Save a film about the Angels of the Devil Himself: Kevin Smith on “Dogma” | Interviews

For Kevin Smith, making “dogma” was the ultimate expression of his own decreasing religiosity, filtered through verbose, irreverent and raw humor which made him one of the most revered filmmakers of the Indie boom in the 90s. The core of the script is prior to his first microbudget hit “Clerks”, having started as a scenario called “God” which allowed him to express his doubts as a Catholic who instilled in New Jersey. But in 1998, after having made waves in Sundance with “Clerks”, by removing his failed studio comedy “Mallrats” and bouncing with the dramatic of the Miramax relationship “Chasing Amy”, Smith finally had the cachet – and the budget – to approach more Headier.

There are still jokes on the cock and the pet, a biblical poop monster called Golgotha, and of course, its faithful Greek choir, Jay (Jason Mewes, honestly never better) and silent Bob (Smith). George Carlin embodies an irreverent cardinal who seeks jazz Catholicism with a smiling and encouraging seal called “Buddy Christ”, and Chris Rock, in a touch adapted to Mel Brooks-Ian, plays the 13th secret black apostle, Rufus.

But what the charms about “dogma”, even twenty-five years later, is his relative sincerity to fight against the problems of religious belief in an increasingly jaded postmodern world, centered on a imprint of some reluctant angels (Linda Fiorentino) Dogme Catholic contradictory.

It took an almost religious level of faith to believe that “dogma” would succeed; Indeed, at the exit, the film was plagued by delays and demonstrations for its alleged blasphemy. And for some time now, it had been the rare film of Smith unavailable to broadcast or buy anywhere, because Harvey and Bob Weinstein personally held the rights and had let them collapse without renewal. However, in an event adapted to a miracle, Smith managed to find the rights of “Dogma”, restored it in 4K with the help of the director of photography Robert Yeoman, and published it in theaters for his 25th anniversary on June 5.

Smith sat with Rogerebert.com A few days after his screening at the Cannes Film Festival in 2025 to talk about Ebert’s influence on him as a fan and filmmaker, as well as the long road towards the recovery of the “dogma” of the reputation of Harvey Weinstein.

This interview has been modified for duration and clarity.

It is a pleasure to speak to you specifically for Rogerebert.com; I know Roger was a devotee of your work since the first. I would love to know more about your relationship with Roger in your work, especially at the time of “dogma”.

You have to remember, it was the golden stallion of the day. Of course, you had Pauline Kael, later Janet Maslin, before Vincent Canby and things like that. But Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, I grew up looking at PBS when it was “preview”, long before he became “Siskel and Ebert in the cinema”. There was no internet at the time, children. So, if you wanted to interact with cinema clips, you hope to see a criticism on night new or perhaps the news of the network.

But Siskel and Ebert were reliable, man; They would have two clips per review per criticism. And whether or not you agree with their exam, it was also part of the pleasure. Because, in a proto-internet type, you say to yourself: “What? These guys don’t know what they are talking about!“It has created teams instantly. But you have to watch them bicker on the film, which in the 1970s and 80s were rare. Nowadays, you jump on Letterboxd or a cat site or comments that has nothing to do with the film and you enter a cinematographic conversation. The world is quite editor of the film now, especially on the Internet. But at the time, not at all.

I remember obtaining a betamax in 1983 and recording criticism. It was not so much to keep criticism as to keep the clips of the films. Siskel and Ebert were therefore a large part of my childhood. And when I became a filmmaker, of course, I said to myself: “What do they think? Ebert and Siskel liked the “clerks”, gave him a boost. It therefore launched my career very well. I remember that they had examined it in the series, and my mind melting after years watching them go by the films of other people, only to hear him talking about me. Roger was like: “In films, jobs are:” You are a cop “or” you are a king “. You never see someone working just a job, and in this film, you can see it.

Roger was not A fan of “mallrats”. He hated that and didn’t give him a good criticism. When I was on stage at the Indie Spirit Awards in 1996, I presented Laura Dern. Before I even say a word, I climb up up there and I say: “Hey guy, while I am here, I just want to take this opportunity to apologize for” mallrates “. I don’t know what I thought. Roger, in his review of “Chasing Amy”, wrote: “Kevin Smith made a film so much that he apologized for it. But this year, he is back with the incredible “ Chasing Amy ”. ” He wrote a wonderful criticism of this film, and he did it for “Dogma”. “Dogma”, he was on board. He said, “Listen, you may need a catechism to understand most of this film.” But making it talk about my work was huge.

I worked with, or rather for him at some point: when he had fallen ill, they had people who filled the show, so I was able to sit with [Richard] Roaching and reviewed in the style I grew up looking at Roger and Gene. Of all the things I could do in my career, it was one of those jostles that amazed me. I’m going to meet Eborsisk, do you know? Of “Willow”.

Roger was a great figure in my life, and I was disappointed like everyone when he went far too early. Because he gave me a lot of joy. He did not make the films, but he was a conduit for the first cinema discussions in which I could enter via the dominant current. You can look at it with your family, parents, brother or sister, and enter conversations to find out if he was right or wrong. This is what we do almost every day on the internet now, but you didn’t need interconnectivity with everyone.

Unlike Kaels and Canbys at the time, Roger was also a critic of the working class; If there was never a general public critic who could take advantage of the jokes of Dick and Far, he was the screenwriter of “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls”.

Absolutely, hands down. This is a good thing for which Roger did not examine The New York Times Or The Washington Post. It could have made it a little more suffocated. But the fact that he was a child from Chicago, you felt like you are identifiable. I also always think of his controlled passion while he was in the series. He would rarely lose it; No “Fuck you gene!” It would be: “You do not understand what it does! You don’t understand.” He was very passionate, but measured in his facial expressions.

Let’s talk about a little “dogma”; I have the impression that it was a crazy road which sets it over by the property of Harvey Weinstein. Tell me this story.

A few years ago, I tried to recover this film, because at the time we succeeded in 1998, it was under the aegis of Miramax, which was a Disney company at that time. Once it was done, it was a controversy; People were upset about it even if they had never seen it. Disney said to Miramax: “Get rid of this film.” Rest your assholes, the children, here is the name: Harvey Weinstein personally (supposedly, allegedly) bought the film and distributed by a young Canadian company at the time called Lionsgate, who had done nothing so wide at that time. Then Columbia Tristar obtained it for video at home and had it for ten, fifteen years. These offers expired, and I started to make me explode online, saying: “I can no longer buy” dogma “unless I buy it on ebay for 100 dollars. What gives? “

I had left the Weinstein company in 2008 after “Zack and Miri made a porn”, before the 10th anniversary of “Dogma”. So I started sending emails. Nothing, silence. Did not hear anything for nine years. Then one day, I receive a phone call; It is after Weinstein Company is back with “The Artist” and Shit. He could fuck an old film. But they are like “Hold for Harvey Weinstein”. He says, “Kevin, it’s Harvey. I just realized that I have “dogma” and we do nothing with it. We could probably do a suite or a streaming series. I said to myself: “Yes, that canMan! “He says we will enter it next week. Damn, there is a future for “dogma”.

Three days later, the New York Times Pieces run, and we discovered who was Harvey Fucking. I remember being afraid because I said to myself: “This guy just called me.” So I talked to [producer] Jonathan Gordon, who had not been there for years, and told him that Harvey had called me and had spoken to a suite of “dogma”. Jon says, “Kevin. He was never going to make a suite of “dogma”. He was just calling to see if you were one of the sources of the New York Times piece. The fact that you answered the phone told him that you were not. “Dogma” was just a way to have a conversation with me.

Regarding the blatant things done by Harvey Weinstein? Not even on the fucking list. But it was out of my hands. I was never going to take this film.

Then this woman, Alessandra Williams, who grew up in the same neck of wood as me in the center of Jersey, saw me tell this story and thought to me: “Someone should help her.” She literally got involved and did what I couldn’t. I tried to buy the film three times and I did not receive any response from anyone. She bought a slice of films from Harvey, because I guess he is in court again for new accusations; He needed legal defense funds, so he sold what he had personally. There were some Karate films, “Dogma”, the first film by Larry Clark, “Kids” and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore’s film. She bought all these films, sold the rest and was kept in “Dogma”. She came to me and asked me, “What do you want to do with it?”

We now publish it on 2,000 screens on June 5. It will be on more screens than when the film was released in 1999. Now we are a summer film. I tried to do all of this for years, and I couldn’t. Alessandra succeeded. It was absolutely incredible. What an incredible demonstration. She saved my film on the angels of the devil himself.

I’m going to leave you with one last question: how do you think [George Carlin’s] Cardinal Glick would have done in the conclave?

You know, the chances of Cardinal Glick during the “conclave” would not have been raised. Having watched the film, I can’t see him do well in this crowd. They seem very suffocating. It was a visionary, do you know? Marketing. He’s the guy behind the guy, if anything. I guess it was the guy who was pushing the first pope of the United States. How will we not vote in this direction?

And now we have a chicago pope.

Exactly!