Pushing the boundaries and taking me out of it
Just saw Ken Park on Video last night. It is banned in Australia. Let me first say I am not commenting on the 'ban' of the film as I believe that we shouldn't censor in this country. I think as free thinking adults we have the right to choose what we want to watch. Ok - So perhaps snuff is going too far. That's murder and that's a completely different kettle of fish.
I am merely commenting on the film and asking WHY the subject matter that was deemed offensive had to be in the film.
It is offensive, but that isn't the point, I find Tom Cruise offensive so...
For those of you who are not familiar with Ken park, it is a Larry Clarke film (the director of kids, and Bully).
In Ken park he explores similar, in fact the exact same subject matter as his other films which in itself makes me want to say - FUCK move on - You've done it - Is there only one thing in this world worth commenting on for christsake?!
Its about a bunch of kids and there suburban home-lives with their dysfunctional families.
Larry uses real sex, real cocksucking, real rug munching between a forty year old mother and a fifteen year old kid, teenage orgy's etc.
Its not that this film contains or depicts these senarios its the fact that it has to be really actually done. It is ACTING for fucks sake. We are not porn stars. If I was married to a woman who was in a DRAMA and she told me she had to actually fuck someone and actually suck their cock on screen I would be furious. The same if iI was asked to do it - GET FUCKED. It simply isn't important to see it. Its filmmaking for fucks sake - Its not real. go and make a porn documentary. You are not even embracing Dogme - you are lighting the set, you have production design - so fuck right off.
The actng is fantastic, if verging on melodramatic at times, the setting is real, honest, and usually this would be the type of film I love.
Films like, The war Zone, nil by Mouth, Secrets and Lies, naked, my Name is Joe, Sweet Sixteen just to name a few are some of the most compelling, wonderfully realised films I have ever seen. I love film that represents us, or at least a section of society, and I love it when its real and brutal, I like that these films hold up a mirror to a culture that is rarely explored in film, especially in Hollywood. I love these films, these tiny stories, that draw reference to the greater world.
Ken Park has all these elements, but everytime I see these real sex scenes, the boy who we watch masturbate from soft til he ejaculates in the air before we pan down to a close up of cum dripping from his hand, which still holds his cock. Real come people. Porn.
I was annoyed I guess because I was really into this kids story and as soon as these type of scenes come on, I am taken out of the film, and all I can think of is the fact that its real, the fact that this ACTOR actually did that, the fact that the director wanted to create realism etc.
I find that sort of realism false. The fact that its real, somehow makes it less real than if it was pretend. You can't just have everything else acting and the sex stuff real - coz you are a fuckwit and want to shock people. It should be handled the same way as the rest of the film otherwise I can see the heavy iron hand of the director in the scenes.
Direction like cinematography should be a gentle coaxing, it should be there but not overbearing, it should be a guiding hand, not a fucking fist. let your story be the fist - let the subject matter and the characters be the fist - Reasons I hate Guy Ritchie films. I can see him really trying. Its too much.
In short - Although this has been long - I actually see no need for actors to actually have sex, I hate this Larry for being a pervert, and for trying to be controversial, and perhaps with me writing this blog he has won again.
If he is after talk - Then he is a good manipulator, if he wants to be a good director, then I fear he is destroying his obvious talent in pursuit of something less substantial, and less impressive.
It's easy to shock, it is easy to get people talking... Its not easy to make a great film that engages an audience from start to finish.
Its about story Larry - STORY. You've created a good one - now let it live and fuck off your ego and need to be controv. Please. You are breaking my heart.
You are a talented man. You just must be a cockjocky. Story mate.
Larry Clarke - You have failed.
ps - I am nude in my next film. But I won't really be having sex with the girl.
As Lawrence Olivier once said to Dustin Hoffman on Marathon Man when Dustin had been out on the town all night without sleep to do a scene where he was tired... "Why don't you try acting dear boy".
I am merely commenting on the film and asking WHY the subject matter that was deemed offensive had to be in the film.
It is offensive, but that isn't the point, I find Tom Cruise offensive so...
For those of you who are not familiar with Ken park, it is a Larry Clarke film (the director of kids, and Bully).
In Ken park he explores similar, in fact the exact same subject matter as his other films which in itself makes me want to say - FUCK move on - You've done it - Is there only one thing in this world worth commenting on for christsake?!
Its about a bunch of kids and there suburban home-lives with their dysfunctional families.
Larry uses real sex, real cocksucking, real rug munching between a forty year old mother and a fifteen year old kid, teenage orgy's etc.
Its not that this film contains or depicts these senarios its the fact that it has to be really actually done. It is ACTING for fucks sake. We are not porn stars. If I was married to a woman who was in a DRAMA and she told me she had to actually fuck someone and actually suck their cock on screen I would be furious. The same if iI was asked to do it - GET FUCKED. It simply isn't important to see it. Its filmmaking for fucks sake - Its not real. go and make a porn documentary. You are not even embracing Dogme - you are lighting the set, you have production design - so fuck right off.
The actng is fantastic, if verging on melodramatic at times, the setting is real, honest, and usually this would be the type of film I love.
Films like, The war Zone, nil by Mouth, Secrets and Lies, naked, my Name is Joe, Sweet Sixteen just to name a few are some of the most compelling, wonderfully realised films I have ever seen. I love film that represents us, or at least a section of society, and I love it when its real and brutal, I like that these films hold up a mirror to a culture that is rarely explored in film, especially in Hollywood. I love these films, these tiny stories, that draw reference to the greater world.
Ken Park has all these elements, but everytime I see these real sex scenes, the boy who we watch masturbate from soft til he ejaculates in the air before we pan down to a close up of cum dripping from his hand, which still holds his cock. Real come people. Porn.
I was annoyed I guess because I was really into this kids story and as soon as these type of scenes come on, I am taken out of the film, and all I can think of is the fact that its real, the fact that this ACTOR actually did that, the fact that the director wanted to create realism etc.
I find that sort of realism false. The fact that its real, somehow makes it less real than if it was pretend. You can't just have everything else acting and the sex stuff real - coz you are a fuckwit and want to shock people. It should be handled the same way as the rest of the film otherwise I can see the heavy iron hand of the director in the scenes.
Direction like cinematography should be a gentle coaxing, it should be there but not overbearing, it should be a guiding hand, not a fucking fist. let your story be the fist - let the subject matter and the characters be the fist - Reasons I hate Guy Ritchie films. I can see him really trying. Its too much.
In short - Although this has been long - I actually see no need for actors to actually have sex, I hate this Larry for being a pervert, and for trying to be controversial, and perhaps with me writing this blog he has won again.
If he is after talk - Then he is a good manipulator, if he wants to be a good director, then I fear he is destroying his obvious talent in pursuit of something less substantial, and less impressive.
It's easy to shock, it is easy to get people talking... Its not easy to make a great film that engages an audience from start to finish.
Its about story Larry - STORY. You've created a good one - now let it live and fuck off your ego and need to be controv. Please. You are breaking my heart.
You are a talented man. You just must be a cockjocky. Story mate.
Larry Clarke - You have failed.
ps - I am nude in my next film. But I won't really be having sex with the girl.
As Lawrence Olivier once said to Dustin Hoffman on Marathon Man when Dustin had been out on the town all night without sleep to do a scene where he was tired... "Why don't you try acting dear boy".
posted by Roguemaze Central at 9:42 AM
9 Comments:
Fucking WURD.
I saw Ken Park too. I think there is a lot to be said about a director who can convey something without actually showing it!
For example, we know the son is having an affair with his girlfriend's mother. We do not need to see him going the growl on her, it just detracts from the situation. Simply having them go into the bedroom together would've said enough.
Watch "It Happened One Night" (1934). It's one of the best examples of a sexual relationship happening on screen and they never even kiss!
You're right. Story mate, story.
The scene is not nessicary to the story at all.
There are ways to tell the same story without pornography.
I hope you have to do a cocksucking scene one day and see how you react to actually having to do it for supposed 'ART'.
I thought that Dustin Hoffman/Larry O story involved Hoffman running around getting puffed and sweaty in order to portray a puffed and sweaty runner. But I may be misinformed.
i was thinking the exact same thing when i was watching 9 songs. everytime they fucked or went down on each other i couldn't help but think of the actor having to actually do that and then their family, friends and possible partners having to watch it on the big screen.... anyone can fuck, doing it on camera doesn't make you an actor.
do you mean michael hutchence, sass
i haven't seen ken park but i agree with you RM that actors shouldn't be doing that sort of stuff. if only for the reason that it is really distracting - from the story and the characters. i need to be able to suspend my disbelief and it is really hard when you're thinking 'omigod, how can s/he do that'. i saw intimacy by hanif kureishi and it was a distraction to see kerry fox sucking the actor's dick, knowing she is a respected actor. i quite enjoyed the film however, despite it. that scene wasn't at all erotic to me.
the problem is that then pressure increases for actors to do more real stuff, the stakes are raised, and it becomes the norm. as everyone becomes desensitised to extreme visuals, the bar has to be raised and raised to get the heat and the hyperbole happening.
and then where does it stop? mainstream snuff movies?
do i sound like a prude?
ps DXXXX - trying on bikinis with boots is hot; trying on undies with runners is not.
oh and i love this bit:
ps - I am nude in my next film. But I won't really be having sex with the girl.
nicely done there roguemaze. was this in fact the kernel of the whole blog? you are so funny.
9 Songs had some very full on sex scenes. I would have called it porn, yet it was only rated R.
Werd!
Everytime someone needs to employ shock value, I think it derides from the credibility of the actual talent. I immediately get cynical and think, "Isn't the story/direction good enough to stand up on its own?"
There was a very good review about you in the Adelaide Review. I cut it out to send to you.
Its so exploitative. That poor 15 year old wanna-be big time actor.
Yuck.
Post a Comment
<< Home