Do I advocate censorship? When that censorship is in the form of a violent act to silence someone a group doesn’t agree with, then absolutely. And it’s not… NOT… even in the same ballpark as pointing at a ‘Natural Born Killers’ and saying “That there movin’ pitcher makes people kill!” Holding up a work of fiction (like ‘Catcher in the Rye’) and insisting that it incites violence is like holding up a copy of ‘Playboy’ and saying it incites masturbation. ‘Tis not the book, but the hand of the book-looker that commits the act.

But there’s a fundamental difference with William Donohue’s war-like chatter in regards to ‘Dogma’. He’s not discerning the flick as a work of fiction that people shouldn’t lend much credence to. He’s maintaining that it’s out and out blasphemy – and worse, he’s selling this to a wide, disparate group of the faithful. Their reactions may manifest themselves in postcards that say they disagree with ‘Dogma’ and urge us to reconsider releasing the film (of which there are many), or threats of violence against anyone remotely involved with the film (of which there are also many).

For anyone to point to the League and maintain that if anyone gets hurt over this movie, the League is going to be held responsible is NOT the same thing as some conservatives maintaining that Hollywood is to blame for Columbine. They’re not even in the same ballpark. Bill Donohue and the League have made their position clear from the get-go: ‘Dogma’ is a blasphemous, evil work, that they object to and want to bury. And in saying as much, he’s used questionable terms and phrases that can be (and apparently has already) construed as a call-to-arms, as it were. Now we’ve made our position clear: if anyone… ANYONE… gets hurt in the process of their protest, we’re holding Bill Donohue and the League responsible. What does that mean? It means exactly this: if anyone… ANYONE… gets hurt in the process of their protest, we’re holding Bill Donohue and the League responsible. Does that amount to much in, say, a court of law? Probably not. If someone DOES get hurt, I imagine we’d have a hard time convincing the court system that Bill Donohue and the League should be held responsible. No – this was just a private (mind you, the letter that was sent to Bill Donohue was not a public, soap-boxy affair; it was done quietly, so as not to make a grand-standing deal about it) conversation between two parties, so as to make our position understood. You’ll note that, again, no one from the Weinstein side of the equation is fanning the flames in print, looking for the war of words Bill Donohue seems to desire.

One party would just like to simply distribute its pro-faith/pro-Catholic (oh the irony in all of this) film, while the other party is rattling sabers very publicly, drumming up far more interest in the movie than it’s probably due (as the filmmaker, I’m depressed by the expectation the League is saddling this film with; folks heading into the theatre based on all the League has said about the film, hoping to kick back for two hours worth of church-bashing are going to be sadly, sadly disappointed in how devout and faith-friendly the flick actually is).

And I’ll point out that I, myself, have never been contacted by William Donohue or anyone from the Catholic League. Why not, you may ask? Because I’m the very small broom-handler in this trumped-up witch-hunt. No – Mike Eisner is the target here, folks; so much so that – even though ‘Dogma’ is no longer a Disney or Miramax film – Bill Donohue is demanding that Disney dump Miramax now. Why? What does that have to do with anything at this point? It’s about publicity, friends. You want national attention, you don’t attack the ‘Clerks’ guy; you go after the head of one of the most widely recognized corporations in the world. And even when the wind’s been taken out of the sails of your attack (ie – Dinsey no longer has anything to do with ‘Dogma’ domestically), you create some other new issue (like “Well… Disney should dump Miramax! Yeah! That’s it!”) out of something small (like a letter that quietly states our standing on the thousands of threats we’ve received, since Bill Donohue started his anti-‘Dogma’ campaign).

And in the midst of all this sad politicing, I find my faith in Christ is even stronger than it was before, and I find myself really sympathizing with the Man. Could you imagine having to watch this and all the far, far worse inanity carriedout in your name, when your central message was one of peace and tolerance? And pile upon that the fact that all the money the Catholic League will have raised for their ‘war’ against ‘Dogma’ would’ve been far, far better spent clothing and feeding the poor (and before ya’ll go pointing fingers, let me assure you – doing so only as a pre-defense, and not as any sort of glory-hounding grandstanding – that a sizeable portion of what I annually make goes toward charity and Christian acts).

A BOARDER QUESTIONS : “Oh, and an interesting thought about unlimate blame: if you believe that the Christian bible is “God’s Word” then, untimately, their God is responsible for telling his desciples to commit violence in his name. Should we sue their god?”

BACK TO KEV : No. God doesn’t have enough liquid assets. Sure, the Lord has the planet, but we already swiped that from the Almighty ages ago (or, at least, so we think).

I have no desire to sue God, thank you; nor anybody else for that matter. But the Bible is still REPUTED to be God’s words, while we’ve seen first-hand that what William Donohue has said were HIS words. I don’t see God in the pages of the New York Post, blabbing on about ‘Dogma’, or rather, Disney.

I grow weary from talking this to death. I’m not Lenny Bruce (in many, many ways), so in the future, I’d like to limit the amount of constitutional rights arguments I have to comment on. Can’t we talk about dick and fart jokes, and even the Lord instead?

Oh right – that’s what got me into this position in the first place.

Leykis figured the Weinsteins did orchestrate getting the Catholic league enraged so as to use them by having them add free publicity.Seeing as he thinks the Catholic League are idiots, this tickled him to no end. He basically said, without the C.L., Dogma would have been allow budget film that came and went unremarked. But thanks to the league everyone is talking about it (including him). He basically said he would be a booster for the film.

– The fact that Kevin Smith is in fact Catholic and his intent in making the film was missed. Leykis is actually an atheist and not a big fan of organized religion so the fact that uptight Catholics were getting more uptight also tickled him. Being Catholic I sort of resented the way he lumped Catholics in general with the Catholic League but I don’t have nearly the problem with him that I do with the C.L.

– One listener called in to say that she had seen some promotional materials her friend had shown her for the film and that it exposed Satanism. Another caller said that the film and Leykis were both bad because they did not respect other people’s beliefs. Leykis pointed out he only had to respect people’s rights to believe, not to respect the beliefs themselves and that everyone had the right to free speech.Then when he found out Tom Leykis was an atheist Mr. “Respect All Peoples Beliefs” became disgusted with Leykis, was censored for swearing at Leykis and, if I remember correctly, told Leykis he would go to hell (which really isn’t an effective threat to hurl at an atheist). Basically some of the calls served as a reminder of the number of really not-so-sharp people there are out there.

(U-WIRE) MORGANTOWN, W.V. — “First you take a run at LaFours with a sock full of quarters. I’d do it myself, but I threw my back out humping your mom last night. Noontch.”Kevin Smith, writer/director of the cult films Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy and the forthcoming Dogma, has been quoted as saying that he saw movies as a way to break into comic books. Well, he’s done it.Smith is comics’ new golden boy. By using his director’s eye, a unique storytelling style of deep plot combined with comic relief and a fan-boy’s love of the genre, he has taken the medium by storm.One need only watch Smith’s films to see his love of comic books. Mallrats was replete with references to superheroes and even featured a cameo appearance by legendary writer Stan Lee. Chasing Amy showed the bizarre love affair between two comic creators.Smith even owns and operates his own Jersey based comic shop, Jay & Silent Bob’s Secret Stash. Putting out his own books only seems like the next logical step.Oni Double Feature #1 was Kevin Smith’s comics debut. It featured a story of Jay & Silent Bob versus the menace that is Walt Flanagan’s dog. The issue created an immediate buzz and sold out in many stores.

Moving on, he created stories featuring the characters from his films. Clerks: the Comic Book and the Clerks Holiday Special continue the adventures of Dante Hicks and Randal Graves, employees of Quick Stop and RST Video, respectively. The cash-register jockeys encounter Santa Claus, become involved with an underground ring of Star Wars toys distributors and Dante revives comatose ex-girlfriend Kaitlin Bree from her psychosis with a very unusual sexual aid.Jay & Silent Bob chronicles the adventures of Red Banks’ infamous pair of dope dealers/loiterers. The four-issue series bridges the gap between Mallrats and Chasing Amy as the degenerate duo head out on an off-the-wall road trip to Shmermer, Ill., along the way encountering Mr. Rogers, making a porno flick and meeting Suzanne, the orangutan seen during the credits after Mallrats. Issue #3 of the series features a hilarious parody of The Fugitive.Beginning in Oni Double Feature #12, are the serial adventures of Bluntman and Chronic, the comic book heroes featured in Chasing Amy. The story, with art by Mike Allred (of Madman fame) was created under the surnames Banky Edwards and Holden McNeil, characters from the movie. Witness as the somnambulist duo battle the evil that is Rick Derris!

Kevin Smith is no stranger to mainstream comics, either. Marvel Comics recently revamped several of their classic characters under the Marvel Knights imprint. Smith, along with popular artists Joe Quesada and Jimmy Palimiotti, were instrumental in the line’s success with their work on Daredevil: the Man Without Fear.Smith’s work on Daredevil brought the title back to the forefront of the Marvel line. Focusing on the hero’s devilish nature, while weaving an intricate tale of self-introspection and biblical prophecy, Smith challenged the character to the base level. He even went so far as to kill off a supporting role, one which had been around since the title’s inception in the late ’60s.Smith’s run on Daredevil ended with issue #8, but he is rumored to be returning for the character’s anniversary.

Also in the rumor mill, is Smith’s take over of DC Comics’ Green Arrow, bringing back Oliver Queen, the original wisecracking, emerald archer (YES!!). Currently in the planning stages is a Clerks animated series for ABC to begin this fall.Oni Double Feature, Jay & Silent Bob and the Clerks specials are available from Oni Press. Smith’s run on Daredevil is available from Marvel Comics. The first four hard-to-find issues have recently been rereleased as a trade paperback and the later issues should still be available at a reasonable price. For more Kevin Smith info on his movies, comic, merchandise and other goodies visit Smith’s studio, View Askew Productions on the web at www.viewaskew.com.

Until next time, true believers. Snootchie Bootchies!

Garage Sale
Directed by:Jeff Fisher

When down to earth Julia suspects her Euro-model boyfriend, Brent, of infidelity while abroad, she sells his trendy wardrobe at an impromptu garage sale. Soon after Brent comes home and professes his true love, and the screwball chase is on as Julia must now track down his clothes. This romantic romp features an all star cast including Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, The Rock, Basquiat), Tim Quill (ER), and Nestor Carbonell (Suddenly Susan), as well as players from Melrose Place, Boys on The Side, and Ned & Stacy. Winner of the Golden Monkey at the British Short Film Festival, and Best Original Comedy at the Atlantic Crossing.

Chris Rock’s on the cover of the new issue of Notorious.

Sweethearts with Janeane Garofalo comes to video June 22nd. According to Entertainment Weekly, she turned down Scream for this movie (it’s from ’96).

School Ties (with Ben & Matt) comes to DVD June 29th.

EW says this about the Clerks dvd: “Bone up on Kevin Smith before Dogma by checking out the director’s debut, CLERKS (1994, Miramax, R, $39.99, June 29), stocked with extra scenes, an alternate ending, and even a music video.”

Finally, whenasked what he was doing over the summer, Ben Affleck said he’s just going to sit around his house in his underwear and order pizza.

Been awhile. I see it’s business as usual around here. Here’s what we’ve been up to for the last few weeks.

Stuck in LA, that’s what. The good news is that we’re three scripts and two records in on the animated series. The better news is it’s really, really funny. Kudos to Dave, Brian Kelley, Steve Luchner, Mosier and myself for three really hillarious episodes thus far. Kudos also to Chris Bailey, our director, who’s come up with a distinctive look for the show that seperates it from anything else out there. And huge kudos to Brian and Jeff (and Mewes) who’ve brought it all to life so well. I think it’s going to be a well-received show.

That’s pretty much what we’ve been solely doing for the last two weeks (there was also this thing on Mtv, I don’t know if anyone saw…).

From the papers this morning it would seem that the ‘Dogma’ protest isn’t going to die down anytime soon. I’m sorry, but anyone expecting a controversial film is in for a huge disappointment (though, as Breck pointed out somewhere below, I’d taken Buster’s word about that many moons back, and so far, he’s not proving very prophetic; what happened to you, Mike? Must I look for a new soothsayer?). I’m still shaking my head over the charges that I’m pissing on anyone’s beliefs, though. And I assure all concerned: the word ‘hump’ never pops up in ‘Dogma’.

To that point, the passage that was discussed below as well – about the quote from the earlier draft of the script – was not denying the Virgin birth; that is, in fact, one of the touchstones of the Catholic faith. But what the line DOES maintain is that AFTER – LONG after – the birth of Christ, Mary and Joseph had other children. This is not something I’ve made up or an idea I’ve trailblazed; many Christian faiths acknowledge the Biblical references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters as biological – not figurative. There are books out there on the subject, a recent one of which purports that one of the Apostles was a sibling of Christ (which Apostle it was, exactly, escapes me right now). Like any Catholic worth his salt, of course I believe Mary conceived Jesus without having known a man’s touch. However, I wasn’t aware – and I’m still not positive – that the Catholic Church objects to the idea that Christ had younger siblings; I just think it’s something they don’t necessarily include in their dogma.

If you ever get a chance, check out the talk-backs over at Aint It Cool News whenever ‘Dogma’ comes up. With the exception of the occasional Buster dig (two mentions in one post; gotta love a law book editor), I guess we’re pretty insulated from the venom (and I do mean venom) of the folks who don’t care for me or the flicks I’ve been involved with. As much as it depresses or frustrates me, I commit myself to reading the bile all the time – just to maintain perspective. And while I never usually comment on the bullshit that’s floated out there about me and mine, I would like to chuckle at the conspiracy-theorists who think we’ve trumped up this ‘Dogma’ outrage ourselves. Let me tell you something: no one – not me, not Scott, not even Harvey ‘I Love Press’ Weinstein himself – NO ONE needs the headache that comes with any of this bullshit. It’s no fun to regard strangers with caution, for fear that any one of them may be some of the letter-and-postcard writers who’ve deluged the Miramax offices with the hate propaganda I’ve been privy to. There are some frightening people out there that the crafty few with bigger fish to fry may not realize they’re inciting to violence. When all of this blows over one day, I’ll post a few of the particularly scary missives that make you think twice about leaving your home/office/bedroom. It’s one thing to protest the content of a movie; it’s another thing completely to warn someone to invest their money in a flak-jacket, because a group is organized, armed, and ready to do battle on behalf of God.

Which strikes me as the most bitter irony in this whole mess: I believe in God, they believe in God. Aren’t we on the same side (which, in light of the flak-jacket comment, doesn’t say too much for me)? But while it seems I’d like to spread God’s word (admittedly entertainingly; please recall – Christ Himself used this method as well: He imparted God’s word via parables, aka STORIES… albeit without the dick and fart jokes), they’d like to spread God’s wrath (and a few folks’ internals as well, from what the threats contained within the letters have said).

I guess it’s true what they say about good intentions and asphalt.

On a much better and more hopeful note, Jen’s started dilating (sp?). It’s now only a small matter of time before we bring an innocent into what’s lately seeming like a very ridiculous world.

Does anyone know if they make flak jackets for newborns?

I hated the film Wallstreet, while I really liked the mean spiritedness of Glengary Glen Ross. Two very different and unique films that just happen to best describe the soon to be released film,The Boiler Room, which in turn borrows heavily from them both. As The Boiler Room is about a bunch of would be stockbrokers who launder funds to various construction companies or seedy organizations by creating artificial demand on (mostly) non existent stocks, that they then sell to hapless would be investors. Who are all far too stupid and willing to throw away their money to the first smooth talker who comes along. Said smooth talker in this case being, the very talented and always enjoyable to watch onscreen, Giovanni Ribisi. A small time gambler, who runs his own at home casino that caters to the local neighborhood youth. Much to his father’s chagrin, as Marty Davis (played stoicly by Ron Rifkin) just happens to be a well respected municipal court judge. Who is constantly harassing his son to be a better man and not such a fuck up, especially after Giovanni’s character Seth Davis, drops out of college in favor or running the casino full time ( he makes a whole lot of money). Only to be recruited into the fold of crooked stockbrokers by a childhood acquaintance, Jamie Kennedy (of Scream1 & 2 fame), via promises of fast money and power.

Which is exactly what Seth needs to prove to his father once and for all that he is somebody, and not some worthless screw up like his fathers believe him to be. Since his father never has anything positive to say, a recurring and somewhat tiresome theme throughout the film. For Seth is constantly berated by his father for not being good enough, thus setting Seth up for a major fall in the future. When Seth slowly but surely discovers that the company he works for is nothing but a cleverly disguised chop shop, and despite his newly acquired power and wealth. Seth really has nothing to show for all his hard effort, not the much desired respect of his father, nor the love of his would be girlfriend. A very hot Nia Long as Debbie, who is viciously used as a pawn by the FBI in order to get close to Ribisi’s characters. Thus forcing him to testify against his employers and colleagues, or face criminal charges himself. Which is where the film starts to faulter a little bit.

As the entire company has been under investigation for some time now, unbeknownst to the hundreds or so crooked stockbrokers who work there. Including such memorable actors as Scott Caan, who for some reason I always enjoy seeing on screen. As well as Ben Affleck, doing a wonderful turn as the new recruit trainer Jim, in a similar role to he one Alec Baldwin made famous in Glengary Glen Ross. Along side the company’s front man and mastermind business mogul, Tom Everett Scott as Michael, who’s hardly seen at all in the film. Since he only appeared every so often to motivate his employees by telling them how each and everyone of them would become a millionaire within three years of their hiring. That is if they didn’t all get arrested, as the company apparently has to completely abandon it’s base of operations from time to time. If various authorities and/or the FCC happens to get a little too close, as they have been investigated from time to time for dubious business practices.