Bunch of savages in this thread.
I think it speaks to that special time in your life where you’re a young adolescent in a dead end job trying to hold on to a life without any real responsibilities.
Gen X was the first generation to face that dilemma. Baby Boomers graduated high school, got married, and went straight to work. There was no magical college period where they got to be an adult without any responsibilities.
Gen Xers either went to college or got shitty jobs while their parents supported them. Many of them held on to the false hope that they could sustain a life where they smoked weed and talked about movies all day.
Clerks was one of the first movies to capture what it was like to be an immature young adult in the 90s. Where you think this is the greatest life ever, but little by little you realize why it’s unsustainable.
Lakai writes:
> Gen X was the first generation to face that dilemma.
This is at the very least a wild generalization.
And second of all, anyone who implies people don’t like a film because it’s too “grown-up” for them, or because they obviously can’t understand something without a “plot” immediately loses all credibility.
I like Clerks, but obviously everybody has different tastes. Besides, THAT’S your idea of a “grown-up” film? :dubious:
I associate the rise of “the college experience” with the late sixties, though. How is that something that Gen X was facing for the first time?
Also, didn’t the Graduate explore the transition between youth and adulthood well before Clerks? In a different way, yes, but Benjamin Braddock is just as confused about his life as the characters of Clerks.
College and transitioning to adulthood have been around before the 90s, yes, you’re right.
What was different in the 90s was that college students had less pressure to become responsible adults than college students in the 60s. The result was a large number of young adults who lived with their parents longer and got married later in life.
It created more of the immature young adults like you see in Clerks. Braddock was not immature. He was confused, but he could behave like an adult when he wanted to.
And of course I’m generalizing here. How can I talk about an entire generation without generalizing?
Lakai writes:
> What was different in the 90s was that college students had less pressure to
> become responsible adults than college students in the 60s.
Do you have any evidence that this is true?
He’s not a tough guy. He’s a honey badger!
I’m sorry but saying it needed more money is not a good criticism.
This film comes from a time when “independent film” meant something. Now ‘indie movies’ are multi-million dollar productions with shell companies of the major studios being in charge.
This is a film that got made simply he HAD to make a movie. He wasn’t trying to make a profit. He was trying to make something. He was trying to express what life is like for certain people at a certain time at a certain place. If you can’t find commonality in it, it can’t see how universal his characters are, then, IMHO, you need glasses.
This film is pure art. It is not a commercial product. You should, at the very least, respect the hell out this thing.
eta
This was also BEFORE the digital age. He had to use FILM. Like a MAN.
Or that you went straight from college to do your MBA.
It is indeed on Netflix streaming now and I watched (most of) it last night, after the wife was already in bed. I’m glad I did it solo because… ummm… the film hasn’t aged well. The themes are probably still good but I didn’t remember it being so poorly acted with such stilted dialogue. It has some good lines but they’re all delivered as though they’re being read off cards. The peripheral actors (customers, etc) are even worse.
I’m sure 30k doesn’t buy you good acing talent and there’s a lot of volunteers in there but knowing that doesn’t make it any easier to watch. Funny enough, I still have good memories of watching it but I think you’re going to have to remain rose-colored memories.
I think today processing black and white is more expensive than color (because there just isn’t demand), so to do that for the first one was pure affectation.
[QUOTE=Lakai]
Gen X was the first generation to face that dilemma.
Gen Xers either went to college or got shitty jobs while their parents supported them. Many of them held on to the false hope that they could sustain a life where they smoked weed and talked about movies all day.
Clerks was one of the first movies to capture what it was like to be an immature young adult in the 90s. Where you think this is the greatest life ever, but little by little you realize why it’s unsustainable.
[/quote]
I agree with your take on the film, but I’d like to add that the concept of “Gen X” was mostly a media/marketing-generated cultural fabrication of convenience–really a hoax, more than anything, that was valid only to the extent that it had became somewhat self-fulfilling. And that’s why the movie falls flat.
Come now, a whole “generation” supported by their parents, indulging in this kind of behavior? Most of us had lives to begin, and that’s what we were doing.
Any reason why this wouldn’t apply to other groups of pop culture junkies, like Adam Carolla junkies or Buffy Junkies or Angel Junkies or something? I suppose you kind of answered that in your above post but you do seem to have a lot more anger for the Kevin Smith junkies. Just curious.
Personally, I think Kevin Smith is a quality story teller and I tend to enjoy that more than his movies. He seems to get a bit defensive at times though, not crazy about that. Also, his current love of weed smoking is a bit tiresome as well. As far as his movies go, I like some and don’t like others. He isn’t a particularly good visual director either but he’ll admit that.
Clerks could definitely use some better actors and the argument that good actors cost money is crap. You really just have to know where to look. If you only look in your circle of friends, it is A LOT tougher.
Not a whole generation, but more people than any other generation before it.
It’s also possible that all other generations had people like the characters in Clerks, and that Clerks was just the first film about them.
The acting wasn’t the issue at all in this case, and I agree acquaintances (not friends) work just as well. Actually, the important part is getting them NOT to “act.”
Check the user name you are quoting 
He’s a great story teller, there’s a few videos of his spoken word gigs out there and they are frequently hilarious. He’s basically just shooting the shit with an audience, for hours.
I saw Clerks at probably the right age, although my circumstances at the time were very different from that of Dante and Randal. I just about laughed my spleen out.
**Clerks **was what *Reality Bites *wanted to be. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m actually one of three people on the planet who really liked Reality Bites, but Reality Bites was a movie about the Gen X angst and anti-consumerism that must have spent four gazillion dollars on music rights alone, and had more product placement than an aisle at Wal-Mart. *Clerks *never fell into that trap, because they couldn’t afford to!
*Clerks *certainly wasn’t the only movie of the time to address the “poor me” lostness of that generation (nor was that generation the only one to feel it - Jack Kerouac, anyone?), but it did it in a gritty, subversive way (again, due to budget constraints on filmstock, actors, editing, etc…all of which vanished to the detriment of Mallrats.) *Clerks *had dialogue that felt “real” - although of course it was no more real than the dialogue in Dawson’s Creek or Buffy. It was the kind of eloquent, erudite speech that you *wished *you spoke like as a teen/young adult, and it was very very popular at the time. It’s essentially all staircase wit in an elevator world.
Plus, Randall got it. He knew they were ungrateful whiners, and he called Dante out for it. Which was a nice refreshing glass of “get the fuck over yourself” that even we, the Dantes of the audience, knew we needed.
Love this.
They were “acting”. Poorly. Watching last night, there was nothing organic, natural or flowing about their speech; it was extremely stilted like a high school play.
Probably the best acting job of the bunch was the old guy who wanted to use the toilet.
This thread reminded me that I’ve never seen Clerks 2. So I acquired it and am 2/3 of the way through it (after having re-watched Clerks this afternoon for the first time in 10 years).
So far, Clerks 2 sucks ass. Not only for the reasons msmith537 gives, but also because it is stilted, obvious, unoriginal and the jokes fall flat. Also, what’s happened to Jeff Anderson? In the first one he gave a pretty fluid performance with a lot of charisma; in this one his delivery is really fucked up. Did he turn to drink or something?
Apart from making me fall in love with Rosario Dawson (again), it has nothing to recommend it, IMO.