Txt Henric F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Larry Clark : “an eye in the storm” (un oeil dans la tempête) Interview by Raphael Cuir (06.02.07) Raphael Cuir: Your photographic work has been related to that of Robert Frank and Diane Arbus, do you souscribe to these connections ? Larry Clark: People like Robert Frank inspired me. But I was really influenced more by people like Lenny Bruce. He was all about the truth and he cut through the bullshit and he was always commenting on the hypocrisy of America, which I was living and seeing, that was important to me, so I was really influenced by those kind of people. RC: - Concerning the Tulsa series, you were really part of the scene you photographed, you were really into it, having drugs and sex with those people on the photographs – how did you manage though, to take the photographs ? LC: Well, you know I’ve had a camera in my hands since I was super young. And then I just had this epiphany one day that I could photograph my friends, cause I’ve never seen anything like this. I was coming out of the 1950s where everything was repressed and back then in America, there was no talk of drugs and things like that, it wasn’t suppose to exist, but it did exist. I was just kind of practicing my photography at first and if you look at the Tulsa book its mostly rooms. So we’re talking about fairly small confided spaces and the Leica was very quiet, I couldn’t have done it with a simple reflex camera, where the mirrors smash together, the Leica was very, very quiet and everybody got used to it pretty quickly. It was more like, if I didn’t have my camera, it was “Larry where’s your camera?” as opposed to, “you gonna take my picture?”. I was just part of the scene, and it was very organic, it really came from a place where there was no thought ever to show the pictures or publish the pictures or anything for a while, and it was very intimate in that way, and I’m very close to the people with a 50 mm lens, so I’m like right here. RC: For you there’s a cinematic quality in the Tulsa series ? LC: The book is laid out like a film, you’re seeing the same people over a period of years so it becomes visual anthropology. I was seeing it as a film, I mean I was in the scene, but I was able I think to be two people at the same time. I had lived in Tulsa and when I was 18, I went to a photography school for two years, which was in the basement of an art school. And my friends were artists students who were sculptors and painters, and I realized what was going on, and I saw that you can use anything for self expression and I happened to have a camera – I would have preferred to have been a painter or a sculptor, anything but a photographer a writer even – but I happened to have a camera. RC: I was wondering how the drugs would affect your perception and if you could feel it ? LC: I became much more focused; very, very focused. I mean, I was a very hyper kid, super hyper kid. Many kids today if they show any sign of being hyper active, they give them Ritalin to slow them down or to calm them down they give them some kind of speed. When you have ADD or something, your brain is moving so quick that you can’t focus, you know ? There is too many things going on, and the speed like levels you out or equals you out. And so maybe, just by accident, I fell into this world of drugs that calmed me down a bit, and leveled me out and gave me this terrific focus where I could make these photographs. RC: It’s kind of the reverse of what you’d expect ? LC: There is this calm in the storm, in the eye of the storm, that I would find through speed. So I was actually self-medicating myself without knowing what I was doing. And I think that calmness enabled me to make photographs, like in the book, especially when there was so much going on, and even when there wasn’t a lot going on, it was all, I guess, interesting to me. RC: How did you shift from photography to movie, how did you decide that the next thing had to be a movie, especially a movie like KIDS, which was certainely not the easiest way to start as a film maker ? LC: I always wanted to be a film maker, but I was so involved in the lifestyle and got so crazy with the lifestyle of the outlaw and drugs and drinking, that I wouldn’t have been able to make a film, I was just too fucked up. So finally, I just said its now or never, I want to make a film. I saw some films that were being made… People called me up and said “you got to see Gus Van Sant's Drugstore Cowboy, this guy’s doing you”, so I went to see the film and it was a good film. But my reaction was this guy is on my turf, I should be doing this. So I just decided I was going to make a film and I went on a personal kind of rehabilitation, I cleaned myself up and got myself together. I knew that I had to clean up my image to get anybody to give me money to make a film and to be taken seriously. I’d done a lot of crazy things, this is a reputation I still have. But I came out and was able to do this and I’d done so much autobiography that I wanted to make a film that wasn’t about me at all. I had three kids then and my son was twelve. He was approaching adolescence and my daughter was younger and I have another daughter who’s older from the outlaw years. And I said, well I want to make a film about contemporary teenagers that I really didn’t know anything about, that wasn’t about me and that’s kind of what started it. I explored that and looked around, and I thought that the skateboarders were the most interesting certainly, visually exciting and interesting and they were treated like outlaws and everybody was afraid of them and hated them. Adults and cops were freaked out by skateboarders, and I decided that it was because they had so much freedom that they could go anywhere and do anything and were totally self reliant, so I started exploring that world. I hung out with skaters from around the country for about three years before I got the idea for the film RC: But KIDS doesn’t seem to be so much about skating ? LC: I wanted to show what was going on with this group of downtown skaters in New York I met, and there is very little skating in that film but it’s actually a skateboard film, a film with almost no skating in it. Everything in that film was true and I’d seen a lot of it happen and I knew for a fact that there were also other things happening and I wanted to show this life, but I didn’t have anything to hook it on. I understood if I made a film that showed all of these scenes without some kind of hook that it wasn’t going to work very well. I knew this kid, this 15 year old kid, in Washington Square. And safe sex was being discussed constantly because they were going to give out condoms in the high schools in New York. The catholic church was against it and there was this controversy, it was front page headlines, and the planned parenthood organization was going around New York and giving away free condoms, that summer, to everybody, and kids were walking around with strings of condoms around their necks and condoms everywhere and safe sex. And this one kid I’m talking to he says, “I practice safe sex, I only fuck virgins.” And over the summer I watched him deflower a couple of virgins and he would take these young girls, he was very young himself, and he was very nice to them. And so I got this idea about a girl who gets AIDS from one sexual encounter, which is the only thing in kids totally made up. RC: Why do you call yourself a moral filmmaker? LC: Well there’s a moral center to all the films. I think : consequences, you know ? Since the Tulsa book, I’ve been called many, many names, “pornographer”, “child pornographer”, “garbage”, “trash”, “he’s romantizing drugs”, and on and on and on… But there is a moral center to all the work and the moral center is consequences. Consequences for everything that we do, and that’s just a fact. RC: There is the question of the aesthetic of violence, if you wrap violence in aesthetic then you might give it some appeal, it’s like legitimizing it … ? LC: I think that regarding the violence that is shown in my films and in the photographs there is always a price to pay for looking at the work.