“At the end of the day I can only do what I can do,” Clerks 2 director-writer Kevin Smith says to L.A. Times writer Mark Olsen in a 7.16 piece. “You read a lot of reviews where people say, ‘You should stretch. He should learn to stretch as a filmmaker.’ After a dozen years now, don’t they get it? This is what I do, this is the storyteller I am.

“Do I let myself off the hook by saying, ‘I’m just not that talented?’ Probably. But also I think it’s important to know your limitations. I’ve kind of embraced mine. And I’ve had seven films’ worth of practice to figure that out.”

I don’t entirely believe this. The reason Smith is great on the college-lecture cricuit is that he’s excellent at au contraire-ing — arguing, debating, puncturing balloons. And to me that means he could write a really superb play about a GenX marriage gone bad — a latter-day “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf with a little 2006 “My Dinner with Andre” thrown in. Smith is married and has gone through some trying married-couple stuff…this has to have happened. All he has to do is put it into shape. A play first, and then a low-budget film.

Smith has said he’s too content with his life and too mild-mannered go to in this direction, but as Montgomery Clift’s Pvt. Prewittt says to Burt Lancaster’s Sgt. Warden in From Here to Eternity, “A man should be what he can do.”

One post, to cover all the bases…

The No-Name Guy wrote: “Haha… Daniel Zelter gets slammed.”

I write: Hardly. I certainly wasn’t spoiling for a fight; just correcting what I saw as misinformation (re: Hughes movies and “Fletch Won”).

Let’s not turn this into something it wasn’t, though. I’m getting too old for internet battles, y’know? In the words of the poet: “My name is Kool Rock, and I’m a lover not a fighter.”

Zac wrote: “For what it’s worth, I think it’s refreshing to hear a filmmaker…”

I write: Thanks for the props, sir.

CCA wrote: “Look at Kevin Smith breaking out both the “you direct it” (read: I work, you don’t so don’t say shit to me) AND “I’m successfull” (read: I make movies and you don’t) arguments in practically the same breath.”

I write: That wasn’t the aim, but in re-reading what I wrote, I guess it could be taken that way. It wasn’t the intention. The “You direct it” part was more tongue-in-cheek; not a throwing-down of the gauntlet. The “I’m successful” part was just pure wise-assery.

CCA also wrote: “As for your work, I’m sorry you’re content at the level you reached twelve years ago.”

I write: Gonna have to disagree with you here. If what you’re saying is that I haven’t done anything but the same movie for a dozen years, that’s just silly. “Chasing Amy” is as different from “Clerks” as “Dogma” is from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and “Jersey Girl”. The “level” that I’m happy with working on is simply this: I like making talky movies about relationships. That’s why I got into film in the first place: to make films of that nature.

If, however, the point you’re making is that I’ve not gone beyond those types of films, then yes – you’re right. But honestly? I’ve never aspired to.

CCA also wrote: “Not because I think you’re unfufilled or struggling but because I (me, me, me) am disapointed you haven’t delivered on the (again, as perceived by ME) promise of CLERKS.”

I write: I (ME) do appreciate you stressing that this is your opinion. The ‘net would be a much nicer place if more people took the time to do the same.

However, I don’t understand what promise you saw in “Clerks” that I never delivered on. I feel that “Clerks” promised nothing but dialogue-heavy flicks that (hopefully) make you laugh. It’s not like anyone could’ve possibly watched “Clerks” and said “One day, this guy’s gonna give us the next ‘Star Wars’.” A film about people talking about the next “Star Wars”? Sure. But I truly feel I’ve lived up to whatever unspoken promise I made/showed with “Clerks”: I still make talky, (hopefully) funny films.

CCA also wrote: “Good for you that you have a nice life writing stories and selling merchandise, God bless, but I reached the same conclusion (that you do what you do, and that’s all you’ll ever do) a long time ago. Forgive me if I — lo those many years ago — thought yor work might continue to speak to me like CLERKS did.”

I write: Can’t say much to that except that maybe “Clerks II” can do that. But if my flicks are no longer your cup of tea, I’d understand you having zero desire in checking the new one out.

Then, CCA closed with: “BTW, here’s my career advice: Do stand-up or something of that ilk, because you’re a damned entertaining speaker, son.”

I write: Thanks, man. But comedians stand before an audience and generate. All I do is answer questions.

Monty wrote: “Across all six films so far (haven’t seen Clerks 2 yet), he’s shown a marked improvement in each, both in getting even better at writing dialogue, and even better in framing a shot and moving a camera.”

I write: Careful there, Monty: you’re being too reasonable. That kinda behavior might get you kicked off the internet.

Thanks for the kind (and what I feel are true) words.

Osama wrote: “See, Smith embraces his shortcomings as a filmmaker. he knows he has very little talent and is happy with the little he can do. the rest of you American jackals should follow suit with this puny, fat man and realize you too are inferior as he admits to being.”

I write: How can someone be puny and fat at the same time?

Oh, right… my dick.

Harry Lime wrote: “Isn’t it nice for a filmmaker to get advice from message posters including the author of the website himself who have never once made a movie…”

I write: CCA had a point. It’s not like I make the flicks to put on a shelf, never to be seen. Manufacture for use. Once I put ‘em out there, I gotta expect folks will have an opinion on what I do. And sometimes, that opinion won’t be particularly pretty.

However, once folks put their opinion out there, they’ve gotta expect I might not agree with it, and might express that, from time to time: a critique of the critique, if you will.

“Tim Burton” wrote: “I make movies for a living. My movies have made WAY more money than Kevin Smith’s. I think he’s talentless. By Harry Lime’s logic, I win. End of argument.”

I write: That was more entertaining than the “Planet of the Apes” remake.

For the record, though: I think Tim Burton really is a way better filmmaker than me. I think most filmmakers are way better filmmakers than me (PTA included, naturally). Just felt I needed to put that out there, as some people seem to think that because I’ve cracked wise about my “betters” that I don’t respect what they do or their craftsmanship. Not so.

The man who started it all, Daniel Zelter, wrote: “Weren’t you making fun of Home Alone?”

I write: In “Dogma”? Yes. But like I wrote in my first post: “I’m on record as being pro-director Hughes across the boards – even ‘She’s Having a Baby’.” Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but “Home Alone” wasn’t directed by Hughes.

Daniel Zelter also wrote: “So what the f**k was Jersey Girl?”

I write: Not your brand of whimsy, I take it.

Daniel Zelter then went on to write: “And how can a guy who’s proven himself in a popular NBC sitcom not be the lead?”

I write: Sir, you’re preaching to the choir. Talk to Harvey.

Daniel Zelter then wrote: “As for Clerks 2, fine, but I would have prefered the animated film.”

I write: For the moment. Perhaps you’ll wind up liking the flick more than you currently imagine you can. I’ve been getting a lot of that from journos for the last few weeks, during the press tour. Even if you don’t, however, I appreciate you giving it a shot regardless.

Daniel Zelter wrote: “Singer was able to do both kinds of movies. I’m sure you can, too.”

I write: Brian Singer is a much better filmmaker than me, and he has an interest in making larger films. I don’t. I didn’t get into film to make bombastic flicks. I love watching flicks like that, but have zero interest in making one.

Daniel Zelter wrote further: “Actually, I’m a lot less critical than some people, because I’m a fan who just wants to see you move up like Raimi, not down like Burton.”

I write: See my Singer comment above, and swap “Raimi” for “Singer”.

The No Name guy wrote: “Jersey Girl is a good (or bad) film that had something to say about being a man and a father.”

I like your take on it, sir. Most people simply dismiss it as “Gigli 2”. I get that there are plenty folks who didn’t like the movie, but I do honestly believe that had I pulled the Stephen King/Richard Bachman switch and released that movie under a pseudonym, the reviews wouldn’t have been nearly as harsh. Sure, the box office would’ve been the same, but the flick wouldn’t have been written off with stuff like “How could the guy who made ‘Dogma’ make something this conventional and lame?” or “This is a movie Dante and Randal would’ve made fun of in ‘Clerks’.”

This has been fun. I thank all for not smelling blood in the water and turning this into an AICN Talkbacks feeding frenzy. I feel like, even though some of us disagree, we were able to do so with little bitchiness. You HE comments sections folks are alright in my book.

…Rosario Dawson suggested that when they were shooting under the original title, there was even more religion in the film. “There were a lot of times where Kevin was going for a record amount of times you could say Jesus,” she said. “Sometimes a sentence, but definitely in the movie. And sometimes he’d do a scene and be like, ‘OK, do it faster and you say Jesus before that line, you say Jesus after that line and if you can say Jesus in the middle of your line that would be great. And if you want to put a couple of curses in there, go. Action!’ It was pretty funny. It was a very relaxed setting I must say.”

“…My feeling is like I didn’t get into filmmaking to make movies like Green Hornet or big movies. The movies that inspired me to be a filmmaker were Slacker and Hal Hartley’s Trust, Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, movies about people who relate and talk to one another. They’re all conversation. That’s what made me want to be a filmmaker and I never said, ‘I’ll do those movies until I get the chance to do a big movie.’ I just don’t really have an interest. I like watching big movies, don’t’ want to make one myself. After 12 years, I wish people would kind of get the heads around the notion of this is it. this is all. This is as talented as I get. I can’t do any better than this.”

But Smith can’t win. If he makes a more mainstream, heartwarming tale like Jersey Girl, critics say the d*ck and f*art joke guy has no right to enter that territory. “Yeah, it’s weird. Like on Jersey Girl you get the reviews where people are like, ‘This is the movie Dante and Randall would have made fun of.’ Or ‘Guy who made Dogma shouldn’t be making this movie.’ So I don’t know.”

“…As a producer, Dawson also admires the empire Smith has grown with his devoted fan base. “I have a lot of respect for Kevin. He started out with the first Clerks, it was in black and white, it was very artistic, it was at the height of new independent film and new artists and directors coming on. He brought such a fresh new voice to filmmaking which was awesome. But he’s also maintained that over the years. He’s definitely always known that his audience is smart and that rather than watering down and trying to be successful and making a bunch of movies he thinks everyone will enjoy, he makes movies that he knows he really enjoys, his friends really enjoy and probably his fans enjoy. And that’s good enough. That integrity for what he’s done for what he’s done has really carried his fans for so many years. And he had me there excited to read the script when it got sent to me.”

Over the past dozen years indie film-maker Kevin Smith has built a huge cult following with his films and his one-on-one relationship with his fans. Since the surprise success of “Clerks,” Smith and his alter ego, Silent Bob have bombarded audiences with “Dogma,” “Mallrats,” and this summer’s sequel, “Clerks 2.” Smith invites ICONS inside his world to meet his band-of -merry -makers and to join him as his Clerks sequel rocks this year’s Cannes film festival.

Tell us about Clerks II.

Kevin: I love the movie. I think it’s the best movie we’ve ever made. When you watch it, it’s the knowledge we learned from the previous six pictures put into one flick—even Jersey Girl, which I know will make some people cringe, but we learned shit on that movie too. Clerks II is funny as fuck and also naughty and poignant and really sweet. It’s also one of the first times we’ve done a movie with you [Jason] that you’ve been clean and sober from start to finish.

Jason: Yeah. It’s good. I was saying how it’s different because some movies I wasn’t getting high or anything during it but I’d be hungover in the morning. I remember on Jay and Bob I’d always be sleeping on the stunt mats. And Dogma I was doing coke the whole time, so I just wanted to get the shot done. I didn’t really enjoy it because I was just like, let’s get this over so I can go back to my trailer and do more drugs. Chasing Amy I was in only one scene, but I was high while I was doing that scene. Mallrats I was drunk only a little bit, but in Clerks I was drunk and stoned the whole time. This one was the first where there wasn’t any of that business. It was nice to wake up every morning feeling normal and energetic. It was a lot of fun.

For the Stars of ‘Clerks,’ It’s Take Two

CLERKS II,” the long-awaited sequel to Kevin Smith’s raunchy 1994 opus, arrives in theaters on Friday. Like its predecessor, it is ultimately a buddy picture, but in real life, the two leads are hardly inseparable.

Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson, the 36-year-old co-stars reprising their roles as New Jersey minimum-wage slaves, barely kept in touch during the 12-year stretch between the movies. After meeting on the set of “Clerks,” which was filmed over several graveyard shifts at the Quick Stop convenience store in Leonardo, the two men largely went their separate ways. At the time, few people expected the film to see the light of day, much less the darkness of the multiplex.

While the actors’ careers are now forever entwined, they are pursuing them on different coasts. Mr. O’Halloran stayed in New Jersey, working in theater and films; Mr. Anderson went to California to pursue Hollywood success.

“The weirdest misconception is people expect me and Brian to live together in a one-room apartment in West Hollywood,” Mr. Anderson said by telephone from his home in Toluca Lake in the San Fernando Valley. “The truth is we don’t spend a lot of time together.”

Mr. Anderson’s film career was a happy accident. While he and Mr. Smith graduated together in 1988 from Henry Hudson Regional High School in Highlands, they were not close until Mr. Anderson began to rent movies from the video store where Mr. Smith worked. They developed a rapport, Mr. Anderson said, and Mr. Smith decided to cast his friend in the movie he was writing about a day in the life of Dante and Randal, two young men not unlike themselves.

“I had doubts the movie would actually get done,” Mr. Anderson said. “The first night, we had a crew of about 12 and it felt like a real movie. By the end, we were lucky to have the actors show up.”

Mr. Smith edited “Clerks” at the video store, and the film’s back story — no-name filmmaker shoots $28,000 feature in the dead of night at a dead-end job — became as celebrated as the filthy but hyper-articulate banter that would become Mr. Smith’s trademark. While “Clerks” was well received at the box office, it did not find its cult following on video and cable until a year or two later. By then, Mr. Anderson had returned to grinding out a living.

“I worked at AT&T during the day and went to school for architecture at N.J.I.T. at night,” he said. “The movie had a life of its own, and I had a life of my own.”

The ultimate success of “Clerks” inspired Mr. Anderson to jettison that life and move to Los Angeles in 1995. There, however, he discovered that he was a flop at auditioning.

A Taco Bell voiceover job (”Want some?”) came to his financial rescue and launched a career in commercials. In 2002, he made a film comeback of sorts, writing and directing a movie called “Now You Know,” which Miramax acquired but never released.

Mr. Anderson says he had to be sold on the idea of playing Randal again in “Clerks II”; he was reluctant to tamper with the hallowed status of the original film.

“No. 2 wasn’t an easy decision,” he said. “It’s been 12 or 13 years, and I still get three or four fan letters a week.”

Mr. O’Halloran, in contrast, did not hesitate. “I’m a working actor,” he said over a late lunch at the Manalapan Diner, “so to be asked by a pretty prominent filmmaker to co-star in a feature film, I was like, ‘Absolutely.’ ”

Mr. O’Halloran, a resident of Old Bridge since age 13, has not had to go the McJob route. He works regularly in productions of the New Jersey Repertory Company in Long Branch, and he has had small parts in almost all of Mr. Smith’s other movies.

Both Mr. O’Halloran and Mr. Anderson hope that “Clerks II” will open eyes and doors in Hollywood. Each man has a screenplay in his pocket. Mr. O’Halloran’s is about a group of former high school friends who learn the importance of family on a dreaded holiday trip home. The working title is “Thanks. Giving.” Mr. Anderson’s revolves around a suicidal man who hires a destitute woman to marry and murder him for the insurance money. It’s called “Marry Me to Death.”

Mr. O’Halloran is more composed and relaxed than his character, Dante, who finds himself still working at the Quick Stop as “Clerks II” opens. After a fire guts the place, the two clerks find jobs at the counter at Mooby’s, a burger joint, where Dante is torn between his fiancée (played by Jennifer Schwalbach, who is married to Mr. Smith) and his manager (Rosario Dawson).

Mr. O’Halloran predicts that the new film, which was made for $5 million, will resonate with regular people.

“Some people may have a problem thinking these guys have been in that job for 10 years,” he said. “But a lot of people out there get stuck in a certain routine where time completely flies by, and before they know it, 10 years are gone.”