New Harmony Koreine (fuck spelling that name) documentary

[dalamar501]

Larry Clark's newer movie.

About Kids...
with lots of sex...
and weird shit.
written by an old screen play of Korine's


hahah not a whole lot happens between the various kids story lines.

[canon.docre]

Hahaha. Sorry.

Okay, basically that movie was about nothing. The dialog was garbage, the actors were okay at best, the story had no point beyond being oppressively depressing, half the scenes could have been cut and the movie would not have changed in the slightest (for me specifically, it was scenes like when the two male protagonists end up at one of their friends houses, and they all have a conversation about fucking...and then they leave. The only thing that's established is that none of them care about getting AIDS/understand how one gets it, which had pretty much already been established at the beginning of the movie in a much more interesting manner. Also, as hilarious as it was, the "I got no legs" part of the movie was completely unnecessary. There were a bunch more, but it's been quite a few years since I've seen the movie), there is no actual character development, simply the ghost of a possibility of one. I could go on. It was basically just a movie about a couple of underage dudes fucking underage girls, OH and one of them has AIDS which he inadvertently passes on to his friend. At best it' was a heavy handed parable about AIDS that provided no depth or empathy to the concept, at worst it was simply there for shock value and exploited an epidemic to that end. Shitty...fucking...movie.

You know, for someone who seems to like non-mainstream cinema you seem to be rather upset that Kids doesn't have the formulaic components of Hollywood movies. The dialogue wasn't necessarily garbage, it was, as I see it, the polar opposite of a movie like Clerks; the dialogue in Kids seemed more broken up and natural than one pseudo-intellectual diatribe after another. Why should a movie have a point other than being depressing? I'm not even saying that this movie didn't have more depth than that, because in my opinion (and a lot of others) it did. And this movies approach, as well as its content, is quite unique which is a refreshing change. It's interesting for me to think about, I saw Kids when I was quite young, and thought to myself "no kids fucking act like this" but as I got a bit older I realized "holy shit, kids totally do act like this." I swear to god through the years I've been in a few scenes from that movie. The "I got no legs" part was as necessary as many other parts of the movie, to remind you that they are actually at the point of mental and personal development where they actually have empathy, yet fail to apply it to their peers, or women for that matter. At that point had they even seemed aware that other people suffer, let alone that they were causing it. Do you feel since it didn't deal with the aids "sub-plot" with more screen time for the one girl, it somehow makes the movie exploitative? I thought it was an interesting mechanism to really give you the sense of "you can get aids by doing something really stupid and bam, you just have it, no warning, you're fucked." Did the movie Philadelphia wrap up all the different faces of the aids problem for you or something?

[Hollow]

Hahaha. Sorry.

Okay, basically that movie was about nothing. The dialog was garbage, the actors were okay at best, the story had no point beyond being oppressively depressing, half the scenes could have been cut and the movie would not have changed in the slightest (for me specifically, it was scenes like when the two male protagonists end up at one of their friends houses, and they all have a conversation about fucking...and then they leave. The only thing that's established is that none of them care about getting AIDS/understand how one gets it, which had pretty much already been established at the beginning of the movie in a much more interesting manner. Also, as hilarious as it was, the "I got no legs" part of the movie was completely unnecessary. There were a bunch more, but it's been quite a few years since I've seen the movie), there is no actual character development, simply the ghost of a possibility of one. I could go on. It was basically just a movie about a couple of underage dudes fucking underage girls, OH and one of them has AIDS which he inadvertently passes on to his friend. At best it' was a heavy handed parable about AIDS that provided no depth or empathy to the concept, at worst it was simply there for shock value and exploited an epidemic to that end. Shitty...fucking...movie.

You know, for someone who seems to like non-mainstream cinema you seem to be rather upset that Kids doesn't have the formulaic components of Hollywood movies. The dialogue wasn't necessarily garbage, it was, as I see it, the polar opposite of a movie like Clerks; the dialogue in Kids seemed more broken up and natural than one pseudo-intellectual diatribe after another. Why should a movie have a point other than being depressing? I'm not even saying that this movie didn't have more depth than that, because in my opinion (and a lot of others) it did. And this movies approach, as well as its content, is quite unique which is a refreshing change. It's interesting for me to think about, I saw Kids when I was quite young, and thought to myself "no kids fucking act like this" but as I got a bit older I realized "holy shit, kids totally do act like this." I swear to god through the years I've been in a few scenes from that movie. The "I got no legs" part was as necessary as many other parts of the movie, to remind you that they are actually at the point of mental and personal development where they actually have empathy, yet fail to apply it to their peers, or women for that matter. At that point had they even seemed aware that other people suffer, let alone that they were causing it. Do you feel since it didn't deal with the aids "sub-plot" with more screen time for the one girl, it somehow makes the movie exploitative? I thought it was an interesting mechanism to really give you the sense of "you can get aids by doing something really stupid and bam, you just have it, no warning, you're fucked." Did the movie Philadelphia wrap up all the different faces of the aids problem for you or something?

Ack. Sorry dude, didn't mean to bust on one of your favorite movies. This stuff is totally just in my opinion.

I do enjoy non-mainstream cinema. But I'm also a writer, and so the concepts of narrative structure are incredibly important to me. I'm also fully aware that not every movie has to have a great, in depth message, but the movies that are able to pull that off (say Die Hard) do so because they are also incredibly self aware. John MClane is never more than what he appears to be: a tired old cop who seriously just wants a whiskey and a nap. In the opposite direction, movies that are cinematically daring (and I'm more than happy to say that Kids fits that bill) NEED to have a message, or at least a point. While perhaps I was wrong on the AIDS sub plot (and I'll admit it's been a little over a decade since I've last seen the film) I'm not sure I really see a message or point behind the movie as a whole. And a movie like Kids (or Eraserhead, which I'm also not a fan of) that doesn't (at least in my opinion) have a message are simply doing so out of a need/want to shock. Shock value for it's own sake does not equate art. There was a point to the anti-art of the Dadaists. There wasn't much of a point to Warhol's work, to put it into metaphor.

I'm not sure. We should watch this movie at some point, because I'd like to sort of reiterate (in my mind) my reasons for disliking it as much as I do.

Of course, this brings up the whole debate of "if it makes you discuss it, if it challenges your precepts of art, then it's art". So maybe by disliking it and expressing that dislike, I'm legitimizing it's artistic credibility.

Maybe I talk to much.

[ZACH ATTACK]

It's pretty safe to say that 95% of the time I don't take anything away from arsty fartsy shit than "that's some artsy fartsy shit," but lots of other people take away deeper meanings. So I guess what I'm getting at is that with "art" being an abstract and subjective concept just because one can't find any deeper meaning a piece that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of any artistic merit. I have next to no ability to visualize things and because of that I find visual art to be boring at best and incredibly frustrating at worst, but just because I can't see any artistic statement or a point to it that doesn't mean it doesn't have one. But maybe that's what you were getting at and I'm being redundant.

And I guess I might as well call myself out while I'm at it, I'm fully aware that I'm same guy who says things like "I like art." But I also think that I've explained it's because I don't understand most visual art and I like not understanding things. And if I haven't already explained this I'm doing it now I guess. So it's not so much that I like art as much as it is I like that I don't understand the point of most art, but I also think I've explained this a few times but maybe not.

I also think it's arguable that Worhal's work was a commentary on consumerism and throw away culture, even though I think he was putz and more of an opportunist than an artist.

[KYLESTYLE]

Maybe I talk to much.

this blooper is all sorts of funny.

also, i enjoy this discussion.

i've read a bunch of shitty, cliche reviews about this movie and they all seem to encompass, "kids are fucked up these days. this stuff really happens. what's wrong with our kids?" maybe i'm completely wrong, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for this movie to represent the animalistic nature of humans exemplified within a specific 'group' of people, generally known as innocent.

i don't know, i think the movie is profound, but that's just me.

[Rude Boy Puff]

When 15 I saw kids for the skateboarding, weed smoking, and bitch hunting, then I grew up and saw it as a poorly written social statement that I either didnt get or missed the point. Either way it is no longer an entertaining use of the one and one half hours it requires to see.

[dalamar501]

talking about movies with kids..

i kind of want to see this never seen it..
was in vice issue a few issues back

[Rude Boy Puff]

troy if this isnt your favorite movie about "kids" you might lose your show.

"eat your cereal with a fork and do your homework in the dark"

[dalamar501]

i would watch that.
haven't seen it

[Hollow]

Pump Up the Volume rules.

[FANTASTIC WOUND]

Kids fucking sucked

sucked, did it?

Yes. Yes it did.

Can you walk me through an explanation of why that movie sucked? It better be more than a 1-2 sentence witticism about a singular part of the movie, if you follow ..

Hahaha. Sorry.

Okay, basically that movie was about nothing. The dialog was garbage, the actors were okay at best, the story had no point beyond being oppressively depressing, half the scenes could have been cut and the movie would not have changed in the slightest (for me specifically, it was scenes like when the two male protagonists end up at one of their friends houses, and they all have a conversation about fucking...and then they leave. The only thing that's established is that none of them care about getting AIDS/understand how one gets it, which had pretty much already been established at the beginning of the movie in a much more interesting manner. Also, as hilarious as it was, the "I got no legs" part of the movie was completely unnecessary. There were a bunch more, but it's been quite a few years since I've seen the movie), there is no actual character development, simply the ghost of a possibility of one. I could go on. It was basically just a movie about a couple of underage dudes fucking underage girls, OH and one of them has AIDS which he inadvertently passes on to his friend. At best it' was a heavy handed parable about AIDS that provided no depth or empathy to the concept, at worst it was simply there for shock value and exploited an epidemic to that end. Shitty...fucking...movie.

In total agreeance. Kids was garbage. Gummo and Julian Donkey-boy > Kids.

[FANTASTIC WOUND]

Oh, and Ken Park? GROSS.