Joel Siegel helps Kevin Smith promote 'Clerks II'

Jim, terrific piece. And it only took you five sentences to get that "scabrous" in there! :)

I like Smith's movies far more than you do, and I agree with him that if Siegel wants to leave a screening he should be able to do so, but perhaps less quietly than he allegedly did.

(Siegel's account of the "incident" on the radio clip found on Smith' site downplayed both the volume and duration of the comment.)

What makes me uncomfortable, I guess, is not that Smith should respond to what he perceives as an outrage, or even that he, as a very savvy promoter of his own work, should seize upon the opportunity to do so by exploiting the situation to his own ends-- it's hard to believe there aren't other directors out there who would at least consider doing the same thing.

What nagged at me after reading Smith's response, and then listening to the radio bit, was the tone of Smith's comments. We're not in the realm of civil discourse here, and it's clear that Siegel has been perceived here as an easy target for ridicule-- hence all the irrelevant comments about his moustache. I just wish that Smith wasn't so quick to rip into somebody in a way that Poland is right in asserting "would send him (Smith) through the roof with rage." This is the element of Internet discourse that I've always found distasteful, and it's no less so coming from a well-known filmmaker. As soon as you start belittling somebody because of their facial hair, well, I'm going to start calling into question your talents as an coordinator of an rational argument, and I'll start thinking of your site, and perhaps your whole "Askewniverse," a little more skeptically.

The surreal element I was referring to in my previous comments re the radio interview linked to on Smith's site comes about 10-15 minutes in, when it becomes clear that Siegel has no idea that it is Smith himself with whom he has been arguing. (Of course, what are the odds that the radio guys took steps to muddy those waters themselves?)

Smith and the radio guys take pains to say how much they respect Siegel for joining in the fray, but this is only after Siegel has basically backed off and admitted that he had acted "unprofessionally" in making a show of leaving the screening. I think I would have had more respect for him if he'd stood his ground more firmly and tried to make a better case for what drove him out of the room. Smith defuses that avenue of the argument, though, by claiming that he doesn't care whether Siegel, or any critic, likes his movie or not. But the comments offered up by Mark Caro in your article certainly do call that assertion into question.

I wonder if Smith has become more thin-skinned regarding film critics and criticism of his work the more he gets called out for falling back on the familiar elements of that Askewniverse. Because the more I think about it, this kind of lashing out seems pretty indicative of someone who may be afraid that, outside those familiar elements, as Foundas intimates in his article, he may not have much else to contribute.

I'll see Clerks 2 and I hope to enjoy it. But I must say all this has put a much different spin on the prospect of doing so for me.

I'm a big fan of "Chasing Amy", even though it's clearly just a very good screenplay, IMO, not particularly well-directed or acted (except for Jason Lee). For me, watching Affleck throughout that movie is probably what it must be like for you watching Cruise in "Magnolia" (even though in that role, perhaps his bad acting is the point? ... I sense over-analysis).

I don't love Dogma quite as much, but it's the same thing. It's mostly a good screenplay. I wonder if Smith's writing would be better if directed by someone else.

Oh yeah, don't bother with Mallrats or Jersey Girl.

Jim, if you think the Smith films you've seen are bad, count your lucky stars that you didn't suffer through "Mallrats." I actually consider "Clerks" better than "Dogma," so I'm surprised you liked the latter. He can occasionally pull off some laughs with his writing, but all his work seems better-suited to stand-up comedies.

"Clerks II" emphasizes his lack of skills. "Clerks" looks so scuzzy that you don't expect it to be made with any skill. The sequel, however, has plenty of money, but all the ineptitude.

Does anyone else find it ironic that, after immaturely bashing Paul Thomas Anderson both in public and in the 104-minute masturbation session known as "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," Smith quoted PTA to prove that Siegel is a lousy critic. ("As Paul Thomas Anderson once said of the man, getting a bad review from Siegel is like a badge of honor.") It's always mystified me that a director who is so insecure when it comes to criticism would insult a colleague who is unquestionably his better.

The only thing inaccurate about Poland's piece is the idea that this is a recent development. Smith has been whining since he hit the big-time. He once appealed to his fans to harass the board of the WGA—whose rules on screenplay credits have caused many more valid complaints than Smith's—because he didn't receive a screen credit for doctoring a straight-to-video B-movie called "Overnight Delivery." Later, he complained that Disney was out to get him when ABC didn't pick up his unfunny animated "Clerks" series, linking it to the same folks who forces Miramax to sell Dogma. It was then that I realized Smith was a petulant brat.

I now realized that, in a deep corner of my mind, I must have been building up a deep aversion to Smith for the past decade. Reading all this back, it sounds like it came from someone who spends all his time researching reasons not to like the man. I guess all my frustration was finally released.

Dear Jim,

I think you want to say "grow some cojones" not "cajones", which means drawers.

Or is this scabrous humour?

JE: Whoops. Maybe I was subconsciously wishing he'd grow some longer drawers instead of those baggy 3/4-length capri pants he always wears. At least in photographs. I think everybody should be comfortable (and I wear shorts all summer), but this Silent Bob clown outfit is getting tiresome. I mean, Chaplin didn't dress as the Little Tramp ALL the time.

There's some pertinent information on this subject in an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=474144

The relevant bit: [...] the same people who made his films cult hits are often the same people who rip apart his films on Internet Web sites and message boards. They feel a kinship with Smith, and the negative side of that kinship is that they feel close enough for jealousy.

Smith says that he's the problem.

"I've become so closely identified with the work I do," he said. "I'm the face, and the weird feeling is that I'll never know if the movies can stand up by themselves without my assistance.

"I don't think John Sayles asks, 'Do they like me or the movie?' Scorsese doesn't feel that way. Neither does Spielberg. And I think that if I wasn't out there shucking and jiving, and college question-and-answer sessions left and right and spending time on the Web, would people care about me anymore?"

At least he's a member of that select group - including such major figures as Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg - whom moviegoers recognize by name.

"I never thought about it like that," Smith said, laughing. For one second, it's not bad being Kev. "If I could drop weight and keep it off, it would be good being Kev."

Sounds to me like the guy has a fairly deep-rooted insecurity and an inability to rationally detach from his work. At least he accepts some responsibility...not that that's an excuse for obnoxious behavior.

I must say, I've enjoyed a couple of Smith's films (Clerks and Chasing Amy), amateurish though they are, but I find most of his work unoriginal, pretentious and unfunny in the extreme. Also, I personally blame him (along with, to a lesser degree, Quentin Tarantino) for spawning a whole generation of hack college directors interested more in hipster dialogue than quality storytelling.

Love the site, Jim! Keep testifying!

JE: Interesting stuff, Dan. But, of course, by merchandising images of himself and his characters (Silent Bob Action Figure, anyone?), he's encouraged that kind of identification. I understand it, though: His background is in comics, and he's deliberately built up a cult of personality that extends throughout the View Askew universe. He digs the hero worship and I don't blame him for that. Heck, today just about everybody goes to Comicon to promote their movies...

Hi Jim,

Great post. I liked Clerks more than you, and after Chasing Amy, I was really looking forward to the growth of Kevin Smith's career.

With Dogma and Mallrats, something really started going off the rails.

I parallell Smith's direction, in a weird way, with Edward Albee, the playwright.

In a New York Review of Books article, we find this assessment of Albee's turning point into a real antagonistic relationship with the critical community.

After the critical failure of his play Tiny Alice, Albee's attitude began changing:

"The problem with Tiny Alice, however, was not that it was exceptionally bad. Most good playwrights are highly ambitious and their ambition inevitably leads to the odd disaster. In the intellectual climate of the mid-1960s, however, and with the self-justifying notion that Albee was really a European experimentalist who could not be understood by crass Americans, Tiny Alice was raised up as a cross on which Albee enacted his artistic martyrdom at the hands of the philistines. What should have been written off as a mistake to be learned from became instead a manifesto from which Albee was reluctant to retreat. The obvious truth that Albee's is an individual and idiosyncratic American voice was obscured by his image as a European absurdist on the wrong side of the Atlantic." (Italics Mine.)

Full article is here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17398

JE: Thanks for the link, YS. I remember that article. Just to clarify: I have no problem at all with somebody having an "antagonistic relationship" with critics. As I've said before, I wish there were more arguments between filmmakers and critics -- beyond namecalling, I mean. So, I see the point you're making, but we should remember some crucial differences: Albee is a great American writer (from "The Zoo Story" to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to "The Goat: or, Who is Sylvia?"), and his beef was with critics of some stature, not Joel Siegel. And, as far as I know, he didn't try to prevent critics he didn't like from reviewing his plays. (I admit: I love "Tiny Alice," which had a critically successful revival with Richard Thomas just a few years back. Time will catch up with that play.)

I also enjoyed Dogma quite a bit, but most of Smith's other work is kind of like comedic emphemera: I remember laughing a bit when I see the film, but 10 minutes later, I don't remember any of the funny bits I was just laughing at. Smith tends to get a bit too scatalogical for my taste, with far too many gay jokes. Not that I mind a good joke at my peoples' expense, just make sure to make it actually funny.

I had no intention of seeing Clerks II to begin with, and Smith's arrogant diva outburst gives me all the more reason to avoid it.

I enjoyed Chasing Amy when I first saw it, but on re-watching it this year, realized my youthful appreciation may have been innapropriately high. I likewise thought Dogma was alright, but resist watching it again for fear I'll learn I was wrong about that too and it's as unfunny and ineptly made as the rest of his films.

Listening to the radio confrontation between him and Siegel, I can't help but think Smith is a hypocritcal media-whore. He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Will he ever drop his Degrassi High fixation (as I did when I was about 16) and simply grow up?

I'm guessing no.

Joe Siegel was just plain rude for leaving the theater like he did, and Kevin had every right to hold him to it on the blog he wrote and on the radio. Some of you just dislike this man's movies...f*cking deal with it.

I used to be really into Kevin Smith's entertaining little universe, and I will be going to see Clerks II tonight.

However, in the last few days, I've become disillusioned with Kevin Smith as a person. After years of seeing him in person, watching his college lecture DVD, and listening to audio interviews, he comes off in public as such an incredibly cool, down-to-earth guy who isn't affected by criticism either way. I thought the digs at the Ain't It Cool talkbackers in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back were just an amusing joke about opinions on the internet and not anything personal.

Listening to him on the Opie & Anthony show, however, was painful. His voice raised in pitch to that whining anger...it was so opposite from the personality I had always seen before. I was very put off, and found myself actually leaning toward defending Siegel. Siegel apologized several times and said he would be quieter next time. Smith wasn't willing to accept that at all and would not let it go. I felt embarrassed for him.

Yesterday and today while browsing the web, I found out about Kevin Smith's devotion to reading all negative reviews about him and the grudges he holds, the weird demands, the uninviting of people who have been critical of one or two of his films in the past. As you point out, for a guy who is critical of himself all the time, it seems so bizarre for him to get angry when other critics are as well.

So while I'll see the film and probably enjoy it, I'll always look at Smith in a different way. He's no longer the really nice, down-to-earth guy who's just having fun. I have this bad image of him in my mind now, scouring the web late into the night, cursing at negative reviews and writing down the names of their authors.

I always thought sarcastic people shrugged off criticism. I had no idea Smith was so incredibly insecure. It makes me think of the Wachowski brothers--the sequels were a disappointment, but hell, they paid film critics to sit and record a highly critical commentary track, just to balance the philosopher track. I suddenly respect them even more and Smith a lot less.

The scene at the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back where they fly around the country beating up web critics who sad bad things about them isn't as funny anymore in light of what I know now about Kevin Smith.

Are you guys kidding me??
All this analyzing! I have a f**ing headache!

Clerks II is a funny film! Grant it, it is NOT for everyone.
Give it a rest...IT'S A MOVIE and its soul purpose is to make you laugh.
And it succeeded..in spades!

Chris: Please tell that to Kevin Smith. He's the one making a big deal out of it. As I said: "What puzzles me is that Smith and his fans openly acknowledge they know his movies aren't particularly well-made, but they don't care because they think they're funny. Smith himself writes: "I recognize that brand of whimsy might not be for everybody. Film appreciation is very subjective..." So, why not leave it at that? Smith can't." If only Smith didn't take HIMSELF so damn seriously...

But it was a screening for critics, wasn't it? By doing this, he was influencing other people who would write about the film.

JE: Yes. I don't know if any New York critics would be influenced by Joel Siegel, but as I said, his outburst was disruptive to the screening in progress, and that's why I think it was unprofessional. But for Smith to respond with stupd sex jokes at Siegel's expense, instead of focusing his criticism on what Siegel did, was way out of line -- and equally inexcusable.