Kaboom

I'm not gonna spend my time talking KABOOM up and up. There is no need. It is, in a way, a return to form from Gregg Araki, and also somewhat exploratory, with genre. It's not his best film, but it's not his worst either. What constantly strikes me about his work is the way so many people who negatively review it, cite all the wrong things as why it's bad. It's as if every negative review of his films, and every negative reviewer is determined to showcase precisely the things which are intentional, to the film, as mistakes or reasons for it's overarching badness. Does POST-MODERNISM really get lost on so many? Case and point: The first review on this page (at the time of my writing THIS review) is titled, "Pointless photoshopped farce perpetrated on your wallet. Take your kids" I mean, yeah. Duh. That WAS the point. It's pointless, photoshopped, vapid, and....YOU MISSED THE RELEVANCE. You weren't IN on the joke and that's your fault. It's social commentary. Surely, you can understand social commentary's place in art? That statement may as well be a blurb on the cover of the DVD, trying to gather attention for it's purchase. It's not really doing it any injustice. Now, like I said, this film certainly isn't perfect, but boy do some people need to better train their eyes.

Since other reviewers of Kaboom have mentioned Donnie Darko and Southland Tales, David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Polanski, Hitchcock, and Craven I might point out that the character, Smith is introduced as film student who is actually studying "Un Chien Andalou" by those naughty twenty-somethings Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí. Our wiki friends inform us that "The film has no plot in the conventional sense of the word. The chronology of the film is disjointed..... It uses dream logic in narrative flow that can be described in terms of then-popular Freudian free association, presenting a series of tenuously related scenes." Sound familiar? Chien was essentially a student film but one might say that it has had some staying power.

I liked Kaboom but it was certainly a bit silly, especially toward the end. About as silly as a lobster telephone. And if characters were continually waking out of dreams (and being interrupted during "spanking" sessions), perhaps that was a hint to the viewer about where the film was coming from.....

If you want image and attitude this can be fun. If depth of vision, on the other hand, it will seem small.

I'll have you imagine this as a guy with a bunch of comic-books and magazines on his floor, he cuts up strips and glues them together, now something about sex and college relationships, then a strip off Scooby- Do, another resembles Lynch, a third is about life on campus, then back to sex, more sex and obsession.

He is from that 90s crop of makers (Tarantino, Smith) who thought that life had no business being seen as deeper than the way stuff just hang together, the fun in having so much stuff to pick from: movies, comic- books, TV. He briefly tried something more coherent in Mysterious Skin, here he's back to a collage.

Two main thrusts here. One is the college journey of discovery, here he tries to paint a picture of sexual life, the confusion and reluctance - Nowhere was angsty, this is more relaxed in its skin, there's a sweetness around discovery. The second thrust is about mysterious happenings around campus, there are figures in animal masks who come out at night, a witch, a girl found dead. This is the more endearing part, all about how confusion in his mind around sexual identity manifests around campus as some inscrutable power of rearrange.

It's all in the opening scene, a recurring dream where he walks down a corridor lined with girls and comes up against a mysterious door marked 18, his age: sex, dreams, locked mystery.

It's fun for a while to see him do it, the fun all in the imaginative jumps from one strip to the next, in that it all loosely hangs together around a dream. But then it's as if he gets bored or can't see any point to it so he just keeps throwing stuff. A cult, the end of the world, a discovery about the father, more trysts, a car chase. None of it sticks, too much paper weight so it all just tumbles down in a heap of scraps. This is its own insight then on craft, if the patching doesn't begin to rise up into shape that guides the eye from forms to the possible thing they give rise to, it remains artless patchwork.

Lynch also takes a lot of care in picking out cinematic wallpaper so it's seductive when you enter, but that's after he has mulled long and hard about where the walls are going to be and what kind of space they will define.

Gregg Araki continues his daring sojourn into the arena that other filmmakers avoid - frank sexual adventures of every kind, characters whose placement in the story is often like window dressing for effect, and yet out of it all comes a fascinating if at time discombobulating tale that appeals to a certain audience - and doesn't mind if the rest of the folks who don't approve of his antics even attend!

The film follows the life of one Smith (Thomas Dekker) and his everyday life in the dorm - hanging out with his arty, sarcastic best friend Stella (Haley Bennett), hooking up with a beautiful free spirit named London (Juno Temple), lusting for his gorgeous but dim surfer roommate Thor (Chris Zylka). Smith parties, sleeps around with both men (Jason Olive, Andy Fischer-Price) and women in various combinations. He's bisexual, is about to turn 19 and is having strange dreams which seem to work their way into his life. There's gay sex, lesbian sex, witchcraft, men in animal masks, murder and some secret organization - it all gets turned upside-down after one fateful, terrifying night when all the signs of Smith's dreams seem to come together in a apocalyptic fusion that involves Smith's father (Michael James Spall), Smith's hedonistic mother (Kelly Lynch), and visits from the Messiah! It is a sci-fi story centered on the sexual awakening of a group of college students.

Dekker somehow carries this film due to his skills as an actor but also his complete involvement in what is obviously Araki's secondary persona. It is a crazy film, rich in color, at many times ludicrous, and at other times very sexy - you know, the way Gregg Araki continues to make these solid little art house movies. It would be silly to fault KABOOM for being shallow or unserious; its whole mode of being is profoundly antiserious, playfully assaulting any form of earnestness other than Smith's emo melancholy.

Grady Harp

That's how 'Kaboom' is billed on the DVD. I watched it, premiered on Film 4 last night.

Initially I rather liked it, the striking design, the casual attitudes to almost everything and the dialogue. Especially the catty one-liners. I'm not familiar with this director and on the strength of this one movie, I'm not in a particular hurry to explore further, however.

I realise that it's intended to be a surreal cult film and where it falls to pieces is where it starts to mess with your head, as it's just non-sensical and frankly, silly. I also realise that I'm not in the probable intended audience, age-wise. People running around in pig- headed masks just don't grab me, I'm afraid.

The liberal, mixed sex scenes were both interesting and fun and the attitude that good sex is just that, refreshing. Most of the young cast play their parts well, especially Thomas Dekker, Haley Bennett and Juno Temple. I did watch it all and there were many good points and I enjoyed much of it, but ultimately, it's just too way out there.