Clerks, honestly, what do you think?

I'd like to see KS write a script for someone like Steven Soderbergh. Soderbergh hands it back and says "Nice first draft, here are my notes" He hands him back something the size of a telephone book. "Call me when you're done"

That goes on for 18 months. Then we'd have a great movie written by Kevin Smith.
 
See, this is what I'm not understanding. I have no problem with KS' scripts. With the exception of Clerks, can you give me an example of where you thought a script could use tightening or reworking? I am just not seeing that.
 
John_Hudson said:
That is too bad as I think it tops filmmaking (Incredible acting, editing and camerawork) up until this part. True cinamtic art. But What the poo poo; frogs ?
Click to expand...
To me, the frog sequence is one of the greatest scenes in recent film history. It is a tie back into the opening sequence- which is a snappy series of short actual events that defy logic and probability. The frog's are the major event in the film which also defies logic and probability... but it did happen. It is the forces of our lives which we can't control, which drive us apart or bring us together. It is the moment when all of these pathetic characters are ripped out of their self obsessed lives and are forced to deal with the now, not who did what to who, or how they will carry on, but reaction to an unbelievable event. I think in some ways it is self conscious nod to the improbability of the entire film (the aha's of the film, and indeed all multistory films, such as Short Cuts or Crash). The key to the entire sequence is that this event actually happens, or to quote the young quiz kid, "This happens, this is something that happens.” Indeed, occasionally tornadoes do suck small frogs by the thousands up into the atmosphere, where they rain down somewhere else. One last note- you have no doubt noticed the multiple references to Exodus 8:2- which is the frog curse of Egypt. Therefore P.T.A. very much considered this an integral part to his story.
-Chris
P.S. When googling to check my facts in the above paragraph I came across this article which is specifically relates to the frog scene. It is quite good.
http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=96_0_2_0
 
Yankee,

It's more a question of uninteresting. Chasing Amy was good, but like Tarantino, his dialogue (IMHO) tries too hard to be clever. Dialogue should first and foremost serve the story, not be what the story is about. Dogma was his best attempt at something interesting (meaning it had to do with more than people standing/sitting/laying around jawjacking), and I think a rewrite with a better director would have made a good film. I liked it, but as I said in an earlier post, I'm Catholic, so i get a lot of it. I'm not sure who else does. Jay and SB had some funny bits, but it wasn't really a movie. It was a bunch of skits, barely held together with a tenuous (at best) thread of a through line. Mallrats was the same way. Just goofy ideas, with semi-humorous characters strung together for effect. There's not much of a story in the dramatic sense. (Yea, I know it's a COMEDY, not A DRAMA....you know what i mean)
 
I've been following this thread all day and I think one of the most interesting points that it brings is the fact that we are discussing this. It seems to me that this is one of the core points that the independent film movement has brought to the table. In a lot of cases we're looking at people who are still learning their craft (RR perhaps a little less than KS or QT). I don't think filmmaking really had that angle before now. For the previous generations of filmmakers, most of these issues were worked out in film school. You see tremendous growth in Spielberg if you watch The Sugarland Express and compare it to Saving Private Ryan, but it's not the kind of growth when you look at Res Dogs vs. Kill Bill.

Now we have to deal with this in a very real light. For myself, I decided that my first attempt at filmmaking was going to be a complete plunge and I dove right in to a feature length project. No shorts or anything else. Did it work? Well, it's still in post, but it's coming together. Was it perfect? No. Is my Sci-Fest entry at a higher level of acheivement? I think so. And that's the natural progression of things. We get better as we practice our craft. It's just interesting that for most filmmakers just coming on the scene now, that craft is being learned in front of an audience, and I'm not entirely sure that's the best place to learn. Imagine where RR would be if his first film broke out, instead of his having the practice of 30ish films before shooting El Mariachi.

Interesting questions to ponder....
 
Two great posts. The whole frog thing, I think he just over thought it and it doesn't work for me at all. I got all the biblical references, the scientific data, even a prophecy, but you know what? It pulls me completely out of the movie and gives me just a WTF moment.

I think that the learning in front of an audience is a great point. There is a natural progression to everything but at the same time as filmmakers grow obviously they are more willing to take risks. Now in my opinion if the argument about KS films is that it is jaw yacking and held together by incidents between conversations, well I don't really have a problem with that. KS is using the medium in a different way then having people run across the face of Mount Rushmore to get home to their bartenders. I don't think that makes for an incomplete or unfinished script, just a different approach to the art form.

Here's an example. Give me a canvas and someone else a canvas, ooh, Hudson likes to watercolor. OK, give me a canvas, and Hudson a canvas. Hudson will most likely do a surfing picture, something along the lines of a water scene that will induce the feeling of floating amongst the waves. For me, I am going to write a word really big across the canvas and color it in. I know we've already had the whole 'art is subjective' conversation today, but ultimately we are both painting something. KS is painting with words more than images and using the actors to deliver the words. Where they are, what they are doing, and who they are become less important than what they are saying. Maybe it just comes down to whether you enjoy what they are saying... I don't know.
 
Two great posts. The whole frog thing, I think he just over thought it and it doesn't work for me at all. I got all the biblical references, the scientific data, even a prophecy, but you know what? It pulls me completely out of the movie and gives me just a WTF moment.
Click to expand...

It is a WTF moment. And if it pulls you out of the movie then its succeeded cause its certainly going to pull the characters out of the holes they've dug for themselves through the course of their lives.
 
Yankee,

I agree with that, but the masses expect certain hings from a paticular form. Some of the things they expect from a film are dramatic tension, plot and character development, etc. I think there are some gems in his films. If he was able to take those gems and craft a true (in the classic sense) screenplay around them...well then we'd have something.

I see KS movies as being not unlike the 3 stooges...funny stuff for a certain crowd. But best in small doses

And I have no qualms with watching a KS film as a collection of funny bits. I do that now and again. But that's SNL, not a film, IMHO.
 
The Machinist said:
It is a WTF moment. And if it pulls you out of the movie then its succeeded cause its certainly going to pull the characters out of the holes they've dug for themselves through the course of their lives.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Machinist- that is the most concise and accurate statement I have read on that scene.
 
It is a tie back into the opening sequence- which is a snappy series of short actual events that defy logic and probability. The frog's are the major event in the film which also defies logic and probability...
Click to expand...

I don't agree that the opening prologue prepares us for this event.

'...coincidence and chance, and intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows.' (That is the narrators quotes).

Not Defying Logic.

I mean, Frogs.
Falling out the sky.
It could have been Cows, right ?

I too have read and re-read the Exodus accounts and all of the justifying on the web of this scene and I still say bull-**** ! Frogs. Presposterous is what comes to mind. Why don't we just drop cockroaches at the end of Die HArd to save them from the Terrorists ? I don'lt think we wan't 'improbable bull-****' in our movies. We wan't to be swept away and suspended but not slapped in the face with it.

I don't know. I guess it took some kind of balls to make that the ending. I like him and agree he is one talented filmmaker; I do believe Magnolia was a complete misstep however.

The fact that the Frog's have NOTHING to do with our story is the problem.
 
I think that anything that pulls you out of the narrative and calls attention to itself by reminding you that you are watching a movie is a dangerous thing. Cleverness should not call attention to itself. That defeats the purpose.
 
I hate to bring back a post from a couple of pages back, but I have school, so I get out of the loop for a bit.

John, did you like the way True Romance was shot? I've been watching it recently, and I have to say that I really don't like Tony Scott that much when thinking of that movie. I think it would've been a step up if Tarantino directed it, mainly because I just like his visual style.
 
John-
There is NO WAY it could have been cows. Why? Because cows have never rained down on the earth- frog's have- Like it or not, it is an event that happens in these characters lives and it is every bit as likely as a mother accidently shooting her own son as he is falling past her window in a suicide attempt.
 
Wow this thread has really sparked debate much like politics or religion(whoops). I look at movies as entertainment much like music. Charlie Parker may not have been a classical musician but he was a virtuoso. You can find it over and over again. I like QT because he has a warped vision of things and takes us someplace out of the ordinary. Now after you watch a number of his movies you may believe that you have him pegged but I don't think so. I look forward to whatever he releases. I feel much the same about RRs. I think he has yet to have a great scipt to work with. Kevin Smith's gutter humor can get old but I like his dialog(the part without cursing JMHO). I love Tarantino's dialog although I doubt anyone actually talks like that.
Disagreement is ok, debate is ok, airing you opinions is ok as well. There will always be someone who doesn't like what you like or what I like. All we can do is hope they see the light. (LMAO)
 
vjbrennan said:
I think that anything that pulls you out of the narrative and calls attention to itself by reminding you that you are watching a movie is a dangerous thing. Cleverness should not call attention to itself. That defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...

Well said. I think that anything, no matter how cool it is, that calls attention to itself is not a good thing. From a technical aspect you may say, "Wow, that was a cool shot, how'd he do that?" but then you're not paying attention to the story, rather the way it was made. I think it's self indulgent for a director to do something just because he can and not because it is the right thing for the narrative.
 
I think that anything that pulls you out of the narrative and calls attention to itself by reminding you that you are watching a movie is a dangerous thing.
Cleverness should not call attention to itself. That defeats the purpose.
I 100 % agree with this in narrative filmmaking.
Click to expand...

Once I am removed from the world it's gone.

John, did you like the way True Romance was shot? I've been watching it recently, and I have to say that I really don't like Tony Scott that much when thinking of that movie. I think it would've been a step up if Tarantino directed it, mainly because I just like his visual style.
Click to expand...

I was saying what you are saying; I would loved to have seen a QT version rather than Scott's Glossy Slick version; I still love the film though due in most part to QT's Screenplay and the performances

There is NO WAY it could have been cows. Why? Because cows have never rained down on the earth- frog's have- Like it or not, it is an event that happens in these characters lives and it is every bit as likely as a mother accidently shooting her own son as he is falling past her window in a suicide attempt.
Click to expand...

Although I understand what you are saying (And I have heard it a million ways) it just doesnt vibe for me. It has nothing to do with the story
whatsoever therefore it is wasted on me completely.

One second I am told it is a biblical event or an Urban Legend or it is merely a natural phenomenon. I don't care what it's called, it's bad filmmaking.

Tons of strange things have happended on this planet; that doesnt make it a good plot point does it ?

And it could have been a cow; it could be anything a 'Los Angeles tornado' picked up and threw down on them. There have been account's of ice falling out of the sky does this make it a good story ?

How about we tell the story of a child abduction case and the Law and Order that follows right into the courtroom and we'll show all of the people that are involved in it from the victims to the criminal's to the cops and lawyers and then in the end we'll have Ice fall from the sky; no wait we'll have sardines instead; no wait how about ( Insert Biblical Event, Strange Phenomenon, Urban Myth or True Account Here )

Cows ?

Falling-Cow.jpg


http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa082602b.htm

Apparently there have been accounts of all kinds of crazyass shite falling from the sky; I still say it's a lame thing to end a movie with !
 
I've had the subtleties and symbolism of Barton Fink explained to me a thousand times, and it all makes sense. But the movie still bores me.
 
I hate the whole frog thing and is ruins the movie for me. Just my opinion.

EDIT:
That was my shortest reply this whole thread.
 
Man, this is why I hardly ever post. I respond the whole Elmore Leonard influencing Quentin Tarentino idea, and I come back to the site a few høurs later and there are ten pages of new discussions in the thread! To get back to Leonard and John Hudson's comments, I didn't mean to give all of QT's success to the influence of Leonard. There's a reason Leonard has written scores of novels but no longer writes screenplays and doesn't direct. Just as there's a reason QT directs movies and doesn't write novels.

Now, back to the current subject: I'm waiting for a film that inlcudes raining vampire wildebeest ninjas who have witty things to say about pop culture and fast food in Amsterdam.

Cheers,

Josh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top