Wassup Rockers

I live in Houston. In my senior year at high school I met a guy who eventually became one of my best friends. We came from different socioeconomic backgrounds, he was the 'Wassup Rocker' I was the 'Beverly Hills' kid. But we bonded over a mutual love for music and dicking around. Especially punk music. Anyways, that's all kinda irrelevant but the point is that the way these kids are portrayed in Wassup Rockers is exactly how he and his punk friends act. It's almost scary. You know the line where one character talks about black girls always wanting to touch and braid his hair but him not letting them etc. etc., I heard that before this was even made! A lot of people say that this film is unrealistic in its manner and dialog.. Sadly and fortunately it's not, that's really how it is.. And it's probably why I like it so much compared to the other people who have reviewed it.

Now despite that, as a film it is not perfect. The actors are awkward (cuz' they're amateurs picked because in real life they are 'Wassup Rockers'), although that is forgivable considering they're supposed to be awkward teens. The major flaw in this movie, I feel, is its lack of plot and structure. It's all kinda strung together and lacks a 'film-like' feel. Also some of the situations are uncalled for and in my honest opinion unrealistic like others have said.

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.

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.

For the first 20 minutes or so of Wassup Rockers, I thought "been there, done that." Meaning that, simply, Larry Clark has done this kind of movie before, better, more wisely and with some extra depth on the subject of stray kids doing their own thing without much parental supervision. But then, finally, something started to take shape: the film is, if about something, a class tale, with the South Central Hispanics roaming around Beverly Hills just looking for a place to skate and getting into various misadventures (some funny, some deadly). And at the same time, even more than Kids, there's a raw quality to the performances, with mixed results. It's like that docu-drama Streetwise from the 80s with a touch of Ferris Bueller and then put to a soundtrack of rip-offs or sound-alikes of the Casualties.

Part of the problem of Wassup Rockers is that it is not too interesting within its aimless structure. Having a film without much of a plot can work fine, they're made all the time in independent quarters in America and especially Europe. But it should amount to something by the end, and by the end of Wassup Rockers there isn't very much of a point except, well, don't go into Beverly Hills for too long if you're Hispanic and looking like a member of the Ramones by way of Tony Hawk. But within this jump-around structure, around some of the random sex scenes and skateboarding and the kind of cool scenes of the kids riding their boards to LA punk rock, Clark does create a fun B-movie. At the least, it's never boring, and if it isn't really groundbreaking or as revelatory or whatever as Kids (and it isn't) it does provide something of a small window into something we haven't seen before, or at least I haven't seen before.

Not all of the performances are below par, an in fact there's a charm and down to earth honesty to a lot of scenes (a scene that made me think a lot of Streetwise is when the kid Chico is talking to the Beverly Hills girl in their underwear in her bedroom - this is stripped down to the point of simple documentary, and it suddenly becomes affecting strangely enough). And, if nothing else, it works as a B movie, a kids-on-the-prowl story that should appeal most to anyone who likes to just roam around when they have nothing to do when they're 14 or 15. It's a minor work that has moments of real power.

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