DARE-AOKE ROUND 7
Ken Park - dir. Larry Clark and Edward Lachman, 2002, US/NEA/FRA
Aww, poor Ken Park is out in the ether of films without American distribution! Despite what some would have you believe, the audacity and the subject matter isn’t the only thing keeping this from finding a distributer. Yeah, full frontal nudity, graphic violence, graphic sex, and un-simulated masturbation will probably garner you an NC-17, but the other factor is this – it’s a piece of shit. Thanks to the internet, I was able to obtain it and was finally dared by Joe to give it a viewing. That ginger moppet up there is Ken Park, himself, which it’s explained is "krap nek" backwards. Clever! I’m not a huge fan of Larry Clark’s work. Unlike myself, Larry and his films seems to have not grown up well. I think Kids, for all of its possible intentions as a cautionary tale, has become an exaggerated icon for my generation and younger. This is the re-teaming of writer Harmony Korine and Clark, and they work their magic once again. There’s something about their idea of dysfunctional reality that works its way past tough to watch and into unwatchable. Clark’s vision isn’t even surreal, it’s just fantasy. Most unwatchable of the stories in the film revolves around the character of Tate (The Wire’s James Ransone), who violently hates his dog and his grandparents that he lives with. He also enjoys asphyxiating himself and masturbating to the grunts of female tennis players. Seriously, you can’t make this shit up. Well, apparently Corine and Clark can! It of course results in Tate viciously murdering all three of them in the middle of the night. There isn’t any real rationale for it, unlike Clark’s take on the true story behind Bully. At least Clark sets up that antagonist as a complete prick before a gang of youth murder him. Perhaps Clark is looking to garner a reaction of hatred toward his films with including all the controversial ideas and themes. I can't really figure out his motives, to be honest. You can call him a pervert, a creep, or a sadist, or whatever else you’d like, but ultimately he’s just a shoddy director. That’s the worst insult of all. Okay, maybe not.
-M
Ken Park - dir. Larry Clark and Edward Lachman, 2002, US/NEA/FRA
Aww, poor Ken Park is out in the ether of films without American distribution! Despite what some would have you believe, the audacity and the subject matter isn’t the only thing keeping this from finding a distributer. Yeah, full frontal nudity, graphic violence, graphic sex, and un-simulated masturbation will probably garner you an NC-17, but the other factor is this – it’s a piece of shit. Thanks to the internet, I was able to obtain it and was finally dared by Joe to give it a viewing. That ginger moppet up there is Ken Park, himself, which it’s explained is "krap nek" backwards. Clever! I’m not a huge fan of Larry Clark’s work. Unlike myself, Larry and his films seems to have not grown up well. I think Kids, for all of its possible intentions as a cautionary tale, has become an exaggerated icon for my generation and younger. This is the re-teaming of writer Harmony Korine and Clark, and they work their magic once again. There’s something about their idea of dysfunctional reality that works its way past tough to watch and into unwatchable. Clark’s vision isn’t even surreal, it’s just fantasy. Most unwatchable of the stories in the film revolves around the character of Tate (The Wire’s James Ransone), who violently hates his dog and his grandparents that he lives with. He also enjoys asphyxiating himself and masturbating to the grunts of female tennis players. Seriously, you can’t make this shit up. Well, apparently Corine and Clark can! It of course results in Tate viciously murdering all three of them in the middle of the night. There isn’t any real rationale for it, unlike Clark’s take on the true story behind Bully. At least Clark sets up that antagonist as a complete prick before a gang of youth murder him. Perhaps Clark is looking to garner a reaction of hatred toward his films with including all the controversial ideas and themes. I can't really figure out his motives, to be honest. You can call him a pervert, a creep, or a sadist, or whatever else you’d like, but ultimately he’s just a shoddy director. That’s the worst insult of all. Okay, maybe not.
-M
Comments