Richard Linklater & Kevin Smith

Differences - um, everything else.

I think amateurist was right (if very harsh) about the linking of the two.

Is that the guy that sells Craftmatic adjustable beds? His daughter jumped out of a window high on angel dust.

Linklater, his run on Richard Dragon, Kung Fu Master, really disappointed me.

Actually, it's total bullshit! C'est le vie.

xpost

I like how Huck implies that Smith is Fat Albert.

Imagine how much better a film like Chasing Amy (even with its questionable assumptions) would be if he spent more time SHOWING us the plot instead of filming a bunch of people SITTING AROUND AND FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT. (Similar arguments can be made about Dogma, though I don't think it's as bad.)

Clerks was great, but it had a hell of a lot to do with the charm of being shot in 16mm etc. The same exact film made on a big budget would have been about as ass as Mallrats, which was big rancid ass.

(Do I have to repeat my hastily assembled but NINE-POINT treatise from the other thread?)

This made me think of Linklater directing Fiddler on the Roof.

And god I hated his Daredevil arc for many of the same reasons (awful awful prose), in addition to unabashedly ripping off (some would say homage) Frank Miller.

Martin, I think he's wisely playing to his strengths...he's not GOOD at showing things, but he knows his dialog is good or at least distinctive. Besides, I like people sitting around and talking, especially if they're as entertaining as Jason Lee.

How many times have we had this thread anyway?

I think he's a better writer than director. In an ideal world, a director with a really good sense of visual storytelling would be able to take a Smith script and rewrite it to remove some of the excess verbiage before shooting it.

I don't think Smith's dialogue is necessarily bad. He has some nice moments... I just think he doesn't know when to stop having characters talk and start having them actually do stuff. Probably this is a side effect of his trying to tackle primarily internal (i.e. intellectual) conflicts rather than external ones (i.e. save the girl/kill the badguy/steal the prize/etc), but that's still not an excuse. I mean, there are assloads of directors and writers who handle the internal stuff with a lot of grace and help a director to make the whole thing look and move beautifully.

Besides, I like people sitting around and talking, especially if they're as entertaining as Jason Lee.

I agree with this only up to a point. I think this is exactly why many people have said they found Smith's films funny but didn't have much in the way of respect for him as a filmmaker.

If Smith played to his strengths initially, sure, but it's kinda weird he seems to have made no effort to improve over the course of his career at all.

The Coen brothers write some damned distinctive dialogue, but they also know how to show more than tell. You could argue against me I'm sure, but I don't see their dialogue used as a crutch the way Smith's seems to be. (Disclaimer/Caveat: Raising Arizona is my favorite film of all time.)

Hal Hartley's dialogue is extremely distinctive, but he uses it more to create the weird hyper-realistic world where his characters live rather than just to be entertaining. (See also Mamet re: hyper-realism.)

And I like Dogma + Chasing Amy!

I thought it was a good idea with a so-so execution.

i don't see any appeal in jason lee.

What does 'artistic interest' mean? I'll read it as an integration of form and content and respond accordingly. You properly analogize technical singing ability to form ('polish'), where I may have been trying to extend it to integration. You then say that Madonna is good despite her formal deficit because she has content (and can integrate?), but that Smith is not because he has no content (or because he can't integrate?). I disagree - I find something distinctive and interesting in (best example) the Dante-Randall relationship, and the dialogue expressing it. Is it possible that you disagree because you dislike the characters? I understand that you're not much interested in the subject but I'd be interested in your argument to the contrary if you wish to engage.

(xposts - fwiw, I think there's nothing 'intellectual' about Kevin Smith, though there is intelligence of sorts in his movies)

Do you mean Salma Hayek??

or because you're not much interested in the particular relationship type involved?

I liked that character as well, both when played by Alanis and by the old guy. The character was interesting...

Curious how the really interesting character in that film is the one who DOESN'T TALK.

I agree with Nick re: fear of controversy undercutting the oomph the film could have had, but I did like the "loophole in God's plan" idea.

I think Matt Damon takes a dump when he's supposed to be acting, and I think Ben Affleck is a dump when he's supposed to be acting. I'm still trying to figure out how much of my distaste for that film was caused by the dual dump attack and how much was cause it just wasn't that great.

"The Smoker"
An English teacher at a prestigious all-girls school is invited to dinner at the home of one of his students. A beautiful senior in his class has decided that he would be the perfect husband for her -- not because she's in love with him but because she thinks they would be a good match. The idea is supported by her eccentric parents, who encourage them to get married.

starring Owen Wilson and Natalie Portman

Alex Jones in the Linklater oeuvre

http://www.houstonpress.com/film/the-infowars-hit-austin-alex-jones-in-richard-linklaters-waking-life-and-a-scanner-darkly-9281074

huh I had no idea that was Steven Prince in that bit in Waking Life