Kids (1995) By Larry Clark

After watching Kids last week, i have to admit i just could not see the point in the film. If i had actually paid to watch Kids i would have wanted my money back.

I've been doing a little bit of research and on Wikipedia and a few other sites it says that the guy who played Casper in the film (Justin Pierce) committed suicide in 2000. I wonder if that's because his film debut in Kids just really didn't take off the way he thought it would?

I think the one thing that the producers knew would sell this film is its shock value. Its obvious that with the immoral behaviour and topics in the film would create a frenzy in the media which we all know creates a cult following of people who are into this kind of stuff. The film was very raw, and the fact that most of the actors were filming their debuts' made it all the more gritty.

When the film first came on i was shocked at how quickly the film went into sex scenes. Normally, films build up to that kind of thing but Kids went straight into it. The list of immoral behaviour in the film is endless, but i found the paedophilia (which it obviously was as they were under age) distasteful. As i was watching the film, i was sitting there thinking the producers can't stoop any lower after that, but then there was something even more shocking after it.

I've yet to meet one person who enjoyed watching Kids, so apart from making millions for the producers, what else does the film actually achieve? You could say its an educational message about underage sex and HIV, but did the film show this in a bad light? I think not, and besides, there are thousands of other ways of teaching children and parents about this stuff without making them watch Kids. Out of all the immoral and bad stuff in the film, i felt the film did not actually have a moral or point about how bad these things were.

Another thing i thought of is that Kids is not a true representation of the UK and its drug scene. It might represent the USA, and I've lived years around drug addicts of all kinds, and i have never met anyone who even slightly represents Telly with his paedophilic behaviour. I have never met anyone who got so excited about 'deflowering' underage virgins.

Someone said the film should be shown to all parents, but wouldn't this just add to the paranoia parents constantly feel in the UK about drugs, paedophiles and violence? Somebody else said that some people (obviously hinting at the lower class people in society) would not get the message about HIV, which i thought was stupid, is there anyone in the UK who does not know about the dangers of HIV? I don't think that just because someone lives on a council estate they are thick.

I'd agree with the author who said Kids had a 'thin' story line, it was crap. I don't think its possible to stuff together as many shocking topics in such a short space of time and still not have a decent story line or ending.

OK, so Jenny caught HIV, and was drugged up, so why didn't she stop Telly having sex with the girl at the end? I couldn't really understand that, i thought she would have at least tried but she just shut the door and left them to it. She managed to have the energy to wonder all over town looking for Telly, so why didn't she have the energy and guts to stop him giving that girl a death sentence? The film didn't really have an ending, there was no moral to be learnt, just an hour and a half of shock tactics to earn money for the producers i thought. I think its even stranger that Kids has won awards.

The topics covered in the film are obviously seen as immoral and bad, and with the current furore in the news about paedophiles its no wonder the film touched a few nerves. Telly was such a slimy guy, he made my skin crawl when he was saying the same stuff to the girl at the end as the beginning of the film just to bed them. What made it worse was the fact that he just thought it was funny to take under age girls virginity's. The number of teen pregnancies in the UK is one of the worst in Europe, but i doubt its because there are an army of Tellys' out there chasing around after the UK's virgins.

The drug scenes through-out the film included minors, but i thought the producers tried to make these scenes funny instead of educational. The rape scene at the end was especially harrowing, and i don't think they could have made Casper look any more slimy. I think a man taking advantage of a girl like that would touch a nerve in anyone, but i wonder why they didn't do a women raping a man instead of the other way round.

In answering the questions at the end:

1) Does the film have any similarities with any other films you have seen?

Personally, i have not seen another film as shocking as Kids, even the title is meant to shock people. Normal films have bad people, victims and heroes; Kids had just baddies and victims.

2) Are we invited to identify with any of the characters?

Being male i didn't really identify with anybody, although i can understand why the ladies identified with the females in the film.

3) Do you find the film shocking in any way? Why?

I think the answer to that is was there anything in the film that wasn't shocking? Obviously not. The whole film was shocking and as i mentioned earlier the subjects covered are specifically in the film to shock, underage sex, drugs, paedophilia, slimy teenagers, violence, etc. these are all topics that shock the conservative UK public. Some parts of the film made my skin crawl.

4) In what ways could we consider the film to appear realistic?

I felt the film was not realistic for the UK at all. Certain tactics such as new gritty actors, shaky camera, out of focus shots, etc, all made Kids realistic in that sense, but i doubt characters like Telly and Casper exist in the UK. There might be one or two, but that's hardly a realistic portrayal.

5) How does the film deal with morals and morality?

I certainly thought there was no moral in the film, apart from the message about HIV and underage sex and pregnancy, but does anyone need to watch a film like Kids to learn this, and are there any teenagers inn the UK who don't already know the risks involved? Then again, there must be some teenagers who don't know the risks otherwise our pregnancy rate would not be so high compared to other EU countries. An ending where Jenny stopped Telly at the end, or Telly and Casper get their come-uppance would have shown a small vein of morality.

6) Who do you think is the target audience for the film?

Sad buggers with too much money? If it was aimed at kids or teenagers the really bad bits that got it its N-17 would have been cut out. So it must be aimed at adults, although I'll never understand why anyone would pay to watch this film, let alone be a fan of it. There must be something i am missing because on Flixster, people have actually listed themselves as fans of Kids. I wonder what type of people they are and what kinds of lives they lead? Someone on Flixster says they were not shocked by this film and that its very life like for people she/he knows, and they live near to where Kids was shot. I'm glad i don't live in the USA, it must be full of Telly's and Casper's.

7) Is there anything to be said in favour of the behaviour in the film?
Not really, i thought. If there was a moral or serious point that was made at the end of the film then perhaps you could say the behaviour proved this point or if you act in this way that will happen to you, unfortunately Kids did neither. The producers had no intention at all of using Kids for educational purposes, if they had intended that they would have cut out the bits so it lost its N-17 rating in the US. The film was purely made for profit; Kids cost $1.5 million to make and pulled in around $15 million, so a cheap film with tons of profit.

8) To what extent do you believe that the producers wished to create an important 'wake-up' call for parents?
None what so ever. I feel the film aimed to pack as much immoral behaviour in a tiny amount of time as possible to create a media frenzy with its classification that would pull in the viewers and make a lot of money. I think most parents know their own kids and would have spotted some thing years ago if their son was a virgin eating monster. Then again, with some of the stuff that currently goes on in the UK, such as 13 year old dads, i'm probably wrong.

9) What do you think of the films ending?
In one word, shit. The ending seemed to happen when I'd have thought the film was just getting interesting. The end of a film should give you 'food for thought'. A pissed up teenager raping a drugged up little girl is hardly something i want to remember.

No doubt people will disagree with me and believe Kids was great and all the rest of it, but i'm entitled to my opinion, and i won't be watching any more Larry Clark films. I think Pingu is more interesting and educational.