ugly, the following would have happen:
:>(a): We would have had to listen to even _more_ inane posts about "negative
:> portrayals of lesbians in film", except this time it would have
:> been because Smith was "perpetuating the stereotype that all lesbians
:> are ugly".
: generalization, stereotype.
Who am I generalizing about? Who am I stereotyping? Both generalization
and stereotyping need an object -- I mentioned nothing. I simply predicted
that if Smith had used ugly lesbians, people would have bitched about
"lesbians being portrayed as ugly". Not that "all of them would", or
"most of them would", or that "quasi-fascist PC vigilantes would" or
any such thing. Merely that people would have bitched, which is true.
:>(b): Holden would have found out she was a lesbian and would have STOPPED
:> PURSUING HER, thus ending the film at that point. Remember, at the
:> time that Holden finds out Alyssa is a lesbian he has spent a total
:> of ten minutes talking to her. What audience is going to believe
:> that a guy would decide to pursue an ugly lesbian's love on the
:> basis of a ten-minute conversation?
: "what audience is going to believe..."? an open minded flexible audience.
Believing that an ordinary man is even somewhat likely to heatedly pursue
an ugly lesbian isn't evidence of an open mind; it is evidence of a
willingness to accept anything in a film, no matter how bizarrely unusual,
without explanation. Ie, "Lost World"-magnitude suspension of disbelief.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
phil rupp (tor...@interport.net) wrote:
: How about "Tell Me That You Love Me Junie Moon" or "English Patient",
: both are love stories about burned people.
The "love story" in "English Patient" is one between an adulterous
(and beautiful) perfectly healthy woman and a young, handsome and dashing
young man. And of course there's the fact that "English Patient" isn't
a romantic comedy, which is the genre my remarks apply to.
-- Dan