It had been a few years since I saw KIDS, but remembered it as a film that made an impression on me. When hiring Ken Park at the local video store I was not sure what to expect.

After seeing the film I think the director has made a few very good scenes and a few not so good.

The relation between Claude and his father was very realistic and spot on, the way the father treated Claude, pushing him downwards, instead of helping him and motivating him, was very much like the relation I had with my mothers' husband. Still, where Claude's father crosses the line after a night out drinking in his car, never happened to me. I ask myself if that is needed in the film as well. The behaviour of the father should be enough for Claude to leave, but I guess that night is the famous drop that makes the glass run over.

Peaches and her father is another relationship that is completely dysfunctional. Somehow I could guess though, that the innocent girl bringing home a guy from bible studies was not as innocent as her father believed her to be. Which is demonstrated when her father comes home to find Peaches in bed while she is about to orally please her boyfriend. The boyfriend, which she has tied to bed, has no way to defend himself against the insanely religious father of Peaches, and gets a nice beating. This was another predictable scene, but it was still a bit nerve wrecking on Peaches behalf as we could see her father get closer and closer to opening the door to her room.

Shawn, who sleeps with his future mother in law (Rhonda), and is obsessed with finding out if he is more hung than his future father in law, is another character in the film. To me it feels a bit overkill to include all the sex-scenes with Shawn and Rhonda. Especially the scene where Rhonda comes out of the shower seems a bit too much. Not that the scene includes a lot of sex, but the dialog could have been included earlier.

Tate is serial killer material, and I thought so in the beginning of the movie. His killer talents were revealed in the movie, not very surprising.

It all starts and end with the story of Ken Park. The story about Ken isn't actually needed in the film if you ask me. It would do just as well without. The characters very briefly mention him, and he doesn't really add anything to the film. That we are watching dysfunctional families is beyond doubt, and perhaps is it that Ken Park did not want to end up like his parents that drive him to it, but I still think he could be left out.

I understand it that we have an uncensored version in The Netherlands, and that really makes me ask what people saw in the cinema. It must have been a very short movie then.

Do I recommend this film? Yes I do, because it shows how narrow minded and unsupportive parents can be towards their children. How little they understand, and how quickly they forget that they have been young themselves. It makes you think.

**********SPOILERS************ This is an acted documentary, as it puts unrelated characters next to each other (Ken Park, Tate). If you watch the movie from that angle, it becomes less over-the-top, as I really felt it was trying to put EVERY possible teenage drama (suicide, incest, sexual abuse, killing grandparents (!!)) into one movie. Apart from that it was all a bit much I really liked the style of the movie, the characters and the plots on their own. In any case a movie worth watching.

A word on 'pornography': Larry Clark really has to be praised and admired for his approach to show detailed sex scenes in 'normal' movies. Why not show on the screen what we see in our lives every day (i.e. genitals and sex, which mostly includes erect male genitals)? Nobody screams about heads blown off and bodies ripped apart on screen, and how often do you see that in real life? IMHO, this is true perversion, and it should be standard to show whatever you like of the human body in 'normal' movies, because our bodies are normal and sex is normal too, believe it or not.

Anyone who finds pornography disturbing will find "Ken Park" disturbing for both the wrong and the right reasons.

Its not pornography, but it will be confused with it easily since it contains many of the same powerful ingredients: nudity and explicit sexual behavior. What separates it from pornography is that "Ken Park"'s intent is not to arouse but to provoke an emotional response by placing these same powerful ingredients within a troublesome relational context. Unfortunately that's also the problem with "Ken Park".

An average viewer can't witness explicit sexual behavior and be unaffected by it. We are all sexual (mostly) and (most of us) respond to visual stimuli. "Ken Park" demands that the viewer suspend that response, look beyond any arousal or outrage generated from the explicit sexuality and focus on the relationships in the film (of which sex is merely the expression). This asks of the average cinema viewer much more sexual maturity than most films ever hope to ask.

We may demand more pressure on the envelope as a viewing public, but the cumulative effect of pushing the envelope is still in the realm of speculative sociolology. Also, the extreme youthful appearance some of the characters in the film will cause some companies to avoid distribution risks. Free speech is one thing; defending accusations of spreading pedophilia is quite another, and few companies can afford that kind of publicity.

Personally, I think that the Clark and Lachman have made a great film; its a moral and compassionate statement. The characters feel very real; in their banality there is real pathos. In fact, the bland dialogue and delivery explains why sex holds such a powerful lure for these kids. They have access to rare delight and comfort with sex and, weirdly enough, a sense of peace. It rings true. The tragedy plays out that they are all compromised by clueless or pathological parent figures and the sexuality reflects a history of thwarted attachment. The final scene with the three main characters together struck me as very bittersweet since it plays more as a fantasy than a likely scenario.

Art enjoys such a complex, troubled relationship with the American public. We are such a rapidly changing audience with a huge appetite for challenge, yet we don't necessarily absorb the changes we witness. As an audience, we expect far more cultural sophistication than our capacity for balanced interpretation. "Ken Park" is evidence of that.