As a big fan of Kevin Smith's work in film, I have waited anxiously for Dogma's release for many months. I have watched this film switch studios countless times and seen its release date get pushed back further and further. I have followed the controversy closely, listened to the outraged decrying of the film by various religious groups due to its subject matter and heard Smith's own impassioned replies for people to reserve judgment on the film until after they've actually seen it. I've read the critics' responses, which basically all seemed to praise the movie more in response to the public uproar than the film itself.
And now that I've actually see the film itself, there is only one thought that is overwhelming in my mind: I could have done without the Golgothan.
About midway through the film, the good guys are pointlessly just sitting around in a strip bar, wondering what to do and where to go next, when the bad guys send a demon to attack them. This demon is made up of the fecal matter expelled in the last moments of life of all of those who died on crosses at Golgotha (hence, its name). It is a mean and ugly creature, and it almost gets the best of our heroes. But, luckily at the last possible moment, one of them is able to defeat the monster with... extra-strength air freshener, guaranteed to kill strong odors.
What was the point of this scene? Plot-wise, there was none. The story is not furthered in any way by this battle. It was probably included just to make us laugh, and it barely succeeded at that. So why, when faced with a film that was over three hours in length and had to be trimmed, did Kevin Smith not edit this scene out of the movie? I have no idea. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that, during filming, Smith worked the stuntman in the suit half to death and felt too guilty to delete the scene. But, in all honesty, this film could easily have done without the Golgothan entirely.
And that in turn leads to my chief concern about Dogma. A lot of the action that takes place is completely unnecessary and only serves to give the audience a cheap laugh.
But maybe it's just because the film was over three hours long that I felt this way. As I sat in the theater, I could not help but wonder why Smith didn't trim out some of the dead weight. Take the Mooby scene, for example. It's funny, true, to see two angels kill the executives behind a children's television show because of their secretly sinful lives, and it definitely helps flesh out these characters, but it does nothing for the plot.
But maybe I'm being too hard on such scenes. This film is supposed to be a comedy, but so much was made of the film's plot before I ever even saw it that I could not let it go.
The aforementioned controversy surrounding this film dealt primarily with its story, which involves two angels (played by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon) who long ago were kicked out of heaven but because of a legal loophole might be able to sneak back in. God normally wouldn't let such an event take place, since it would prove that he was fallible and thus pretty much wipe out all of existence. But God is missing for the moment, and so it is up to a band of mortals to save the universe by stopping the angels.
It's pretty heady stuff at times, and occasionally in order to make his points Smith has to rely on long passages of exposition. (Salma Hayek's character, aptly named Serendipity, seems to serve no role other than to pop up when necessary, provide some explanation of the situation to the audience, and then help the good guys move along on their journey.) Sometimes information we receive at one point in the film is later contradicted, such as Ben Affleck's on-again/off-again ability to know the sins of others. There is also the fact that the entire plot seems to be a rehash of ideas we've heard before. I couldn't help but think of the plot of Time Bandits at certain points in the film, and Smith has admitted to being influenced by the Vertigo comic series Preacher. But should I let the story sour me on a film that was intended to be humorous?
One of the few redeeming qualities of Dogma is the acting of some of the leads and the way in which they are able to flesh out their characters in the midst of all these shenanigans. Matt Damon in particular is surprisingly good, going against his type and giving us some laughs. Alan Rickman uses his role as God's messenger to provide some sly commentary on world religion in the form of some very well-delivered jokes. And Linda Fiorentino, a worker at Planned Parenthood who happens to be the last person in Christ's bloodline, thus getting thrust into the center of the film, is a terrific actress who can pull off both deadpan comedy and soulsearching angst in the space of just a few minutes.
Smith's visuals too are a high point of the film, since they have finally evolved beyond the handheld cams of Clerks and Chasing Amy. The film looks polished and professional, a sharp contrast to his other low-budget works. Similarly, the effects used to create the angels' wings are so incredibly realistic that it lends tremendously to the credibility of the rest of the story (a gimmick Smith used to draw in the characters in the film as well as the audience).
In the end, however, the film just cannot gel fully. The mixture of comedy and drama is too muddled. The film tries at times to be a buddy movie, a road movie, satire, and farce, and it barely succeeds at any of its goals. Hopefully in the future when Kevin Smith makes a film he will pick a genre, and stick with it.
