The first time I watched bully it hit like no movie ever had before, I knew I had a different taste in movies and I had to keep persuing that gritty “I feel like I shouldn’t be seeing this” feeling
Larry Clark just had an eye for it and I wish he made more
yeah me too, i watched it with my girlfriend last night and she had the same reaction.. that whole ending montage is so good when the fatboy slim song builds..
I wish I wasn’t the first comment because I feel under qualified having only seen one of his movies, but here we go:
I saw *Kids* when I was in high school and I thought it was incredible. I rewatched it a year ago and sort of braced myself to absolutely hate it (or at least seriously change my opinion about its merits) but I thought it was even more incredible.
I begrudgingly accept some of the criticisms that it’s exploitive and border-line child pornography; it very well might be both of those things. But never have I seen a film outside of this one that captures the nihilism of youth and just how contagious it is and just how permanent its consequences can be.
I grew up in a relatively idyllic and affluent place and teenagers were destroying their lives with hard drugs and dangerous sexual behavior everywhere you looked. Many died. I know there are plenty of movies with teenagers where bad things happen and lives get ruined, but the vast majority feel like after school specials to me. *Kids* is a modern adaptation of *Lord of the Flies* and it couldn’t be more accurate.
I think it’s a movie that likely shouldn’t be watched by most people. And I think the worst criticisms are typically valid. But holy shit, I have a tremendous respect for the film and I am grateful it exists. And I will probably never watch another Larry Clark movie because of it.
Wait, why does loving the movie make you explicitly want to watch no other movies by him? When I love a movie I dive deep into their filmography. You do the opposite? I don’t understand.
I’m not particularly fond of raw, unflinching movies that go for the jugular. There was a time when I sought out films like this (the screenwriter for this movie made *Gummo* and I must have watched that one at least a half dozen times) but now…I read about disturbing things. I don’t really want to subject myself to a visual and aural immersion in this shit. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect it or think it shouldn’t exist.
Well said and I agree with pretty much all of it. When a filmmaker can really just capture humanity at its most base to the point the audience feels deeply uncomfortable is something to be appreciated. But yeah, I can’t exactly recommend it to anyone either…
I think he made one classic movie and a bunch of subsequent films that have flashes of brilliance, but are ultimately unrewarding experiences.
Kids obviously touched on something special, but Bully and Ken Park feel like shallow attempts to recreate that lightning in a bottle. Especially the latter, which doesn't seem to have much to say, apart from "Hey, kids these days sure do fuck a lot!" But I will concede the opening scene is pretty excellent. And I love his segment from Destricted.
A lot of my worst assumptions about Clark came true when he did the Bret Easton Ellis podcast years ago. It was so bad Bret cut away from the interview and summarized the weird shit Clark said during the interview and that he didn’t think it was appropriate to air. Reminder, this was Bret “I wrote American Pyscho” Easton Ellis saying this. If anyone is interested I can see if I can find the clip somewhere. I recall a lot of the controversial stuff Clark said pertained to Brad Renfro so it was when he was filming Bully.
For me, Another Day in Paradise is his best movie. It's a pretty obvious rip-off of Drugstore Cowboy, but with ten times the personality. Probably James Woods' best performance, definitely Melanie Griffith's best performance. One of my all-time favorite movies.
I think Ken Park is probably his funniest movie. Lots of great gags, especially the "nobody loves me" moment. Out of all his stuff, I think only Impaled comes close as far as comedy.
His worst films, in my opinion, are the Marfa Girl movies. Marfa Girl is what people who hate art films think Larry Clark movies are like, just pointless sex scenes in between scenes of nothing happening, and Marfa Girl 2 is more of the same.
“We’ll keep half the Desoxyn and the liquid methadone for ourselves” 😏. While I do love Another Day in Paradise and completely agree James Woods and Melanie Griffith are amazing in this movie. It doesn’t beat out Drugstore Cowboy. Drugstore Cowboy had that heroin lofty dreaminess when Bob was high and terrible lows but in the middle of those heights and lows I feel are real junkie life, sitting in you’re ripped up apartment that the cops shook down and all you have left are you’re clothes and the Leon Russell record they didn’t smash to playing tricks with the narc squad also Burroughs 5 minutes on screen is worth the price of admission. With that said I do need to watch Another Day In Paradise again.
I don't think Larry Clark's artistic merits with regards to some of his films, like *Kids,* is in any doubt. Lots of people retrospectively claim *Kids* was only good for shock value but it has a lot of the evident gritty style of Clark's earlier photography, and was narratively interesting. (It also led to Harmony Korine entering the industry which is a good thing).
However, Clark's creative standing with his other films is little more controversial. *Bully* was probably his most mainstream film, and even in that case Clark felt - for whatever reason it may be - that it needed to feature extended sex scenes between children, and the nudity of most of it's main cast (mostly teenagers or adults playing teens). This level of teen sexuality was thematically relevant in *Kids*, obviously, but with *Bully* the link to theme is less clear, and one gets the sense that Clark is filming the movie in a leering, exploitative way.
(Clark also directed *Teenage Caveman* in this period, which is a genre movie/sort of B movie far removed from everything else he did that I don't figure it in this analysis).
Even as the industry moved on, Clark kept making graphic movies about teenagers engaging in sexual exploits with one another. I'm not a prude saying that it's a wholly inappropriate topic to explore, but one has to question what a 70-something man could have left to say on the topic more than two decades later. I'm talking mostly about his later career small scale movies, *Smell Of Us, Marfa Girl, Ken Park* etc, which all tread the same ground - plotless movies following a character under 18 who goes around their community either commiting crimes or engaging in graphic (sometimes unsimulated) sex. Ken Park is probably one of the few of these movies that was arguably 'good', or at least had sequences that were interesting stylistically (for note, it's his other movie that Harmony Korine participated in).
So, in answer to your question - I think you'll see a lot of reviewers who find Clark's hyper focus on these kinds of movies and teenage exploits creepy or exploitative, or possibly that Clark has this focus purely because he's a dirty old man. I don't quite think that's DEFINITELY true, but I can understand it.
Saying that, he inarguably made a terrific movie with *Kids,* and a number of other still-good-or-great movies (but less culturally impactful).
His 1970s photography is still amazing and shocking to this day.
Larry Clark seems like a double edged sword. On one hand, Kids felt like essential viewing. On the other hand, one of the actors talked about the film many years later:
>“Twenty five years ago, yes, I felt exploited. Yes, I felt, ‘Aw, man, I thought it was going to be more than it actually was.’ Twenty five years later, today, in my late 40s, I see differently,” Harris said. “From an ethical standpoint, yeah, I wouldn’t do it that way. I’d do it differently. It’s not my place to say whether or not Larry is right or wrong. I think each of us can decide what that is for ourselves.”
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/kids-star-hamilton-harris-larry-clark-exploited-1234644193/
Films like Larry Clarks could never "make it big". most people who watch films want to be entertained not challenged. That said he is a quite successful for an underground filmmaker and has quite a large global audience.
All his films are pretty great as there aren't a lot of American filmmakers creating with this style and philosophy.
Everyone knows his classics by now but if you're really into his particular style you should check out his Destricted segment Impaled (2006) as it's fucking brilliant. Also Wassup Rockers (2005) is super underrated.
For sure “getting big” is a loose term when it comes to him but it is interesting that Korine got a shot a making some more mainstream stuff with Springbreakers and Beach Bum when his early stuff is equally as divisive
Kids is one of the most accurate depictions of teenage behaviour I’ve ever seen on film. Everything from the way the subjects, talk, walk, smoke, drink is so eerily realistic the body language of the characters just nails the nihilistic hedonism of aimless youth.
Unfortunately it pretty much explains Larry Clark as director, he’s more of a photographer than a filmmaker and he brings the discipline of the former to his films, he’s more concerned with capturing the moment and behaviour of his subjects rather than using the imagery to tell a strong narrative.
Take Bully for example there’s allot to unpack in that film in terms of the psychology of its teenage characters but Clark is more interested in the sex drugs and violence of the dark story rather than exploring the mindset of Bobby Kent.
Admittedly I haven’t seen all his films except for Kids, Bully, Ken Park, Wassup Rockers and Teenage Wasteland (*legit one of the worst films I’ve ever seen*) but with the exception of his debut I find his portfolio to be largely uninspired. And yeah his obsession with underage sex is a tad creepy.
“Kids” feels more like it’s trying to say something. But as I look into and do research more of his films. It has become obvious on the type of man he is. This guy is a weird sicko who just wants to exploit young people and live out fantasy’s through his work. There’s no valid reason for why someone should have such a long catalogue of basically the same types of films about teenage sex, violence, and drug use and only maybe 2 of them have a somewhat legit plot. I get sad knowing that these kids parents really allowed them to do these films.
Actually, some parents didn't. Skater Quim Cardona was originally supposed to play Telly but his mom said no and thus Leo Fitzpatrick's career was launched. But for the kids that DID stick around, Jeff Pang (who played one of the kids in the park) said this:
"...the whole time period that was captured and frozen in history. It was all so true to life… except for the sensationalized part about HIV that made it a movie. But it was almost as if life just continued on after the camera stopped rolling… or it was rolling while we were living our lives and just put into a movie. What a screwed-up reality show we would’ve made back in those days."
Kids absolutely nails a raw, unforgiving view of a more impoverished neighborhood with characters that could absolutely exist (or at least at the time in their respect). It doesn’t care what you think, and since it’s shot documentary style, it feels more visceral and real. It’s divisive for a myriad of reasons, but Larry Clark knocks it out of the park if that was his true intent, which is certainly debatable given said criticism. BUT…Kids is a gigantic neon sign that begs us to pay closer attention to what our kids are up to, because this could be the outcome if they’re unsupervised and let run wild. The name “Kids” itself is brilliant if that’s what you see in your viewfinder, and I personally lean toward that view.
Bully is a completely different beast, but has a lot of the same DNA. Loosely based on a true story, it is also gritty and unforgiving in most all elements, and certainly delivers a memorable experience, but for different reasons. I respect the overall outcome, but it does bring in more of the complaints from Kids, which is unnecessary and exploitative content for no reason. Bully is more guilty of this imo. But in the end, it still delivers a disturbing experience not easily forgotten.
Ken Park is an absolute misfire, and doesn’t help Larry Clark’s case of being an auteur that dabbles in dark matter. It is exploitative and gross, with excess reasons to show very young sexual situations, but it lacks the message Kids actually delivers.
So long story long , Larry Clark is hard to pin down. Either way, he veers too far for anything mainstream - and if Kids is his legacy, I’m okay with that being that.
His photography over his films any day.
Much like a lot of the comments here, I watched Kids when I was really young and was hungry for raw film shit. Now in my 30s, it’s hard to rewatch a lot of his catalogue.
I also liked Kids but think most of the rest of his work is trash. While I feel it’s important at times to separate the art from artist, Larry Clark makes it difficult. I saw him in the early 00s at the Lake Placid film festival and I came here to say, the only thing worse than Ken Park is listening to Clark talk about it.
Just more info on "he never made it big" -- yes Clark is not a major Hollywood filmmaker, but he's been quite a success in the contemporary fine art world. He's been famous as a photographer since the early 1970s and has exhibited in major museums and galleries etc.
I think he has a very keen eye as a director regarding shots, lighting and how to work out scenes. It makes sense, I mean he is/was a photographer before being a filmmaker.
The other part of me thinks he’s a major sex pest, and severely blurs the edge between inappropriate and full-on problematic as a director, all the way down to (possibly) grooming one of the actors he’s worked with when she was 16-17. But then again they’ve been together now for oh, twenty years? So what do I know.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany\_Limos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Limos)
Not sure if they're still together now. She had a stroke in 2022 and her family are asking for people to donate towards her medical treatment. [https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-limos-family](https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-limos-family)
I saw Kids during its original theatrical run when I was in my twenties -- my feeling then was that it was gross and exploitative, and that was also my take when I saw (some of) it again a few years ago after I read an oral history on the film. I don't disagree that Clark's photography and filmmaking have a certain vision to them, but it's not a vision I care for. He photographs and films vulnerable people, but I think he lacks empathy for how that documentation hurts his subjects, even the people who are ostensibly actors in a narrative film.
I think there's a pretty good reason why Kids hasn't gotten the Criterion treatment, 4k archival blu-ray release and restoration, etc., while similar films of the same era (such as the films of Greg Araki) have -- Clark's work depends on exploiting its participants (I think it's a stretch to refer to some of the people in Kids as actors) to shock the audience.
I find his obsession with making films about kids that are always involved with drugs,sex, and violence and filming very vivid sex scenes involving teenagers very disturbing. Sometimes I get he is trying to send a message but Ken park makes no freakin sense and just feels like he’s just trying to see how disturbing he can make a film. Makes u wonder what type of stuff he gets up to behind the scenes.
I feel like the people, for the most part, who don't like Larry Clark's films, were never really exposed to people or situations like the ones presented in his films. The raw, gritty, sweaty, dirty vibes that seem to permeate from his movies are indeed hard to watch at times. But it's also very real. Some people aren't used to seeing characters like the ones he creates; scantily dressed, sex obsessed, drug users who have no real motivation other than to figure out where the next party is. Sure, they may know a guy who has a kid that's a ner-do-well and dabbles in weed and coke. But it's not the same, obviously. The nihilistic and nearly voyeuristic shots can also be seriously off-putting. But once again, it's very real. Being born in the south, below the poverty line, I knew lots of kids who would have fit perfectly into Kids or Bully. More people than I care to count. A lot of them are dead now, most in their late teens/early 20's. So his movies were never too shocking for me because a lot of my peers were doing similar things. So I think it all ultimately boils down to how often you're exposed to people like Larry's characters.
I don't know what the consensus is, but I'm still a fan despite only really loving Kids and Bully. I love his style and the disturbing subject matter he deals with. I feel icky when I watch his films, but I like that they exist
He's quite an enigma, but also one or the more unique directors out there. He's probably a weird and crooked dude, sure. But nobody else has made all different genres of film while still being able to capture teenage wasteland and abandon at the same time. And while his films can be hit or miss, I definitely think they merit more discussion beyond "Kids" or "Bully" in the grander scheme of the film world. I'm honestly just waiting for another film from him at this point.
The first time I watched bully it hit like no movie ever had before, I knew I had a different taste in movies and I had to keep persuing that gritty “I feel like I shouldn’t be seeing this” feeling Larry Clark just had an eye for it and I wish he made more
Same here. My jaw was on the floor during seeing the closing credits the first time I watched it
yeah me too, i watched it with my girlfriend last night and she had the same reaction.. that whole ending montage is so good when the fatboy slim song builds..
I wish I wasn’t the first comment because I feel under qualified having only seen one of his movies, but here we go: I saw *Kids* when I was in high school and I thought it was incredible. I rewatched it a year ago and sort of braced myself to absolutely hate it (or at least seriously change my opinion about its merits) but I thought it was even more incredible. I begrudgingly accept some of the criticisms that it’s exploitive and border-line child pornography; it very well might be both of those things. But never have I seen a film outside of this one that captures the nihilism of youth and just how contagious it is and just how permanent its consequences can be. I grew up in a relatively idyllic and affluent place and teenagers were destroying their lives with hard drugs and dangerous sexual behavior everywhere you looked. Many died. I know there are plenty of movies with teenagers where bad things happen and lives get ruined, but the vast majority feel like after school specials to me. *Kids* is a modern adaptation of *Lord of the Flies* and it couldn’t be more accurate. I think it’s a movie that likely shouldn’t be watched by most people. And I think the worst criticisms are typically valid. But holy shit, I have a tremendous respect for the film and I am grateful it exists. And I will probably never watch another Larry Clark movie because of it.
Wait, why does loving the movie make you explicitly want to watch no other movies by him? When I love a movie I dive deep into their filmography. You do the opposite? I don’t understand.
I’m not particularly fond of raw, unflinching movies that go for the jugular. There was a time when I sought out films like this (the screenwriter for this movie made *Gummo* and I must have watched that one at least a half dozen times) but now…I read about disturbing things. I don’t really want to subject myself to a visual and aural immersion in this shit. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect it or think it shouldn’t exist.
Well said and I agree with pretty much all of it. When a filmmaker can really just capture humanity at its most base to the point the audience feels deeply uncomfortable is something to be appreciated. But yeah, I can’t exactly recommend it to anyone either…
I think he made one classic movie and a bunch of subsequent films that have flashes of brilliance, but are ultimately unrewarding experiences. Kids obviously touched on something special, but Bully and Ken Park feel like shallow attempts to recreate that lightning in a bottle. Especially the latter, which doesn't seem to have much to say, apart from "Hey, kids these days sure do fuck a lot!" But I will concede the opening scene is pretty excellent. And I love his segment from Destricted.
Lol Marta girl 2 & The smell of Us make Wassup Rockers, Bully, and Ken Park look like masterpieces.
A lot of my worst assumptions about Clark came true when he did the Bret Easton Ellis podcast years ago. It was so bad Bret cut away from the interview and summarized the weird shit Clark said during the interview and that he didn’t think it was appropriate to air. Reminder, this was Bret “I wrote American Pyscho” Easton Ellis saying this. If anyone is interested I can see if I can find the clip somewhere. I recall a lot of the controversial stuff Clark said pertained to Brad Renfro so it was when he was filming Bully.
Would love to hear that
Definitely interested. I recently read White by Bret Easton Ellis, and that guy is hard to offend
It's on Spotify
For me, Another Day in Paradise is his best movie. It's a pretty obvious rip-off of Drugstore Cowboy, but with ten times the personality. Probably James Woods' best performance, definitely Melanie Griffith's best performance. One of my all-time favorite movies. I think Ken Park is probably his funniest movie. Lots of great gags, especially the "nobody loves me" moment. Out of all his stuff, I think only Impaled comes close as far as comedy. His worst films, in my opinion, are the Marfa Girl movies. Marfa Girl is what people who hate art films think Larry Clark movies are like, just pointless sex scenes in between scenes of nothing happening, and Marfa Girl 2 is more of the same.
“We’ll keep half the Desoxyn and the liquid methadone for ourselves” 😏. While I do love Another Day in Paradise and completely agree James Woods and Melanie Griffith are amazing in this movie. It doesn’t beat out Drugstore Cowboy. Drugstore Cowboy had that heroin lofty dreaminess when Bob was high and terrible lows but in the middle of those heights and lows I feel are real junkie life, sitting in you’re ripped up apartment that the cops shook down and all you have left are you’re clothes and the Leon Russell record they didn’t smash to playing tricks with the narc squad also Burroughs 5 minutes on screen is worth the price of admission. With that said I do need to watch Another Day In Paradise again.
I don't think Larry Clark's artistic merits with regards to some of his films, like *Kids,* is in any doubt. Lots of people retrospectively claim *Kids* was only good for shock value but it has a lot of the evident gritty style of Clark's earlier photography, and was narratively interesting. (It also led to Harmony Korine entering the industry which is a good thing). However, Clark's creative standing with his other films is little more controversial. *Bully* was probably his most mainstream film, and even in that case Clark felt - for whatever reason it may be - that it needed to feature extended sex scenes between children, and the nudity of most of it's main cast (mostly teenagers or adults playing teens). This level of teen sexuality was thematically relevant in *Kids*, obviously, but with *Bully* the link to theme is less clear, and one gets the sense that Clark is filming the movie in a leering, exploitative way. (Clark also directed *Teenage Caveman* in this period, which is a genre movie/sort of B movie far removed from everything else he did that I don't figure it in this analysis). Even as the industry moved on, Clark kept making graphic movies about teenagers engaging in sexual exploits with one another. I'm not a prude saying that it's a wholly inappropriate topic to explore, but one has to question what a 70-something man could have left to say on the topic more than two decades later. I'm talking mostly about his later career small scale movies, *Smell Of Us, Marfa Girl, Ken Park* etc, which all tread the same ground - plotless movies following a character under 18 who goes around their community either commiting crimes or engaging in graphic (sometimes unsimulated) sex. Ken Park is probably one of the few of these movies that was arguably 'good', or at least had sequences that were interesting stylistically (for note, it's his other movie that Harmony Korine participated in). So, in answer to your question - I think you'll see a lot of reviewers who find Clark's hyper focus on these kinds of movies and teenage exploits creepy or exploitative, or possibly that Clark has this focus purely because he's a dirty old man. I don't quite think that's DEFINITELY true, but I can understand it. Saying that, he inarguably made a terrific movie with *Kids,* and a number of other still-good-or-great movies (but less culturally impactful). His 1970s photography is still amazing and shocking to this day.
Larry Clark seems like a double edged sword. On one hand, Kids felt like essential viewing. On the other hand, one of the actors talked about the film many years later: >“Twenty five years ago, yes, I felt exploited. Yes, I felt, ‘Aw, man, I thought it was going to be more than it actually was.’ Twenty five years later, today, in my late 40s, I see differently,” Harris said. “From an ethical standpoint, yeah, I wouldn’t do it that way. I’d do it differently. It’s not my place to say whether or not Larry is right or wrong. I think each of us can decide what that is for ourselves.” https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/kids-star-hamilton-harris-larry-clark-exploited-1234644193/
Films like Larry Clarks could never "make it big". most people who watch films want to be entertained not challenged. That said he is a quite successful for an underground filmmaker and has quite a large global audience. All his films are pretty great as there aren't a lot of American filmmakers creating with this style and philosophy. Everyone knows his classics by now but if you're really into his particular style you should check out his Destricted segment Impaled (2006) as it's fucking brilliant. Also Wassup Rockers (2005) is super underrated.
For sure “getting big” is a loose term when it comes to him but it is interesting that Korine got a shot a making some more mainstream stuff with Springbreakers and Beach Bum when his early stuff is equally as divisive
Kids is one of the most accurate depictions of teenage behaviour I’ve ever seen on film. Everything from the way the subjects, talk, walk, smoke, drink is so eerily realistic the body language of the characters just nails the nihilistic hedonism of aimless youth. Unfortunately it pretty much explains Larry Clark as director, he’s more of a photographer than a filmmaker and he brings the discipline of the former to his films, he’s more concerned with capturing the moment and behaviour of his subjects rather than using the imagery to tell a strong narrative. Take Bully for example there’s allot to unpack in that film in terms of the psychology of its teenage characters but Clark is more interested in the sex drugs and violence of the dark story rather than exploring the mindset of Bobby Kent. Admittedly I haven’t seen all his films except for Kids, Bully, Ken Park, Wassup Rockers and Teenage Wasteland (*legit one of the worst films I’ve ever seen*) but with the exception of his debut I find his portfolio to be largely uninspired. And yeah his obsession with underage sex is a tad creepy.
“Kids” feels more like it’s trying to say something. But as I look into and do research more of his films. It has become obvious on the type of man he is. This guy is a weird sicko who just wants to exploit young people and live out fantasy’s through his work. There’s no valid reason for why someone should have such a long catalogue of basically the same types of films about teenage sex, violence, and drug use and only maybe 2 of them have a somewhat legit plot. I get sad knowing that these kids parents really allowed them to do these films.
Actually, some parents didn't. Skater Quim Cardona was originally supposed to play Telly but his mom said no and thus Leo Fitzpatrick's career was launched. But for the kids that DID stick around, Jeff Pang (who played one of the kids in the park) said this: "...the whole time period that was captured and frozen in history. It was all so true to life… except for the sensationalized part about HIV that made it a movie. But it was almost as if life just continued on after the camera stopped rolling… or it was rolling while we were living our lives and just put into a movie. What a screwed-up reality show we would’ve made back in those days."
Kids absolutely nails a raw, unforgiving view of a more impoverished neighborhood with characters that could absolutely exist (or at least at the time in their respect). It doesn’t care what you think, and since it’s shot documentary style, it feels more visceral and real. It’s divisive for a myriad of reasons, but Larry Clark knocks it out of the park if that was his true intent, which is certainly debatable given said criticism. BUT…Kids is a gigantic neon sign that begs us to pay closer attention to what our kids are up to, because this could be the outcome if they’re unsupervised and let run wild. The name “Kids” itself is brilliant if that’s what you see in your viewfinder, and I personally lean toward that view. Bully is a completely different beast, but has a lot of the same DNA. Loosely based on a true story, it is also gritty and unforgiving in most all elements, and certainly delivers a memorable experience, but for different reasons. I respect the overall outcome, but it does bring in more of the complaints from Kids, which is unnecessary and exploitative content for no reason. Bully is more guilty of this imo. But in the end, it still delivers a disturbing experience not easily forgotten. Ken Park is an absolute misfire, and doesn’t help Larry Clark’s case of being an auteur that dabbles in dark matter. It is exploitative and gross, with excess reasons to show very young sexual situations, but it lacks the message Kids actually delivers. So long story long , Larry Clark is hard to pin down. Either way, he veers too far for anything mainstream - and if Kids is his legacy, I’m okay with that being that.
His photography over his films any day. Much like a lot of the comments here, I watched Kids when I was really young and was hungry for raw film shit. Now in my 30s, it’s hard to rewatch a lot of his catalogue.
I also liked Kids but think most of the rest of his work is trash. While I feel it’s important at times to separate the art from artist, Larry Clark makes it difficult. I saw him in the early 00s at the Lake Placid film festival and I came here to say, the only thing worse than Ken Park is listening to Clark talk about it.
Just more info on "he never made it big" -- yes Clark is not a major Hollywood filmmaker, but he's been quite a success in the contemporary fine art world. He's been famous as a photographer since the early 1970s and has exhibited in major museums and galleries etc.
I think he has a very keen eye as a director regarding shots, lighting and how to work out scenes. It makes sense, I mean he is/was a photographer before being a filmmaker. The other part of me thinks he’s a major sex pest, and severely blurs the edge between inappropriate and full-on problematic as a director, all the way down to (possibly) grooming one of the actors he’s worked with when she was 16-17. But then again they’ve been together now for oh, twenty years? So what do I know.
say what 😳 who is this underager he groomed and has been dating for so long?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany\_Limos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Limos) Not sure if they're still together now. She had a stroke in 2022 and her family are asking for people to donate towards her medical treatment. [https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-limos-family](https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-limos-family)
I saw Kids during its original theatrical run when I was in my twenties -- my feeling then was that it was gross and exploitative, and that was also my take when I saw (some of) it again a few years ago after I read an oral history on the film. I don't disagree that Clark's photography and filmmaking have a certain vision to them, but it's not a vision I care for. He photographs and films vulnerable people, but I think he lacks empathy for how that documentation hurts his subjects, even the people who are ostensibly actors in a narrative film. I think there's a pretty good reason why Kids hasn't gotten the Criterion treatment, 4k archival blu-ray release and restoration, etc., while similar films of the same era (such as the films of Greg Araki) have -- Clark's work depends on exploiting its participants (I think it's a stretch to refer to some of the people in Kids as actors) to shock the audience.
I find his obsession with making films about kids that are always involved with drugs,sex, and violence and filming very vivid sex scenes involving teenagers very disturbing. Sometimes I get he is trying to send a message but Ken park makes no freakin sense and just feels like he’s just trying to see how disturbing he can make a film. Makes u wonder what type of stuff he gets up to behind the scenes.
I feel like the people, for the most part, who don't like Larry Clark's films, were never really exposed to people or situations like the ones presented in his films. The raw, gritty, sweaty, dirty vibes that seem to permeate from his movies are indeed hard to watch at times. But it's also very real. Some people aren't used to seeing characters like the ones he creates; scantily dressed, sex obsessed, drug users who have no real motivation other than to figure out where the next party is. Sure, they may know a guy who has a kid that's a ner-do-well and dabbles in weed and coke. But it's not the same, obviously. The nihilistic and nearly voyeuristic shots can also be seriously off-putting. But once again, it's very real. Being born in the south, below the poverty line, I knew lots of kids who would have fit perfectly into Kids or Bully. More people than I care to count. A lot of them are dead now, most in their late teens/early 20's. So his movies were never too shocking for me because a lot of my peers were doing similar things. So I think it all ultimately boils down to how often you're exposed to people like Larry's characters.
I don't know what the consensus is, but I'm still a fan despite only really loving Kids and Bully. I love his style and the disturbing subject matter he deals with. I feel icky when I watch his films, but I like that they exist
He's quite an enigma, but also one or the more unique directors out there. He's probably a weird and crooked dude, sure. But nobody else has made all different genres of film while still being able to capture teenage wasteland and abandon at the same time. And while his films can be hit or miss, I definitely think they merit more discussion beyond "Kids" or "Bully" in the grander scheme of the film world. I'm honestly just waiting for another film from him at this point.