Boy's Don't Cry
Boys Don’t Cry is a 1999 biographical film directed by Kimberly Peirce based on the murder of Brandon Teena. Brandon Teena was a transgender man living in Nebraska who was raped and later murdered by two men, John Lotter and Tom Nissen. As a trans person living in Nebraska, the film and the real-life events that it’s based on hit close to home. This, along with the graphic depictions of rape and acts of violence that are shown in the movie, is why I’m personally not watching this film. So, instead of watching the film and providing a review, I thought I would go into detail about why I am not watching it, showing that sometimes reasons why one doesn’t watch a film can be just as insightful as a film review.
As I mentioned before, Boys Don’t Cry is based on the murder of a transgender man living in Nebraska. Halberstam described the film as having a “decidedly queer and unconventional narrative” that is ascribed to the film's success. However, I don’t see what is so unconventional about a narrative that revolves around the death of a transgender individual. In “Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity,” Brenda Cooper mentions Peirce's interest in “transvestism and transsexuality.” Reading about the director's interest in the transgender community makes me wonder why she chose to highlight such a brutal story. Why highlight a story that reinforces the narrative that those who are transgender are destined for brutal lives and even more brutal deaths? As Oliver Whitney writes in his review of the film, “Boys Don’t Cry isn’t a film about what it’s like to live as a trans person, but about what it’s like to die for being one.”
Also, from what I’ve read, the film shows the rape and beating of Brandon in graphic detail, another reason why I am hesitant to watch the movie. I question why Peirce felt it was necessary to depict sexual assault scenes in such a graphic way. There are plenty of ways to indicate that a character has experienced sexual assault without showing it in detail. The use of sexual assault scenes in films is something that is widely discussed, with many film critics and audiences arguing that sexual assault and rape scenes are unnecessary. The graphic nature of these scenes combined with the overall nature of the story is, to me, reminiscent of the torture porn genre often found in horror films. It feels like Peirce chose this story over a story of acceptance because she knew that it would gain traction. And it did gain traction; Hilary Swank won her first Oscar for her performance in the film, yet another example of a straight/cis actor gaining recognition for playing a queer role.
Peirce also decided not to include Phillip DeVine in her film, which is another choice I question. Phillip DeVine was a Black man who was murdered alongside Brandon Teena. By deciding not to include DeVine in Boys Don’t Cry, Peirce missed an opportunity to address how race, class, and gender intersect and affect members of those communities. DeVine wasn’t even mentioned at the end memorial credits, something that adds to my ever-growing list of things that upset me about this film.
On one hand, I understand that this film is considered important because it represented trans people during a time when there was no representation. But on the other hand, I don’t think a film should be considered great regarding representation just because there is nothing to compare it to. Just because a film is the first to do something doesn’t mean it does it well. I think J. Jan Groeneboer puts the sentiment best in his review of the film, stating that “[p]erhaps it is time to leave the film behind. Boys Don’t Cry is not meant for a trans audience. The purpose of the brutal violence in the film is to galvanize cisgender sympathy for the lives of trans people.” Maybe if I watched the film I would feel differently, but for now, I know that watching it would only make me upset, and whatever insights I might glean from it would not be worth it.
Citations:
- Cooper, Brenda. “Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality,” Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 19, no. 1, 2022, pp. 44-63
- Groeneboer, J. J. (2023). “Erasure Through Representation in Boys Don’t Cry.” Studies in Gender and Sexuality, vol. 24, no. 2, 2023, pp. 131-134 https://doi.org/10.1080/15240657.2023.2211912
- Halberstam, Judith. “The Transgender Look,” In a Queer Time and Place, New York University Press, 2005, pp. 83-92
- Whitney, Oliver. “‘Boys Don’t Cry’ and Hollywood’s Ongoing Obsession with Trans Suffering.” Them, 13 Dec. 2018, www.them.us/story/boys-dont-cry.
Hi Milo!
ReplyDeleteI absolutely respect your decision not to watch this film, and your willingness to discuss this. I was at a religious seminar once (in 2018), and the speaker spent a great deal of time mocking "liberal snowflakes" who needed trigger warnings, and he ran around the stage fake whining about how he needed a trigger warning for everything. That incident upset me so much that it was a major contributor to why I abandoned religion. Nowadays, as someone who has experienced sexual trauma, this film was very upsetting to watch. I had to walk away for a lot of it. The brutal rape and murder of Brandon is important to remember, and the statistics of violence against trans people, but his life was more than his martyrdom. This film is such a tragic way of telling the story, and it paints a grim message for other trans people. I think that the film does not honor Brandon in depicting his trauma, instead it just retraumatizes trans people and victims.
Milo,
ReplyDeleteYour decision to not watch this film is, frankly, real as hell. While watching the film, I was increasingly uncomfortable and upset with its presentation of violence - I agree that it feels very torture porn-y. While it is important to acknowledge the horrific violence against trans people, I also question the ethics of Peirce sensationalizing and fictionalizing this violence that was faced by a real person. I agree with your note that the sensationalization of violence faced by Brandon feels pretty gross, and that this film is probably one to leave behind. Thanks for your insight :-)
Hello Milo! I fully respect your decision on not watching the film and agree this movie was very difficult to watch. I am glad you brought up Phillip DeVine who was also murdered with Brandon Teena. After doing more research on the story I found it interesting and wondered why they did not include him in the movie (could it be it would take away from the transgender gaze? We may not know). I am glad to read about your analysis and found it very insightful. Thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteHello!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your point about how unnecessary graphic sexual assault scenes are. There are many other ways to showcase a victim of sexual without explicitly showcasing the assault. I, too, felt that it veered into torture porn territory. I couldn’t help but feel that is was exploitative a real person brutal rape in order to get a big reaction and garner sympathy. It felt really gross to me, and it’s honestly one of the biggest reasons, right alongside erasing Phillip Devine from the narrative, I don’t like the film.
Anyway, you had some very insightful thoughts, and i enjoyed reading what you had to say!
I totally understand why you didn't watch the film, and frankly, I don't think you missed anything. I think you make a lot of good points. I don't see the reason to make a film about such a tragic event other than because it would gain traction. I also don't see why the violence had to be so graphic. As Hailey said, it feels exploitative to use the rape and murder of a real person to garner sympathy for trans people. We should respect and be sympathetic towards trans people without it being because they were raped and/or murdered. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI totally understood your stance on not watching this film. Unfortunately, I went in mostly blind, and viewed the horrific hate crimes that Pierce choose to depict on screen. While this is important to remember, as to respect his memory and the memory of others who have suffered through hate crimes, I felt that showing it, especially so graphically, was probably not needed. If making the audience uncomfortable in order to enact change was Pierce's point, I feel like there was a way to go about it that was not as sensationalized. Loved hearing your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI'm so obsessed with your refusal to watch this movie and find myself feeling a similar way. "Just because the film is the first to do something doesn't mean it does it well" is a great point, and I would rather have audiences not watch a film with a trans character at all than watching this one, just because I don't think it adds much to public perceptions of trans people other than how dangerous it is to be trans in America, a sentiment that could be expressed in a lot more rhetorically effective ways than brutal depictions of violence.
ReplyDelete