Larry Clark: Ken Park
Larry Clark has cut out quite a nice little niche for himself since his debut feature, 1995’s Kids, succeeded because of (and not in spite of, as many claim) a large amount of controversy over what the film portrayed: kids having underage sex, smoking and drinking. Obviously, the main reason the film was so controversial was its stark realism; Clark does not make fantasy films. But, contrary not what that film's more puritanical critics may have claimed, there is certainly a moral core to Clark’s debut, although his unblinking glance sometimes distracts from it. Clark continued to court controversy with Another Day in Paradise and Bully, dealing with similar themes. He has, then, despite his growing years, become the quintessential bad boy of independent American cinema, an image which was very firmly establish when Ken Park was released in 2002.
Ken Park, though, is important for many reasons. Principally because, as a result of Clark refusing to make a single cut to what he considered a perfect film, it did not gain wide distribution in the USA and was never released in the UK. Fortunately, I was living in over-liberal France at the time, where they just stuck a 16 certificate on it and released it in cinemas all over. It’s also significant because, despite Clark’s claims, it is far from being perfect, and is significantly poorer in quality than the other three films mentioned above.
The film contains four separate narratives: one with a guy sleeping with his girlfriend’s mom, one with a father and his repressed homoerotic feelings for his son, one with a guy who murders his grandparents, and one with a girl whose father is religiously crazed. The narratives are linked by the characters’ friendship with Ken Park, a skater kid who shoots himself in the head at the end of the film (though before the events of the film itself).
As you can likely tell from the descriptions above, Clark’s film continues its depiction of teen life and sexuality as in his previous films, and three of the four contain some very sexually explicit scenes, including a teenager performing oral sex on a mature women, a father trying to fellate his son, and a two teenagers indulging in some light bondage. The fourth contains no sex whatsoever (though the character does masturbate while asphyxiating himself...) but it does contain a gory murder scene.
This is probably the closest Clark will come to writing a comedy. The kid who murders his grandparents in particular is very much played as dark comedy and the affair between an older woman and a teenage boy is often played for laughs. But while superficially the film provokes laughter, it never enlightens the viewer what message Clark is trying to send. Laughter can be a powerful weapon to force the audience to question their reactions and judgements when used by a deft hand, but here it never penetrates deep into the film, remaining nothing more than a superficial reaction.
Indeed, while the comedy makes the film feel superficial, so too does the plot and narrative strucutre. It simply comes across as a selection of controversial scenes rather than a cohesive whole. This is, notably for an art house stalwart, the first time Clark has abandoned a linear narrative structure and he doesn’t seem particularly adept at handling this sort of storytelling technique. As a result, it’s just a rather scattershot collection of stuff, nebulously floating around with nothing, whether a moral core or a directorial message to unite it. There are many lacunae in the film and while some can be filled in with a decent amount of thought and imagination, many just seem lazy and leave the plot and Clark’s message a murky mess and without a message at the core and behind the sex and gore, Clark’s usual shtick is reduced to nothing more than pornographic showboating.
Simply, then, the film is reduced to an exercise in critic-baiting, something I agree with in theory with a mischievous grin on my face, but in reality it doesn’t make for particularly entertaining viewing.
Ken Park, though, is important for many reasons. Principally because, as a result of Clark refusing to make a single cut to what he considered a perfect film, it did not gain wide distribution in the USA and was never released in the UK. Fortunately, I was living in over-liberal France at the time, where they just stuck a 16 certificate on it and released it in cinemas all over. It’s also significant because, despite Clark’s claims, it is far from being perfect, and is significantly poorer in quality than the other three films mentioned above.
The film contains four separate narratives: one with a guy sleeping with his girlfriend’s mom, one with a father and his repressed homoerotic feelings for his son, one with a guy who murders his grandparents, and one with a girl whose father is religiously crazed. The narratives are linked by the characters’ friendship with Ken Park, a skater kid who shoots himself in the head at the end of the film (though before the events of the film itself).
As you can likely tell from the descriptions above, Clark’s film continues its depiction of teen life and sexuality as in his previous films, and three of the four contain some very sexually explicit scenes, including a teenager performing oral sex on a mature women, a father trying to fellate his son, and a two teenagers indulging in some light bondage. The fourth contains no sex whatsoever (though the character does masturbate while asphyxiating himself...) but it does contain a gory murder scene.
This is probably the closest Clark will come to writing a comedy. The kid who murders his grandparents in particular is very much played as dark comedy and the affair between an older woman and a teenage boy is often played for laughs. But while superficially the film provokes laughter, it never enlightens the viewer what message Clark is trying to send. Laughter can be a powerful weapon to force the audience to question their reactions and judgements when used by a deft hand, but here it never penetrates deep into the film, remaining nothing more than a superficial reaction.
Indeed, while the comedy makes the film feel superficial, so too does the plot and narrative strucutre. It simply comes across as a selection of controversial scenes rather than a cohesive whole. This is, notably for an art house stalwart, the first time Clark has abandoned a linear narrative structure and he doesn’t seem particularly adept at handling this sort of storytelling technique. As a result, it’s just a rather scattershot collection of stuff, nebulously floating around with nothing, whether a moral core or a directorial message to unite it. There are many lacunae in the film and while some can be filled in with a decent amount of thought and imagination, many just seem lazy and leave the plot and Clark’s message a murky mess and without a message at the core and behind the sex and gore, Clark’s usual shtick is reduced to nothing more than pornographic showboating.
Simply, then, the film is reduced to an exercise in critic-baiting, something I agree with in theory with a mischievous grin on my face, but in reality it doesn’t make for particularly entertaining viewing.
posted by Ryan Stephens at 7:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home