Thoughts on The Crying Game

[Standbyyourfrog]

I just watched this again for the first time since the current Troubles began, and was as blown away as I was 30 years ago, if not more so. Jaye Davidson's character is sympathetic in a way that is almost unimaginable today, for me at least, thanks to trans rights activists and the state of things.

It's the reveal that did it. Fergus vomiting makes you feel awful for Dil. Can you imagine how that scene would be handled now?

Just wanted to know your thoughts on the film, then (if you caught it then) and now.

Sex and gender discussion - assume that is why the OP posted here.
Is the film misogynist?
Is the film transphobic?
Would it be made the same way today/could it be cast the same way today?
fwiw
No
No
No

And when was Heartstopper released at the cinema?

It's a beautiful film. I've got it on dvd

I don't know - imagine the furore if there was a reimagining with Jordan Gray playing Dill.

?

I’m just pointing out that contrary to Mishi’s claim, age appropriate LGBT material is popular, critically acclaimed and not particularly controversial in the current day.

Seems a bit weird to limit the parameters to cinema-only at a time when the cinema business is so different (kept alive by superhero themed blockbusters).

A talented, sensitive actor definitely makes for a better quality product!

Heartstopper, Big Boys, Euphoria, Umbrella Academy, Pose, High School...to name but a few and many secondaries have LGBT alliances now so yes, times they are a changing, which - given the shitshow that was clause 28 - can only be a good thing.

Not necessarily if Gray can act. I didn't see the Channel 4 programme that caused such a fuss but Jordan Gray's short comedy films about the supermarket were very funny and poked fun at Gray

I've no issues with the nudity at Gray's Fringe show- it was warned in advance.

Channel 4, I do wonder if that was encouraged by the show's producers.

I liked Gray on The Voice.

I did not like Gray’s penis on Friday Night Live.

Wouldn’t have been bothered if Gray’s penis was on telly at midnight tho.

It was about protests being held outside of cinemas for showing LGBT films.

Films like Bros (which actually got decent reviews) bombed at the cinema and then the director moaned about homophobia. But there were no protests. Some recent Disney films with LGBT tokenism have also bombed.

Section 28 is a myth. I was at school during that time and we were taught about homosexuality et al in a very balanced manner.

It was an awful policy, but the fear-mongering was not based off of reality.

I always thought Section 28 (or Section 2) as it was in Scotland had a large element of attempting to curb local authority powers as anything else.

At the time there was a big disconnect with the political make up of central and local government.

Section 28 and the Scottish equivalent Section 2 were in Local Government legislation - not Education, Social Work or Child Care.

I remember writing to The Scotsman newspaper about it and pointing out that it didn't apply to private schools.

Yep - this variety article goes over loads of possible reasons for Bros being a flop that aren’t homophobia (although it does likely play a small part).

variety.com/2022/film/box-office/bros-box-office-bomb-why-billy-eichner-comedy-flopped-1235391341/

Comedy just hasn’t sold well at the cinema for at least ten years.

I doubt The Crying Game would get a cinema release at all now, except for a few art house cinemas.
It was a flop in the U.K. initially and then Miramax Films took it on and released it in the US.

Weird to think such an iconic film might have gone completely unnoticed if not for Harvey Weinstein and his brother.

(also, I can’t read ‘Bros’ without thinking ‘Bros’ as in Matt & Luke Goss 😂)

This has been getting rave reviews.

www.picturehouses.com/movie-details/005/HO00012606/joyland

The Cameo is semi-art house but it's on at all the mainstream chains too.

Yes, it was an excellent film.

The difference between then and now was that the AIDS situation had created a backlash against gay men and that it was always particularly difficult for a members of the black community to be out as gay. Being a transvestite was more acceptable form of cover. Dil didn't believe he was a woman.

A few years ago a swishy young black or mixed race lad would probably have been sent to the Tavistock. Didn't Tavistock staff joke among themselves about transing the gay away?

You've been here before with this message, undermining the experiences of LGB people. You were at school, you were young, you were unaware of the bigger social and political picture that included AIDS and gay-bashing and the far right. Would you tell someone who reported having lived with racism all their lives that it was a myth? Would you tell a survivor of some outrage that it wasn't as bad as it seemed?

Let the people who were directly affected and in fear of losing their jobs and their reputations speak.

It's on All 4 (or whatever Channel 4's on demand service is currently called), and is available for another few weeks

Looks like Joyland has deffo been controversial in it’s home country, Pakistan!

Sadly not showing anywhere near me at this time (nearest listing is 40 miles away) but I’ll keep an eye out for it.

Fascinating article about the film on the BFI website: www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/how-saim-sadiq-joyland-beat-censors-pakistan

I would love to know more about how the wife character is portrayed - I hope she’s not just a lazy stereotype or an utter void of personality - Mumsnet has seen so many moving testimonies from trans widows & wives of closeted gay men (re: their lives and their children’s lives being turned upside down) that I feel automatically protective about fictional characters in similar situations!

I think it's a very good film, it's aged well too, I think because it is well-written and sympathetic to the main characters (all of whom are perfectly cast) and well-directed.

As someone who knew full well that they were bisexual at school when Section 28 was in action, and knowing full well the bigger social and political issue, I would like to know why my experience of it doesn't matter as opposed to someone who wasn't at school and not affected by it?

I was at a catholic school at the time and remember homosexuality being discussed a couple of times in balanced terms in RE and English.

I’m pretty certain no one was ever prosecuted under Section 28, so it was never activated in that sense. It’s power seems to have been largely symbolic although I’m sure it did have a chilling effect in lots of places.

You are welcome to your own experience but please don't appropriate that of others or tell them what they endured.

These are just a few reasons why, as a child in school, you couldn't understand what lesbian and gay teachers were going through:
You didn't have a mortgage to pay and didn't live in fear losing your job.
You didn't have to endure the homophobes in the school staffroom, who were all encouraged to be more unpleasant by Section 28. There was no Equality Act then, to offer protection.
You weren't out socialising at gay and lesbian venues and living in constant fear of being beaten up when someone followed your on the way home — because AIDS and Section 28 encouraged ill-feeling towards lesbian and gay people.

You exhibit the complacency of so many bisexual people, who can always revert to a straight relationship for cover. I live with a same-sex partner who was an FE teacher during the 80s and 90s. She was bullied and threatened with being exposed as a lesbian by colleagues. Her union rep was homophobic and unhelpful. She left education because of the atmosphere that Section 28 engendered. Don't tell her that her experience is a myth.