Wassup Rockers

For the sake of your time, and mine, I'll skip the synopsis and get right to the point: Larry Clark's Wassup Rockers loses none of the Clark appeal, that his fans have grown to admire, in the switch to a softer film that Clark hopes will be more accepted by distributors than his previous movies. As most of Clark's fans know endeavors such as Ken Park, Kids and Bully have all focused around 'bad' kids, however, in Rockers, the kids are just trying to be themselves without getting harassed by their peers for not succumbing to the hip-hop element so present in their South Central neighbourhood. During the boys' eventful day in Beverly Hills, a parallel to The Warriors, a favorite of Clark's, can be clearly drawn. In short, this has been Larry Clark's best film to date. So great in fact, even my girlfriend who is not a fan of Larry Clark at all really enjoyed it.

I work with youth in Los Angeles, and Wassup Rockers is probably the most accurate non-documentary depiction I have ever seen of LA youth on film. Granted, the "acting" is choppy as it clearly jumps between the kids being themselves, and then saying scripted lines. But the characters are real. The most poignant point of the film was that murders are taking place in impoverished neighborhoods just a short bus ride away from the multi-million dollar homes and cushy lifestyles of Beverly Hills. The story was weak and lacked fluidity, but the reality of the characters made up for it twofold. With the exception of the "preppy" kids, who seemed a bit forced, the characters are all spot on for how LA kids today truly are. And the graphic descriptions of sexuality are not exaggerations. If you want to know exactly what the inner-city youth look like today, look no further than Wassup Rockers. This film is a must see for anyone who intends to work with kids, especially in an urban environment.

Wassup Rockers is a marginally amusing exercise in the world of delinquents and under-privileged youth, but I am instantly reminded of the director's, Larry Clark, other works such as Bully and Kids, which were far, far superior to this film. The film plays like a tired rehash of previously fresh ideas, and while we understand that Clark has a deep fascination and understanding of the teenage wasteland that currently exists today, we are unsure how much longer he can keep the idea going.

The film focuses on a group of Guatemalan and Salvadoran skaters in Southern Los Angeles, that rebel against conventional society by not conforming to the simple-minded hip-hop style and music their gang-driven neighborhood happily enjoys. The teens are often referred to as "rockers," as they wear skin-tight jeans, listen to heavy metal and punk music, and proudly wear their hair long and thick. We follow them as they wander aimlessly from skate-park to skate-park, looking for excitement and thrills, as well as some much needed escapism. They wind up being fish out of water when they take a trip to the 90210 culture of Beverly Hills, where they meet two lovely young women who allow them to stop by their house "any time." This is the domino to the trigger of catastrophic events that are likely to and will unfold.

A third of the film is devoted to getting to vaguely know these faces and show how they operate in their skating world, the other is devoted to showing how they associate with the upper-class when they hail from "the ghetto," and the remaining third shows them acting under pressure and fear. Tonally, the film is confused, widely uneven, and unable to keep a solid shift through the day's events without gradually throwing in a curveball.

The characters have some recognizable substance to them, but they are sort of cardboard stereotypes, despite the film's efforts to try and lead them away from that common cliché. The film teeters on the edge of these kids opening up, but it quickly becomes rambling, directionless monologues instead of truly insightful pieces. It is also fair to say that all of the teen-actors do an admirable job at working with the script, and many, if not all, of them are first time actors, showcasing truly remarkable talents in central roles.

The film's main goal is to try and put ongoing tensions between class differences and race-relations on the spot. It succeeds in many of its initial goals, and doesn't come off as heavy-handed or overly preachy. Try saying the same about Crash.

Many shots incorporate heavy rock music, with montages and long shots of skateboarding. This is where the film shines as a whole. It is welcoming to see this human appearance, and Clark has shot long instances of events previously, mainly in his film Kids. Honestly, it seems as if Wassup Rockers plays like a watered down, neutered version of that film. I truly admired Kids for its consistency, bravery, and screenplay, which bled poignancy and sadness, but Wassup Rockers can't even come close to approaching the chords that film hit effortlessly. Clark has said a lot about the teenage youth in the past, but he doesn't use this effort to say much of anything provocative.

Starring: Jonathan Velasquez, Francisco Pedrasa, Milton Velasquez, and Yunior Usualdo Panameno. Directed by: Larry Clark.

In the vain of films like "Hangin' with the Homeboys" and Larry Clark's own "Kids" this film depicts a day in the life of a group of friends who, for the most part, don't click with societal norms. They're teenage Latino skateboarders who are into punk and come from South Central, LA and basically come and go as they please through the different facets that make the city what it is. It's through them that we discover the racial, cultural and class divides that exist within the different neighborhoods. Just like the neo-realist directors from Italy who made docu-style dramas by enlisting the help of non-actors, lending the film some realism, Larry Clark hires actual local kids to play the lead parts (as he did in "Kids"). Unfortunately, some of the scenes seem forced with unrealistic dialogue and under-developed characterization (referring to the supporting cast) totally dependent on unnecessary moments meant to push the story along. In other words, certain scenes seem written for the sake of exposing certain stereotypes or for shock value but they fall out of place within the story line. Several times I lost my suspension of disbelief and just said out loud "really...?" "Did that really have to happen?" Regardless, it's not a bad film at all, as a matter of fact its saving grace lies in the fact that as the film progresses you really get to know the characters and unlike the rest of the supporting cast, the leads at least do get fleshed out and really that's what this movie is all about. So if that's what you want then I recommend it.

If I were to summarize this film in short, I'd have to call it a Comedy that is somewhat like a mainstream version of "KIDS".

I've been a fan of coming of age films for many years. I've seen all of Clark's work, along with numerous international films such as Pixote, Nunmal, Timeless/Bottomless and many, many other films that fall within the genre. What I've always found appealing about Clarks work is the bleak outlook and hopeless feeling you'd get after watching his films. Even while many criticized Ken Park for being more shock then substance, it still gave me that "feeling" that KIDS did. This is what I had hoped for going into Wassup Rockers. I wasn't really concerned with the "shock value" of say a Ken Park, but I was looking for that same feeling I got after watching "Kids".

I didn't get that feeling.

Now while watching Wassup Rockers I'd find it hard to believe one couldn't make comparisons to KIDS. The movie opens with the camera pointed at a young boy named Jonathan, who basically outlines what we're about to see over the remained of the film. He talks about his friends and their habits, and the types of things he does or sees on a daily basis. It's very reminiscent of the begging of KIDS when Telly's commentary starts the film off discussing girls. You then have various scenes depicting some of the activities the youth get into. In KIDS you've see the skateboarding, the drinking, the blunt rolling and the girls.. In Wassup you see pretty much the same, minus the drugs and drinking, something there is NONE OF in this film. You do however get a scene in which two males are talking about their "first time", much like the scene in KIDS when Rosario Dawson and Chloe were in the bedroom with two friends discussing oral sex. It's not that this is a KIDS 'remake' more than it just felt very similar in terms of the content.

Now for the things that failed. First, this has to be the worst acted film Clark has worked on. I understand and appreciate the fact he found these kids in South Central on the street, but there were times in which the acting was so poor it just wasn't believable. I just couldn't believe one of the confrontations between a group of African Americans and the crew for example. It almost seemed like someone was standing off to the side waving "say something!". When speaking after the film Clark mentioned that the script was a mere 32 pages, and a lot was improve, and that would explain some of the acting. Think about this for a second. You found a group of kids who have never acted before and you ask them to improvise the majority of the script. While I'll admit this makes the film feel genuine at times, it also makes it feel forced at times as well. I'm also not sure how many Clark fans will find his 'upbeat' feel to be a positive change. One of the audience members asked "what happened to you?", even stating that "this film is a feel good film…nothing like you've ever done before" upon which Clark responded by saying "I've done Ken Park… That's as far as I can go with that. I wanted to do something new…something different", and he has. The problem is I liked Larry Clark for that reason, and now I question if he'll ever go back. There is even a parody of Clint Eastwood in the movie, suggesting that it be taken light heatedly.

With all of that being said, I still think this is a big accomplishment for Clark. In my opinion, he went back to the film that started it all and created it in a format that could be enjoyed by more people. His discussed his experience at Cannes and the TIFF a year prior when introducing Ken Park as well. He wanted to be able to reach out to these "fans" he had, yet he couldn't due to their ages and his films ratings. Another one of his comments however may be a little more insightful into the real reason this film was made when he stated "This was the hardest film for me to make". In elaborating on the reasons he touched on a few things, one being investments. He suggested investors had written him off because they considered him "crazy", so it was very hard to get backing. Almost like nobody wanted to risk taking a chance on Clark after Ken Park. I myself wonder if this wasn't the real purpose of this film. He needed a film that could make some money, so he could continue to be a director. Some may refer to this as being a "Sell out" type film, but I won't be that harsh. I can see this film playing in small theatres in the US to be honest, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't get an official DVD release in the US also, something Ken Park has never experienced. I just can't seem to grasp the idea that one of the more controversial directors in America today has decided to create was seems to be an upbeat, mainstream comedy…but hell, who am I? So where does that leave it? I didn't enjoy it as much as KIDS, nor do I think it's as good a movie. I'd also argue Bully was better overall. Ken Park on the other hand would make the more interesting debate. Ken Park was more memorable and enjoyable to me, but Wassup Rockers had a lot more substance to it. I guess that means I'm also guilty of the "shock" value Clark films can offer, something Wassup Rockers has left behind.

A good film indeed, but not typical Larry Clark. You can decide if that's a good or bad thing