The Smell of us originally was supposed to be a movie about Larry Clark, it turns out to be something different. He projects himself in 4 different characters, different qualities and characteristics of himself, he was once a teenager and he still craves for being one even in his 70s.
All the scandals revolving The Smell of Us are absolutely hideous, reading the 40 page coverage from Cahier du Cinema (one of France most prestigious movie magazine, with a review plus interviews with Larry Clark and his team, the screenwriter, cinema photographer, producer and few of the actors.), made me realise something, I know I am being really calculating but it might be true, most of the crew including the cast think that this might be his last movie, and the production team really wants to make a film about Clark. So how could they get what they really want? Allowing him to make his latest project in Paris and secretly accumulating footages and stories about Clark and 10 years later or when he is dead, the story of Larry Clark comes out in the cinema. This is my conclusion after reading all the interviews and watching the movie.
I read the review before watching the film. I have to say it was really positive, in general it is rated 4/4. Claiming it one of his best works to date and what it is addressing is controversial but yet relatable. For me reading a review is already too much, I am the kind of movie-goers who wants to know absolutely nothing prior watching. Since I have already seen two of his movies, Kids and Ken Park which I find pleasure watching, however, The Smell of Us is utterly a disaster, a disappointment and not his finest work.
I totally get what is he trying to show in The small of us, but I strongly disagree with the method he used (I watched a few of his films, I'm aware of what I am getting myself into). Still the way he sees the teenagers is beautiful, how he approaches and puts on the big screen is magnificent but the story itself lacks a certain synchronicity. Yes it is still about youth, there isn't much explication about why they become rent boys, the relations between the characters. In the interview with the screenwriter Scribe, the reporter specifically asked what were the differences between the film and the script. It is known that Clark cut a few scenes which explain or show the development of the characters. Larry Clark forbade him to be on set, and Scribe was called on set by the producers to talk to the actors since they refused to continue filming after knowing Clark himself would be playing the feet fetish. (As per the interview with one of the casts, this has happened before during Bully, cast leaving in mid filming process) First Scribe was the one who casted the actors which my theory is the actors were not happy with the changes in the script and basically had no direction from Clark, on top of things they didn't sign up to do. So what did Clark do, he simply cut the scenes and altered the story and among the details which he didn't think is important.
In the interview with Larry Clark, he kept talking about the Director Cut of The Smell of Us, the version in the cinema now is the short version. Some of the scenes he mentioned in the interview do not exist in the short version. The more I read the interview the more annoyed I get. I wonder what have I watched, if the version in the cinema has an obvious difference with the director cut then why even bother releasing it. It feels like they are talking about a different movie in the interviews and it is reported that Clark was filming with his cellphone during most of the film, the cinema photographer offered him a cinema but he refused it. It feels like he was making something else, his own little project.
The contrast between the youth and the old suppose to be a big aspect in the film, yes he tries to tackle it which is not clearly done. His obsession with the youth is what he is known for. I have no problem with his obsession, is how he presented on the big screen that bothers me. According to the the script writer the story was supposed to be richer and more personal, but since Clark didn't like the idea of it, he changed it. I found the scene where he portraits a feet fetish old man really disturbing, he kept saying "mon petit graçon" (my little boy, according to one of the interviews he wanted to say my beautiful boy) while indulging the dirty toes of a rent boy. What is the purpose of this? His weird obsession? Some scenes do not even serve any purpose, it's just for the fun of it, like the very last scene. (Clark admitted it in the interview.)
There is a phantom during the entire movie. You could see some cellphone footages in the movie. sometime you could see an actor filming with his cellphone. Scenes which there are not suppose to be a third person, maybe with some explanation it might work. The contrast between a professional camera and a cellphone is distinct, it made some of the scenes awkward and not too coherent. Clark explained later it was like him filming the kids in all time.
The film has no relation with Paris, it didn't have to be filmed in Paris, it could be anywhere. For me it is important that if you are an american director who always tackles teenage problem in your own country. Is normal the audience expect a bit more when you chose to film in a foreign country. Apart from the film is in french there is nothing foreign about it. It is confusing since it seems like a movie about teens in Paris, which one of the casts mentioned it didn't truly response to the teens nowadays in Paris.
The whole movie is a huge misunderstanding and miscommunication which could possibly turn into something interesting in the future (only if my theory is accurate). As for now, The Smell of Us is just a disappointment.
*references from Cahier du Cinéma N°707 Janvier 2015
