Posted by Hamster69 at dialup-209.245.99.209.dial1.manchester1.level3.net on February 28, 2002 at 10:31:04:
In Reply to: Clerks as a silent movie? posted by Algernon on February 28, 2002 at 10:21:39:
I imagine "Clerks" can be a chore to watch. I used to commute two hours to work so I taped the audio from "Clerks" to CD to listen in the car (no, not that obsessed, I taped other non-View Askew films as well). The movie is all talk, quality talk, and one day while driving I thought about it and it dawned on me that to deaf people, this movie is a ton of reading, and at the speed some of the lines are delivered (it works great Kevin, don't get me wrong) I can just see those subtitles whipping by. And many of the lines are just that much better because of the delivery anyway. So, in my opinion, "Clerks" as a silent movie is taking away what's best in the film, the delivery of kick-ass dialogue, and leaving us with what could quite easily just be footage from a surveliance camera of a day at work... which is stylistically pretty sweet as well. Dammit, Kevin Smith, you made a fucking great movie that can not be completely debased by eliminating picture or sound!!! How dare you!!!
:
: We just got done watching Der Blaue Engle in film class. Our first sound movie!!
: I mean, don't get me wrong, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a great silent movie, but there's something to be said about sound.
: I mean, If you took Clerks and turned it into a silent movie what would you have? We wouldn't get to hear Randal's great slurping noises or the mad ramblings of Jay. But it would be oddly funny to see Mewes moving his lips a mile a minute and nothing coming out. And then to have to read it on the screen afterwards.? I don't know. Just a thought.
:
: -Algernon-