[Disclaimer: I don't know whether or not this matters, but I am a confirmed atheist of ten years standing, raised in the UK in a loosely Church of England Protestant fashion which involved me going to Church three times a year. I have no particular axe to grind against any particular church, although I completely disagree with much of the stuff about homosexuality, women, contraception and abortion (for example).]
Imagine if you will a film about gay people. Imagine in this film (let us say it is a comedy), jokes are made at the expense of gay people. Imagine this is a film made by a straight man for other straight people. Would gay people be offended? Quite possibly and quite reasonably.
Imagine if you will a similar film made by a gay woman (or man) for a gay audience, the comedy would be *more* acceptable. Depending on the strength of the humour you would be bound to get a certain number of people complaining about misrepresentation, self-hatred etc - but as long as nothing downright OFFENSIVE took place, people would probably be happy about it.
Imagine if you will a similar film made by a gay woman (or man) for an audience equally mixed between straight and gay people. The balance would be much much harder to strike - because you might be making jokes that only some people feel they have the right to make or laugh at (like a Jewish comedian making Holocaust jokes, or talking about Jewish mothers). And even when you struck the balance in terms of not causing complete dissent between members of the viewing public, you'd still have to worry about whether the straight people would understand the jokes that the gay people were getting, or whether they would be laughing at different things for different reasons (EXAMPLE: SOME Gay people might watch a really stereotypical queen and think - ha ha, that's one aspect of the gay experience which I recognise and find amusing, OTHER Gay people might think - that's not funny - most Gay people aren't like that. SOME Straight people might go - ha ha, that's a big funny poof, OTHER Straight people might think - that's not funny, why are they stereotyping these oppressed people).
Finally, imagine if you will a film about Catholic people and Catholicism. A film written and directed by a Catholic man ostensibly for an audience of Catholic and non-Catholics, which relies on a lot of exposition and understanding of dogma to work, contains innumerable in jokes involving a hell of a lot of swearing, sex, abortion clinics, murder, decapitation, excrement, a virgin conception (!), mentions of Papal fallibility (the Holocaust), God as a woman (and a pop singer), a God who likes to play sport, renegade violent angels and divorce. FOR GOD'S SAKE IT WAS BOUND TO CAUSE PROBLEMS!!!!!
The plot (in retrospect) is relatively simple. Bethany (Linda Fiorentino) works at an abortion clinic when she is contacted by the Metatron (Alan Rickman) who is the VOICE OF GOD. He tells her that a couple of angels (Loki (Matt Damon) and Bartleby (Ben Affleck)), consigned to earth quite a while back, have discovered a loophole in Catholic dogma. If they pass through this consecrated arch they will be forgiven for their sins, able to transubstantiate to human form (by lopping their wings off), die and go to Heaven - thus proving God fallible and (since HIS word would no longer be HIS bond, and since HIS word is the whole darn universe) causing the universe no longer to be.
On the way she meets up with Jay and Silent Bob, a muse called Serendipity, an ex-Muse called Azrael, a creature made entirely of poo, a group of hockey-stick waving weirdos and the thirteenth apostle who swears that Christ was black.
So here's the deal - if you are Catholic you will understand more of the humour and probably find the jokes funnier. But of course if you are Catholic you may just as easily find the film offensive! I am an atheist and I cringed a little at the insensitivity of giving a 'virgin' conception to a woman who works at an abortion clinic (and is the last living relative of Christ). It's the kind of thing that if it were NOT done by a Catholic film-maker would **inevitably** be considered appallingly insensitive and offensive. And that's even if Rudolph Guiliani (or however it is spelt) didn't see it!
From a non-Catholic perspective, many of the jokes worked remarkably well, but just as many fell completely flat. The plot was ambling and formless, which isn't necessarily a problem, but neither is it a particular advantage.
The acting varied in quality, but mainly because it was compromised by vast amounts of expository material. It really shows up the class acts though - Damon and Affleck handle the material much better than most of the others - Fiorentino's continually jaded air rather compromises her (quite substantial) talent - Hayek and Mewes are pretty poor - Smith probably shouldn't be doing such intensive gurning, his character is interesting enough without that.
So generally you have a pretty average film, with potential, but not quite the substance to match.
Whether or not it is offensive: I don't agree that the film should be banned, but I am not surprised that people are offended by it. Protestors be damned though - unpopular speech is still speech, and supposedly free! So good on you Kevin for producing a mediocre film that has created such a furore. I wouldn't have said what you said myself, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it.
In this hilarious comic fantasy from writer/director Kevin Smith, two banished angels (Damon and Affleck) find a loophole that would get them back int...More at HotMovieSale.com
Imaginative theology and a bigger-than-usual budget make Kevin Smith's CHASING AMY CLERKS fourth film a kind of post-Catholic fantasy that only a comi...More at Family Video
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.