Earlier this month, Kevin Smith teased that his long-in-the-works third Clerks movie was back on, with original stars Jeff Anderson and Brian O’Halloran on board and the script being completely rewritten from Smith’s original plan. Now, thanks to The Wrap, we know what the new plan is: After having a heart attack, Randal (from Clerks!) realizes that his life has been meaningless and that there will be nobody left to remember him when he does die, so he decides to make a movie about his life and his buddy Dante… and the weird stoner guys who always seem to hang around them. In other words, Clerks 3 is going to be about the characters from Clerks making the movie Clerks, which is kind of a great idea. No snarky reaction here!
Obviously, this has some pretty overt connections to Smith’s real life, since he’s following up his actual heart attack with the similarly meta Jay And Silent Bob Reboot, and it sounds like he’s completely delighted by the chance to go back and more or less tell the story of making the movie that made him famous. “They’re figuring it out the same way I figured it out,” Smith told The Wrap, “but I have the benefit of being able to cherry pick all my favorite stories and moments.” He also said that the fictional movie within Clerks 3 will have to be filmed in black and white, with Smith noting that he gets to do “the same fucking movie and scene in the movie,” but it’s all told from the perspectives of these two characters he created all those years ago. “So it’s funny and poignant,” he explains, “but it’s more funny than anything else.”
The Wrap interview also touches on the original concept for Clerks 3, which didn’t include Anderson and was apparently very grim and bleak. Now, if he wanted to get really meta, the scrapped Clerks 3 should be some kind of plot point in the fake Clerks movie from within Clerks 3… or maybe the camera pulls back at one point and Clerks 3 becomes a movie about Kevin Smith remaking Clerks inside Clerks 3, but actually it’s Clerks 4 and also it’s the Clerks cartoon.
125 Comments
I saw “After having a heart attack, Randal” and said oh that has to be a joke. But of course it isn’t. Literally nobody is gonna want to see this but Kevin Smith and his hardcore fans. But Kevin Smith is apparently aware of this, so…carry on, I guess?
Let me guess…the film isn’t “woke” enough for you? Or doesn’t have enough Spandex in it?
This dude likes to think he speaks for everybody even though hardly nobody ever agrees with him here.
Burn! Wow! You really showed him!
Now I get it: you’re another super pious tool who wants a prize for being the most awoke poster on a Pop Culture web site. I’ll leave you and Recognitions to your mutual admiration society.
Where…. Where the fuck are you getting ANYTHING about “woke” from… anywhere in this particular thread???
You either don’t know Recognitions M.O. or you’re just willfully stupid. I’ll go with ignorance for you but I’m starting to think you’re more the latter so…
I know the M.O. you *think* I should know. But it turns out that people are multifaceted! recognitions doesn’t always do what you think he/she does. Or to be more accurate, recognitions didn’t force you into your state of precognitive anti-PC defensiveness. Turns out sometimes people have movie opinions that aren’t OH NOES IT’S THE PC POLICE AND THEIR FASCIST FRIENDS THE SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS!!! Better hide from their nefarious leader, The Woker!
See, what you do next time is actually READ what you wrote before you post so it doesn’t come off as fucking stupid. Also, NO. Recognitions has never had an opinion on a film that is not based on his woke culture.
Physician, heal thyself.No, wait. FUCK thyself! That’s what I meant!Either way, I’ll take ol’ recognitions and their brand of trollish progressivism over whatever PC panicked pearl-clutching you got going on.
Well, they do say assholes of a feather flock together…not too surprised mind you. By the way, you should really re-read that last sentence Chief cause I think you got that wrong: considering you and Recognitions are the PC ‘Woke’ police who feel the need to endlessly lecture us on why we shouldn’t like a piece of art.
Nor am I surprised that you confuse birds with sphincters. I’d say you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground but I wouldn’t want you needlessly tossing birdseed on your nearest golf course.“Chief”? Of what? Oh, is this that weird dismissive internet tough guy lingo? Just call me “brother!” and complete the transformation into idiotic Hoganesque promo cutting.Point me to this supposed endless lecture. Show your work.BROTHER!!! WHATCHA GONNADO???
You’re not Native American? Also of course you watch Wrestling. The LCD of anything. Give me five to simply link to Recognitions profile and that would more than ‘show my work’.Also, Golf is for older white guys. I’m playing hockey for another ten years then learning golf.
Of course you dismiss wrestling. The LCD of internet pseudointellectual shitbirds. Turns out it’s a very interesting narrative tradition. A shame that someone with a Peckinpah actor for an avatar is such a narrow-minded turd.Hey, you *included me* in your dumb assertion. Do I have to cut & paste your own spit-up for you? Show *my* “endless lecture”.Stuff it boys. Gonna crush some appeys and sandos boys. Ferda. Less you want a donny? Nah, yer ten ply boys.
You watch wrestling for the deep story line, huh simpleton? Or just the idea of steroided out freaks groping each other?Also, that last sentence supposed to mean anything? God you’re a jackass. Go back to watching something that involves less of your lips moving.
A well told story doesn’t require depth. Sure, there is plenty of dumb nonsense in wrestling but there is also plenty of Campbell-style Hero’s Journey stuff. Classical character archetypes, classical conflicts. For someone with a graduate degree in narrative art there’s a lot to enjoy. And not much steroid use among contemporary practitioners, especially the lucha community that I prefer.But sure. I’m a “simpleton”.The last bit was in the style of the hockey players in Canadian comedy Letterkenny. I thought you might get it, bringing up hockey as you did.Also, good job ducking my request that you back up your bullshit conflation of my and recognition’s posts. But you probably aren’t able to grasp that progressive-minded posters aren’t 100% alike.
Not at all, just sick of mediocre middle aged white guys getting all angry online all the time. Like dude, instead of getting all enraged on the web, maybe spend more time reflect irl on your middling life? You still have time to succeed!**It’s not going to happen for you Brad
You’re right: we need more mediocre men of color getting angry online all the time. At least we have you to raise the quota. By the way, married, three kids, good corporate job in 6 figures for myself. Granted I thought I’d be a musician instead of a corporate suit and tie guy but I’m relatively happy and successful. I guess ‘Brad’ is supposed to be a generic white guy term? Does it amuse you to be kind of a racist turd? I get punching down vs up but still you come off as kind of a d-bag.
Whatever you say Brad, and whatever gets you through the day, which clearly involves piddly little internet comments. I’ll let it pass you think I am a man or a black dude though, as expecting you to look past yourself would be impossible, 6 figure man. “By the way, married, three kids, good corporate job in 6 figures for myself” My man, not only does that sound incredibly fake, but who the hell brags about making 6 figures in 2019 at a corporate job? At least put a little effort into something made up.
I agree I should be making more: I mean, I am a white man right? But I’m just not a millionaire, like the majority of people in the world. Whatever you say, Chief. Clearly you’re a big winner in life, right? I mean, surely you have family or…no? A good job? No? There’s a fucking shock.Why should I look past myself? You’re saying I should assume an identity that isn’t true to myself? Or be able to assume your identity? Just cause you’re an assuming asshat doesn’t mean the rest of us are. Don’t worry though: you and recognitions can pat yourselves on the back on how ‘woke’ you are and revel in your undeserved pious opinions of yourselves. GOD it must be tiring to be you.
I work in investment management here in Tokyo, and live in a property I purchased here. So yeah, I’m doing good Brad.Good luck next lifetime
SURE you do. Do you also have a girlfriend in Canada? Tell her I said hello
“hardly nobody ever agrees”Cool. Now I need an aspirin and a stiff drink to diagram this.FWIW I sometimes agree with ol’ recognitions. *sometimes*
Big Clerks 3 enthusiast over here
Enthusiast must mean “I’ll wait for it on Cable”…
Dood go away. The Clerks film was great, launching KS’s career. How is your film making career going? Have a link to your reel?
Oh it’s the old “you can’t criticize a film unless you’ve made one yourself” canard. And I didn’t even say anything about the original Clerks? It was ok I guess
Why come here and Slag Kevin Smith? Your comment was lame. He is a great comedy director IMO. if you don’t like him maybe move on instead of some oatmeal comment?
Buddy, the “you’re not famous so your opinion is worthless” take is the oldest, lamest non-point ever. Do better.
“Let me guess…the film isn’t “woke” enough for you?”
Jesus, fuck off already.
Spanx or GTFO!
You seem like a ton of fun to be around there Brad.
Are you trying to say the party is in your mouth and everybody is coming? You probably ARE a ton of fun to be around then I guess…
Speaking of “woke”, I think your evocation of the word “woke” has me on the edge of an anti-PC screed coma. Wake me up when you’re done.
So you read an entire article about Kevin Smith movies just to tell us how meh you are about Kevin Smith movies? Cool cool cool…
Are you under the impression that there will not be any other people making fun of Kevin Smith in these comments
But only yours are joyless and dull so…
And you’re such a ray of sunshine in this post!
Sure, have at it, but at least have something clever/funny/insightful to say…
How’s this?
Better
If it’s no good then no one else will want to see this. If it’s actually funny, a lot of people will. The two are related, you see.
Literally every movie Kevin Smith has ever made was for Kevin Smith and his hardcore fans, so….. not really seeing the issue here. The dude turns a profit on every film he makes, which is more than you can say for the majority of films produced a year.
I kinda want to see it now, to be honest.
And I’m far from a hardcore Kevin Smith fan.
Kevin Smith has never claimed to make films for anyone else.
Good lord Kevin Smith can be exhausting.
Okay, this is actually really interesting. And, if I recall, was supposed to be the plot of Clerks Animated Movie oh so long ago.
Don’t you tease me with reminders of the Clerks Animated Movie that we’re never going to get!
Oh, I feel you. Breaks my heart that we never got SOMETHING in that universe again. I keep hoping that we’ll get Alec Baldwin as Leonardo Leonardo in live action in Clerks 3.
So, this is basically Season 4 of Seinfeld except it’s about the clerks and not funny.
I’ll give it a go. Clerks 2 was far better than it had any right to be.
I enjoyed Clerks 2. Far different film from the first one but it was fun
It had a fucking dance sequence! And I WANTED to hate it, but couldn’t.And Rosario Dawson is pure joy.
Why isn’t Dawson a gigantic star?
I have no idea.
I still don’t believe she would ever hook up with a supervisee like Dante, but her presence made the movie that much more enjoyable. And the LOTR vs Star Wars debate
“And you never go ass-to-mouth!”I still can’t believe I had to explain to my friends what “ass-to-mouth” is.
And what a donkey show is….though they explain that one pretty thoroughly. “Kelly can be a guy’s name too!”
It’s ok, I’m bringing it back.
It was worth it for the Poarch Monkey scene. Everyone loves that Lord of the Rings speech but ai prefer casual racism.
I respectfully but HUGELY disagree. I love Clerks and the cartoon and just… like…. painfully loathed Clerks 2. It was as though Smith handed his characters over to Larry David or the It’s Always Sunny writers and said, “Hey, could you do that thing where the characters are gross privileged dipshit monsters? But instead of getting their comeuppance like *your* characters, Imma reward mine with friendship and Rosario Dawson.”By the end I wanted to kick Dante and Randall in the balls until they died of internal bleeding.
Eh, I can see that.
Thanks for taking that in the spirit of good fellowship. I thought I *maaaaaybe* went a little overboard.
I can’t wait for Clerks 6, which will be about the Clerks making a movie about their Clerks making Clerks.
Cl6rks
Cl6rksIs that the one where all of the murders are based on Kevin Smith movies?
Clerkception
I am excited for Jay and Silent Bob reboot. There is a context for them to have a meta-type movie. This….does not. I can’t stand context-less meta movie in the movie stuff. Wet Hot American Summer did the same thing in their Netflix series, it’s dumb
It clearly says ther context is how his career came about.
Clerks 3 is going to be about the characters from Clerks making the movie Clerks, which is kind of a great idea. No snarky reaction here!Man who’s not made a great film (depending on your view) one to two decades and hasn’t made one that broke even since 2006 rehashes a rather generic “self-aware film” idea in the desperate hopes of becoming relevant again.That snarky enough?
Both Copout (2010) and Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008) made a profit. As for ‘great’…. clearly subjective and all that… but I thought Zack and Miri was solid Smith work. Copout had issues, but he didn’t write that one and I think he’d have done better work had he written it. Smith as a narrow band but he seems to hit it pretty consistently. It’d be like getting mad a Snickers wasn’t high quality gourmet food. It’s a Snickers. What were you expecting?
Rule of thumb is Gross Box Office/2, so both just fell short of breaking even.Outside Clerks 2 all of his films since Dogma have performed middlingly commercially and/or critically, so he doesn’t hit his band consistently.Kevin Smith has been riding on a couple of successes in the 90s for a very long time now.
You’re not considering the ancillary sources of income that make tons of money these days.
Well let’s look at the actual numbers then. The production budget for Cop Out was $37 million. It got $55.9m in world box office and $17.9 in video sales. That’s $74.8 gross on a movie that took $37m to make. Even if you assume the marketing budget was 50% of the budget, that’s still a profit of over $19m, or a good 34% ROI. Zack and Miri made $36.8m box office and $22.6m video, for a total of $59.4m. It cost $24m to make, so that’s $36m in rule of thumb costs, or a profit of $23m (38% ROI). And that’s assuming 50% of the production budget was spent marketing both of those movies. I’ll bet just about anything it wasn’t, especially in the case of Zack and Miri. In other words,both turned a healthy profit.Since Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ($33.7m box, $22m to make, so it broke even at the box office. I can’t find any numbers for video, but safe to assume it turned a profit there), Jersey Girl ($37m box, no video info, $35m to make, so likely lost some money), Clerks II (which profited), the two mention above which turned a profit, and Red State (which wasn’t released widely and Smith has stated made a profit – directly to him since he financed the thing). Tusk and Yoga Hosers both lost money, especially Yoga Hosers, which lost several million. I’m not sure Smith has ever made a “critically successful” film. But then again, Smith has never tried to make a film the critics would like. So I’m not sure it’s exactly much of a criticism to say the man hasn’t done that which he never tried to do in the first place. It’d be like suggesting we’re all failures because we haven’t climbed Mount Everest. TECHNICALLY true but also meaningless as a critique. All in all, Smith has hit his band fairly consistently up until these two last films. The numbers don’t lie here. Smith makes no bones about the fact his movies make a profit, which is why people keep giving him money. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t give him any more money.
Yeah, that completely disregards the fact that production don’t see 100% of the ticket price (which can change not just on territory but also over the “lifespan” of a film at the box office), which is why you use rule of thumb which is that they only get back ~50% of box office sales back. Then even on home release there are various rights deals etc, and that’s not including marketing and everything else.A handful of his films have made any profit in the cinema and maybe a few on top have scrapped back cost on home release.His films typically fail to perform either commercially or critically, sometimes both, but because of some films that became cult classics he’s seen as someone who should be able to turn out a great film again when really… his last breakout film was Dogma and even that was largely carried by excellent performances by Carlin and Rickman.Paul W. S. Anderson is the same. Most of his films fail to make money (or any critical worth) but because his Resi films make stupid money (off of an already built fanbase) he gets money thrown at him by people hoping he’ll make magic again.
Yeah, but you’re completely disregarding the film industry routinely inflates production costs to make it look like films don’t make any profit.Look, people don’t give other people millions of dollars to continue making movies if they don’t make a profit. Smith himself said in one his stand up Q/A sessions that most people telling you movies don’t make make money don’t know jack all what they’re talking about. People wouldn’t keep giving him money if they didn’t make a profit.His films typically perform both commercially and critically exactly to the studios expectations. How do I know this? Because they keep asking him to make movies. You’ve got an extremely Pollyanna view of the film industry if you think people are just throwing literally millions of dollars his way because he’s got some sort of cult following. The world doesn’t work that way.
It’s kind of in his interest to say his films make money for studios to keep letting him do it. And again, studios do throw money at directors who had a hit a while ago thinking they’ll make another, and many films bomb as a result (there’s been a series of high-profile flops as of late). Universal threw hundreds of millions at The Mummy because “Tom Cruise always makes it back” except that bombed. Mortal Engines is another “well loved series with big names attached production-wise” that flopped.Studios don’t mind throwing money at Smith because he’s cheap. He’s “back of the sofa” money compared to most films. At worst they maybe lose a handful of million but typically they’ll gain out of tax incentives and other loopholes that keep them making money despite the fact the film itself doesn’t make money.These studios have budgets going into the hundreds of millions each year and well-established franchises that make so much they can afford a few small flops each year.
The Mummy cost $125m to make and grossed $400m worldwide. Even at 50% of the gross and factoring in a 50% marketing budget, that’s still a profit. Tom Cruise did ‘make it back’, so that was a safe bet. The Mummy was a failure because it didn’t spawn a larger franchise like they wanted. I don’t think you know much about the movie business…. but that’s ok. The people who do this for a living know plenty about the movie business and they keep funding these sorts of projects all the time. I don’t know what world you live in that you think they’re doing it like buying lottery tickets, but you keep doing you boo!
“After consulting a number of film finance sources, Universal’s Tom Cruise movie stands to lose an estimated $95M off of a final estimated global box office tally of $375M. That’s $75M at the domestic B.O., and $300M from overseas.”https://deadline.com/2017/06/the-mummy-tom-cruise-box-office-bomb-loss-1202114482/Yeah it bombed.You clearly don’t know anything about the subject and being patronising isn’t going to make up for that.
Well citing ACTUAL facts and figures, not to mention basic logic, didn’t get you to stop in your clearly incorrect assertions, so I thought I’d try a different tack. Look, one article that cites “reports” and says production is a good 50% more production costs than literally every other source doesn’t really prove your assertion. Even assuming their marketing budget of $150m is right (it isn’t), that’s still $275m in costs. Assuming their figure of $250m to the studio is right (it also isn’t), that’s a loss of $25m at most, not $100m.Here’s where it gets important for your ACTUALLY read the articles you’re citing. That articles was published just TEN DAYS after The Mummy was released. Literally every figure in that article with the exception of opening weekend was ‘projected’ based upon just 9 days of revenue. Those are often wrong. Nobody banks on ‘projected’. It ain’t your money until it’s your money in your accounts. In fact, between the publication of that article and the middle of August, it made about $12m in the US alone. In Japan, it didn’t come out for another month after that article was published, and made just shy of $14m. Accounting for all countries, it brought in over $329m in its theatrical run. That’s $29m MORE than that article cites from overseas. Or… put another way…. at least $4 in PROFIT. Not loss. Now add in $18m in just DVD and Blu-Ray sales, and you’re in the black at over $20m.Let’s look at that marketing budget now. The rough estimate for a marketing budget for any movie with a production budget over $50m is 50%. Now we’re talking a total expense of closer to $200m, not that wild $345m ‘reported’ in just Deadline and nowhere else. At $400m in gross receipts and even assuming 50% rule of thumb, we’re at…. yep. Profit yet again!Now, any more easily disprovable myths you wanna lob my way?
Mate you cited figures on the surface without any awareness of how box office ticket sales worked.Instead multiple groups who work in the industry reporting it as a bomb and the studio itself cancelling further projects isn’t enough proof that it failed to make a profit because you simply want to be right.Studios don’t get back the whole ticket, production rarely includes marketing, and various other factors mean unless it makes more than twice production budget as a rule of thumb it lost money at the cinema.Many films manage to just about recoup in the home video market but few studios care about that as that’s not what they’re in the business of making.Kevin Smith is a cheap gamble they’re willing to take because twice he managed to massively exceed expectations many years ago.
“Instead multiple groups who work in the industry reporting it as a bomb and the studio itself cancelling further projects isn’t enough proof that it failed to make a profit because you simply want to be right.”‘Mate’, you are constantly telling people that there is something wrong with your brain. You have shown us who you are, and we believe you. You rely on shitty gossip and questionable sources to prop up your triple-downing. There’s no shame in admitting that you are wrong.
Lol. I see you shitting on Splinter. The fact is that you could not get ungreyed and, apparently, you have never gotten over it. Let it go dude. Splinter was well-loved, so this is not a good look.
TWO posts are a “Bombardment?” Two posts. I would recommend some B12 for optimal brain functioning. You have been subsisting on Ally Cookies for too long, maybe?
Both Clerks and Chasing Amy were very well critically received, and are often found in top 100 movies of all time lists
Zack and Miri was great, I think it was sandbagged because theaters didn’t like the idea of a film with the name “porno” in it….fuck the MPAA
Apparently Harvey Weinstein green lit the movie just based on the title.
As Stephen King says: “I’m a salami writer. I try to make it GOOD salami, but salami is salami.” Nothing wrong with staying in your lane and being great at it.
Oh Copout… well its no Cop Dog. Or Cop and a Half. Or Cop Cop…
Did he say “making fuck?”
Shoulda been Mallrats 2 instead.
Did he have an eyebrow lift? Seems like they’re permanently up now.
He’s getting his face lift in installments.
He’s just high. That’s his resting excited face now.
Is it coming out on VHS soon?
Has Kevin Smith refused to buy new suit jackets since he lost all that weight simply to remind us all that he lost weight? Or is he trying to wear them all until he gets his “money’s worth?”
Was thinking the same thing. It makes him look “unhealthy skinny” instead of “hey, you dropped some weight? You look great, man!”Just get some clothes that fit you nicely.
Maybe well-fitted clothes are his incognito outfit?
This is an interesting theory! Has anyone in Los Angeles ever seen a man who “looks like Kevin Smith went to a tailor” but brushed it off as a crazy thought?
He’s waiting for the Steve Harvey line to go on sale at Burlington Coat Factory again before he refreshes his wardrobe.
I thought that too, but when you lose that much weight there is usually a lot of excess skin left over. So I am guessing he is still trying to hide that. It is pretty clear he has always been very self conscious about his body.
At least he’s not wearing the hockey jerseys anymore.
Well when you’re a big guy and considering how big Hockey Jerseys tend to run…
Let’s maybe see how well Jay and Silent Bob Reboot does before making any plans, whaddya say, Kev?
Why? Did Zach & Miri’s failure stop him from making red state? Did Red State’s lack of box office stop him from making Tusk? Did nobody paying to see Tusk stop him from making his Jay & Silent Bob reboot?
Kevin’s roadshow tour of the film with in person Q&As pretty much guarantee the film goes into the black. And other showings on VOD or digital media is gravy.
he should name it Ouroboros
Hell is real
This is the most meta thing I’ve seen outside a thought experiment. It looks like it would be fun for the writer/director, but not fun for too many other people, which means it’s hard to justify its existence, and maybe “fun” isn’t even the right word, more “navel gazing.” I get it, it sucks to be Gen X, because of Boomers you’re a wasted generation, like Y and Z after you. Life is bleak, and it’s bleaker than it has to be because the most lead-poisoned generation the world has ever known is clutching on to power and money in their dotage, rambling incoherently about how roads are literal communism while they burn down the world like millions of little Neroes.
I’m interested in seeing it. I’m just surprised it’s Randal getting the heart attack and not Dante the anxiety machine.
I wish Kevin Smith would retire. He’s put out so much shit and become such a clown, I’m on the verge of actively hating everything he’s ever made. And I really enjoyed Clerks, Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob to the point where I watched each of them multiple times.
I hit that point with him years ago, unfortunately…Every once in a while I’ll pop in and see what he’s up to but I quit actively giving an shit a while back
Curious as to which big stars he’ll get to play Randall, Dante, Jay and Silent Bob in the movie within a movie. Could be interesting.Though I wouldn’t be suprised if he just brings back Biggs and Van Der Beek. They can’t cost much these days.
That’s what I was thinking. Who they cast for Not-Randall and Not-Dante could make and break this whole idea.
I recall reading that Jeff Anderson was done with Randall. I wonder what changed his mind.
$$$$$$$$$$
Let’s just say the Clerks 3 script moved him…. TO A BIGGER HOUSE!!!
Couldn’t Dante and Randal just set up a Youtube channel instead? Or do some Facebook livestreams?
Unless the movie is set in the 90’s, I’m not exactly sure why they would be filming it in black and white. People make movies on their phones now.
Filming in Black & White is not synonymous with older films or filming techniques, it is an artistic choice (ie The Lighthouse, Roma, Nebraska, ect..). Not to mention pretty much all phones have a Black & White video filter built-in anyway.
It’s at least original. Or is it?
Clerks 2 was really funny, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Good to see he’s keeping the weight off – if that is a recent photo – just hope he’s doing it healthily.This concept could be quite funny if done well. So, here’s to it being at least a good chuckle.
I get not being into Kevin Smith movies — he hasn’t done anything new since “Dogma” — but he seems like a hell of a nice guy, was the guy who sounded the alarm about Stan Lee’s elder abuse and has no illusions about who he is.
If he wants to make endless films for his never-going-to-grow-much core of fans, well, that’s not much different than most auteurs. Smith just talks about pot and masturbation, rather than Italian cinema.
Let Smith be Smith.