Mark Schroeder

Assessing a visual medium as art is a problematic and convoluted situation. Subjective viewpoints and value judgments are always tipping the scale of merit in either direction, furthering the debate of whether or not something fulfills the requirements of art. But, intrinsically that should be the function of art; to create a perspective of life where opposing human emotions interact in order to reflect and comment on a particular topic. Since an artist has a motivation for creating a piece, their work should incite thought provoking attitudes and discussion. If, as humans, we are constantly reflecting on our world, art should be an outlet for social, cultural and moral issues. As a reactionary experience, art can and does allow for further understanding of the human condition, especially when the work conjures up unusual topics.

In our society there are created institutions that consider what is valuable and appropriate, such as designated physical spaces like museums and commercialized industries that control motion pictures and music. I will concede by stating that the role of art is abundantly available outside of these designs, but for discussion sake, a consideration of popular culture must be assessed. So the question is: Are we tied to a society that filters what is artistically significant to the masses? Yes, especially when the medium of film is considered in American cinema. The mainstream film industry is dominated by the rating system designed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and in the process has influenced what kind of film products are being turned out by filmmakers or in a more appropriate classification, artists. Since the film industry is a major multi-billion dollar business, their focus becomes attracting as many consumers as possible and that is where the impediment of certain artistic film works are stifled. This moral filter not only has a strategic impact on the editing and changing of films to receive a desired rating, but more drastically upon the experience of mass popular culture in a visual media.

One such film that challenged the MPAA’s consideration and future of reaching an audience is Larry Clark’s 1995 feature Kids, a film that explicitly deals with a group of New York City teenagers engaging with drugs, alcohol and sexual situations. The film expresses a very straight forward narrative, vulgarity and all, representing a gritty reality of American youth. Although the film was eventually released with no rating, it exposes how censorship of a film can attempt to restructure an artistic vision. Yet, a further investigation of the film’s release and social response highlights the discussion of the artistic value. Sarah Hentges emphasizes the impact eloquently in that Kids “exposes a world that is at once fascinating and deeply disturbing”.[1] By applying Hentges’s comment regarding Kids, it is possible to state that the feature film is fulfilling a requirement of art in that it stirs up opposing opinions concerning the HIV based storyline and cinematic approach. The film offers a world of representation, an outlook that is based in reality but is still a created piece of work with narrative and visual nuances. Larry Clark’s film is also a representation of the connection and conflicting relationship between the industry of American cinema and a filmmaker’s vision. I am interested in understanding how the controversy over the film Kids occurred in both the industry and public spheres, while investigating how the film raises the perpetual question of whether or not it is a piece of artwork.

Throughout my research process I found an abundant source of materials that discussed the film, retracing the history of the production, to deciphering racial profiling and as well as the relevance of the portrayal of sexuality. There were many differing opinions on the film Kids, discussing it in both a positive and negative perspective, but every critical analysis included the censorship issue with regards to the MPAA. In most cases, the discussions of the film were derived from a social relation, investigating how the film connected or reconfigured reality. None of the sources really took an approach that attempted to discuss the boundaries of art in the film, but touched on significant aspects that further this present argument. However, the review articles found in newspapers and magazines briefly touch on the question of artistic value. I was concerned with finding not only primary sources such as reviews and interviews to understand the response and opinions of the time period but also secondary sources that would account for the history of the production as well as provide critical insights on the film in provoking social interest. I found many reviews that furthered my understanding of how the controversy affected the public upon the release and ignited the issue of artistically judging the film. I also located an interview with the director Larry Clark that assisted in formulating a discussion of differing opinions of art and how he works as an artist. The secondary sources used were very beneficial in grasping how Kids is significant as a social, cultural and moral occurrence in the history of film. One particular source went into great detail in the development of the production, revealing distribution issues and the impact of the MPAA. Overall, the sources located ranged in information but helped construct a balanced discussion that were very useful in this argument.

In this discussion I will trace how Kids moved through the film industry and into the local movie theater, causing controversy along the way due to its provocative content. The fact that Kids was censored by the MPAA and received a NC-17 rating for “explicit sex, drug use and violence involving children” can be argued either way on the basis of moral and value judgments which in turn leads to a further discussion of whether or not the film is artistic or exploitive.[2] The film is simultaneously a realistic representation and a representation of reality and this emphasizes the work as art. It is both an imagined, constructed world and a cinema-verite style vision of the grim realities of humankind that provokes an audience to consider social and moral issues of life. But unfortunately, the dominating control of the institutionalized MPAA filters what is significant as film or art and in turn creates a mainstream culture that is shocked with new filmic approaches to disturbing issues such as those brought up in 1995’s Kids. This film may not be considered appealing or necessary, but the fact that it created so much controversy and debate points to the role of the MPAA in regulating American film culture and to a degree the reason for hysteria regarding Larry Clark’s film Kids as child pornography or a piece of art work.

            It is very fitting that Kids, “one of the most controversial American films ever made…that some feel it is…the film for which the adult rating was invented” would premiere as a sneak preview for a packed theater at the stroke of midnight.[3] The film already had a lot of buzz surrounding it due to the rumored overtly graphic material surrounding teenagers’ involvement with sex, drugs and violence. But the world premiere to an audience at the 1995 Sundance Film Festival opened the floodgates of heated discussion concerning both the content and possibility of an NC-17 adult rating. The film crossed new boundaries of its depiction of teenage sex and drug use, drawing divided opinions, yet as one distribution exec claimed, “Kids made everything else at Sundance look like amateur hour”.[4] Clark’s film went onto the Cannes Film Festival that spring where it did not spark off controversy but left French critics quietly aghast.[5] Yet, back in the United States there was a serious debate over how Kids would be distributed by the film’s overriding owner, Disney Studios.

            Miramax Films bought worldwide distribution rights to the film for $3.5 million in 1994 by their then current co-CEO, Harvey Weinstein. The film became another venture for the studio in distributing films that had a daring, cultural edge style but there was a major problem. Disney owned Miramax and refused to release any NC-17 films. Even though the film had yet to be voted on by the Ratings Board, Joe Roth, a Miramax executive asserted, “’there’s no chance for it to ever get an R rating’” and since Disney was a member of the MPAA, they could not release an unrated film.[6] A commercial release seemed almost impossible at this point, until Harvey and his brother, Bob, bought the film back from Disney and formed a new distribution company, Shining Excalibur Films. 

As expected, on July 8, 1995, Kids received an NC-17 rating from the MPAA, which meant “writing off the big theater chains and theaters outside major metropolitan areas, four hundred screens instead of eight hundred”.[7] The Weinsteins’ decided to release the film unrated since Clark refused to re-edit any portions of the film per request by both Shining Excalibur and the MPAA. Kids opened on July 21 in New York City and then was distributed to forty more markets on July 28, reaching a larger audience rather than be restricted by the NC-17 rating. Larry Clark was amazed by the initial rating by the MPAA but later commented, “We broke new ground. None of the chains played unrated films, and we got it into Sony theaters”.[8] Harvey Weinstein sold the pseudo-documentary as a wake-up call to American parents, but photographer turned director Clark sold the film more aptly, simply stating the feature was made because “I didn’t know another film that looked like this…if I could have found this anywhere else, I wouldn’t have made the picture”.[9]

Larry Clark started his career as a photographer and was best known for his depictions of teenagers on the brink of society, often focusing on drug use and sexual content. Kids was his debut as a director but the themes addressed did not stray very far from these previous artistic endeavors. In an interview with Clark, he explains how his work all comes from a psychological need to photograph that which is not seen, a definite concept concentrated on in his 1995 film. The cinema verite filmic approach gives a documentarian mood to the film, even if the scenes are heavily constructed. Clark insisted on using non-professional actors in real locations, blurring the lines of realistic representation and represented reality. His expertise in lighting from his experience as a photographer also emphasized the realistic look of the film. Not only does Clark capture a beautifully lit feature but he also is able to present an unforced youth culture. Todd McCarthy reiterates Clark’s presence in that “on an aesthetic level, Kids is remarkable as a first film…[capturing] the attitudes, speech patterns, rhythms, desires and lack of perspective of his teenage characters”.[10] It is obvious then how the realistic appearance of the film would stir up controversy, since it addresses disturbing images concerning youth. Clark argues that a possible reason for this controversy surrounding the film is that “no one wants to confront the fact that in 1995, kids are having sex”.[11]

            Clark uses the camera like a weapon, taking the viewer up close and personal to “its pathetic beauty in a shockingly accomplished cinema verite style” in order to reject the denial of American youths’ involvement in very adult-like situations.[12] The film avoids using long establishing shots in order to make the viewer uneasy and disturbingly aware that they are witnessing a non-conventional Hollywood dramatic film. Clark strips away the film form, laying out not only the bare bones of his camera technique in capturing the narrative but also the overarching focus on corrupted youth culture. This documentary feel of the film creates a representation of reality with its constructed form, yet that highlights cinema verite style. Clark visually created this mood of realism but still provoked what he wanted to occur on the screen. This “documentary-like portrayal of teen sexual behavior in contemporary America” fueled the publicity for the film, furthering box office success as well as fueling discussion of its artistic merit.[13]

            The neo-documentary style produced by Larry Clark in Kids represents a vision of sex, drugs, and violence in youth culture. It is not completely realistic or completely false but it does take a position in shining a light on the dark, disturbing crevices of American society during the 1990s. Although the HIV-related risk behaviors depicted in the film, unprotected sex and multiple sex partners, statistically began to decline in the United States upon its release, the representation of teenagers involved in these acts was infuriating to many viewers.[14] The film seemed voyeuristic and exploitive to some while on the other hand many understood the film as a shocking representation of reality taking a nonjudgmental view. In Kenneth Turan’s review of Kids he repeats how the film is all exploitation, becoming bogged down with profanity and attempts to gross out the adults in the audience.[15] Turan is obviously free to his opinion, but this review epitomizes a crucial aspect of art, in that he is provoked to consider real issues within the medium. Jody W. Pennington attempts to further differentiate between exploitation and art by arguing that Kids is a “sexploitation film…more interested in exploiting teen sex than understanding it”.[16] It is true that the film does focus on sexual themes in a very overt manner, even if there is very little nudity, but the film is not unfairly depicting the subjects since it is a vision of the director. This constitutes the film as a work of art with a desired aesthetic and narrative outcome as well as a hope to be further investigated. Kids is not trying to understand the sexual situations and drug use, but instead is presenting a realistic reflection of issues that should be tackled by the viewer.

Furthermore, in Bell Hook’s discussion of the film she also emphasizes the exploitive nature and the absence of really answering the issues at hand. This is the major function of art. It does not answer questions. Art requests that the participant reflect on reality and their own life to understand the issues presented. So, the matter of the MPAA as an institutionalized dominating factor in American cinema is once again alluded to in Hook’s discussion. She states that “much of the film’s popularity rests on the voyeuristic pleasure that audiences, whose desires are rigidly regulated, experience as they watch” Larry Clark’s vision of youth culture.[17] This statement reflects the control of the MPAA in constructing a mainstream film culture through their assessments of value and significance. If the institution is censoring and controlling artistic vision, then films such as Kids could become unviewed and debated as a reflection of society. A very poignant statement by Larry Clark that could be applied to the role of the MPAA in creating a mainstream film culture is his conclusion that “you’re only as sick as your secrets…which I guess means the fewer secrets you have the less sick you are”.[18] This film may not be appealing, but it provokes a viewer to consider the underlying issues represented through the artistic approach.

The defining moment of Kids being released upon the American public proves the undeniable fact that the control of the MPAA has stifled film culture to conform to an institutionalized structure and in the process attempted to deny viewers’ participation in artistic vision. Even if the public does not agree on social, cultural and moral issues, it does not mean that a piece of art should be edited to meet standards and censor communication. Denying or avoiding a representation of reality, such as that world composed in Larry Clark’s Kids, subjugates intellectual communication on subjects like sexuality and violence that could possibly provide for further understanding. Works such as the film piece discussed “may disturb you, anger you, frustrate you, but is that bad?”.[19] Art is and should be reactionary, causing discussion of not only representative ideals but also human existence in society.

Further research on this topic is definitely possible and could most likely be investigated with regards to more opinions upon the film as well as discussions concerning the MPAA’s historical effect of censorship. Also, a possible founding of the development of art movements could also impact the role of diverse films as pieces of art.