Truly representative of kids across culture or just bad cinema?I didn’t really know anything about what would be considered ‘bad cinema’ and what the lecture would concern. Honestly I thought it would contain violence or be a cult film – the sort of film that has been mimicked in real life situations (i.e. crime) and so was surprised to find out it was a film revolving around a day in the life of a kid.
I can see why the films considered bad cinema though because I think some of the things showed were unnecessary – the sort of things that other directors have managed to portray more tactfully through the use of music, dialogue or camera angles without showing it directly (i.e. the sex scenes, violence scenes). I can understand why he wanted to show these sorts of things, that he wanted to portray what’s really happening in kid’s lives, but I just thing he could have approached it more sensitively and this perhaps would have got a stronger reaction. By just approaching the subject by filming it, well quite realistically I think the director managed to turn a valid point he had to make about ‘kid life’ into just ‘bad cinema’ that was so shocking it turned people away from its content. There again maybe it’s because it was so real that turned people away?
This website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_(film), gives a basic overview but it’s mainly the bit under ‘Controversy and Critical Reaction’ that struck me
"wake-up call to the modern world" about the nature of present day youth in urban life…other critics have labeled it exploitative…others, finding its story implausible on many points, consider it exploitative (commercially and emotionally) of both youth subculture and parental fears of the dangers to and mistakes of juveniles.”
I personally don’t think it was truly representative of all teenage kids as it only considered one angle of teenagers (i.e. seemed to be American lower class estates the kids came from) but perhaps it’s content should have been appreciated more for what it was trying to show rather than being considered as awful and ‘unhollywood’!
I can see why the films considered bad cinema though because I think some of the things showed were unnecessary – the sort of things that other directors have managed to portray more tactfully through the use of music, dialogue or camera angles without showing it directly (i.e. the sex scenes, violence scenes). I can understand why he wanted to show these sorts of things, that he wanted to portray what’s really happening in kid’s lives, but I just thing he could have approached it more sensitively and this perhaps would have got a stronger reaction. By just approaching the subject by filming it, well quite realistically I think the director managed to turn a valid point he had to make about ‘kid life’ into just ‘bad cinema’ that was so shocking it turned people away from its content. There again maybe it’s because it was so real that turned people away?
This website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_(film), gives a basic overview but it’s mainly the bit under ‘Controversy and Critical Reaction’ that struck me
"wake-up call to the modern world" about the nature of present day youth in urban life…other critics have labeled it exploitative…others, finding its story implausible on many points, consider it exploitative (commercially and emotionally) of both youth subculture and parental fears of the dangers to and mistakes of juveniles.”
I personally don’t think it was truly representative of all teenage kids as it only considered one angle of teenagers (i.e. seemed to be American lower class estates the kids came from) but perhaps it’s content should have been appreciated more for what it was trying to show rather than being considered as awful and ‘unhollywood’!
No comments:
Post a Comment