Director Silent Bob Cuts to the Chase

Kevin Smith was not immune to the sophomore movie jinx.

The 26-year-old writer-director hit the jackpot with his first film, the freewheeling, vulgar 1994 comedy “Clerks.” Winner of the Filmmakers Trophy Award at the Sundance Film Festival, “Clerks” was made by Smith and his producing partner, Scott Mosier, for a mere $27,575.

But Smith’s reign as a critics’ darling ended with his second film, “Mallrats,” which cost $6 million to produce. The 1995 comedy, set in a shopping mall and featuring Shannen Doherty, was a commercial and critical flop.

Smith has now returned to his low-budget, independent film roots with his latest effort, “Chasing Amy.”

Joey Lauren Adams, Jason Lee and Ben Affleck, all “Mallrats” alumni, star in the comedy-drama about two lifelong friends, Holden (Affleck) and Bandy (Lee), who are basking in their success as comic-book creators. But their relationship crumbles when Holden falls in love with a beautiful, carefree lesbian (Adams) he meets at a comic-book convention.

In each of his films, Smith has played Silent Bob, the enigmatic buddy of the outspoken, talkative Jay (Jason Mewes). In “Chasing Amy,” though, Bob finally breaks his silence.

*

Question: So what went wrong with “Mallrats”?

*

Answer: I don’t know. When you look at people like Richard [Linklater] on [his second film] “Dazed and Confused,” he was critically praised, but the box office wasn’t there. Of course, Quentin [Tarantino] is the ultimate example of beating the sophomore jinx.

I think in our case, we got a lot of praise and a lot of hype off the first flick. And suddenly, we got a bunch of money to make a flick and [critics] are like, “It’s not as good as the other one. He sold out.” I don’t know. It’s unfortunate it happens.

Q: Did you already have the idea for “Chasing Amy” while shooting “Mallrats”?

A: “Chasing Amy” was just a title in my mind and pretty much I knew what it was going to be. It was going to be about a guy who falls in love with a lesbian, but it wasn’t until after “Mallrats” that I seriously thought about it--it’s time to retrench and tell a personal story. The thing about “Clerks” is I kind of told a personal story that connected with the audience. In “Mallrats,” I had nothing personal to say. I just wanted to make a fun movie. With “Chasing Amy” I had something personal to say.

So many critics were trashing us on “Mallrats,” but there was one review that I read that was very insightful. [The reviewer] didn’t really like the film, but he talked about it and “Clerks.” He said that if you scrape away the cynicism and the vulgarity, what you have is two very sweet movies about guys who want badly to be in love. I said, “My God, this guy nailed it.” It kind of freed me up to work toward the dramatic aspect which I think is a large part of my makeup. I think I am a big melodramatic fiend at heart.

Q: The budget on “Chasing Amy” was a fraction of what “Mallrats” cost. Do you just feel more comfortable doing low-budget films?

A: “Mallrats” was $6.1 million and this flick was $250,000. At one point we were going to do “Amy” for 2 or 3 million bucks but there was no point. It was a very simple story. We started our careers telling a very simple story with no money. Since “Mallrats” lost money, it’s kind of a nasty feeling to walk around with that on your back. You just feel terrible.

With this movie, since it was kind of risky material and who knew if there would be an audience for it, we thought it would be irresponsible to make that movie for $2 [million] or $3 million just like it was irresponsible to make “Mallrats” for $6 million. So we were, like, if we make it for 250 grand, whoever picks it up is guaranteed to make their money back in foreign sales alone. The financial aspect was covered, and plus, if we successfully go back and make a $250,000 flick after we made a $6-million one, we will look like gods.

Q: Did you have a difficult time getting a distributor for “Amy”?

A: We have an overall deal with Miramax. I think at the script stage we kind of had an initial disagreement as to what the movie would be and if we could pull it off. Since it is sensitive, [Miramax thought] we should use big names. I was very hellbent on using these three actors. I opted to go off and make it cheaper and then show it to them. They loved it and bought it. It worked out. We didn’t compromise. I got to make the exact movie I wanted.

Q: Why have you cast yourself as Silent Bob in all three films?

A: It happened as a fluke. When I had written “Clerks,” I had written the role of Randal to play myself--that’s why he’s got all the best lines. But as we got closer to production it was just impossible to learn the dialogue. I wanted to be in the flick just in case it was the only one we ever made, so that role of Silent Bob was still open. Audiences just seemed to connect with those characters, which always puzzles me because they are a couple of dope-dealing no-nothings.

Q: How do you think you’ve developed as a filmmaker since “Clerks”?

A: Visually, I think we are doing more in this flick than we ever attempted before. The look of the film is very nice and kind of uniform. But more importantly, I never really felt like a director before. I always felt like a writer who took the role of director just to make sure his dialogue is delivered correctly. [In the first two movies] I would give my actors line readings because it was all about timing and syncopation and cadence and jokes. In “Chasing Amy,” you can’t do that because with drama you can’t tell someone to cry [a certain way]. What you have to do is bring them to some comfortable place where you can help them get inside themselves. It’s about creating a far more comfortable atmosphere for the actors.

Q: You were inspired by Richard Linklater’s “Slackers.” Are you now the role model for budding filmmakers?

A: I get high school kids saying now, “I am into film. I am going to go to college for filmmaking.” It’s really nice and you feel like you’ve touched some people, but at the same time, it’s such a risky proposition. You only hear about one or two, like, no-budget films breaking out per year, but you never hear about the 500 or 600 films that get made yearly and just don’t go anywhere except somebody’s home library.

Q: What’s your next film project?

A: We start our fourth flick, “Dogma,” in August or September. It’s kind of an in-depth look at organized religion as opposed to just plain faith and spirituality. It’s kind of a black comedy, but it’s reverent because I am very pro-God. I am a very spiritual guy. I am just suspect of organized religion. I was a Catholic up until six months ago and then I quit. I had to find a religion that made me feel like I was celebrating God. I found this church called Calvary Chapel, which is kind of an offshoot of the Baptist Church. When you go into the church, you feel the presence [of God].

Q: You’re also writing “Superman Lives” for producer Jon Peters and Warner Bros. Will you direct that?

A: Heavens, no. It’s too expensive. I have no interest, especially after the “Mallrats” experience. I like the budget range I am working in. “Superman” is one of those $100,000-million [movies]. It’s a great gig to work on it and it’s such a great thing to write something and never think about the budget.