Boys Don't Cry: A Walking Controversy
Boy’s Don’t Cry is rightfully labeled a controversial
film for many reasons – of which I will dive into. However, before I start to
pick apart the reasons why I’m not fond of this particular film, I think it’s
important to acknowledge that it does have historical importance. Boys is
considered the first mainstream movie to feature a transgender man. Even today,
when LGBTQ+ rights have expanded since the release of this film, there are many
hurdles that queer movies or movies featuring queer characters have to jump
over – hurdles that straight cisgender films don’t have. Not only is it a feat
that this movie was able to be made when it was, but it garnered enough
attention to rake in $20 million at the worldwide box office and earn Hilary
Swank an Oscar (her first) for Best Actress. Films are inspired by the
sociopolitical landscape, but they also put awareness of controversial topics
onto a broader scale. Bell Hooks, in her book Reel to Real, wrote,
“Movies not only provide a narrative for specific discourses of race, sex, and
class they provide a shared experience, a common starting point from which
diverse audiences can dialogue about these charged issues” (Hooks 2). Having a
movie star a transgender man, and do so in a sympathetic light, has an impact
on the dialogue happening in the world. Conversations involving human rights
should be brought into the mainstream. Without those discussions, queer people,
and other ostracized minority groups, would be forced to continuously hide in
the shadow. Despite any of its controversies, it deserves at least some praise
for doing what so many others were unwilling – or unable – to do.
The forefront of this film’s controversies is that a
cis-gendered woman was cast to play a transgender man (in the past the film has
also been criticized for being directed by a cis woman, but Kimberly Peirce has
since come out as genderqueer and identifies as trans). Casting cis actors to
play trans roles is a common occurrence in Hollywood, one that has been
continuously criticized by trans activists and actors. While cisgender actors
are given cis roles and trans, roles Hollywood is relegated that trans actors
can only play trans characters. Therein lies the problem: trans actors aren’t
given anywhere near the same opportunities as cis actors, and any of the roles
that trans actors can play are at risk of being taken by more well-known
cis-gendered people. Until the playing field is more even, and trans actors can
have the same opportunities to play cis-gendered roles, the general consensus
is to cast trans actors for trans roles.
However, in the particular case of Boys, casting a
trans man for the role of Brandon proved difficult. Despite the very present
animosity that exists for trans people today, there are a lot more openly and
proud transgender individuals. Back in the 1990s, being openly trans came with
many more risks given that there weren’t as many resources for queer or as many
legal protections put into place. Director Kimberly Peirce, in an interview
with NPR in 2024, had this to say on the subject: “I wanted to cast a trans
person, and that had its challenges simply in terms of who was available and
who was, you know, able to carry out the role.” Peirce went on to say, “I, you
know, turned over every stone possible to find a trans person who could play
the role. . . [I]n the mix of hundreds and hundreds of people who auditioned,
this person, Hilary Swank, does an audition where we saw the ingredients that
we needed.” It seems that time limitations prevented Peirce from casting the
ideal person she sought to cast. Despite these roadblocks, I would agree that
the criticism this film has received pertaining to casting Swank is still
valid.
Another common criticism of this film is the erasure of
Phillip Devine, a black disabled man who was murdered alongside Brandon Teena
and Lisa Lambert. In the film, Lisa’s name is changed to Candance (Lecy
Goranson). Meanwhile, Phillip DeVine was taken out of the movie altogether. In
her 2024 interview with NPR, DeVine’s name didn’t come up once, not even when
interviewer Scott Detrow asked Peirce what she would do differently if she were
making this movie in 2024. Peirce asserted that “. . . [M]y main goal was to
capture Brandon, help you fall in love with him.” This answer doesn’t assert
anything about DeVine’s reason for not being included in the film, but that’s
exactly the problem. How is it that in 2024 - following the creation of Black
Lives Matter following the murder of Trayvon Martin and the more recent murders
of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd - the existence of a murdered black man who
was completely removed from the narrative of historical formative film was not
addressed? In my research, I was unable to find any concrete answers. Given
what I do know, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume racism and even ableism
had a hand to play in DeVine’s erasure. He was a victim just like Brandon, and
just like Lisa. Yet he wasn’t given the same curtsy. I understand that Brandon
was the focal point of this film, and there’s nothing wrong with that. And
given that Brandon was the main target of Nissen and Lotter’s heinous crimes, I
think it’s understandable that Brandon is spoken about to the degree that he
is. Whatever the logistical reasoning behind DeVine not being in Boys was
(if there was an underlying logistical reason) I think it’s important for us,
as audience members and members of a society that is still indented with
structural and systemic racism and, to ponder the role anti-blackness and has in the way
black people are either portrayed or erased in media. Removing Phillip DeVine
from the narrative is not only cruel to him but also undermines the integrity
of the entire film and the message it’s trying to send.
Moving on to yet another controversy, I feel it’s necessary
to remind readers of the triggering content in this film regarding rape. I
won’t be going into detail, as I’m not comfortable discussing this issue to
that level, but I will be spending the next two paragraphs discussing how I
felt the film poorly executed the depiction of Brandon’s sexual assault. Read
with caution.
Considering that this film is inspired by real events, it’s
crucial to not erase any of the horrid atrocities that Brandon went through.
Brandon was raped, and to deny that would be to deny the trauma she underwent
and the events that transpired that led to his murder. That being said, I am of
the opinion that including an explicit sexual assault scene is internally
unnecessary. It’s an incredibly uncomfortable and traumatizing experience for
the audience. There is a way to acknowledge what happened to Brandon without
putting said trauma so viscerally on display. SD Holoman, a trans artist and
artist director of Queer Art’s Festival said this in response to the film: “Who
does need to see Boys Don't Cry? Straight people — but to see
it as witnesses, not as spectators. Boys Don't Cry can slide into
that long tradition of tragic narratives where we get to be seen as long as we
are killed in the end. Vivek Shraya's work Trauma Clown comes
to mind, as she asks: ‘What is it about the suffering of marginalized bodies
that's so appealing?’” Holoman goes on to add, “Still, we need straight people
to witness it, most of whom have no idea the kind of courage it takes every day
for us to just walk out our front doors. And straight-passing LGB folks need to
see it too — and I'm leaving off the T, the 2S, and the Q here very
deliberately. Because we know. We already know.”
IFC Productions
On one, it is incredibly important that straight and
cis-gendered people see the sort of harassment and brutality that queer people,
and trans people in particular face on a day-to-day basis. I understand that a
level of gritty darkness can act as a slap to the face for people who are
ignorant of the plight of transgender people. However, I think it plays a
little too heavily into the idea that queer people need to suffer to be seen on
the big screen. The explicit way in which Brandon’s rape was depicted in the
movie felt almost like an attempt to ramp up the trauma to its fullest extent
in order to garner sympathy for its cis-het audience. In grappling for that
sympathy, it forsakes the queer audience it strives to represent. What queer
people want to see depictions of themselves being constantly abused? What queer
people want to go to the movies and see their own trauma and pain reflected
back at them in brutal detail?
I give this film its creators props for overcoming the
obstacles of the time to portray a sympathetic and complex depiction of a
transgender person. However, I feel this film doesn’t give Brandon’s story the
justice he deserves. If it were made today, It would need to make efforts to
remain truthful to Brandon and his friends, acknowledging and depicting
atrocities he faced without it feeling exploitative of a trans man’s trauma in
order to appeal to the sympathies of straight and/or cis-gendered audience.
Works Cited
Boys Don’t Cry. Directed
by Kimberly Peirce, Independent Film Channel Productions, 1999.
Hooks, Belle. Reel
to Real. Routledge, 2008.
Knegt, Peter. “Back to 1999: How Trans Folks Negotiate
the Complicated Legacy of Boys Don't Cry, 20 years later.” Arts, CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/arts/back-to-1999-how-trans-folks-negotiate-the-complicated-legacy-of-boys-don-t-cry-20-years-later-1.5330423.
Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
Peirce, Kimberly.
“The Film Boy’s Don’t Cry Turns 25 This Year. What’s It’s Legacy?” Movie
Interviews, NPR, 15 June 2024.
.jpg)
I appreciate that you pointed out how the film failed to mention Phillip DeVine. It was disappointing that Peirce never mentioned him in the film and still fails to mention him. Peirce could have talked about Phillip DeVine and made a commentary on the intersections between race, gender, and sexuality, but instead chose to completely erase him.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how you pointed how important this film was at the time, while still critiquing its many issues and downfalls. The lack of mention of Phillip DeVine astonishes me, since Pierce claimed to research the case for five years, why leave out such a crucial point of the story? If Pierce was aiming to make a film that shed light on the hate filled actions committed by Tom and John, then Phillip DeVine should have been mentioned as well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post, and I found it interesting! First, I appreciate bringing up Phillip Devine and that he was erased from the movie entirely. I read about it on some websites, and I agree with you that erasing him is cruel and undermines the message, which leads to misunderstanding. In terms of the rape scene, I read the interview with Peirce, and I figured out a couple of things that made me understand why Peirce included it and described it precisely. She included the rape scene despite the fact that she was aware of potentially making the audience uncomfortable because the rape actually happened to Brandon, and if she did not include it in the movie, she thought she “might be encouraging the violence.” She also told IndieWire that “if you take it (the rape scene) out, then you are saying that rape is not a big deal or he did not get raped.” Also, Peirce told Colombia magazine that she is a survivor of sexual abuse, so that is also why she wanted to include it in the movie. However, I totally understand your opinion about the scene, and it is a very uncomfortable and it is a traumatizing experience for the audience, especially trans people, to watch. I was uncomfortable watching it, too, and it almost made me pause the movie. So I agree with your opinion too. Overall, great post, and thank you for your thorough analysis!
ReplyDeleteSaki