The Framed Reception of Boys Don't Cry

            Kimberly Peirce’s 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry has been much discussed because of its representation of gender identity that is non-typical in a hetero-normative society.  The true story of Teena Brandon, a biologically female transgender person, ends with his death at the hands of two friends who raped and murdered him after discovering the truth about his “gender identity crisis.”  Under discussion now is not the verisimilitude of Peirce’s film but its reception by critics. Entirely ignored is the differentiation between sex and gender.  Within the critical writings, the two are freely interchanged.  From here on, sex will mean biological classification and gender will mean socially/psychologically constructed sexual orientation.  Brandon, then, is a straight male in the process of matching his given birth sex to his gendered feelings and impulses.  However, the reviews coming out saw Brandon as female, and suggested audiences do the same.  By referring to Brandon as feminine and emphasizing the non-diegetic filmmaking aspects, the reviews invite viewers to a reading that negates the film’s intent.

            Brandon Teena identifies as male and Peirce’s film asks its viewers to do the same.  Yet the majority of reviews refer to ‘her’ without distinguishing between sex and gender.  The reviews invite us to see Brandon as a she by calling Brandon “s/he” (Hoberman), “his” (Levy), “him/her” (Foreman), and of course, “herself.” (Gillespie)  Two reviews do appropriately describe Brandon the way he would like to be addressed.  Yet both must validate it first.  Roger Ebert writes, “She is a girl who thinks of herself as a boy…we must use the male pronoun in describing him.”  And Kenneth Turan writes for the Los Angeles Times, “someone who so succeeded in gender disguise that it’s difficult to talk about her without feeling that “him” is the more appropriate pronoun.”  Here, Turan mistakes the “gender disguise” with the actual act of disguising one’s biological sex.  Brandon identified as male and did everything but disguise this fact.  One review even challenges, as an aside, such a notion.  “…as to murder a young woman (or man, depending on how strongly you take the central point of the movie to be, that Teena Brandon was in fact a man for lack of phallus).” (Brundage)  In one simple parenthesis Brundage suggests that perhaps we should not see the character as male and promptly refers to Brandon in the feminine for the remainder of the article.

            Further, the articles propose that Brandon’s state is a “departure from the norm” (Turan) and should be seen as a purposeful and deceitful act.  Ebert states, “She is a lonely girl who would rather be a boy.”  While not incorrect, it again fails to differentiate between Brandon’s sex (girl) and gender (male).  Many reviews connote the performance aspect, describing a “woman who successfully masqueraded as an attractive young man” (Foreman), or “went on to create a charismatic identity as an attractive young man” (Maslin), or “reinvented herself.” (Gillespie) (Hunter)  What this terminology
suggests is that Brandon was covering up the truth as opposed to exposing the truth he felt to be superior.  Other writers go further by condemning his actions of “sexual role-playing.” (Travers)  “The film understands the seductive lure of creating a brand new identity and making it stick.” (Maslin)  Stephen Hunter goes as far as to almost blame Brandon by saying, “…to Brandon’s shame, she loves it; you can feel her joy in the deception, even as it’s building towards violence.”  What these statements ignore is that while Brandon may have been deceiving others, the worse crime would be deceiving himself and living as a woman.  The writers, then, identify with the feelings of assault and fabrication felt by the two men that would take Brandon’s life; a very scary notion itself.  It should be gathered from the above descriptions that audiences are to see Brandon in terms of biology; as a female.  James Brundage asserted that this was the central point of the film and reading it otherwise asks viewers to also read against the carefully constructing viewpoint Peirce creates.  She argues, just as Benshoff states, “most people feel that their sexuality is not something they can freely pick and choose any given day.” (Benshoff 306)

            The second way the reviews frame the film for viewers is by emphasizing the non-diegetic components going into making the film.  What this does, is frame the work as a fictional text rather than a historical document.  By praising Peirce’s choices, the reviews impart that a strong filmmaking hand is needed to make the story worthy of telling.  Peirce is said to have “insightful overview” (Maslin), “command of complex subject matter” (Gillespie) and a film that is “stunningly accomplished in every department.” (Levy)  We should conclude, then, that without such a talented filmmaker Brandon’s story deserves no residence in our modern cinema.  Further testament commends Peirce’s “inspired” (Travers) casting choices “the way she inspires powerful, convincing performances from the whole cast.”  (Foreman)  The “lion’s share of praise” (Berardinelli), even above the story itself, is then handed to Hillary Swank.

            At least nine of the reviews refer to the quality of the acting.  Of this selection, three of them go as far as to credit it with making the film a success.  Without it, “The film’s success would not be possible,” states the LA Times. (Turan)  Swank’s “…devastating portrayal, does account for much of the film’s credibility”  (Maslin) and “is the major reason the film has received such avid press acclaim.” (Allen)  Lest we ourselves forget, the film is based on true events.  The praise, and there is no word better, for Swank’s performance is ne’er ending and is described as a “stunner” (Gillespie), “luminous” (Hunter), “a stellar stunt” (Hoberman), “raw, courageous” (Berardinelli), and “crosses into a realm of veracity rare in any film acting.” (Stack)  The most telling description can be attributed to James Berardinelli who states, “Swank’s portrayal makes the final twenty minutes almost unbearable.”  As viewers then, we are lead to believe that Brandon’s story stands inferior to its own representation.  By highlighting the representation of the issue, the content seems almost an after thought.  It is not the story that is unbearable but Swank’s portrayal of it.  These reviews frame the making of the film with utmost importance.  (Reflected, perhaps, by Swank’s Academy Award)  And reminders of acting, of carefully managing the script, and of executed every aspect with precision prepares the viewer to look at these aspects in making the story itself important.  The content, it seems, can only be validated through form.

            More than half the reviews also frame the story as horror (Foreman) (Gillespie) or a tragedy. (Berardinelli) (Hunter) (Stack)  Thus Brandon’s role as tragic hero (because of his sexuality) is further perpetuated.  And while such “devastating” (Turan) outcome is not incorrect, it doesn't allow the audience to read the story as anything but “the tragic life and death of a boy trapped in a girl’s body.” (Foreman)  Thus from the first frames we, as the prepped audience, know to expect a tragedy.  Yet the reviews in no way suggest that it is simply the ending that is tragic.  Therefore the audience reads the entire tale as unfortunate and sad, both Brandon’s life and death.  No differentiation is made and we are to take Brandon’s confusion (actually the confusion of everyone else around him) as the tragic “strangeness.” (Turan)  His life is pushed further into the fictional realm as the age-old tragic hero.

Thus the early reviews for Peirce’s film rather unintentionally steer the audience away from the reading the director prefers.  We are not to take Brandon as male but be just as confused about his gender as the rest of the on-screen characters are.  And fumblingly for the correct terminology frames the audience to do the same whilst watching the film.  It’s as if to suggest that Brandon is to blame for such a problem.  As stated, the performance aspects on the part of the actors are highlighted, perhaps reflecting the numerous references to Brandon’s performance; an action that seems to warrant accusation.  Once again, the spectators will find such a reading easier than had they developed in their own.  And we will be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't read Brandon’s life as tragic.