Ken Park

Ok, so the movie tries to express a message about today's youth and their disorientation. It tries it through shock technique, depicting sex at pornographic levels. But really, haven't we all seen it before, in a softer (and much better) way precisely on Larry Clark's "Kids"? I can acknowledge that there was an effort of putting morality together in this one, but really, what comes out even for an attentive spectator is that this movie ends up pushing the limits too much, and becomes boring at it. The result is another shock movie, another art house hardcore piece, that, to me, didn't stick too much. Clearly, more gratuitous than mind-bending. Give us a story instead.

I'm 16, I'm a skater, I'm in high school, I have parents I don't get along with.

Although I don't partake in these actions, the people whom I spend my weekends with do constantly. This movie is a very realistic account of the life that is lead by many of those close to me.

Banning this movie does kids a favor, it doesn't let our parents see the ridiculous lives we lead. All of us kids should see this movie so we can all question our actions and realize the hole we've dug ourselves. But parents should be protected from seeing such films as "Kids" and "Ken Park". These are the realities we try so hard to keep from our parents, why would we want to let larry clark show them?

I was unaffected by this movie, impressed at the reality it captured, but unaffected by the actions in which the kids partook, except Tate's ordeal, although I know kids like that, I generaly don't associate with them, and that made his part of the movie very difficult to handle.

Larry Clark scares me. I just hope my parents don't get a hold of this movie, or "KIDS". He has done a terrific job of grabbing the reality of our lives, and I would hope he keeps making these amazingly realistic movies, as long as my parents don't see them.

Living in Australia, there has been a lot of controversy about this movie, leading to the government banning it (and even forbidding it to be shown at film festivals, to intelligent, consenting adults), so I had some idea what to expect when watching it.

The thing that surprised me was that there was almost none of the "explicit sex" that the tabloids and conservative politicians would have us believe. Sure there are a couple of shots of erect penises, but nothing most adults haven't seen themselves.

The part that didn't surprise me was that the story was so good. I have seen all of Larry Clark's films, and this is by far the best. A depressing tale of kids who are beginning to realise that their parents, their biggest role models, are not perfect. Far from it in some cases.

I urge everyone who is interested in pictures that may not be light entertainment (and who is not offended by the occasional sexual organ) to try and obtain a copy of this - especially Australians. Don't let the government dictate what you can and cannot see.

Anyone who finds pornography disturbing will find "Ken Park" disturbing for both the wrong and the right reasons.

Its not pornography, but it will be confused with it easily since it contains many of the same powerful ingredients: nudity and explicit sexual behavior. What separates it from pornography is that "Ken Park"'s intent is not to arouse but to provoke an emotional response by placing these same powerful ingredients within a troublesome relational context. Unfortunately that's also the problem with "Ken Park".

An average viewer can't witness explicit sexual behavior and be unaffected by it. We are all sexual (mostly) and (most of us) respond to visual stimuli. "Ken Park" demands that the viewer suspend that response, look beyond any arousal or outrage generated from the explicit sexuality and focus on the relationships in the film (of which sex is merely the expression). This asks of the average cinema viewer much more sexual maturity than most films ever hope to ask.

We may demand more pressure on the envelope as a viewing public, but the cumulative effect of pushing the envelope is still in the realm of speculative sociolology. Also, the extreme youthful appearance some of the characters in the film will cause some companies to avoid distribution risks. Free speech is one thing; defending accusations of spreading pedophilia is quite another, and few companies can afford that kind of publicity.

Personally, I think that the Clark and Lachman have made a great film; its a moral and compassionate statement. The characters feel very real; in their banality there is real pathos. In fact, the bland dialogue and delivery explains why sex holds such a powerful lure for these kids. They have access to rare delight and comfort with sex and, weirdly enough, a sense of peace. It rings true. The tragedy plays out that they are all compromised by clueless or pathological parent figures and the sexuality reflects a history of thwarted attachment. The final scene with the three main characters together struck me as very bittersweet since it plays more as a fantasy than a likely scenario.

Art enjoys such a complex, troubled relationship with the American public. We are such a rapidly changing audience with a huge appetite for challenge, yet we don't necessarily absorb the changes we witness. As an audience, we expect far more cultural sophistication than our capacity for balanced interpretation. "Ken Park" is evidence of that.

The Australian government had this film banned. So, that obviously meant that this obscure film that I had never heard of was worth seeing. Thanks to them and the acclaim of Australian film critics (notably Margaret Pomeranz), I - and I assume many others - sought out this film so we could watch it for ourselves.

Whilst the film is certainly not perfect, and is in many ways superficial in it's treatment of the numerous relationships presented (at 90min, they could have easily added another half hour to expand on these), I am glad that films like this exist, if only because they offer an escape from the increasingly similar plots and content of the majority of modern cinema.