Kevin's Watch

Dude, George C Scott's been dead.

And he wasn't in Dogma.

I thought the movie was a riot!!

I think he means Carlin. George Carlin died yesterday from heart failure. A shame.

I don't remember him in Dogma. Who did he play?

Marv wrote:I don't remember him in Dogma. Who did he play?

Cardinal Ignatius Glick.

Tulizar wrote: Certainly no Praise of Folly, but what did Erasmus know about the 13th Apostle? Or the Jersey shore and skee ball?

Only just noticed that.

Cracked me up.

I like it myself to be honest, always have. And usually a fan of the Kevin Smith movies. Can't say I paid much attention to the casting or acting, but found it to be amusing on the whole.

--A

Jay and Silent Bob was Smith's funniest movie. Heck, maybe his best.

Malik23 wrote:Jay and Silent Bob was Smith's funniest movie. Heck, maybe his best.

I would have agreed with this 'till I saw Clerks II. They're both hysterical.

First of all, I haven't seen this film - and won't - it was painful just reading the wikipedia description.

What you might notice from criticism of this film here alone is that the film would be offensive to anyone who takes faith seriously as a real thing that is true and has a whole impact on our lives. It's not enough here to say that you are Catholic - or whatever faith is being parodied at the moment - the dividing line for offense will be the issue of faith as the source, the basis on which you live your life vs faith as something you do on Sundays (or whatever) or don't do at all.

I happen to know (even as a non-Catholic) that Catholicism has pretty sophisticated reasons for their dogma, which a low-brow film like this would ignore. Thus, it might be a hit (if it was well-done) with people who didn't WANT to know what the point behind dogma is; ie, people laughing at what they do not understand. It rather reverses their own view that they are looking down upon something when you realize that they are actually looking up on it, from that position of ignorance.

For this reason I would be opposed to similar films laughing at any faith - even atheism (or agnosticism - the mystical dogma that the truth cannot be known). An ignorant laugh at the expense of Islam, for example, throwing around low-brow ideas of what they believe, would have the reverse effect of strengthening the credibility of the faith for anyone who learned of the ignorance of the producer of the laugh.

I'll grant the possibility that a faith may NOT have good reasons for its dogma; but then, that's not my point here. If it does, then my point stands.

I don't have a problem making fun of people's faith. Again, I think Life of Brian is absolutely brilliant. Dogma fails as a comedy, and it fails at satirizing Catholicism.

I hated Brokeback Mountain, and probably not for the reasons that you might suspect, that being said I still watched it because Im not one to ridicule, or judge someones work unless I have some experience with it. So I watched. That to me , justifies any comment I might wish to make. Plenty of religious people objected vehemently to such films as The Last Temptation, and The Passion, and Dogma. I wonder how many of them had the guts to watch, and judge for themselves. Im fully aware of Cails opinion of this movie, he has made it pretty clear, but I also know that he has watched the film, and at least knows enough about it to form an opinion. If you havent, then I cant really see how you might have anything to say on the matter.

Mr. Broken wrote:Im fully aware of Cails opinion of this movie, he has made it pretty clear, but I also know that he has watched the film, and at least knows enough about it to form an opinion. If you havent, then I cant really see how you might have anything to say on the matter.

I completely respect Cail's opinion of this movie. It's not coming from a place of closed-mindedness. He just doesn't think it's funny. That's perfectly understandable, and no one can dispute him because humor is very personal.

Cail, I liked Clerks 2, too.

Mr. Broken wrote:I hated Brokeback Mountain, and probably not for the reasons that you might suspect, that being said I still watched it because Im not one to ridicule, or judge someones work unless I have some experience with it. So I watched. That to me , justifies any comment I might wish to make. Plenty of religious people objected vehemently to such films as The Last Temptation, and The Passion, and Dogma. I wonder how many of them had the guts to watch, and judge for themselves. Im fully aware of Cails opinion of this movie, he has made it pretty clear, but I also know that he has watched the film, and at least knows enough about it to form an opinion. If you havent, then I cant really see how you might have anything to say on the matter.

Granted that I cannot comment on most details of the film (outside of what was recorded in the wikipedia article).

But since I am commenting on what has been said here and on general parodying of faith (and do have a general idea of what the film is about), I really don't see how you can categorically disqualify my comments. Complain about lack of detailed knowledge - exactly what Loki said to Bartleby at the church, etc, yes, you may. I don't know. You got me.
But objecting to my comments on the significance of parodies of faith is unreasonable.

Given my life situation, it is very difficult for me to casually watch movies, especially in English (my native language). So I plead mercy for my inability to get to Blockbuster from central Russia.

Heck, I could've pretended to have seen the film given the available online resources. Let's not quibble on this point.

I'd still be interested in reasonable responses to my earlier post.

I think MB's post was directed towards rus, Malik. Especially since he starts his post off saying he hasn't - and won't - see the film...

rusmeister wrote: Granted that I cannot comment on most details of the film (outside of what was recorded in the wikipedia article).

But since I am commenting on what has been said here and on general parodying of faith (and do have a general idea of what the film is about), I really don't see how you can categorically disqualify my comments. Complain about lack of detailed knowledge - exactly what Loki said to Bartleby at the church, etc, yes, you may. I don't know. You got me.
But objecting to my comments on the significance of parodies of faith is unreasonable.

Given my life situation, it is very difficult for me to casually watch movies, especially in English (my native language). So I plead mercy for my inability to get to Blockbuster from central Russia.

Heck, I could've pretended to have seen the film given the available online resources. Let's not quibble on this point.

I'd still be interested in reasonable responses to my earlier post.

Rus--I don't think you have to see a movie to know it is something that will offend you or that you have to watch it in order to form an opinion about it. We have so much information available to us about movies, it is my humble opinion that you can form a pretty well founded opinion without having watching it. I loved the movie, but I can definitely see how it would be offensive to people of faith.

As a Catholic, I don't find the film offensive. I think the funniest thing about the movie was Kevin Smith's rather pathetic defense of the film ("it's not sacrilege man, I'm Catholic).....It wasn't sacrilegious, it just got major points of Catholicism wrong....Which wouldn't really have been that big of a deal without Smith's insisting that it was a pious film.

Kevin Smith needs to keep making films that play up his strengths as a writer and a director; lots of dick and fart jokes. It's what he does best, and when he strays from that formula, he fails.

Check out The Ten for a much funnier and more pointed critique of Christianity.

Cail wrote:As a Catholic, I don't find the film offensive. I think the funniest thing about the movie was Kevin Smith's rather pathetic defense of the film ("it's not sacrilege man, I'm Catholic).....It wasn't sacrilegious, it just got major points of Catholicism wrong....Which wouldn't really have been that big of a deal without Smith's insisting that it was a pious film.

From Merriam-Webster (online):
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrilegious

sacrilegious
1 : a technical and not necessarily intrinsically outrageous violation (as improper reception of a sacrament) of what is sacred because consecrated to God 2 : gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing

Looks like this film is decidely sacrilegious to me.
See my point about the dividing line above.

Meh, then I didn't find it offensive in its inaccuracies.

How's that?

Back in the day, Rome had the entire gathered histories of both the Inca's, and the Aztecs, burned because they were considered heretical. I wonder if anyone even bothered to read them first, some how I doubt it. But the fact remains, centuries of accumulated knowledge went up in smoke because of someone's close minded, uninformed opinion. Im not defending Dogma here any more, but to butcher a quote " You can have my books to burn, when you pry them from my cold dead fingers."

Mr. Broken wrote:Back in the day, Rome had the entire gathered histories of both the Inca's, and the Aztecs, burned because they were considered heretical. I wonder if anyone even bothered to read them first, some how I doubt it. But the fact remains, centuries of accumulated knowledge went up in smoke because of someone's close minded, uninformed opinion. Im not defending Dogma here any more, but to butcher a quote " You can have my books to burn, when you pry them from my cold dead fingers."

You can find examples of people doing evil in the name of Catholicism (or Orthodoxy, or Christianity in general). So what? It is rather like seeing the German nation today as suspect because it had produced Hitler.

The first question I have for you, is, is Catholic (or other Christian) dogma right or wrong? If wrong, on what basis do you decide that? If even one of the Christian confessions is in possession of truth, you must seriously examine the position of that confession before you can condemn it.

If it is right, then the importance to the Truth is not greatly affected by the evils committed by people like Cortez and Pizarro. Lost information is always a pity, I suppose, but on the other hand, I delete things from my computer periodically and no one accuses me of close-mindedness.

If it is wrong, then there is a tiny chance that something truly important to our lives was lost and must be relearned. But this is something that is not known and cannot be proved, only taken on faith....hey! Sounds just like a religious dogma!

Finally, on close-mindedness, which is used in rhetoric with an automatic negative assumption:

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or Practical reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.
C.S. Lewis quoted in Credenda Agenda, 4(5), p. 16.

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
G.K. Chesterton