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

eXistenZ (1999)

Cronenberg’s film feels more relevant now than it must have upon its release more than a decade ago. The film exists in a videogame world where the line between reality and virtual reality is not always distinct. The advancing complexity and quality of today’s video games are much closer to making this possible than they were ten years ago and we can only imagine what ten years from now will look like. But unlike many forward looking films, Cronenberg’s resists the urge to imagine a world of shiny technology in favor of one more primal. The world in eXistenZ is based in the mind with access granted via bodily penetration, which opens up a world of mutated amphibians, and guns made of bone and teeth.

Having first viewed the film nearly two years ago, my appreciation for it has only grown. The diegetic uncertainty of the characters is projected onto the audience as they try to decipher what is happening and why. Per usual, Cronenberg infuses the virtual world with varying examples of grotesquery. The assembly line of deformed and hybrid amphibians seem to approach normality in a world where genetic manipulation and hazardous chemical spills already transform the creatures. The living game controllers are a bit farther off whereas the bioport from which they receive energy might not be such a stretch. The greatest examination Cronenberg plays with is the concept of the game world and our willingness to partake in it. The eXistenZ players are literally in a state of suspended animation while their minds explore a fictitious yet more stimulating environment. It is a very unexaggerated example of how much time is consumed by mindless entertainment. Further, the film examines the morality found in a virtual world. Avatars come and go at the hands of the protagonists without any thought of the bodies that control them. Cronenberg exaggerates the violence, playing to the tradition of expending a great quantity of ammunition.

eXistenZ could be seen as a game created entirely in the flesh. The means by which it is accessed and played are void of synthetic components and contained in the neural networks of the squirming controller pod. The umbilical cord that plugs into the spine will bleed when severed and then pod itself can become diseased. Dissection of both pod and gun finds no mechanical parts, only flesh, bone, blood, and living tissues. Is Cronenberg suggesting that one day our entertainment will literally be fused with our bodies?

I don't think so. Rather, he highlights potential physical, social, psychological, and ethical dangers of being consumed by virtual world created solely for entertainment. One of the game testers comments on the dilation of the game whereby the hours spent in a game encompasses more time than the external world. Players could live for hundreds of years inside the game, and if given the opportunity, many probably would. Cronenberg certainly realizes the inherent danger in a society should it be consumed by video gaming zombies. And from this he makes an awesome movie.

Imminent Death.

Regardless of the fact that he states it himself in the voiceover narration not five minutes into the film, we know Lester Burnham will die. So the only reason we hang on is to find out who kills him. It is not, as could perhaps be expected from the sedated lifestyle he occupies, himself. It is not his cheating wife who discovers the release of firing a gun and drives home with it placed conveniently by her side. And it is not his daughter who, in the opening frames, looks into the camera and asks for his death. As a matter of fact, it is his closet-homosexual ex-military neighbor who believes Lester to be having an affair with his drug-dealing son. Lester’s death is imminent. But it is not, as is readily suggested, the moment when his brains splatter over his white kitchen walls.

Lester died an indefinite amount of time earlier. We meet him as he stumbles, in job, marriage, and life. But more importantly, we also meet him when our shared ideologies stumble. The perfect American Family with a projected image of prosperity, success, and happiness is an empty promise. The idea that one man can build his life, be master of his own success, and age into happiness is shattered. Lester had quite likely done so. And so what? Years later this very lifestyle of materialism and consumption and working to provide had its hold on him and would not let go. He tried to escape it by reverting to the mentality of his youth. He tried to challenge expectations by working down the occupational ladder from writer to burger-flipper. He also tried to satisfy himself by pursuing the attention of his daughter’s best “friend.”

American Beauty is an unnerving film even if its effect is not immediately noticeable. It is a film that has the ability, and in a way the responsibility, to challenge our accepted beliefs. So many films re-iterate the same ideals of success and the importance of image and the infatuation and inability to cope without commodities and possessions. We can only really grow if we know what we are growing from and without films that point this out to us how are we to know?