Clerks, and the value of the “Downer Ending”

That’s what life is, a series of down endings.

Within the public canon of the 1990s quite a few films stand out as real testaments to the cultural milieu, in so far as the general sense of malaise that pervaded the public consciousness was not so alien to be undefinable, but so all encompassing that it crossed racial, social, gender and class lines and was able to be illustrated in a variety of films.

Within the 90s audiences were presented with masterpieces of black cinema such as Boyz in the Hood and Menace II Society, explorations of the plights of black men in poverty and the cycles of violence that affected Black neighborhoods and communities.

Works such as Set it Off and Thelma and Louise became mainstays in popular canon as feminism became less of a taboo and more of a common mainstream discussion though feature protagonists that were criminals in place of heroines. Film was broaching themes and topics often left under explored if acknowledged at all.

With regards to mainstream culture there was also the rise of films that explored Generation X. The Id and Ego of the “Lost Generation” gave rise to some of the most notable films of the 90s, such as Fight Club and Office Space stand as testaments to the general mood of directionless that existed more and more of Gen X came into their adulthood at the “end of history”.

And if history had ended what was to be done? What great cause could be rallied for? The failure to answer these questions gave rise to one of the most well known tropes and faces for Generation X.

The slacker. A character defined not by desire, but the lack there of. The existence not for a grand purpose, but possibly cognizant that no grand purpose can be had. A sort of Bartleby the Scrivener, not revelling in their lot in lot but also not actively protesting it. Just sort of floating along, accepting what comes their way.

A Lost Generation

With regards to the term slacker and the culture zeitgeist that really propelled it into the mainstream canon, Generation X the children of the Baby Boomer generation were often defined by what they were not. While The Baby boomers inherited the gains of the U.S.’s war production, Generation X was raised during the Cold War, the series of proxy wars between the 1st and 2nd worlds over the path forward for the developing third. This in turn lead to the collapse of the multipolar world. As previously mentioned the 90s were meant to exist as the “end of history”.

As the term coined by Francis Fukuyama would imply, nothing major was going to happen in the world as the United States existed as the hegemonic end point of the world culture, that no great wars were left to be fault, that no major shifts would occur.

While hindsight can see that was an incorrect assertion, and criticism did exist at the time there was a real case to made about the major conflicts of the world being resolved. But with that resolution, came no absolution, that is to say, history was supposedly over, so what exactly was the point of existence in the 90s and going forward?

With regards to the generational id there was no real sense of purpose. The lack of purpose, the rejection of “consumerism”, the refusal to sell-out and become “like your parents” became the marker for the generation’s ethos. A sort of apolitical rebellion, a cultural libertarianism of anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian, resistance to any interlocuter who would ask something of “you” ¹

Clerks as a Cultural Touchstone

This is where Clerks enters the discussion. Clerks was the debut film of director Kevin Smith and at face value is a pretentious showing of the slacker lifestyle. The movie’s scenes are presented over the course of a day with black screen with a single word of sesquipedalian text serving as the transitions between plot points. But what the film offers is a damning insight to the way that a fatalistic view can become self-fulfilling, how cynicism breeds more cynicism, and though the theatrical cut ends on an optimistic note, the alternative ending also holds a thematic value.

To begin, a brief summary of the film is that the main character, Dante Hicks is called into work on his day off, during the course of the day he is plagued by various bothersome customers, judgemental classmates, chewing gum salesmen and his friend and co-worker Randal Graves.

He spends the day complaining about his job, about his life, and juggling his romantic interests until the climax where he argues with his Randal and both of his love interests are removed from his life. The movie ends as he ends work and goes home.

Dante as the “X-everyman”

I’m not even supposed to be here today.

Dante Hicks is a character within a morality play. He does not act so much as he is acted upon by the world around him. In the rare case that he takes initiative it routinely and explosively blows up in his face.

But, the effect belies the cause. Dante, as a slacker archetype could never really take initiative, that would break the archetype. Dante over the course of the day, is unable to leave because his boss swears to come in, his boss is revealed over the course of the day to have left town.

Dante has to be pressured by those around him to take any form of rebellion even though he is more than vocal in his complaints about hating his job, hating the customers, his insecurities with regards to women.

Dante is the perfect slacker of the 90s in so far as nothing he does matters, so he actively does nothing.

The problem with “Ending” it.

The Ending of Clerks is unsurprisingly anti-climatic. After a day of complaining, a case of necrophilia, a bad break up, and multiple people giving him advice on what to do with his life, Dante stays at the job he hates until close.

Why? Why does a person continue to do something they vocally hate? Dante as a character is a directionless amoeba bouncing from scenario to scenario with no sense of gravity and mind of his own. So what is he, who is he?

Kevin Smith is on the record as to having difficulties in coming up with the ending for the movie. He decided on the more positive one because test audiences hated the “original”.

The Director’s cut of Clerks, goes in an arguably more thematically appropriate direction for the ending though. The entire movie, Dante has complained about his lot in life, complained about things not being fair to him, and yet taken no action. In his own mind nothing good happens, so what is it if something bad happens.

In the Director’s cut ending, Dante is murdered. The security camera is turned off so his murder will never be found in this timeline and the murder is ultimately pointless.

Dante’s true “fate”

The movie starts with “It’s a meaningless end to this story” and what is more meaningless than the murder during a convenience store robbery. The store Dante works at doesn’t make a lot of money. The murder wasn’t from rage or spite. It was a pointless death. Especially with what is shown of Dante, the robber could’ve taken the money and left him alive.

Dante’s untimely demise was similar in that regard to the ending he liked so much in Empire. A down note and then he died. In a way, how else should or would the story of Dante end? The sequel shows that Dante has little to no motivation, so can it be argued his life was even being lived?

Fatalism as it is commonly understood is summarized as a “surrender to the inevitable.” A bleak outlook to people who feel a great sense of self or duty but what of Dante? A man with no great purpose. No great sense of self.

Dante’s one trait consistent between his two movies and numerous cameos is an inability to make a decision. In love, in life, in anything really Dante is indecisive to a fault and one can’t help but wonder if that’s due to a worldview shaped by a fundamental belief that nothing that he does or doesn’t do matters so he can just exist until he stops existing.

And if that’s the case, does it really matter if he died in the first movie or lived to see the sequels?

What do you think? Leave a comment.