#We need spaces just for adults and spaces just for children but neither benefit advertisers

[carnival-core]

Ok I think it's finally time to give my thoughts on the kink discourse and pro/anti ship etc in my own words bc it's been a hot topic lately and god do I have thoughts . Under the cut because this will be long

I think policing what people can and cannot write based off moral value is a slippery slope and will never just end at things that actually hurt people, especially not in a society that sees gay and trans people existing as actively harmful. That's sadly just how it kind of works. Which is why I try my best to block and move

However like.... to say things like unsanitary fetishes, or foot or latex or shortstack fetishes , or honestly even CNC/rapeplay when done properly and properly tagged , is on the same level as things like incest or pedophilia is insane to me.

I will not judge what two consenting nonrelated adults do in their own privacy and what they choose to roleplay is their business but on the Internet especially , the things you post and the content you make can and will affect people, this is a reality and responsibility you need to accept.

A lot of my opinions come from the fact I Was groomed online, exposed to things way too young by a grown adult and several older teenagers when I was barely a teen myself. Shotacon and incest stories and roleplay were something I was subjected to a lot. And something so many other children also will be, and I think that's something people just need to accept.

I think "we need to stop pedojacketing trans people, especially trans women, for enjoying kinks that are 'unacceptable'" and "don't police what others do to cope if it isn't harming them or others directly" as well as "Internet Grooming and pedophilia are real things that happen and not some boogeyman scenario" and "yes trans people can be pedophiles or do things that put children or adults at risk" aren't like contradictory information

But ... I guess like , it is difficult to know what to do huh , it should be a parents job to protect their kids and monitor their access but I know at the very least I didn't do shit to tell my parents what I was going through because being grounded or being monitored was seen as a punishment and I needed a space away from them

[joeburrowsblog-blog]

TEENAGE DIRTBAGS: A Case Study on “K.I.D.S.”

It is evident that Larry Clark’s KIDS strays far from the path of conventional dramas. It is a movie that is often so hard-hitting, so uncomfortably real, that it was condemned by various organisations worldwide. The films legacy tells a story of how independent and cult films can be marketed without big stars or expensive advertising. KIDS shows how careers can be made from independent films and how critical rejection does not necessarily rule out the success of a film. Though widely controversial, Kids accurately represents the nineties lifestyle in New York in its strikingly ugly form.

 I.

Introduction

It was 1995 when Larry Clark shocked the public with his first, and questionably most hard-hitting film, KIDS. The film follows several groups of teenagers around New York over the space of a weekend where they explore their sexuality, mental capacity and moral stances. KIDS primarily centres around Casper and Telly, two sexual deviants who are neither seen as protagonists nor antagonists. In another group there is Jennie, a young girl, who has just found out that she is HIV positive the night before a party, and later has difficulty coming to terms with her diagnosis. This is the central plot for most of the film, and ultimately the reason why controversy came following its release.

So why were people afraid of this ‘wake up call to the modern world’? (Maslin, 1995) Whilst the public had already dealt with uncomfortable confrontation of sexual desire in the likes of Blue Velvet, it caused widespread controversy when Clark depicted young teenagers engaging with drugs, sex and anti-social behaviour. The films raw content ultimately exposes the dangers of the inner city teenage lifestyle which can resort to violence, promiscuous sex, and even disease. As a result, there were many parties who had acclaimed the film for the realistic danger that it portrays. The following study considers Kids and the way in which it has been marketed throughout the years by both the creators and second parties. In response to this, there has been a distinct cultural effect which has made this film essential to its generation.

   II.

Franchising

Larry Clark has been known to work in close quarters with various skateboard companies around New York. As a result of skate culture being represented on screen so frequently in KIDS, many companies and designers involved in the skateboarding scene wanted to collaborate with Clark. Though a lot of the products released in association with the film were far from conventional, it was evident that the merchandise was widely sought after and valued within members of the fan base. At the time of the films release, it was unlikely that said merchandise would have been created, though due to post-modern or vintage trends, the film was essentially brought back to life in 2015.

Most noticeably, the Spring/Summer range for Supreme included a collaborated set of clothing which celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the films release. The range was created alongside Larry Clark of which came a variety of t-shirts and sweatshirts which included stills from the film. Their approach to marketing was very similar to that which has previously been seen from Supreme in the past. When the KIDS collaboration of Supreme clothing was available, there was nothing available in stock within ten minutes of release. Though this is typical of the brand, who have consistently been creating hype through imbalance of supply and demand; this release was considered as a milestone in the brand’s livelihood.

The merchandise contains certain off-center shots taken from the film which are placed as front graphics for the garments. This is used in a similar style to past Supreme collaborations such as musicians ‘KRS-One’ and ‘Misfits’. On the back of the t-shirts there is the quote from the film ‘Jesus Christ, what happened?’, which is uttered by Casper in regard to his particularly controversial act. Through wearing this merchandise, the fans do not intend to glamourize or condone the behavior, it is primarily an ode to the style of the film which had re-emerged in 2015. Some felt that the film represented their lifestyle growing up in New York in this era and therefore held a significance upon its release. As the actors in the film are often shown to wear brands such as Independent and Bones (of which Supreme had previously collaborated with), there is a relevance within the skate community which has benefitted the films marketing decades on.

  III.

Reception

It is commonly known that Larry Clark’s film held a significance in 1995. The themes of drugs and sex within teenage communities had not been shown on film in such raw detail before Kids was shown in theatres. Though there were mixed receptions, most reactions were negative and only considered the film by the surface, judging only based on the graphic sexual nature. It was considered by some as a ‘disturbingly voyeuristic look at adolescent promiscuity’, which is ‘set in a nihilistic never-never land’ (Kempley, 1995). Though this is a relatively empty interpretation of the feature, it is correct in assuming that Clark’s film was indeed a nihilistic perception of the inner city American lifestyle with openly voyeuristic tendencies. With a lengthy duration of shots and a limited use of cuts, the film often seems to be shot in the style of a documentary which creates the realistic effect which is ‘hailed as a cinematic masterpiece by some and denounced as exploitative smut by others’ (Steele, 1995). Though regardless of opinion, there is a strong indirect tone of anti-drugs and anti-rape which is informative in its own unique, but distressing manner.

There is a strong absence of adults in the film being that the majority of the cast are seen patrolling around the streets or smoking weed at 4am. In the unlikely occurrence that an adult appears in the film, they are often ‘worn out, beaten down, hardened by life’ (Engdahl & Hosney, 1995) as a result of the poor living conditions of the inner city. 

KIDS is plastered in vivid cultural imagery of an era bewildered by uncertainty. The sexual dialogue is so graphic and realistic that it feels like we are listening in on genuine conversations. It allowed conventions to be broken by showing teenage girls openly conversing about their sexual development as adolescents. It furthermore acted as a ‘film that demystifies teenage sexuality, allows female desire a voice that’s rarely heard in American cinema’ (Engdahl & Hosney, 1995). 

This aspect of KIDS has provided it with a significance of gender representation, and additionally hailed Chloe Sevigny as somewhat of a cult hero following her performance. Audiences respected her role throughout the film as one of the only sane children amongst the group and subsequently, she gained many roles in other features (e.g. Boys Don’t Cry, and the particularly controversial, The Brown Bunny). Sevigny also gained further success from collaborations with Supreme affiliated brand, Fucking Awesome, and delved into the fashion industry with Opening Ceremony. We can learn from her rise to fame how independent cinema and cult following can market a film just as much as a strong advertising campaign. This is a widely a result of how KIDS powerfully breaks the taboos of female sexuality within the film. As a result, there have been many films (e.g. Thirteen, Sweet Sixteen) which have tried to imitate the gritty and honest style of Larry Clark.

With this in mind, we are left to ponder why there is any sort of cult following for such a disturbing and confrontational film. Although at times it is uncomfortably blunt, Kids demonstrates a unique display of mise-en-scene throughout within its intimate scenes which rarely seen on screen in the mid-nineties. There are no romance connotations, and there isn’t any violin music here, there are only neutral white backgrounds and false promises made from the cast which makes it feel largely voyeuristic. Clark ultimately made a hyper-reality in KIDS which did not seem so hyperbolic, as it unnervingly told the truth about the looming threats of the inner city lifestyle. Though in many ways it is ‘marked with nostalgia for teenage lawlessness’, KIDS does not allow you to completely indulge on this feeling as it ‘views with absolute horror both teenage sexuality and youth itself’ (Romney, 1996).

   IV.

Style

Though the marketing did not comply with the average strategies used by film agencies, it was widely marketed by second-party advocates of the film who felt the need for more people to see it. Noticeably, famous rapper Mac Miller created an album which focused on the concept of Larry Clark’s film and even named it ‘KIDS’. The record sold thousands of copies, gave the film mass recognition and excelled his career being his first credible release. It is evident throughout the release that Mac Miller relates to the upbringing that the children had in the film where he quotes ‘now I’m selling weed out my shoebox’ and ‘looking at the street thinking it could all be mine’ in Nikes on my Feet and Thoughts on a Balcony from the record. In many ways it is clear that the musician is paying homage to a film which represented his style and unconventional upbringing.

Though it is rather small, there is a following to Larry Clark’s film which may be considered as a fandom. In accordance with John Fiske’s theories surrounding fandom, the fans of the movie do indeed follow the ‘discrimination and distinction’ (Fiske, 1992) characteristics. This is demonstrated by the distinct separation of those who felt the film was very important, and those who decided that it was smut. It is evident that the separation between fans and foes is ‘sharply drawn’ and essentially ‘the community of fans and the rest of the world are just as strongly marked and patrolled’ (Fiske, 1992). This illustrates how even smaller kinds of fandoms comply with the same guidelines stated by Fiske. 

KIDS used advertising strategies which gave a degree of ambiguity to the film such as the theatrical trailer that used fast music and editing to give the illusion that it is an easy going, or even a comic movie. Upon watching the film, the characters are not as joyous or happy as they appear in the trailer, in fact they are a wreck; this is the reality for the children in the film. Essentially, the creators wanted to tell a story about the broken youth of Manhattan. The gritty realness created moral panic when the film was released ‘because it deals with fundamental issues of culture’ (Jancovich, 2003) within New York. Nevertheless, the moral panic did not destroy the films reputation, it was well known that the purpose of the film was far beyond a mere smut-fest. Generally, Clark uses a strong ‘cultural relevance of such films for the evolution of cinema’ (Jancovich, 2003), this had later been used as inspiration for many other features (e.g. Kidulthood, White Girl) which effectively tell similar stories of a broken community of youth.

 Conclusion 

It is evident that KIDS is a film which was widely influential for independent film makers. The consistency of appreciation for the film has showed how cult status and second party advocacy can be just as useful to marketing as expensive advertising. With the success of Larry Clark’s fashion collaborations, it is highly likely that the film will continue to stay in the spotlight. Whilst there were different receptions, the film proves to be consistently relevant and shocking, thus maintaining its acclaimed cult status for years to come.

    _________________________________

Bibliography

Maslin, J. “Kids” The New York Times, (rottentomatoes.com/kids/), 1995.

Kempley, R. “Kids” The Washington Post, (http://tinyurl.com/zlwonw7) 1995. c.05/2016

Steele, S. “Teenage Wasteland – Kids directed by Larry Clark” Maclean’s 108. 1995.

Engdahl, J. & Hosney, J. “Kids” Film Quarterly 49.2. California, 1995.

Romney, J. “Kids – A Gift to Middle America” New Statesmen & Society 9.403. 1996.

Fiske, J. “The Cultural Economy of Fandom” The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, pp.30. Routledge, London. 1992.

Jancovich, M. “Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste”. Manchester, Manchester University Press. 2003.