Boys Don't Cry

I guess the real quality issue with real-life stories always lies in the set-up.

I mean the payoff must be fairly interesting for them to make a movie about it in the first place, right? So the set-up is what distinguishes the incredibly soporific "Silkwood", which plays like a PBS show, from the taut and tense "The Insider", which plays like an international espionage flick.

Now "Boys Don't Cry" has inherent potentially fatal flaws to overcome: the premise is basically only interesting because it all really happened. Make the same movie, don't tell anyone it's all true, and it's a ho-hum premise. Like Silkwood, when it isn't engaged in the main premise, it's just down home folks doin' some down home stuff. Drinkin' beer and tippin' cows and actin' like illiterate assholes.

Am I trashing the movie? Not at all. Just setting up the next statement, which is that it overcomes those problems beautifully, much like The Insider. Just about every minute is charged with tension - will the impersonation be discovered by someone, will the white trash cons erupt into violence, how the hell will Teena/Brandon make love to a woman without her discovering the secret, will the cops catch their various evil doings, will the cops unearth the criminal activities in Teena's past ...

Because it is effectively directed and performed to maintain the tension, and because the performers carry off the mood exactly as it should be, this is an excellent piece of filmmaking.

NUDITY REPORT

There may be some body doubling for Hilary Swank.

The upward pan is a smooth pan, so the crotch must belong to Swank.
The examination scene is NOT a smooth pan. It appears that the scene was stopped and started again, and the facial frames include no bosom at all. Unlike the other scene, there was no reason at all to do a pan in the first place. The scene would probably be more effective with the camera pulled back a bit to show the body and facial scars together, so this looks mighty suspicious.
The shower scene is just a butt. Could be anyone's butt. Well, maybe not Marlon Brando, but almost anyone else.

Chloe Sevigny showed her breasts in a lovemaking scene

DVD info from Amazon.

Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1
Full-length commentary
featurette

Did I like it? Not one bit. I admired its artistry and I was impressed by the cast, but what is there to like? It gained so much critical attention because it was a true story about a hate crime, with a sad ending.

Teena didn't want to overcome the sexual identity crisis in order to save the environment or create an inexpensive eternal light bulb. Nope. She only wanted to prove that she could be a lyin', stealin', fightin'-fer-no-reason, drunk drivin', longneck drinkin' and burpin', work-evadin', chain-smokin', shopliftin', buyin'-booze-fer-minors, no-account trailer trash scumbag. So if Teena had been accepted, she/he would have settled into a life of robbin' Circle K's.

Do we need more of those guys? Lookin' out my windows, we seem to have plenty of 'em here in Texas, iff'n you Yankees have an acute shortage.

Whether she ended up a lesbian, or a transsexual, or a transvestite, or something completely unique, the bottom line is she wasn't really a very good person. Even when she suffers, you have a hard time opening up your heart to touch her pain, because she always could have made the choice to integrate into life as a decent man instead of hanging out with criminal sociopaths.

Jeez, Brandon. Dress like a guy, get an education, make a few bucks, get the operation, change your name legally. Bingo, you're a man, and nobody is the wiser about your past.

Anyway, I did think it was a tense and powerful and gritty movie, but I'll never watch it again.

The Critics Vote

General consensus: three and a half stars. Ebert 4/4, Berardinelli 3.5/4, Apollo 86/100.
Rotten Tomatoes summary. 86% positive reviews, 93% from the top critics.
The two lead actresses were nominated for Oscars. Swank won as Best Actress.

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 7.8/10, #234 of all time. Apollo users 78/100

With their dollars ... although the movie was widely acclaimed and honored, both at the time and in the present, it has never been a box office success. Total domestic gross: $11 million. Because of the weak ticket sales, it never expanded beyond 360 screens, despite the Oscar recognition

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, I don't know how to rate the film. I can see that it must be a solid movie, despite my personal inability to connect to it. Most critics and IMDb members adored it. That would imply that it should be a B. On the other hand, nobody much paid to see it, and it could not be expanded beyond 360 theaters, despite multiple Oscar nominations, which indicates that it was an arthouse darling with no crossover to mainstream viewers. In that case it would be a C+. Either way it is a good piece of filmmaking, but I guess you'll have to decide for yourself whether it is the way you want to pass a couple of hours of your time.