Login
at the time i watched this i haven't seen other larry clark films. i'm more aware of his photography; especially "tulsa". i've also heard of the controversies that arise from his films. so i had some idea of what to expect.
although "teenage caveman" is a sci-fi movie and thats always questionable. ask anyone who's lived through 80's sci-fi; we never expect greatness but enjoy the craziness.
clark became famous for his unflinching look at the life he was living. "tulsa" was full of images of him and his friends shooting drugs and having sex as young kids. its the bluntness and "simple-minded"- lack of opininon - views which ultimately let those photos to suggest "truthfulness". they remain a document of those excesses and are shocking for what they show the world about this unseen phenomenon.
fast forward to clark making movies. a lot of the problem, as i read it, with clarks films is his insistence on showing underage kids having sex and doing drugs. fair enough. but then again as far as i can tell he hasn't glorified these things and rather is making a statement against these behaviors. also of note that the actors/actresses are of age and merely playing younger people. i see no issue with theses things.
however, it can be said where clark fails and where the controversy arises from is his lack of sophistication in getting his message across. where the photos are technically proficient enough, thier simple bluntly photographed scenes act in their favor as raw honest documents. in film however clark is directing a narrative play. this is fake drama from the start and clark lacks the ability to pull it off cleanly. it doesn't help that he uses amateur actors either.
the concept isn't bad. actually its fairly unique and interesting. the filming is smooth enough, fairly interesting if occasionally not entirely consistant. the actors are amateur but never horrible if not that great either. its the script that really lacks here. dialog is crude (probably meant to seem "real" and shocking) and simplistic. actions often are randomly inserted to get to certain dialogs. the concepts that make the movie interesting are barely fleshed out.
examples: much of the dialog is plagued with "fuck" and other words deemed crude enough. much like rob zombie these guys can't write so they attempt to overdue the shock of curse words and crudeness. much of the dialog here is about sex from supposedly naive characters. its tedious at points. in one scene in a nude group bath the "new" character stands up and walks in front of the rest for absolutely no reason...its an awkward mistake seemingly something that should have been cut and refilmed...except then one of the characters says "you have no hair". lame.
none of this is to say that i didn't like the movie. as i stated from the start i grew up with 70's and 80's sci-fi...i'm used to the cheese factor and low budget filming. some of my favorite movies are admittedly guilty pleasures. and i think this movie can fall into that category. i have to say that if clark was anyone else he probably would've sold the rights to this concept and other parts to a movie house and walked away with the money. the script would've gone through heavy editing and watering down. the actors would've been depicted as older but sexy of course. the drugs less, the sex scenes coy and "R" rating appropriate. there would've had to be a lot more money spent on special effects and they would've been great actions scenes added to it. all this would've been given a nice digital runthrough so it was glossy and bright. and in the end we would've had a lame sci-fi that drooled along like every other sci-fi. and if i can give this film credit for one thing its a vision displayed, imperfect but unique. for all its faults i kind've love it. although as a guilty pleasure i might never recommend anyone else watch it.
the movie in general is about a "tribe" of post-apocalyptic cave dwellers who are lead by a pseudo-religious priest. the priest is the father of a boy whose group of friends and love interest are all coming to age and separating themselves from the tribe (or at least dreaming of better things in better ways). the priest is just using poor religious ideas to keep control over everyone especially to make sure that hes the only one getting sex. yes, its this blunt. so of course he sets his eyes on his son's girlfriend....of course. and they fight back. and leave the tribe/cave. after a few days of wandering they get caught in a storm (they lived in caves because they couldn't live outside) and they wake up inside an industrial complex fancily furnished. they are in the lair of a young man and woman who they find out are something else then they appear. sex drugs more sex more drugs...whatever. we find out eventually that the guy was part of a science experiment and is now immortal (or close to it) and he has made the woman immortal by infecting her through sex. now clark can't handle the logic of sci-fi so he begins to make no sense whatsoever. they couple who apparently have lived 120 plus years has suddenly decided that they want to turn a couple of these kids into immortals like them while using the others of the tribe to populate the world because once infected they can't reproduce. huh? why? don't ask. clark doesn't know.
of course our hero, the priests son, and his girlfriend don't partake in the drugs or sex and they are committed to each other. save for a fatal mistake and then we get to the end where they come back to the tribe and "we're taking the kids"--roll credits?!?!???!?!!??????
6/10
