2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

bell hooks is such a great example of not being afraid to look, think and speak.
i watched so many of those videos. the one on her critique of the movie Kids is pretty stunning.

Honestly, I thought Hooks completely misinterprets and over-reads "Kids." She criticizes it as a film "deeply and profoundly right-wing in its relation to the politics of race and gender" and as having a "conservative take" on the important issues it presents (AIDS, sex, misogyny, rape). She notes an undercurrent of sexism and racism in the movie, but forgets that the movie is designed to demonstrate a kind of brutal, documentary-style realism, and give an authentic interpretation of a reality which is pervaded by sexism and racism, especially in the age group it is exploring. In other words, the racism and sexism Hooks is noting in the film are not qualities of the film itself, but aspects of the racist and sexist reality the film is potraying. Hooks says, "we are being asked to...identify with those hetersexual, misogynistic boys...largely because they are the people who speak, who have a voice." I would argue that this is the exact opposite of what the film is trying to do. Through the crude, disgusting, ignorant, misogynistic language of these two "protagonists" -- in fact, "anti-heroes" -- the audience is not being asked to celebrate or excuse their actions, but rather to feel a complex mixture of sympathy, pity, and anger at their tragic ignorance, an ignorance which ends up being fatal to every major character in the film -- this is an irony Hooks fails to note. Hooks also misinterprets the rape in the movie as an example of isolated misogyny with no filmatic or artistic purpose, when in fact, the rape was something inextricably plot-related, in that it will eventually cause the rapist, Casper, to contract AIDS indirectly from his own best friend. Thus, Casper's violation is his own violation, because the girl Casper rapes contracted AIDs from Casper's best friend -- this is another irony Hooks makes no mention of. Kids is not conservative or right-wing, but gritty, polemical, and authentic, and, incidentally, full of stunningly realistic acting.

Sorry, I meant "Casper's violation of the woman is his own violation"

I completely disagree with you Rowan. Look at the way this film is shot. Hooks states that the view is being directed by a middle age white man and he is looking at young boys of color and teen girls. She asks us to tell her the name of the two female actresses and finds out that many cannot. The disappointment she has is that the voice we are getting IS the voice we already get and in no way did this film further the ability to infiltrate with a new perspective. To educate by giving voice to a different voice. Hey if you didnt already know kids have sex and do drugs and can be completely amoral and selfish you are no way near the front lines of society that are trying to actually help these kids. Thats all bell was saying. Plus she points out that people had to defend this film because it had sex and disease the very thing our government is trying to clamp down on in the art making culture which is how much of culture gets its information about the other.
As far as authentic reality, those children are way to sprayed up with dewy droplets on their naked skin to be authentic, that was for the voyeurs in all of us and we are all trained visually to respond to the young naked figure. Its not acting, its kiddie porn.
Rowan, bell hooks is a black woman who is a feminist and a cultural critic of the white patriarchy ( thats you and to a degree me ) look further into what she is saying because it is about power, domination, and abuse, which this film had in spades and which she is saying is not a film which furthered her cause which is inclusion and healing, but only supported what we already know under the guise of educating us.

good movie yo