"Why do they have to make films like this?" I asked myself as I sat in the darkened theater, a terrible feeling of dread and sorrow rising in my gut. I'd been watching Boys Don't Cry for about 40 minutes and it seemed evident to me where it was going. A distressing story about two interrelated and key issues at stake in American culture, the film's discussion of sexual identity and homophobia is extremely important. What's most disturbing about the film is that people like the characters we see doing horrible things on the screen actually exist.
It seems to me that the manipulative, heart-wrenching construction of this film is necessary, despite the difficulty it causes its viewers. One of my friends described it as "filmic creamwheat - good for you, but unpleasant." Why is it good for me? Like films such as Schindler's List, Boys Don't Cry deals with events that are unpleasant to think about, but must be faced.
Yet I still cringe at having sat through the film. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a bad movie. I thought Hilary Swank did a fabulous job, and I was impressed with the disgusting creepiness that Brendan Sexton III brought to his character (the little brother). Nonetheless, I did not enjoy watching it. It was painful; it was unpleasant; the worst part was that I knew what was going to happen because most films follow a certain strategy when building tension.
Did the filmmaker have a choice about how to portray the story? Absolutely. Could the story have been told with different effects and achieved the same degree of emotion? No. It could have been possible to examine the story from a more historical perspective, attempting to lean towards a more historical, less fictionalized version of the events, but I think the result would have been just one of three possible outcomes - none of which could have done as much as the film did in its present form.
First, it could have ended up looking as though it was endorsing the events that occurred. Such was the mistake that Griffith made with Birth of a Nation , an incredibly racist film that he believed was neutral. Second, a different slant could have ended up sensationalizing the story; the events would have lost any emotional value with the institution of the shock factor. Third, a more historically accurate account might have ended up being very convincing, but it would have convinced the viewer, and I don't think that is the best way to approach this issue.
Convincing someone that something was unjust will ultimately fail to achieve as much as getting someone terribly angry or terribly sad about it. It is no secret that the cinema is a manipulative medium: we give ourselves over (in identification) to the screen and ride along for two hours. If the event fails to thrill us, it probably doesn't cover its own tracks. Frankly, I'm glad that Boys Don't Cry was made the way it was, even if it was a little manipulative. Because, let's face it, nothing is worse than being smacked with the message you're being given by a movie: heavy-handedness in the cinema should only be tolerated occasionally, and in small doses.