Before becoming a somewhat prominent figure in modern cinema's art-house scene, Larry Clark was a successful photographer. Clark was well into his '50s when his directional debut Kids hit cinemas in 1995. Controversial on release and still the same today, this tale of immoral, NYC teenagers garnered mixed acclaim and caused widespread uproar, with its taboo-breaking material and questionable intent. Some critics claimed the film was a product of the time, citing it as an accurate illustration of today's youth, while others sensed that the film's content was close to paedophilic. This is a topic open to debate, but one thing is for certain, I have now seen the film twice and am assured that it speaks nothing but irrelevant generalisations of today's "troubled youth." Revolving around a group of sexually promiscuous teenagers, Kids mostly centres itself around the intrepid lifestyle of HIV-infected skater, Telly. His aphorism is that along as he only has sex with virgins he will not become victim to sexual infection. Unfortunately, this fairytale is not the case and one of his former playmates soon learns she has the HIV virus, thus she attempts to track down Telly (the only person she has had sex with) in the hope that she can stop him having sex with any other virgins before it is too late. I am being sincere when I say that this is about as far as the narrative goes, with the exception of additional, o-so-shocking scenes of teenagers taking drugs, fighting, stealing and causing general mischief. The film simply spans the course of an ever-spreading and endless cycle.
There is a distinct and unfeasible curiosity found in Clark's appetite to convey as much young flesh as is legally possible. I find it quite unnerving as to how the performers seemed so care-free in their willingness to lay bare, to such an extent and at such a young age, for a 50-year-old man with a movie camera. Yet is there any worth to such a monotonous and self-indulgent work? It makes one ask if there is really any objective to viewing a film which so actively seeks attention, and what have I actually learnt from this supposedly educational drama? Kids is not an insightful work for those reasons alone, but also because we have long before acknowledged what is being shown. Clark seems to wallow in the notion that most people have never heard of sexually-infected teenagers or encountered teenage drug-abusers, and that he is the all-knowing eye as an adult who is "down" with the street kids- to all teenage escapades.
According to a documentary I once saw, Larry Clark spent a lot of time with inner-city, teenage skaters; this was an attempt to research the lifestyle he wanted to show the world via the silver-screen. Many of the teenagers he met while doing this were cast in the film, therefore subjecting these people he supposedly respected to stereotypical showcase. In my opinion, this makes Clark's "message" lose all purpose, as informed as he might be and ultimately defines exploitation in the name of "art." Some of acting might be vaguely commendable (from the likes of Leo Fitzpatrick's chilling performance), but Harmony Korine's swear-and-spit screenplay makes a bunch of teenagers seem like wannabes. It does not define a norm of the period, but instead enables characters to spew ridiculously repugnant dialogue formed of "errs" and "ahs." His aimless, teenage caricatures are nothing more than a depiction of a selected individuals and it is the film's sweeping generalisations which infuriate me to no-end. How can characters that seem to have no concern of any consequences be convincing? For me, this leads to a detachment and eventual helplessness to lose complete care in the consequences these faceless drones are tackling. The fact that there is not even a glimmer of hope penetrating the coagulated surface muffles all honesty. With only one character (the girl who is infected by Telly) seeming even so much as remotely mature, everyone is made out to be the bad guy and even this female character becomes stilted because of some peculiar drug she "reluctantly" swallows.
Throughout the film the viewer is bombarded with an array of apocalyptic assumptions. If that is not all, it seems that Clark indulges himself in the lives of these degenerates, glossing over as many touchy and "pity them" topics as is humanely possible in a ninety-minute project. The message behind Kids is an overcooked and simplistic one; today's youth are evil and need to be tamed. You see, as a director Clark films, but fails to speak; denouncing nothing of society and culture, let alone of kids. Larry Clark truly is a born educator on the utmost degree of nihilistic incapability, and has obtained a longing knack for gross-out reactions.
There is a distinct and unfeasible curiosity found in Clark's appetite to convey as much young flesh as is legally possible. I find it quite unnerving as to how the performers seemed so care-free in their willingness to lay bare, to such an extent and at such a young age, for a 50-year-old man with a movie camera. Yet is there any worth to such a monotonous and self-indulgent work? It makes one ask if there is really any objective to viewing a film which so actively seeks attention, and what have I actually learnt from this supposedly educational drama? Kids is not an insightful work for those reasons alone, but also because we have long before acknowledged what is being shown. Clark seems to wallow in the notion that most people have never heard of sexually-infected teenagers or encountered teenage drug-abusers, and that he is the all-knowing eye as an adult who is "down" with the street kids- to all teenage escapades.
According to a documentary I once saw, Larry Clark spent a lot of time with inner-city, teenage skaters; this was an attempt to research the lifestyle he wanted to show the world via the silver-screen. Many of the teenagers he met while doing this were cast in the film, therefore subjecting these people he supposedly respected to stereotypical showcase. In my opinion, this makes Clark's "message" lose all purpose, as informed as he might be and ultimately defines exploitation in the name of "art." Some of acting might be vaguely commendable (from the likes of Leo Fitzpatrick's chilling performance), but Harmony Korine's swear-and-spit screenplay makes a bunch of teenagers seem like wannabes. It does not define a norm of the period, but instead enables characters to spew ridiculously repugnant dialogue formed of "errs" and "ahs." His aimless, teenage caricatures are nothing more than a depiction of a selected individuals and it is the film's sweeping generalisations which infuriate me to no-end. How can characters that seem to have no concern of any consequences be convincing? For me, this leads to a detachment and eventual helplessness to lose complete care in the consequences these faceless drones are tackling. The fact that there is not even a glimmer of hope penetrating the coagulated surface muffles all honesty. With only one character (the girl who is infected by Telly) seeming even so much as remotely mature, everyone is made out to be the bad guy and even this female character becomes stilted because of some peculiar drug she "reluctantly" swallows.
Throughout the film the viewer is bombarded with an array of apocalyptic assumptions. If that is not all, it seems that Clark indulges himself in the lives of these degenerates, glossing over as many touchy and "pity them" topics as is humanely possible in a ninety-minute project. The message behind Kids is an overcooked and simplistic one; today's youth are evil and need to be tamed. You see, as a director Clark films, but fails to speak; denouncing nothing of society and culture, let alone of kids. Larry Clark truly is a born educator on the utmost degree of nihilistic incapability, and has obtained a longing knack for gross-out reactions.