Ken Park

Anyone around?

Thinking about hitting the theater tonight. Every day on my way home from the
public library, I walk right past the cinema. Plus, I caught this review on
http://www.avlija.net/index.php?id=5 and now I’m pretty much sold on going...

IMDB link

If you’re someone who sat through Todd Solondz’s "Happiness" or maybe found something to appreciate in Ang Liya's "Ice Storm," then sure, you might find this one worth your time... though personally, I thought the whole thing was a complete disaster. Unlike those other two, this particular attempt at a "critique of American society" felt incredibly forced and exhausting to me; I just can't stand films where the director refuses to give the audience any breathing room to actually form their own conclusions. Instead, we're subjected to scenes of the protagonists relieving themselves or masturbating—and apparently, they aren't even "acting" during these moments—along with a relentless barrage of other sequences designed solely to "shock" the viewer under the guise of being "authentic." 🤮
In fact, I honestly think if you stripped away all those cheap, provocative provocations, the movie might actually function better? It has this strange, small-town atmosphere and the characters are undeniably broken... but even so, it’s a 2/5 from me.

Just finished watching Happiness, now moving on to Ken Park.

Look, I think the movie is good. Not great, but good.
And honestly? It isn’t just a critique of American society—it feels like it's hitting home right here too.
The same stuff is happening everywhere. Okay, maybe I don't have a friend who suddenly sleeps with his mom and sister, but I know that people
are killing each other constantly, drugs are basically part of everyone's daily routine, and
parents are totally checked out. Maybe they didn't even want the kids they
have today. They probably can't say anything remotely intelligent about life; they just
take it out on their kids. Heh. And you've got those religious fanatics who look
basically like clinical case studies for mental disorders... all of this is just
the world we live in. See, those "provocative" scenes aren't even the point—like when that guy plays with his grandparents and then screams at them. Or when his grandma bursts into his room and he just starts cursing her out. Sex is just sex. To me, it just felt sad. Like there's zero value left, just a repetitive cycle. A whole life without any purpose. And they're way too aware of it...

Man, this whole "critique of American society" angle is just exhausting. I can't stand movies where the director basically holds your hand and refuses to let you actually think for yourself or reach your own conclusions...

Honestly, I’d say the exact same thing about Happiness—it’s such a shallow, one-note movie.

damien said:I honestly don't think this is just a critique of American society—it applies to us here too.
The exact same issues are playing out right here on our doorstep.

... I have to agree, some of the things depicted in this movie aren't exclusive "achievements" of American culture, they just happen to be most visible there.
What really rubbed me the wrong way was this desperate, almost frantic need to shock the audience, as if the director thought the more depraved, the better: a teenager sleeping with his mother and daughter, a father creeping into his son's bed at night, a kid masturbating while watching tennis players sighing on a TV screen, and so on. It feels like Larry Clark reached a certain level with 🙄
Kids... and now he's just desperately trying to "push the boundaries" again.
The film actually fared quite well with the critics... though where it was released, it lacks a massive distribution footprint for very obvious reasons, appearing mostly at festivals, and even then, you get different versions depending on how many minutes were hacked out by censors.
I've seen Happiness twice now; the first time I wasn't exactly blown away, but later on, certain details started to grow on me: those phenomenal cameos from Ben Gazzara and Jon Lovitz are standout moments, and the whole film carries such a bitter, cynical tone right from the title... it’s exactly that kind of heavy feeling that permeates the entire viewing experience.

re Happiness

I honestly feel like the biggest issue with this movie is that every single character is just such an easy target for cheap shots from the get-go. It doesn't even come across as cynical or socially critical, it just feels like some low-budget parody that’s unnecessarily cruel for the sake of being edgy. And don't even get me started on that "I'd just wank" line—totally tasteless. I mean, sure, I'll give it that the casting was spot on and the direction felt pretty slick, but at the end of the day, the whole thing just feels incredibly shallow.

Susan Wright12 said:I honestly feel like the core issue with this movie is that every single character is set up to be such an easy target for mockery from the very jump, which means the whole thing isn't even cynical or critical—it’s just cheap parody and needlessly cruel. Plus, that one line about "I'd just wank" is totally out of line. That said, I do agree the casting was solid and the direction felt quite elegant, but my final takeaway is just pure superficiality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here claiming "Happiness" is some kind of masterpiece; it's just that watching "Ken Park" actually made me feel a bit better about it by comparison.😁

Have you ever sat through Todd Solondz's "Storytelling"? It’s a mess... just completely incoherent. Honestly, even the "Belle and Sebastian" soundtrack used in that one didn't do much for me.

This movie is total garbage. Bully is way better. Storytelling was alright, I guess. 🙂 I watched Happiness a long time ago—I probably should give it another look, though I likely won't. When I first saw it, it felt okay enough to me... 😁

I watched Ken Park with some fucking bootleg subtitles from a guy in rural Ohio, and honestly? The movie is actually pretty decent.

It’s available on DVD. I think I got hung up on some review in the paper, where they basically claim the whole movie is just provocation for the sake of provocation because of those explicit, shocking scenes that seem to be the entire point.

I’m not really sure why people are bringing up "Happiness," though it is an awesome movie. Is it just because both films have those shocking—or maybe even disgusting, if you want to get technical—scenes?

I actually tried watching Bully once, but I just couldn't get through it 😢 Some movies really do demand your absolute, undivided attention.

"Kids," "Bully," and "Ken Park" all share the same writer, that wunderkind Harmony Korine (I think I spelled that right, hopefully), who apparently wrote the script for "Ken Park" when he was only 19, according to what the director mentioned in a commentary.

WARNING: You can't talk about this movie without SPOILERS.

To be honest, I found the director, cinematographer, and actress commentaries at the end way more interesting than the actual film. In fact, after hearing those, I ended up giving the movie a higher rating.
I know it has nothing to do with the plot itself, but I guess sometimes we all get trapped by these unconscious biases. While watching, my mind kept jumping to all these shocking moments because it felt like the whole point of the film was just to provoke, so I totally fell for that newspaper critique. I have to admit, though, it wasn't easy to come up with anything even more shocking or depraved to throw into the mix. On the flip side, the scenes aren't so intense that you have to look away; some of them are actually kind of funny.

The movie is definitely lacking a cohesive plot or a central thread connecting everything. There are four main characters—three guys and one girl: Claude, Shawn, Tate, and Peaches. They live in a small town in California and probably go to the same school. But in the film, they only really share one scene, which feels a bit clunky, though I guess it makes sense since that's where the title "Ken Park" is explained. We mostly just follow their individual lives, catching glimpses of their family situations:
Claude deals with a stepbrother who bullies him and calls him names, and obviously, he has his own struggles with his sexuality, plus a mom who provides zero support.
Shawn is involved with a married woman and her daughter; his storyline is probably the most wild thing here, if that even makes sense.
Peaches matured sexually pretty early on, and she has this super religious, fanatic Dad who’s a widower, so she has to hide her true self from him.
Tate is a really well-written and acted character; he lives with his grandparents and is dealing with a ton of issues.
Like I said, the movie jumps between these four characters, and their stories aren't really connected, so it feels a bit like an omnibus film, which kind of bothered me... for example, if you look at "Sun," where you have a bunch of seemingly random characters and situations, they still feel tightly knit because everything revolves around a specific physical object, like a little suitcase. "Ken Park" doesn't have that, so the movie feels a bit loose in places and struggles to hold your full attention.

Again, those end-of-movie commentaries are super interesting. Those quotes in the text are just my best memory of them. When asked why the film includes such explicit scenes, the answer was "for visual honesty." I mean, I hadn't thought of it that way, but once I heard it, it actually made a lot of sense. It also aligns with how they moved away from "Dogme film" philosophy; the movie is actually quite beautifully shot because they didn't want to approach a "documentary subject in a documentary style," since they felt that "manipulates the viewer" and "tries to manufacture credibility." Since the creators wanted to keep final cut, the film was funded by Dutch producers, and hey, that's just how it goes in America. 🙄

While watching, you get this feeling a few times like they're trying to pull a fast one on you—like, who are they kidding? Nobody acts like that, that only happens in America, stuff like that...
The response to that comment was simply, "How would you know?" And honestly, that's a pretty great comeback. 👍

Even though "Kids" is definitely the more intense, raw eye-opener featuring the amazing Chloe Sevigny, I honestly think this movie is totally worth checking out too. You might actually find yourself pretty surprised by how much some of the most shocking stuff, just on its own, ends up feeling kind of... I don't know, almost banal. 👋

I was pretty disappointed. Felt like his only real goal was just to shock people for the sake of it.
Plot? Forget the plot. Pacing? Don't even get me started.

...hmmm...I’m actually a little surprised by all the comments on this movie. For me—probably because I'm so used to the sheer grit and raw reality caught in Korine's earlier stuff—Ken Park felt kind of "fake" after Gummo. It felt like some artificially manufactured controversy designed for American teenagers from wealthy families who drop tons of cash at the local AMC, yet still want to believe they, and characters like them, are somehow "alternative"... I don't think the film is bad, per se, but it’s just way too "polished" for my taste...

...as for Happiness... personally, I thought it was a far better film... though the casting was probably my biggest disappointment (I would've distributed a few of those roles differently)... but the script is solid, especially with that brilliant performance by my favorite, P. S. Hoffman...🙂 ...it was a totally successful film...😉

...but again, that's just me...🙂

Larry Martin11 said:...it’s probably because there was way more "rawness" and actual reality captured in Korine's movies, so after "Gummo," Ken Park felt kind of "fake"—like this artificially constructed controversy designed for American teenagers from wealthy families who drop tons of cash at multiplexes but still want to believe they, and characters like them, are somehow alternative in their own way... I mean, the movie isn't bad, but it feels way too "polished" for my taste...

Yeah, just like I was trying to suggest earlier, "Ken Park" feels polished because it wasn't shot in that Dogme film style that I think "Gummo" definitely used.

The cinematographer actually talks about this in a commentary, so you should check it out on the DVD. It’s similar to how in other works, some filmmakers eventually ditch their own technical skills—stuff like set design, makeup, lighting, and all that—because they feel those things are just extras that cloud and leech off the "magic of cinema." Some people even claim it was all just a marketing move from the start, who knows?
Anyway, the cinematographer Ed whatshisname 🙏 mentions that, in his opinion, it's actually a much bigger challenge for film techniques to try and capture true reality rather than just coasting on some kind of authentic graininess, which, let's be honest, is actually just bad technique.
Larry Clark, though, says the movie looks way more expensive than it actually is, which he’s super happy about, and he gives direct credit to the cinematographer for that. According to Clark, the explicit scenes are really just "simulated sex scenes," and after watching it, I think he’s totally right. Honestly, I was really impressed by Clark's comments because the guy was basically explaining why he filmed it and what he was trying to say, and he pulled it off completely; every word feels genuine. 👍

I'm with you on that, I really missed having a cohesive plot too, because maybe that would have gotten rid of the feeling that they were just shoving "every shocking scene we could possibly imagine" into one movie; in the end, it felt like there were too many scenes and not enough actual film, which is a bummer.

Regardless, you should give it a watch. 👍 It's worth it just for Tate, who is such an intense character in every sense of the word. 😱

...I’m right there with you... ...you really have to see everything, even Ken Park—it’s certainly not a bad way to kill ninety minutes, even if it isn't exactly a masterpiece 🙂 And for a hardcore fan like 👍

...though let's be real, Gummo isn't exactly a Dogme film... but Julien Donkey-Boy is, so you were actually pretty close...🙂 ...and hey, if you dug Gummo, I've got some good news for both of you—I just read that Harmony Korine is working on a new movie!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 the genius 👍

...as far as DVDs go... hmmm, I watched Ken Park on a DivX file, so I didn't get to see any of the extras...🙂...but if they're actually worth anything, I'll definitely track one down—thanks for the tip 🙂

The movie is absolute garbage and a complete waste of time

Go shock someone else, you jerk😠

Ken Park 😁😁😁

They aired this movie today at 9:30 PM on Z1.
They’ve never broadcasted stuff like this before...
It looked like some kind of softcore porn to me. They really should have scheduled it later; they can't just air this during prime time when kids might still be awake and watching.
Absolutely disgraceful!!!!!

By the way, if anyone’s interested in watching, there’s a rerun tomorrow at 10:30 PM.

Yes, I must admit I was quite surprised myself when I happened to catch him on Z1! It was truly impressive. If he isn't going to be a mainstay in the industry, then what else could one hope for?

That movie absolutely floored me. It was straight-up disturbing!!! 🤷

Well, what can I say?
We’ve touched on this director’s work before, and honestly, I don't have much praise left to give.
Looking at most of the titles you guys mentioned—especially regarding Ken Park—the only exception for me is Kids. I’ve actually spoken highly of that one before because it works as this gritty, low-budget indie flick that captures the essence of youth perfectly. It hit the scene at just the right moment, even if it was controversial back then; that raw, amateurish lens used to depict lost teenagers feels incredibly authentic. It’s a cool piece of cinema, in my opinion.
Ken Park, on the other hand, felt like a total miss for its era. It comes off as a manufactured controversy designed for commercial appeal, which makes the whole thing feel cheap—not just in production value, but in its core ideas and any attempt at being original.
Ultimately, the movie is just bad. It’s visually unpleasant, lacks substance, and feels completely unnecessary. Beyond that, I find the subject matter just plain pathetic, so I don't have much else to add.
But hey, no hard feelings—I'm glad some of you enjoyed it.😉