I watched a slew of movies last week, but I'm writing about one I didn't enjoy as much as the others: "Kids." The film is a great example of uncompromising vision. Whether it's good or bad, people talk about and remember this shit.
If you look through the reviews on "Kids," you're going to find a lot of people calling the movie pornographic. I knew about the movie's controversial reputation, so I was expecting something truly fucked up last week. Well, I got something truly fucked up but not because of the reasons everyone had proposed.
"Kids" features teenage actors and actresses having simulated sex. While these scenes can't be ignored, they are still restrained in that there isn't much nudity or anything arousing about the circumstances of these scenes ... I don't see how a boy giving a girl HIV could be that arousing to many people, and the scumsuckers who might find this arousing are probably too busy with their sick routines. In other words, pornography is designed with an audience in mind, so I don't get the argument that director Larry Clark was disguising child pornography as art when he made "Kids."
Indeed, while watching "Kids" I could not divorce the thought that Clark considers himself a very serious artist (check out this interview for evidence that supports my theory). The film obviously has a message: kids are, quite frankly, fucked up. And Clark uses a documentary style in an attempt to give his message levity. Whereas pornography is, by definition, something with no message other than "Jerk off to this" or "Finger yourself" or ...
But some might still ask, "Would you consider it borderline child pornography [and therefore irresponsible]?" My serious answer is I don't know because I can't define "borderline child pornography." I don't watch child pornography and therefore have no idea where the line is drawn. Now, if you had asked me whether Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" is borderline titty porn, I could respond because I have watched ...
This entry is probably making everyone uncomfortable at this point, but I'm almost finished. "Kids" is not pornography from my perspective, but it is troubling, and I mean outside of what the filmmakers wanted me to feel. Chloe Sevigny's character Jennie, for instance, doesn't seem to have much of a purpose other than being a punching bag. First, she learns she has HIV even though she's had sex only once. Before the film ends, she is raped. After the rape, you don't see her again.
It's a cold movie, and it's cold because Larry Clark and screenwriter Harmony Korine care. They want us to see how kids really are. But wait a minute. Not every kid is this fucked up.
And that's why I don't get "Kids." I was supposed to have my eyes opened, but:
1. I already knew this shit happens because I was a kid. Duh.
2. Reality isn't this bleak.
On the other hand, any film that provokes as much thought deserves a chance. Try it if you haven't.
(Another criticism against "Kids" is that Clark was exploiting his young cast. Yeah, I'm sure Clark was thinking about the big bucks he was going to make off his Hollywood blockbuster, "NC-17 Teen Drama with Rape Scene.")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is an interesting take on the main critisms for the film. I never thought about the fact, until you mentioned it, that the character of Jenny isn't present besides the fact that she gets HIV, searches the city, and is raped by Casper. Maybe this could be showing her lack of involvement in things that happen to her; but perhaps it could have added to the film to have more characterization and screentime of her life like the males had in the film.
Post a Comment