Ken Park Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Who are you?
Ken Park focuses on several teenagers and their tormented home lives. Shawn seems to be the most conventional. Tate is brimming with psychotic rage; Claude is habitually harassed by his brutish father and coddled, rather uncomfortably, by his enormously pregnant mother. Peaches looks after her devoutly religious father, but yearns for freedom. They're all rather tight, or so they claim. But they spend precious little time together and none of them seems to know much about one another's family lives. This bizarre dichotomy underscores their alienation # the result of suburban ennui, a teenager's inherent sense of melodrama, and the disturbing nature of their home environments.
| Adam Chubbuck | Ken Park |
| James Bullard | Shawn |
| Seth Gray | Shawn's brother |
| Eddie Daniels | Shawn's mother |
| Zara McDowell | Zoe |
| Maeve Quinlan | Rhonda |
| Stephen Jasso | Claude |
| Wade Williams | Claude's Father |
| Tiffany Limos | Peaches |
| Julio Oscar Mechoso | Peaches' Father |
| James Ransone | Tate |
| Patricia Place | Tate's Grandmother |
| Amanda Plummer | Claude's Mother |
| Mike Apaletegui | Curtis |
| Harrison Young | Tate's Grandfather |
| Larry Clark |
| Edward Lachman |
6.00 out of 10 (6521 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Everyone should see this!!
posted on 29 Jul 2009I am a big fan Larry Clark and when I heard about Ken Park's reputation I had to see it, so I tracked down the DVD and I was blown away by the film. I had high expectations of the film due to all the reviews I had read and I have to say my expectations were fulfilled. I have to say this is on par with 'Kids'. Some people may be offended by the strong sexual content and although the film contains unneccesary nudity some people may see it as necessary to the story. I thought this film was great and strongly recommend it. I just hope it gets released worldwide and that it gets the recognition it deserves.
Social Commentary or Pornographic Exploitation?
posted on 13 Jul 2009The phrase ''controversial film'' evokes an array of feelings. They, often, are watch just for their shock value. For the adrenaline rush or the nausea. Larry Clark's latest picture is no different. It is without a doubt, content-wise absolutely horrific Graphically portraying the lives of several teenagers it counts their sexual, abusive and in one case, incestuous exploits.None thing's for certain, it definitely is NOT a social commentary. I am a 16 year old, and in the mind of Clark, therefore, supposedly right in the middle of this polemic tempest of law-breaking and desire. Yes, this is a factor but Clark has taken this to the hyperbolic extreme.So, what's it purpose? From a craft perspective, it's sound. With the standard attributes for most American indie pics. There's nothing much else on offer.Yes there are a few scenes, glances, shots or indications that are genuinely good and (as the writer/director intended) it is absolutely nauseating and sickening, but tantalising as well. I can only conclude it's abit of a nonexistent, Benin film. The sort of film you would watch with your friends, simply to see the look on their faces. Nothing more, nothing less.
Another Larry Clark Film About F!cked-Up Kids In Very "Adult" Situations...
posted on 15 Jun 2009I will keep my personal opinion of Larry Clark to a minimum. I will say that from the little bit of research that I've done about the man - he seems to be either an actual pedophiliac, or at least unhealthily obsessed with young kids and sexuality. That said - he is also a ground-breaking and unapologetic film-maker who has made some of the most starkly honest and daring films ever. KEN PARK (or KRAP NEK if you prefer...) is another "winner" if you consider scarily realistic (and graphic) depictions of teenage sex and dysfunction to be "good" film material.The film revolves around several characters and their daily lives. Claude's dad is a drunk and an utter douche-rag whose macho facade is shattered in an instant. Peaches is a closet freaky-deaky whose widower father is a religious nut who can't get over the death of his wife, and Peaches pays the price. Shawn "enjoys" a sexual relationship with an older (and smokin' hot) neighbor - who just so happens to be his girlfriend's mother. Tate is a complete whack-job who flakes out over the smallest thing and digs asphyxia-masturbation. And then there's Ken Park (or Krap Nek as he's often referred to in the film) whose discovery of some "bad news" puts him over the edge...I have to say that although I find the pretty graphic depictions in this film a bit over-the-top (graphic masturbation - money shot and all, explicit blow-jobs, etc...) as regardless of the age of the actual actors, the characters themselves are obviously supposed to be somewhere in the 14-16 year-old range - and personally anything that "leans" towards pedophilia type material is my "limit"...KEN PARK is an engrossing and "real" film - even moreso than KIDS or BULLY. This one is far more graphic than the other two, but still does not feel like a truly exploitative film. The performances are all extremely strong and believable, and it makes me wonder where Clark consistently finds this caliber of young actors. There is also a sort of "tenseness" to the film that continues to build until the ultimate "resolution" of each character that is handled perfectly in this film. Again, I don't agree with Clark's seemingly obsessive need to put "young" kids in strong sexual situations - but I do have to say (as contradictory as it may seem) that I "enjoy" his films and appreciate them for being some of the most well-made "shock-dramas" ever to be put on film...9/10
I dun think that it would be shown in Singapore too!
posted on 05 Jun 2009It really suxs that a gd movie like this would not be shown in countries! Especially a movie that touch on children and teenagers should be given the opportunity to be shown but i doubt evenif it was shown in singapore it will also be censored till there's nothing left!
Makes a good, if aimless, attempt to understand the dysfunctional side of youth and their families
posted on 12 May 2009(Possible Spoilers ahead)Larry Clark and Harmony Korine, with Ken Park, create a variation of sorts that they started with when they paired to write and direct Kids (this time they're joined by mostly cinematographer Edward Lachmann). While there aren't any easy solutions to the film, and the way it ends is unsatisfying in its abruptness with its lead characters as well as the one introduced in the opening credits, there weren't easy solutions in Kids either. It's also understandable, I suppose, that the film has been perpetually banned from being screened in the United States (outside of a premiere screening at Telluride) due to the graphic sexual content involving teenage sex. But as with Kids, the themes and emotions and characters being dealt with are important to be viewed at with a mature eye as opposed to being viewed as stuff to get your rocks off with.There are four main characters once were told the brief story of Ken Park (a teenage skateboarder who videotapes his own suicide): there's Shawn, perhaps the most 'normal' of the lead characters, who is dating a girl and at the same time having an affair with her married mother; Peaches seems to be living a good existence with great grades and a good father, but there is an underlying emotional current running between father and daughter that reveals itself as disturbing; Claude is the child of a perpetual white trash (not that there's anything wrong with that) family unit, in which getting along with his father is at the top of his sh*t lost; Nate is the most troubled of the lot, with a three legged dog and grandparents who don't understand him and vice versa. Each of these stories is told with care by the filmmakers, and a few times it does slip into unbelievability, but it isn't often.Ken Park does deal with issues of sex, drug use, alcoholism, religion, and infidelity right out there, with each side given a time to get their point across. It has a different structure than Kids, where parents were practically gone, but there the teens were the focal point. Clark and especially Korine know that, and in Ken Park they wisely show what comes out of adult figures who may or may not by their own thinking traumatize their children. Some story points are left un-explained, and that works and doesn't work- it would've been as compelling if not more if the film didn't end on a expository note related to a symbolic character (that being Ken Park)- however the ambiguity helps too. On top of this, the style infused by Clark and Lachmann is never as shocking as you'd think before you'd watch, and it skims that edge of art and porn without going over onto the wrong side. In the end, Ken Park isn't a masterpiece, but as a 4-piece slice-of-life in this suburban Californian town, the film leaves an audience thinking about it even if they might not like or get 'repulsed' by what they see. B+
Ken Park
posted on 26 Apr 2009Ken Park, is about the lives of several teenagers growing up in California. The characters include Shawn, Claude, Peaches and Tate. Shawn skips school to go over to his girlfriend's house while she or her father is not there and is having a sexual relationship with the mother named Rhonda. Claude, lives with his pregnant mother and his violent and alcoholic father who is always putting him down. Peaches, lives with her religious father and her mother died when she was quite young. Peaches, has a wild side but does not want her father to see it. Tate, lives with his grandparents and he hates them and always yells and them and want them to leave him along and be out of his life. Ken Park, has good direction, a good script, good performances by everyone involved, good cinematography and good film editing. Ken Park, is co-directed by Larry Clark, who brought us such other movies about teenagers as his debut film Kids, and later on Bully. I first saw Kids, late at night when I was at a party and was haunted by the images I saw on the screen and later I rented it and really loved the film because of it's realistic portrayal of how some teenagers are now a days. The film also had good writing and dialog from the film's writer Harmony Korine, who was only a teenager himself when he wrote the script for the film. Kids, was also very artsy and well photographed and had great cinematography and the fact that I later found out that Larry Clark, was a photographer before a filmmaker did not surprise me. Kids, was one of my favourite films of the 90's and I still consider it a haunting and powerful film. Larry Clark's follow up Another Day In Paradise, was a very entertaining road movie and while I did not like it as much as Kids, I still thought that it was a great film. Then came Bully, which was just as good as Kids, and was also haunting and powerful and like Kids, it should be a wakeup call to some parents. Larry Clark, then made the made for TV movie Teenage Caveman (which actually has a few of the actors of Ken Park), and it was a very bad movie and so bad that it was good. I also really liked Harmony Korine. After writing Kids, he wrote and directed the offbeat Gummo, which I really liked and then wrote and directed Julien Donkey-Boy, which I liked a lot as well. Hearing about Ken Park, and that it would be co-directed by Larry Clark, and had a script by Harmony Korine, I was very excited to see it. The film was made in 2002, and that year played at a film festival in America and Canada, and since has premiered mostly through Europe. July of 2003 the film was shown at a public screening from an imported DVD in New South Wales, Australia. The film was later raided by police and shut down. Classification is now refused over in Australia, and the film was banned in Malaysia, and still has not had a release date here in North America. This is because the film features very graphic sex scenes featuring young actors. You pretty much see everything that you would see in a hardcore pornography movie in this film. The film itself started out great and I liked the acting and the dialog and once again I liked Larry Clark, as well as co-director Edward Lachman's photography and thought it was a powerful and disturbing movie. Towards the middle it started to get slow a little but by the end of the film I still liked it and was glad I saw it. As for the sex scenes, because they are so graphic even after three years I think the film will have a hard time playing in North America, or even being released on DVD here. And in a lot of ways I don't really see why the directors decided to use such graphic sex in this movie without knowing that hardly anyone would show the film because of this. I also don't think it was always necessary to shot it that graphically. Seeing as the film has played in Europe, there is now a DVD available in America, off of Ebay, and there are many copies being sold daily and the film is becoming a cult hit. Although a little slow in the middle I still admired the film and thought in some scenes it was really realistic of the way both teens and parents are today and the film still had an impact on me so I'm recommending it. But for those who are easily disturbed than maybe this film won't be for you. And as for Larry Clark, and Harmony Korine, I hope they make another film soon (Larry Clark, is currently making the film Wassup Rockers), and I hope I don't have to use Ebay, to see it or one of their other future films.
"Both grown-ups and kids are victims"
posted on 22 Apr 2009Among the Larry Clark movies I saw Another Day in Paradise is the only one that can be fully considered and evaluated as a movie. Kids and his newest work Ken Park are `performances' rather than ordinary movies. Their main feature is that in them, you can see things that have been taboo up to that time.The easiest way to comment on Ken Park is to compare it with Kids:In Kids, teenagers wouldn't stop talking about sex. In Ken Park, they have sex quite constantly. In Kids, having sex was conveyed to the viewer as something that kids shouldn't do because it ruins their lives. Compared to Ken Park, Kids was almost conventional and plain. In Ken Park, the kids have so many other problems that their – explicitly filmed – sexual activities seem like a relief, like the last pleasant thing in life.Ken Park is (over-?)realistic and in some scenes merely provocative but, compared to Kids, it has more of a storyline (or rather four storylines; it is kind of an episode film), it is never boring and always keeps you awake.Plot turns occur in moments when you wouldn't expect it.Ken Park is full of ideas, it has a broader horizon than Kids. Parents and grandparents, for instance, play a very important role in this film, which is not the case in Kids.Now what is the message of a movie like Ken Park? As cinematographer and co-director Ed Lachman says, `both growns-ups and kids are victims.' We cannot change anything about the situation of a skater community in Visalia, CA. But it is good to have directors like Larry Clark who tells us about their situation and makes us think about it.
A true story about today's kids
posted on 22 Apr 2009Ken Park is a true story about what today's kids have been doing all through their lives.Although the film is controversial,there is no denying the fact that it is highly useful for parents to find for themselves what they have not been providing to their children.In this particular film we have been shown kids who are engaging themselves in what some parents would call objectionable activities.This may be a topic of discussion but it is important to know who these children are and why their parents are not taking proper care of them. Kenpark is not so bad to watch as it has been made by some reviewers and critics but someone from a prudish family cannot show this film to his or her parents.The shocking thing about this film is that by banning it in some countries an effort has been made to smother creative freedom. This is not good for anyone especially not at all for a creative filmmaker like Larry Clark.A word of warning:Kenpark is not a film for people seeking solace in filmed images as it hits you hard on your brain.
Thoroughly depressing, but riveting viewing.
posted on 02 Apr 2009Living 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.
There's no there there
posted on 29 Mar 2009To truly evaluate Ken Park fairly, I think you have to treat the explicit scenes as a red herring. Try to imagine the movie as R-rated instead of NC-17, with none of the nude scenes showing anything below the waist. Then, what do you have? In my view, nothing. It's just not a movie. We get a bunch of character sketches with very little narrative. Of the characters, most are thoroughly unpleasant, many of the rest border on being useless wastes of skin, a couple are inoffensive, and only two are worth caring about.So is it a movie? It's in the same league as the Andy Warhol product of the late 60's and early 70's, Heat, Trash, Flesh and the like. If those are movies, then so is this. In my view, the only extent to which they could be called movies was the extent to which they showed a side of life that hadn't been shown before. Ken Park doesn't do that -- Clark himself has been there, done that. The only thing that hasn't been shown before is these actors' genitalia, and that doesn't make it a movie. (Though it might make it porn...) Larry Clark has certainly had his moments. Kids was an eye-opener, a wake up call to any parents with the courage to watch it. Another Day in Paradise showed us another side of life's seedy underbelly, in the context of a compelling storyline. Bully is where he started to lose it, ditching story and adding verite in what looked like a misguided sense of movie-making priorities. Ken Park goes several more steps in that direction.It's too bad, because there was a movie here to be made, with more focus on Claude and Shawn, and way less of pretty much everybody else -- a story of two kids who survive the minefield of dysfunctional suburban life that their friends don't, ending at the same place: with them wondering if they are better off than Ken Park."So who the hell are you to tell him how he should make his movies?" Ken Park is undeniably "art", in some form or another, and obviously Clark has the right as an artist to do what he wants, and as an artist, he owes his audience nothing. But when the form is presented as a movie, and is being discussed on the Internet MOVIE Database, I think we have to judge it within the context of certain boundaries. Narrative isn't essential, but if there isn't narrative, there should be something there to compensate for its absence, something that has some meaning for the viewer. So I wonder -- what was Clark thinking? Was it his intention to use the explicit nudity as the substitute? Does that mean he actually set out to make porn, and accidentally ended up with something validly artistic? Hmmm...In any case, as a movie, it is a failure.
Pure unadulterated trash.
posted on 23 Mar 2009(Spoilers)Really no other words seem to describe "Ken Park" than this, man this movie is pretty much pointless like a bad reality show like some others users have said. It is neither art, nor is about child abuse because for a variety of reason which include the fact that some of the teens in the movie are as violent as their repugnant parents. Also the movie so poorly addresses this topic there are no counselor/police officer like characters who give any sort of direction to the kids period that really that sort of lame excuse some people have given to the film really fall short. All the movie amounts to is underage porn; There's anal sex being delivered by one teen in graphic fashion, the next scene has her fornicating with her two deadbeat teen friends, culminating with one nasty scene into which a teen masturbates on camera!!! Yeah now you can see then any sort of feasible lie some users have given to the movie don't pan out.If you want some sort of plot basically it deals with several dysfunctional teens (the Asian girl who is catholic is the only normal person in the film along with the murdered grandparents) and the chaos they inflict on others along with their equally sick parents.I heard a lot about the movie but really being familiar with Larry Clark other explicitly violent and sexual repugnant movies I already knew what to expect and I got it, though he would surprised me if he filmed this with any sort of objective point. As I watched the movie, he confirmed he had no real viewpoint, he just filmed a series of violent, trashy scenes together and called it "Ken Park". LolThe one ugly kid who murders his decent grandparent is utterly vile and useless, I kept waiting for him to die, which he did, but his character is way too long to endure. Then Larry Clark, the sick old pervert that he is, tries to pull a "Nekromantik" making this loser masturbate while he kills himself. Pretty pathetic. Like a car crash though I imagine that's what draws viewers in, it's not a good movie By any standards, but by freak circus show, trailer trash standards, "Ken Park" is a masterpiece!!! There is one other normal kid in the film, but he too is almost violated by his gay abusive dadI don't know what really goes on in Larry Clark's head, all his movies are the same trash, putting minors in sexual explicit situations while he as the directors gets of making them get of. I guess you can call this the Michael Jackson complex, where some sicko vicariously tries to live through being sexual with kids.The whole movie is really a joke, and the joke in on the director who filmed it and anyone else who regards this as a great film. It is popular with some teens, I guess they sort of like the rebellion that takes place in the film which I can relate to but really the nature of some of these teens and parents are really nothing to emulate.On a scale of 1-10 Ken Park, gets a very low 3 out 10 and that's being generous.
tiny town of crazies
posted on 09 Mar 2009It is a little town story of common people. I think what the director tries to emphasize is that everybody has an insane, problematic part of mind - especially folks from small places. We see a few teenage guys and their daily lives. Almost every aspect of the film is about sex. The young try to live their sex life and the old are unsatisfied for their condition. A realistic picture is to be intended but there occurs an unrealistic conclusion which I may not mention :). In my opinion it is a film to be seen because of the achievement of its sexual practice scenes. The only poor side of the film is you always look from the "manly" location that may probably should bore the girls... I hope you enjoy the film (I liked it).
Real sex? no problem. Violence is far worse!
posted on 27 Feb 2009***SPOILERS AHEAD***.I HAVE seen this movie. I wouldn't say that I enjoyed it, but that's not really the point. Enjoyment is not the same as experiencing something. Cinema is a story-telling medium. It's not just about art, it's about story-telling, and there were several stories in this movie that needed to be told. Stories that I would rather have presented to me in movie form than to experience personally in life.. and that's what movies are all about.. making you experience something you wouldn't normally experience. It's just part of being human. No one wanted to be on the real "Titanic".. but everyone wanted to read about it and hear about it. The same with September 11. I'm sure there will be movies made about it soon enough, it won't be an enjoyable experience to watch, or to relive.. but I'm sure there will be a worldwide audience for it. Why should this movie be any different?Many have criticised the storyline on "Ken Park", but it must be remembered that stories don't need to have a beginning, middle and end. They can be just events, anecdotes. People need to remember that they can move on from fairy tales that begin with "once upon a time" and finish with "they all lived happily ever after". This movie certainly proves that. "Ken Park" is more documentary in it's approach.. there is no snappy Disney moral to be drawn from the story, no character arc, no conclusions to be made.. but then again, there aren't any in real-life either, are there?Yes.. this movie shows teenage characters participating in experimental sex. So? You can see more sex in a National Geographic animal special. Is that a problem? I personally think it would have been ridiculous to fake the sex scenes in "Ken Park" or to shoot above the waist. I've read several reviews on here complaining about the masturbation scene and it's conclusion. So what.. we all masturbate! It's usually a private act.. but so is crying our eyes out in an emotionally draining part of our lives. I am more upset at seeing that on screen. Actors must use all their skills of observation to bring a character to life. They put their own private lives on the line every time they cry on screen, drawing on past experiences of pain and suffering, to shed real tears. Why should it be any different to masturbate on screen or to actually have sex with someone else.. and not fake it? Nudity is something we confront on a daily basis in front of a mirror, why should that be a problem? No one's being forced.. no one's being harmed. And what's so unnatural about showing a penis either flaccid or erect? It's life.. we are humans and that is what life is about. I was more confronted and disgusted by images I saw on an episode of Jerry Springer where a morbidly obese woman was running around in the mud with just her underwear on! That was gross! What these young (and older) actors did in "Ken Park" was nothing in comparison. To see a human being that obese was far more unnatural (and inhuman) than seeing young people enjoying sex with each other.I'm much more upset at seeing violence on screen and off, and yet most Americans barely notice it. I read a review here on IMDB recently stating that "Hart's War" is a movie more families should watch with their children. That reviewer obviously was not upset about seeing a person's head being blown off, in close-up, in an early scene! Oh and yes, I closed my eyes and covered my face during the violent scenes in "Ken Park". One reviewer on here said he was haunted by the memory of seeing a young boy masturbate. That's nothing compared to seeing a violent act. Grow up.. sex is about enjoyment and creation. Violence is about pain and destruction. I know what I'd rather see any day.The subject matter in this movie was far more confronting than the images shown. We should be more upset by the abuse parents perpetrate on their children physically, mentally and sexually. That's the real message of this movie.If you aren't prepared to see a slice of reality on screen don't bother to see this movie.
Storm in a teacup
posted on 25 Feb 2009Much has been made of this film's depiction of sex. Depending on who you ask, the scenes in question are "brutally honest" or simply "disgustingly pornographic". Both descriptions boil down to the same thing either way: you get to see erections. And ejaculate. A shiver goes through the audience, people shift in their seats - we are not used to seeing this in a non-pornographic movie, and it kind of throws us off-balance for a moment. But then, as it must, the film goes on and we are left to wonder what it was actually about. The reason I dislike this film, as I did both Kids and Bully (two movies that appear tame by comparison), is simply because once you take away the shocking aspects of it - the violence, the no-holds-barred sex scenes - it really isn't about anything much. What Larry Clark is apparently trying to say here, is the same thing he tried to say with his earlier films: being a teenager stinks. Life sucks. It's the kind of wisdom that depressed adolescents spray-paint on walls. In the universe of Larry Clark, there are only two kinds of people: those who abuse, and those who are abused, and those two categories may (and probably will) shift in time. This film's defenders invariably use the same argument sooner or later: "This really happens". And it probably does, but it always happens for a reason. In Kids and Bully, there were no motivations given at all for the character's deplorable behaviour. Rather, they were walking, talking symptoms of an ill-defined social illness, and the movies were none too enlightening for it. Here, Clark (and his co-director Ed Lachmann), make a self-conscious effort at motivating the characters, by including their parents. They're the ones to blame, apparently, all of them negligent of their kids at best and downright (sexually) abusive at worst. Aah, but you see, they too are only looking for love and can't find it. They were neglected or abused by their parents as well, and are now continuing the cycle. Deep, isn't it? In stead of spray painting "Life Sucks", one could argue, that Ken Park as a movie might add the phrase: "And it does for my parents as well". But there's no larger context given to any of this. We get to see the seediness of it (plenty of it), but there is no real insight offered into these characters. Why do these kids (and their parents) do what they do? The only answer the movie seems to be able to provide is: "because they don't get enough true love". Put this exact same message into any made-for-TV melodrama, and people will rightfully spit it out as unbelievably simplistic. We never really get to know any of these characters, much less care about them, because all of them are solely defined by the various ways in which their lives are messed up. We don't remember individuals, we just refer to: "That kid who ate out his girlfriend's mother. That guy who masturbated while choking himself. That girl who was into bondage." In a sense, it becomes a freak show. What they think (indeed, whether or not they think), what they feel, hope, want... It all remains rather vague, hinted at sometimes, but never fully explored, because the movie has ever more bizarre (and exploitative) sexual behaviour to get on with. Two kinds of people will go see this movie: those who live in the same kind of circumstances, and those who don't. Those who don't, can go home with a more or less secure feeling, because everything they saw had been marginalized, put squarely within this box labelled: "The Lives And Times Of Freaky People We Don't Want Anything To Do With". And those who do... What will they take out of this? Nothing resembling even the slightest bit of hope, since no possibility of salvation seems to exist - the kids of Ken Park appear destined to become just as abusive as their parents, and the very last scene has two of them not-quite-saying they'd prefer to have been aborted. I read one reviewer who was apparently trying to earn a spot on the video cover with the quote: "This is a voice that just wants to be heard. Is that too much to ask?" No, of course not, but the voice doesn't have a lot to say, I'm afraid.Movies like this, which contain what might be described as extreme amounts of either sex or violence, seem to have a built-in defence mechanism, whereby if you didn't like it, or object to it, you are automatically labelled a prude, who was enormously shocked by it and therefore stopped thinking. Or even worse: a censurer, who would take all "art" he doesn't like, throw it on a big pile and burn it. I assure you I'm neither. In fact, given the amount of discussion about this movie's sexual content, I'd expected it to be even more explicit than it was. And I would never want to ban anything just because I didn't like it. But I also don't believe in that knee-jerk reaction some people have of automatically praising everything that seems to shock others. This is the kind of film that tries to bully you into thinking it's actually about something. Five years from now, after all the fuss has died down, Ken Park will be remembered - if at all - as a storm in a teacup, one of those movies that come along every so often, that everyone has something to say about, but when looked on soberly, in retrospect, really wasn't worth the hassle. Pretty much the same has happened for Kids, after all.
I love Larry Clark's world.
posted on 26 Jan 2009If you don't get Larry Clark, do not bother. You either get it or you don't. For all of you people out there who don't understand this movie, go and do some research. Go and get Tulsa (1971), Teenage Lust (1983), 1992, Perfect Childhood, and etc. These are all books that have changed the world and how we look at it. The book Tulsa changed the world of photography, art, film, and music. It is well known that Lou Reed, Gus Van Sant, Bruce Weber, Nan Goldin, and many, many more credit the book Tulsa for their work and inspiration. Many artists over the years have copied his work and made it commericial. For example, Steven Miesel and Calvin Klein.Ken Park has been in the works for ten years. It was too explicit to get funding. There are four characters who are new to the Hollywood scene.Tiffany Limos gives the best performance of her life. You just want to save her and give her a better life. She really steals the movie away. The other actors are also mind boggling. Stephen Jasso gives a real performance and James Bullard acts nonchalantly within his environment. James Ransone gives us a little taste of sugar, instead of using a teaspoon, he uses a laddle. Larry Clark is the best director of all time and he is truly a pioneer and nothing less. He has done it again. He did it with his books and with his past movies. But Ken Park has taken the cake, the whole prize.Ken Park touches on subjects that we all go through. There are serious issues on sex, suicide, murder, religion, and more coming of age activites. Everyone can relate to someone or a situation in the film. Everyone can relate to the character of Claude (Stephen Jasso), having to live up to a parent's standards, Shawn's (James Bullard) sex drive and attraction to an older woman with a forbidden age, Tate's (James Ransone) anger towards his grandparents and his eagerness to always win, and then there is Peaches (played by the beautiful and talented Tiffany Limos, who is going to become a star after this film is released) whom kids can relate to because of her father's religios obsession and distorted views of the world at large.You better hold on tight to your seat when you see this movie because you won't belive your eyes. You will want to see this movie again and again. Why you may ask? Because the acting is so strong and the movie is so powerful, you feel like you are a peeping tom and spying on people that are actually doing those acts (I can't say because the acts are too explicit and I do not want to give the plot away). It is like when you are a little kid and you see people in the act for the first time, you want to walk away but instead, you end up watching.
I killed my grandmother because she was a passive aggressive bitch!
posted on 13 Dec 2008What a line, and what a movie."I killed my grandfather because he is a cheater, who tells war stories." Yeah they deserved it. The B***ards.Larry Clark for myself and my peers has been the only film maker who made films about us. Well that was eight years ago with kids when i was that age. Now in my mid twenties, this film gave me that jealously feeling of the young. (a motif portrayed in the film by the mother doing her daughters boyfriend) We are all try to hold on to our youth, be it with fancy diets, gym membership, hair dye or myself still riding bmx whilst being nearer to thirty than i'd like to be.To say this film lack motivation and momentum would be an understatement, but it was perfectly paced. We drop in to these kids lifes in times of change, in the upheaval. It is shocking, but it also so unemotive within the context that it left me ambivalent to their function. Do we really need a money shot in a masturbation scene? maybe. In fact I almost see a methodology at work. But what follows is an unnecessary second shot of the said substance dangling of his thang to the floor. Same can be said for the guy taking a leak. Mr Clark sound effects would had sufficed rather than a close up tilting from chest to said action.In fairness i am all for pushing boundaries in cinema, i was the first to get outraged when the bbfc in this country removed three and half minutes from Miike's Ichii the killer because it my damage our sheltered brains. Yet Irreversible remains untouched, clearly showing that the censors don't touch reality, because reality represented in cinema is Art. so i am sure when this finally gets a release in this country it maybe passed uncut. (but i doubt it) What is wrong with this film is that it doesn't let you imagine, fill in the blanks. Sometimes the reality is purer and more believable when a step is taken back and it is left alone. The controversial scenes to me seemed staged, free of the inhibitions found in the my favourite scenes from Kids, (little kids smoking dope, chatting S**t, every scene with Casper, the deflowering) sometimes less is more.Ken Park is interesting in the respect it has for it characters, they are all fully developed and living and breathing up on the screen. It was good to see Amanda Plummer missing in action in anything decent since The Prophecy, Freeway and The Fisher King. All the young cast also gave career making performances especially Stephen Lasso as the bruised and beaten skater Claude.This is a good film but in no ways great. I've seen everything Larry Clark and Harmony Korine have stamped their unique ideology upon and if we were going to rate them, this would be my second least favourite. (teenage caveman being the worst, it's just horrid, although some of the same actors appear in Ken Park, it is shockingly bad) Gummo, Kids, Another day in paradise, Julien, donkey boy and Bully just seem to have more structure, more of a point. i don't hate this film, i just don't love it like all the others. this is a film about a couple of moments, not the conclusive whole.Remember kids if life is getting you down, you always have each other, have a three way, take a camera and turn it into a movie. But most importantly remember your back story, you must all be fleshed out, you must all have lifes outside of this act of intimacy or else all you are making is porn. Now i'll leave you with the last lines of the film for us all to ponder........"aren't you glad your mum didn't abort you?"
I'm from Visalia
posted on 11 Nov 2008I graduated from Redwood in '85 (ken park does an ollie off the library steps in the opening). Very accurate, I was in Plaid Retina and hung out a lot with these types of kids. In fact, when I saw "KIDS", my first reaction was saying "...Visalia..." under my breath. The only difference I saw between ken park and my personal experience was they listened to gangster rap and nothing else, but that was awhile ago, I moved away to Austin in '94. Thank godd they've grown out of THAT, the talentless music didn't compliment their god-like skating talent. Good work, Larry. I don't know how you found out about Visalia, but you've nailed it, all way down to the furniture in the different homes. We even knew a kid who cussed his elderly parents out at full volume, EXACTLY like Tate does. One thing WAS missing...where was all the crank?
Youth Hell
posted on 30 Oct 2008How is it possible to ban such a movie? Yes there are X-rated scenes and yes, there are some heavy violence, although you've probably seen worse. Until the harm really is proved, everybody over 18 should be entitled to see whatever they like. The 15-year-old limit in Sweden might be discussed however.But let's go back to this movie. Larry Clark has done again for sure. There is no director who can take extreme evil and put it in real life like he is. There is really an air of normal Californian life in the surroundings here, but behind that you find incest, totally sick religion, insanity and hatred. And you believe it to be real.That is much because of the extremely good young actors. There really is no plot here, just an ongoing situation. It's not easy to see this, even if you have a rather big tolerance towards pornography and blood. But you really ought to see it. One of the best films of 2002!
Depraved children blame their parents for everything, while indulging in perversions of every kind.
posted on 04 Sep 2008The sole aim of this exploitation film camouflaged as a social drama is to shock. Ironically, it's actually predictable. The same plot-device gets used over and over: a kid thinks his parent is gone for a while, but they come back early and do EXACTLY what you know they will do. Of course, there was going to be pedophilia, and of course incest, and murder, and and and. It's the same people who brought us "Kids", after all. (A far better film, I might add.) Everybody's screwed up: yes, we get the picture. No need to show erect penises of minors, and even less necessary to show sperm flying out of one of them. If I wanted porn, I'd have watched porn instead of this trite "drama". And the humour? Where was the humour? "Can I lick your pussy" is not funny, it's merely pornographic cursing, the kind you can hear in synchronized form in your average Hungarian porno. Whereas the movie "Happiness" brilliantly dealt with "shocking" subjects, i.e. with style, great dialogue, hilarious moments, "KP" is merely a string of depraved and occasionally dull scenes that convey nothing meaningful and fail ultimately as entertainment. The acting is good, the sense of reality also, but this film is far more suited to pedophiles and other perverts than intelligent, "straight" viewers like me.Forget this garbage. Don't say you weren't warned: the movie includes a teenager masturbating – and ejecting – while strangling himself, and a father coming home drunk who starts to feel up his adolescent son. Avoid.
a brilliant, historic film.
posted on 04 Aug 2009Larry Clark is one of the most polarizing directors of today -- you either love or hate his films. KIDS and BULLY both went to extremes to depict their statement of moral decay amongst today's youth.KEN PARK goes further. Much further.The film is historic. It re-examines what actions in our lives are fair game to be shown in the cinema. It shows everything -- it is the most realistic and honest film I have ever seen. I never thought I would be moved by watching a guy jerk himself off, and then come on his hands... but hey, I wasn't expecting a lot of the things in KEN PARK.This is a better film than Bully, or even Kids, in my opinion. I didn't enjoy Bully because I couldn't sympathize with the characters -- they were ignorant twits whose repulsive actions were only topped by their willingness to commit them. Ken Park shows us the good in its characters. You can't help but like them, because you see them striving to be better people. To rise above the s**t they have to deal with. It's just sometimes, when they think they're doing what's right... it isn't. They don't have all the answers. They're not always good, or bad either. They are human beings. True human beings, depicted in a way that nobody has ever had the guts to do so before.I don't think very many people will get the opportunity to see this film. I saw it unedited at a festival, and can say that there's no chance of it being released, as is, in theatres. It would be deemed 'pornographic', and 'obscene' by those in our society who choose our morals for us. This is more graphic than Clark's other films, but I don't feel it is gratuitous, nor exploitative. It is necessary, and even beautiful. The depiction of sex and nudity has a message: that sex can be positive and healthy, as well as negative and sinful. Both cases are shown, in various contexts, and although some people will only see young naked bodies (and then be outraged at the film, when the problem is with themselves), others will see something deeper.All I can say is this: Don't let other opinions influence yours. Don't worry about who you have to censor this film for. See it for yourself. Think for yourself.