hy do we continue to watch movies that do nothing but disturb us? For some reason we are powerfully drawn to them. The strangest part is leaving the movie thoroughly astounded, yet feeling glad that we saw it. Somehow we feel fulfilled by watching truly horrific films. "Kids" wrecked my head. It was done so well that at times I forgot the 'kids' were acting. The way it was filmed made the movie seem very much like a documentary. The fact that this scenario came out of the mind of a nineteen-year-old sheds even more realistic light upon the film.

I really could not hate anyone in the movie. Even Telly, the HIV-spreading virgin de-flowerer that he was, evoked pity in me. What struck me the most was how much the breakdown of the family unit is affecting young people's morality today. Having unlimited freedom at the age of sixteen is a huge responsiblility and like most sixteen-year-olds, a definite avenue for getting into a great deal of trouble. Many times I found myself wondering why none of these kids had curfews. Call me old-fashioned at my wise age of twenty years, but as much as I hated curfews, they kept me safe and reminded me that I had a home I was wanted at. And how about the girls who went for a swim in that deserted pool with a bunch of guys that had been drinking forties all afternoon and who had just practically killed a guy by beating him over the head with their skateboards? Had they no little voice in their conscience saying: "This is not such a good idea. We're outta' here." And why didn't they have this little voice? Most likely because there was no parent around to instill such moral guidelines within them while they were growing up. Maybe Freud was really getting at something when he distinguished between the id, ego, and super-ego and said that the super-ego was our moral conscience developed within us by our parents. Without this, our id runs free. The people in this film definitely struck me as id-driven individuals.

Instead of having their super-egos molded by the influence of a stable family life, they were developed by watching their elders run free. The really young boys that hung out at the party made this poignantly obvious. They seemed like very decent and sweet little kids (one of them called Jesus his "savior"). However, the environment they were surrounded by wouldn't keep them sweet for long. They were learning that to be a cool guy, one had to drink a lot of alcohol, do a lot of drugs, and talk a lot about fucking. There seemed to be no one around to let them in on the more productive and meaningful aspects of life. In essence, the teen-age boys at the party were their parental figures - shaping for them what they would internalize as right and wrong. Furthermore, these teen-age boys most likely had the same "parental figures" themselves. Even further, these impressionable little boys would one day be the same kind of "parental figures" for other impressionable little boys. So where and how does this vicious cycle end? One possible stride in the right direction is the production of films like "Kids."

Now I realize that I will be accused of sounding like a blatant Republican for raising the issue of illegitamacy, but you have to admit that it comes out very clearly in the movie. Others will say that I have reacted in the exact way the director wanted people to react. Perhaps this is true. If so - good for him - because I think that the issues raised are things we really need to think about. And before I continue any further I would like to clarify the fact that I realize this is not the way all young people without strong parental figures behave. I know that there are many independent young people out there striving to lead productive and eventful lives. But I think that in order for this film to make the impact that it did, it had to show the uglier side of today's chaotic society.

Like many disturbing movies I have recently seen, there were times when I contemplated leaving. Especially as a woman, it was very difficult to sit andwatch a drug-induced sleeping girl get raped by a drunk asshole in a room full of passed-out partiers. It wasn't any easier to hear Telly go into such detail about why and exactly how he loves to fuck virgins. The hardest thing of all was that Jenny, who had slept with no one else in her life but Telly, is the one that ends up with HIV. Her friend who had slept with twelve or more guys without protection is clean, but Jenny is not. This rather undermines the whole idea of "don't sleep around," don't you think? Here is the one character in the movie that might have a morally strong idea of what sex is all about and the importance and dangers involved with sleeping around, and she gets HIV. The only way to get a sound moral out of this is to remember that Telly did sleep around - a lot - and he is the one that gave her the virus. Hence, the morally sound are being affected by the morally not-so sound.

One student I spoke to about the film said that she thought it shed too negative a light on city life in general. She had grown up in the city and hung out with people who tended to do a lot of drugs, but they were always safe and very aware of HIV. I responded that I was very glad to hear that, but the fact still remains that a great deal of young people really are not aware. So if the film casts a negative light on city life in general then maybe all the people who aren't paying attention to HIV will be noticed by those who are. And then maybe everyone in general will start paying more attention. It is so obvious - the movie had to be disturbing to get its point across.

We all know (hopefully) that not every young person in the world is as unaware and amoral as the characters in the film. There are many people out there with a strong sense of morality and an awareness of the dangers associated with free love. Jenny could very well be one of these people herself. It just goes to show that even the people who are being careful are not safe as long as there are so many people around that are not being careful. What if just once you slept with one person one time because she/he was so extremely sweet and sincere that you were certain there was no way she/he could possibly bring harm to you. And even though you were aware of the dangers of HIV, you let it go this one time. And look what happens - you later discover that you have slept with a shmoozy, one night-standing, disease-ridden fuckhead. It could happen to anyone - any day a "charming" dude like Telly might show up in our lives and throw us for a loop. It is people like Telly that we have to be concerned about - but it is also people like Jenny.

Just because we are aware of the dangers of sex does not mean that everyone else is. A movie like this addresses the problems in our society by highlighting the people who have these problems. If it did not concentrate on kids in the city being extremely careless about drugs and sex, then how would it have gotten its powerful message across? Those of us who are aware need to be reminded of all the people who are not; then maybe we can do something about it.

I just reread this and realized that I sound like my mother. What is happening to me? All those times she told me that I would heed her advice some day in the future, I laughed. Well, it looks like some things never change. One of the reasons so many people are not aware of HIV is the serious lack of parenting going on in the lives of many young people today. The last scene of the movie once again makes this abundantly clear. Casper asks, "What the fuck just happened?" (or something close to that). He has just raped a girl who has HIV. He is sitting in the middle of a room full of passed-out teenagers stretched out all over the floor. In the parent's bedroom, a thirteen-year-old virgin has recently been deflowered by a guy with HIV. It is possible that in the passage of a few hours, the HIV virus has gone from two hosts to four.

Who does Casper expect to answer this question? Could it possibly be that authority figure that does not seem to exist? Could he be trying to call one into existence? Perhaps he is saying, "Okay, I'm only sixteen, I want to be a real 'kid' and stop making my own decisions for a while because I don't know if I'm doing such a good job of it on my own." He is obviously bewildered by the entire situation. The essential innocence of the kids in this movie comes across most strongly in Casper's question. Yes, they are strikingly obnoxious individuals, but the reason why is beyond their control. This is what Casper admits when he asks someone else to explain what has happened to him.

© Trincoll Journal, 1995.