An essay from sophomore year. I love kevin smith, and somehow i got away with doing a paper on this...
Religion is a subject that can either (depending on how you put
things)insult or please people. Kevin Smith is a director known
for his clever, often raunchy, and controversial films. His
plots are sarcastic, witty, and poignant, but usually involve
drug use, sex, and vulgar dialect. Kevin Smith decided to make a
movie, Dogma, which focused on religion. Catholics especially
protested the film. Mountains of hate mail were sent to Smith.
Churches urged their faithful to not see the movie. Protesters
preaching morals surrounded movie theaters. Was this film worth
all the fuss? Sadly enough, the answer is no. Under the shroud
of controversy lies a film whose basis was to prove you should
always have faith. The release of Dogma only proved yet again
that you cannot be creative without stepping on other people’s
toes.
Okay, so maybe people had some reason to object, given Kevin
Smith’s previous accomplishments. His first film, Clerks,
depicts a day in the life of a convenience-store employee and the
conflicts he faces during the day. This low-budget,
black-and-white film was a critical success. Though there was no
nudity and gruesome acts, Clerks was given an NC-17 rating. Why?
Censors felt that the film used offensive language much too
often. But how should a bunch of middle-class-twenty-something
-year-olds speak? The film depicts them as cranky, sarcastic,
overworked, underpaid, taken for granted, and often annoyed by a
barrage of customers who are so incompetent it is astonishing
they made it past pre-school. I realize not everyone speaks like
the cast of Clerks, but there was obviously enough people to
inspire a man (Kevin Smith) to write and direct a comedy about
them.
Smith’s follow-up films, Mallrats and Chasing Amy, were done
in the same style as Clerks. All three films take place in the
suburbs of New Jersey. All three films are manned with
sharp-tongued sarcasm and laugh-out-loud scenes. All three films
are considered controversial. Shouldn’t people have spotted a
trend? Kevin Smith does not make family-oriented programming or
feel-good movies. Why would he change the style he values so
much for a new film? I realize that “variety is the spice of
life,” but why stop if you are on to something good? So it
should have come as no surprise to people that Dogma dealt with
many of the same issues as Smiths three previous films.
Dogma is the tale of two renegade angels who are thrown out
of Heaven and are forced to live in a small town for all
eternity. To them, eternity in a small town is a fate worse than
hell. After thousands of years in this town, they discover a
loophole in the Catholic faith. They then decide to embark on a
mission to prove god fallible--and in the process, end all
existence. The film casts a group of strange and unlikely
characters to save the world from the two fallen angels. There
is Bethany, a descendent of Jesus who works in an abortion
clinic. Sometimes she even doubts the existence of God. A
descendent of Jesus working in an abortion clinic? Now that went
over well with the Catholic church. Next are the two “prophets,”
Jay and Silent Bob, the marijuana-smoking-hormonally-charged cult
heroes that have made Kevin Smith’s past films’ successes. These
two men are supposed to educate Bethany about god (in their own
way, of course) and help her save the entire universe from the
evil angels. Drug-dependent prophets? What was Kevin Smith
thinking? Then there is Rufus--the thirteenth apostle who claims
he was left out the Bible on the sole basis that he was black.
The Holy Bible discriminates? How dare Kevin Smith say such a
thing! And to top it off, God himself is actually a woman,
played by Alanis Morrisette, of all people. A rebellious rocker
tries to emulate the holy image of God? What is the world coming
to? Those were some of the reactions that people had when they
first heard rumors about the characters in Dogma. I understand
these characters seem like strange and unlikely for a movie
revolving around a subject such as religion, but they all play
their specific roles, and somehow manage to make a positive point
about religion. Why should people protest something that makes a
positive point in the end? The movie ends up becoming a sort of
pro-religion film. Kevin Smith finishes the movie with an ending
so happy, John Hughes (The Breakfast Club) would be proud. But
few magazines reported that Dogma was actually a pro-religion
film, and the articles containing the film’s more prominent (and
controversial) points were often cited when protesters made their
opinions clear.
The so-called controversy behind Dogma became apparent when
the View Askew (Kevin Smith’s company) mailboxes were filling
with letters to Smith about his film. Most letters were not
supportive. In fact, the letters were hate mail directed to
Smith, as well as the Weinstein brothers, who head Miramax, the
film company purchasing Dogma. The letters urged the Weinstein
brothers not to release his film. Some especially deranged
letters implied that Dogma was being made because the Weinstein
brothers are Jewish and hate all Catholics. A few letters even
went as far as to compare the Weinstein brothers to Hitler.
Wait, it’s wrong for someone to poke fun at your religion, but
it’s perfectly fine to call someone else Hitler? That’s quite
logical. The situation was almost ironic: a director makes a
quirky pro-religion film about the Catholic faith, and the is
billed as the new Antichrist. The pressure finally got to the
Weinstein brothers, and Miramax dropped Dogma. The film was in
jeopardy of never being released. After months of debate, a
daring company (Lion’s Gate) decided to release the film.
Finally, someone had faith in Dogma.
My only question is: Why the fuss? The movie was an
hilarious trip into the world of organized religion. Granted,
some the scenes in the movie were a little out of the ordinary.
A scene discussing the sex life of Mary and Joseph seemed like
crossing the line. But how else could Smith have explained
Bethany being Jesus’s descendent? It wasn’t as if Kevin Smith
portrayed Mary as a prostitute. She was a faithful wife who
wanted to have children, like many mothers. I suppose God
wearing a Christian Lacroix bustier with flannel boxer shorts on
underneath is kind of strange. But who can define fashion?
Would they have rather seen God prance around in a tube tope and
a mini-skirt, or even a string bikini? The outfit was not
revealing, and only showed God having a flair for fashion. Maybe
two angels murdering people who have sinned seems a little
hypocritical, but one of them was, before being kicked out of
Heaven, the angel of Death. (Old habits die hard, I suppose.)
People should not write off a film as pure filth based on a few
scenes that are not considered traditional. That is what
happened to Dogma, and that was unfair.
Religion is just something that people cannot poke fun at, I
suppose. Too many people get all wound up over it; there is no
way to please everyone. Kevin Smith knew this, and he had no
intention of offending or attacking anyone. He apologized
numerous times for making people see red. I don’t see the
problem in being creative. Without creativity, life would be
probably nothing more than a large mass of people who look, talk,
dress, and think the same. Where’s the fun in that? It is
important to challenge people, and more importantly, to break the
mold. Kevin Smith did nothing more than break the mold, and it
is really a shame that people interpreted it as disrespect.
