ARTS&zENTERTAINMENT

 

YimGreaves At The Movies: Clerks Il

By Vince Yim and Trevor Hargreaves, OP Outlaws

Plot:

Several years following the events of
Kevin Smith’s Clerks film, Dante
Hicks (played by Brian O’Halloran)
arrives to work at the Quick Stop
convenience store. However, given
its current state (i.e; ON FIRE),
ultimately he and his friend Randal
Graves (played by Jeff Anderson)
end up working at Mooby’s, the
local fast food restaurant chain.
This isn’t for long, however, as
Dante is on his way to getting mar-
ried and moving off to Florida,
where he'll be starting a new life
away from Jersey. But before he
goes away, he’s got to deal with a lot
of other things, like his best friend
Randal who doesn’t want him to
leave, as well as his oddly fetching
boss Becki (played by Rosario
Dawson).

Yim:
Even though the so-called View Askewniverse films sup-
posedly ended with Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, we're back
again with Clerks 2. With this, one would be inclined to
think that Kevin Smith is a bit of a one-trick pony.
Certainly, while Smith can be applauded for his attempt to
venture outside of that universe with Jersey Gir/, its failure
at the box office ensures that he takes yet another turn at a
well-worn path. As a result, much of the experience of
the film is lost if one is unfamiliar with the previous films.

I’m slightly torn as to whether this is one of Smith’s
most self-indulgent efforts, or something only made for
the fans. Indeed, some of the funnier moments come
about due to off-hand references to the previous films,
which would obviously be lost on a newcomer. As well,
the cameo appearance of Smith’s real-life daughter Harley
Quinn comes across as mildly creepy (on top of that, I
didn’t even realize who it was until Trevor pointed her
out). Additionally, the pop culture references get to bea
little excessive at times, culminating in a non-plot forward-
ing moment where characters argue about the merits of
the Star Wars trilogy vs. Lord of the Rings. [Editor's note:
Chewie could kick Frodo’ ass any day.]

Complaints aside, the film is fairly solid. While Smith

 

is not the most creative when it comes to shot composi-
tion, action, and the like, he has characterization and dia-
logue nailed down. While time will only tell if the dialogue
will become as oft-quoted as “37?!” and “I’m not even
supposed to be here today,” it’s some of the funniest
around. While more often than not catering to the lowest
common denominator (most notably being an extended
dialogue utilizing the words “ass to mouth”), Smith dis-
plays a surprising levels of insight into the lives of his
characters.

But of course, the lowest common denominator is by
far the funniest. Having previously tackled necrophilia in
the previous Clerks, Smith takes on bestiality, or “inter-
species erotica” as it is known in the film. Smith certainly
manages to shock, which ends up being truly hilarious at
times. Be forewarned, however...this may not be the most
ideal date movie.

Hargreaves:

Kevin Smith isn’t for everyone. Of course, in a world
where Celine Dion pays her rent with her singing voice,
there’s no accounting for popular taste. They say that every
society platforms at a point of advanced organization and
then begins to disintegrate. In cinematic terms, Kevin
Smith is the cornerstone of our social regression. He is, in

essence, a deconstructionist. Ironically
adding to the popular lexicon while
simultaneously mocking it. The plots
of his better films are just loosely
constructed excuses to crack-wise on
everything from Svar Wars, to sexual
maneuvers to (insert randomly frivo-
lous pop-minutiae here). In short, his
characters spend all their spare time,
doing what many of us moderately
intelligent, under-challenged folk do
in the midst of our social interaction:
namely make fun of anything and
everything as we see fit.

When it comes to this particular
film, ’m more than willing to give
this flick two hands in the air like I
just don’t care. In terms of cult film
status, making a sequel to the original
Clerks is akin to releasing Gone With
The Wind 2 (More Wind, Bigger
Narrative). In short, the expectations
were beyond high. The original was
after-all, the wunderkind movie, shot for a meager $27,900
that defined a generation of independent film over a
decade ago. That said, Smith has never been more on his
game. His work is somewhat like wine. If you are schooled
in the various qualities of what makes a glass particularly
fine, you will enjoy it that much more. So too with Smith’s
“Viewaskewniverse,” which encapsulates and cross-refer-
ences characters from all of his films. If you see this movie
cold, you'll find it funny. But if you study up on Smith’s
previous flicks, you'll find it that much more hilarious.
Frankly, if you can’t be bothered to learn the way of the
Smith, then stop reading and go listen to your Celine Dion.
cause you ain’t worth my time blockhead. But for you
Snoogans-loving slackers out there, who question why
Greedo shot first, know that Alanis is god (cinematically at
least), and will defend the noble art of tracing, then this
Bud’s for you. Ha, I said bud...get it? Booooong. But
enough of this Mew’s-like chicanery. The flick is funny. It’s
worth your money. And more importantly, supporting
movies like this, will assure that talky indie flicks continue
to get the green-light (from the Weinsteins at least). Dante
is still Dante, and Randal is still Randal. And frankly, the
rest is just details. Those guys are funnier than Walt
Flannigans Dog.

 

Bard on the Beach

Brady Ehler, Features Editor
The 2006 Bard on the Beach production of Troilus and
Cressida is an unconventional one. It’s full of risks, some
that pay off and some that do not. The result is perhaps
not the best production of the season, but in some ways,
one of the most exciting,

The play itself is one of Shakespeare’s lesser known
pieces. This is perhaps because the play isn’t as pointed a
tragedy as his other works, and though it contains aspects
of his comedies, in the end, there is no happy conclusion
for the main characters (though both of them live this time
around).

The story is about war, and more specifically trying to
justify war when the pretense is being stretched thin. The
war in question is the Trojan War, fought between the
Greeks and Trojans over the Greek princess Helen. The
main characters are the lovers Troilus and Cressida, two
Trojans whose love is jeopardized by a prisoner exchange
that relinquishes Cressida to the Greeks.

aeeditor@gmail.com

— Troilus and Cressida

I had a few problems with the play. Foremost was the
decision to set the play in the American Civil war. While it
made for an interesting style, I thought it unnecessary. It
added little to the play as a whole, except for the occasional
deafening pistol blast. Also, in my opinion, Shakespeare
should never, ever be recited in a southern drawl, even
when the actors remember to stick to the accent. The faux
accents were beyond irritation as they made it difficult to
follow conversation in one of Shakespeare’s more linguisti-

Ye

 

cally challenging plays.

Another risk the director took was to present the play
in the round. I don’t think this was a particularly wise deci-
sion either, as there wasn’t enough movement in the play to
justify it.

What this production needs is the addition of some
exciting visual elements. It begged for set changes, props
and more action! Although, to be fair though, the last
twenty minutes of the play exploded in an orgy of running
around, shooting and sword fighting under flashing lights,
and intensifying background music.

If you are considering attending Bard on the Beach for
the first time, this probably isn’t the production for you.
Instead, you may want to check out_A Midsummer Night’
Dream. However, if you are a Shakespeare veteran and your
looking for something a little more unconventional, Troilus
and Cressida might be just what the doctor ordered.

15