Boys Don’t Cry Reviews
Boys Don’t Cry
A true story about hope, fear, and the courage it takes to be yourself, “Boys Don’t Cry” is “One of the 10 best films of 1999″ (National Board of Review). Critically acclaimed and nominated for two Golden Globe Awards, this four-star, “must-see” (People), “riveting” (Enterainment Weekly) drama features incredible performances by newcomers Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny.When Brandon Teena, a young man with an infectious, aw-shucks grin and an angelic face that’s all angles, wanders into Falls City, Nebraska, he takes to the town like it’s a second skin. In little time he’s fallen in with a gang of goofy if temperamental redneck boys, found himself a girlfriend, and befriended enough people to form something of a small family. In fact, it’s t
List Price: $ 14.98
Price: $ 5.98
Iron Jawed Angels
- DVD Details: Actors: Hilary Swank, Margo Martindale, Anjelica Huston, Frances O’Connor, Lois Smith
- Directors: Katja von Garnier
- Format: Closed-captioned, Color, NTSC. Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only)
- Aspect Ratio: 1.77:1 ; Number of discs: 1; Studio: Hbo Home Video
- DVD Release Date: September 7, 2004; Run Time: 123 minutes
Oscar-winner Hilary Swank stars in a fresh and contemporary look at a pivotal event in American history, telling the true story of how a pair of defiant and brilliant young activists took the women’s suffrage movement by storm, putting their lives at risk to help American women win the right to vote. DVD Features:
Audio Commentary:With Director Katja von Garnier and writer Sally Robinson
Featurette
Other:HBO Films Spot
The fight for women’s voting rights has rarely been given as dramatic a treatment as in Iron Jawed Angels. Hilary Swank (Boys Don’t Cry) and Frances O’Connor (Mansfield Park) star as second-wave suffragettes Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, who led the final fight for the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Though t
List Price: $ 9.98
Price: $ 2.20
Courageous, Intense, Devastating,
Congratulations to the filmmakers and financiers of this bold film, and also to the Academy for giving it prominence.
“Boys Don’t Cry” succeeds as a portrait not only of a sexual identity crisis but simply as a portrait of one woman’s compassion (Chloe Sevigny) for another human being–it succeeds where “My Own Private Idaho” failed because “Boys” is an aesthetically cohesive work of art. Director Kimberly Pierce is astonishly gifted. Her attention to detail, composition, and her ability to use locations and static objects as metaphors for what is transpiring in the minds and lives her her characters is remarkable. The editing is also another noteworthy feature (although the use of flashbacks in Act III is unnecessary and detracts from one of the film’s most powerful scenes).
Although Hilary Swank is undeniably amazing, it is the character played by Chloe Sevingny that gives this film its emotional resonance. Her role is not a supporting role but a lead role–in fact she is technically the protagonist (undergoes classic character change)and has nearly as much screen time as Swank. Sevingny’s performance is absolutely brilliant.
One warning: I walked into this film unaware of how disturbing it would be and was blindsided. This is a gritty, no holds barred film about a sensitive subject.
Although I doubt this was Kimberly Pierce’s primary intent, the film also stands as a powerful argument in favor of hate crime legislation. There is an emotional plea for tolerance at the core of this movie, and people on the political fence may find that this film moves them in the direction of conceding that hate crimes comprise a separate category.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Sometimes they do,
This movie really made me think about sexual differences and what it means to have a sex change or to want one, or to be trapped in a gender you don’t want. It was very effective to have us see Hilary Swank (who plays Brandon Teena/Teena Brandon) with short hair and male facial expressions and gestures without giving us a glimpse of her as Teena. (Actually we did get a brief glimpse in a photo.) Swank looks like a boy, acts like a boy, in fact works hard to be a boy; indeed that is (sadly) part of what this movie is about, what it means to be a boy in middle America as opposed to being a girl. And then when we have the scene with the tampons and the breast wrapping and we see her legs, the effect is startling, an effect possibly lost on those who knew that the person playing Brandon was a woman. It was when I saw her legs and could tell at a glance that she was a woman with a woman’s legs that I realized just how subtle, but unmistakable are the anatomical sexual differences, and how convincing Swank’s portrayal was.
I was reminded as I watched this of being a young person, of being a teenager and going through all the rituals and rites, unspoken, unplanned, without social sanction, that we all go through to prove our identity, because that is what Brandon was so eager to do, to prove his identity as a boy. I thought, ah such an advantage he has with the girls because he knows what they like and what they want. He can be smooth, and how pretty he looks. It was strange. I actually knew some guys in my youth who had such talent, and the girls did love them.
The direction by Kimberly Peirce is nicely paced and the forebodings of horror to come are sprinkled lightly throughout so that we don’t really think about the resolution perhaps until the campfire scene in which John Lotter shows his self-inflicted scars and tosses the knife to Brandon. Then we know for sure that something bad is going to happen.
Hilary Swank is very convincing. Her performance is stunning, and she deserved the Academy Award she won for Best Actress. She is the type of tomboy/girl so beloved of the French cinema, tomboyish, but obvious a girl like, for example, Zouzou as seen in Chloe in the Afternoon (1972) or Elodie Bouchez in the The Dreamlife of Angels (1998), or many others. Indeed, one is even reminded of Juliette Binoche, who of course can play anything, or going way back, Leslie Caron in Gigi (1958). Chloe Signvey, who plays Lana Tisdel, the girl Brandon loves, whom I first saw in Palmetto (1998), where she stole a scene or two from Woody Harrelson and Elisabeth Shue, really comes off ironically as butch to Swank, yet manages a sexy, blue collar girl next door femininity. She also does a great job. Peter Sarsgaard is perfect as John Lotter, trailer trash car thief and homophobic redneck degenerate.
Very disturbing is the ending. If you know the story, you know the ending. Just how true this was to the real life story it is based on is really irrelevant. I knew nothing about the story, but I know that film makers always take license to tell it the way they think it will play best, and so it’s best to just experience the film as the film, independent of the real story, which, like all real stories, can never be totally told.
Obviously this is not for the kiddies and comes as close to an “X” rating as any “R” movie you’ll ever see. It will
make most viewers uncomfortable, but it is the kind of story that needs to be told.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Not Masquerading and Not about sexual orientation,
This is an excellent film, however the subject is heart wrenching. The film isn’t about a girl masquerading as a man or about a confused lesbian. These terms have unfortunately been equated with the film and are inaccurate. Brandon was an FTM, a transgendered person/transexual who was pre-op. The film does deal with Brandon’s affirmation of his (yes–editors-HIS)true SELF (read Jung). Chloe Sevigny portrays a young woman who is able to see beyond the physical and into Brandon’s true SELF. Unfortuately, 2 disturbed men, who have many issues in themselves, in their limited vision and supposed masculinity are challenged by Brandon’s transgenderness. They project their own insecurities out on Brandon–brutally raping and murdering Brandon, a young mother, and an African American (not shown in the film). Warning: this film is emotionally upsetting and demonstrates the issue of violence on many levels–all folks can relate. In many respects, this film ranks on the levels of Schlinder’s List and Platoon. Please make sure you see the film with someone so you can talk afterwords. Trust me, I conducted a panel after a showing of the film for an audience of 40-50 individuals. Let the pain in and feel it. It’s the only way you can truly understand the film.
It’s too bad that Kimberly Peirce was not nominated for an Academy Award for her direction. The film is EXCELLENT!
Was this review helpful to you?
|While not perfect, I applaud this film. It made me think.,
This 2004 HBO movie depicts the struggles of the early suffragette movement, which eventually gave women in the United States the right to vote. Spanning the years from 1912 to 1920, it stars Hilary Swank as Alice Paul who led the fight with ultimate courage. There’s some interesting history of which I was unaware. And the filmmakers seem to get the theme across. At the time, it was a state-by-state decision as to whether or not women could vote. But Alice Paul wanted to make it a constitutional amendment. There is, of course, is in-fighting in the movement itself with the old factions, led by Anjelica Huston, as Carrie Chapman Catt, preferring to not make a fuss and quietly let each state decide. Alice Paul, however, confronted the establishment head on and brought down some dour consequences on herself and the group of women who followed her lead.
At first I was annoyed at the film. I felt their wardrobes too lavish and the potential romance between Alice and a Washington Post cartoonist was silly. I also thought the women seemed a bit too modern and politically correct. And, frankly, I thought of turning off my DVD and never reviewing this film.
But then there was a scene in which the police turned their backs on protecting a festive parade in which women and children were demonstrating. When the mobs attacked the women I felt real tears dripping down my face. And then, later, when the women were horribly mistreated in prison, I found myself crying again, especially when they force-fed Alice Paul and we see them pushing tubes down her throat and through her nose. By the end of the film I understood exactly what these brave women had gone through in order to give me a privilege that I take for granted. I also know that I have learned a new appreciation for my right to vote and will never take that right for granted again.
While not perfect, I applaud this film. It brought me a new understanding. It will bring it to you too. Recommended.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Best Suffrage Movie I’ve Seen,
As a big fan of historical films, I always get nervous before seeing a movie whose subject is one that I am passionate about. Therefore I was quite apprehensive about this movie.
Turns out, it was the best pull off of all suffrace films. Touching and accurate, with the right amount of heart, humour, and intelligence, this movie made for an enjoyable and educating experience. It reminded me why I am glad to be a woman.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Seeing this movie is a revolutionary experience,
Only because Mary Poppins was released during the beginning of America’s second wave of feminism was its `sister suffragettes’ number inspiring during that film.
Yet the 1964 snippet of British suffrage tactics completely and convieniently overlooked their radical strategies in favor of bouncy and pert cheerleading which could otherwise found at a high school game. While acknowledging the need for women’s rights, that same film also presented the women as pampered housewives who were really too busy for their families.
Thank goodness this HBO movie is much more realistic about the American-British radical suffrage struggle.
Alice Paul (Hillary Swank) and company may be conventionally attractive, but they are also not afraid to show how openly ticked off they are about being held to laws they cannot help form.
Much to the chagrin of the older `respectable’ American suffragists (who want to wait for men to give them the vote), the British experience encourages demand for full sociopolitical equality. When they are jailed for their convictions, the women refuse to eat. By our modern expectations, the prison response (shown in graphic detail) is especially brutal.
For all of their progressive politics, Paul and company downplay race ironically in a time when such justice is most needed. Paul personally welcomes support of Delta Sigma Theta and other African American organizations, but worries their public presence will either undo or prevent the critical southern support necessary to winning suffrage. It is not easy to admit that our movement has an imperfect past, but it is important to ensuring a socially just future for all members. This conciousness is a marked improvement from days when even feminists themselves assumed their experiences applied for all women and race was a separate issue.
Another plus, this same movie recognizes men have always supported the suffrage movement not because they wanted a partner, already had one, or were lobbied until they had no other public choice—but out of similar social justice concern.
Again, earlier suffrage depictions (as with the larger feminist movement) erroneously claimed that the movement was all women. This more accurate historical picture may convince male viewers they have a similar obligation to work for the continuation of modern women’s equality. Other men will question their motives and some women will question their sincerity. But equality is really everybody’s fight.
Attending a college, which was founded by many suffragists, the emphasis on women college graduates (then a statistical minority) was especially sobering. Despite our current knowledge of women’s studies and gender theory, I don’t think my generation (including myself) appreciates how fortunate we are when we would have been jeered at in earlier generations for receiving a college degree. After seeing this movie, I walked across my own campus trying to imagine some of the local townspeople (opposed to the idea of women receiving a college education in their town) threatening us on a near constant basis.
Precisely because Paul’s Equal Rights Amendment was not ratified by the required states by the 1982 deadline, the film ends on a melancholy note. Paul’s work remains half-finished and we have moral obligation to ensure the ERA becomes part of the constitution.
Encouraging viewers to complete the revolution, the movie turns armchair loungers into activists.
Was this review helpful to you?
|