Such a great comment. My early morning thought is that Cholodenko is making films about the power and disorder that sex can bring, rather than who is having the sex?
High Art was praised, Kids was not. Here's a snippet of an article I found informative, "Her earlier work—High Art (1998) and Laurel Canyon (2003)—deals with sexual dissidence in a fashion that has less recourse to mandated narrative and morality. While these movies explored and suggested the possibility of new forms of desire, relationships, and society, Kids seems to fall back on rehearsed scripts and roles. Throughout Cholodenko’s work there is an obsession with tropes and positions against which her characters chafe. Her previous work, most notably High Art, was received warmly by a radical gay movement (while being underappreciated by more mainstream audiences); Kids was dealt the opposite fate. While Rotten Tomatoes scores Kids at 93 percent (in contrast to High Art’s 73 percent or Laurel Canyon’s 68 percent), it was explicitly rejected by queer academic circles that had broadly appreciated her previous work. Cholodenko’s ambivalent relationship to the conventions of narrative has been a feature of her work, a constant push and pull that she explores, rages against, and is herself captured by." https://www.brightwalldarkroom.com/2017/04/10/sexuality-is-complicated-honey-the-works-of-lisa-cholodenko/
Of the three, I related most to Laurel Canyon mostly because, while their model is flawed, it showed some new ways families could be? The article I linked here notes that in Kids, she kind of undoes that possibility. Honestly, the article I linked is far superior to mine and says what I'd wished I said back then!
You are perfect just as you are and always have been. You have magic, Jack, and that sometimes means you may not feel like you fit, because what can contain magic?
Such a great comment. My early morning thought is that Cholodenko is making films about the power and disorder that sex can bring, rather than who is having the sex?
High Art was praised, Kids was not. Here's a snippet of an article I found informative, "Her earlier work—High Art (1998) and Laurel Canyon (2003)—deals with sexual dissidence in a fashion that has less recourse to mandated narrative and morality. While these movies explored and suggested the possibility of new forms of desire, relationships, and society, Kids seems to fall back on rehearsed scripts and roles. Throughout Cholodenko’s work there is an obsession with tropes and positions against which her characters chafe. Her previous work, most notably High Art, was received warmly by a radical gay movement (while being underappreciated by more mainstream audiences); Kids was dealt the opposite fate. While Rotten Tomatoes scores Kids at 93 percent (in contrast to High Art’s 73 percent or Laurel Canyon’s 68 percent), it was explicitly rejected by queer academic circles that had broadly appreciated her previous work. Cholodenko’s ambivalent relationship to the conventions of narrative has been a feature of her work, a constant push and pull that she explores, rages against, and is herself captured by." https://www.brightwalldarkroom.com/2017/04/10/sexuality-is-complicated-honey-the-works-of-lisa-cholodenko/
Of the three, I related most to Laurel Canyon mostly because, while their model is flawed, it showed some new ways families could be? The article I linked here notes that in Kids, she kind of undoes that possibility. Honestly, the article I linked is far superior to mine and says what I'd wished I said back then!
You are perfect just as you are and always have been. You have magic, Jack, and that sometimes means you may not feel like you fit, because what can contain magic?