The Boys of St. Vincent

It has taken more than one hundred (100) years of physical and sexual abuse for a small percentage of the churches dirty big secrets were revealed. The Boys of St Vincent deserves to be seen and heard for the majority of good Roman Catholic patrons and clergy to have even a semblance of understanding and appreciation of the wrong doing that took place in the Roman Catholic orphanages and schools over the past one hundred (100) years.

I would like to thank the director and producers for drawing the perfect balance between physical and mental abuse awareness and graphic detail.

The acting of the two lead characters Brother Peter Lavin (Henry Czerny) and Kevin Reevey (Johnny Morina) was especially realistic and as difficult it was to watch the abuse I appreciated how both actors maintained their roles to ensure their audience understood the disgust for which pedophile and manipulation was controlled by the adults who were responsible for the care and education of the children who had no one else to feed, clothe and educate them.

A very strong supporting cast also deserve to be recognized. As much as I would have like to rate the film a 10/10 the subject matter warrants a lesser rating of an 8 out of 10 IMDB rating.

This is an expertly produced film that's truly scary. With its subtle, realistic acting, the situation at the orphanage comes across as chilling, nauseating, and so very, very sad. Henry Czerny gives a stunning, expertly controlled performance as the psycho priest, and what was especially interesting to me was the way in which his character was explored in Part II, set 15 years after the abuse. A dramatist I once knew said that a writer should give "every dog his day in court," meaning that it's far more effective if a villain is shown to have some redeeming qualities or is given a chance to explain their actions. (They're supposed to be actual human beings who believe in themselves and their choices, no matter how sick, after all.) This film differs from the similarly themed "The Madgalene Sisters" in that the sadistic clergy members in that film were painted as black and white monsters. Brother Lavin is clearly a torn man (he weeps while kissing the boys) with probable abuse in his own past, and he's clearly very confused about what love is and is not. This in no way makes his actions acceptable on any level, but it does bring the viewer deeper into a textured situation. I also thought it was brave for the filmmakers to not shy away from frankly depicting the scenes of abuse. The young actors are not exploited or eroticized, but you do see them in the shower with soap suds dripping down them, etc., and since this is a film about a stark sexual situation, not simply cutting away from the physicality of its world makes it all the more more powerful. (Your skin crawls but you can't stop watching, and you truly get a sense of what these orphans are going through.) It's frightening to think that orphaned children are at the mercy of twisted institutions such as this...and sadly, always will be. An extremely memorable film that you'll only want to see once.

I watched this film the other night after it was recommended to me by someone with whom I was discussing the film "Song For A Raggy Boy." To say I enjoyed the film would be totally inappropriate given the subject matter but it did grip me and hold my interest throughout it's full running.

What concerned me however was the amount of child nudity involved which I must admit I found disturbing and in all honesty far more than actually necessary. Am I the only one who felt this?

As a survivor of child abuse, I understand that my perspective on these things might vary from other member's views, but I could not help feel there was simply too much and when I compare the film to "Song For A Raggy Boy" I cannot help but question if all of the child nudity was needed.

Other than this one criticism, I thought the film was excellently produced and cleverly presented with extremely powerful performances from the leads.

Despite my previous comments I would recommend this film.

This TV film in two episodes of approximately 90 minutes each is indeed a highly powerful drama of the first order. All the more so as there was no over the top interpretation; the carefully measured downplaying of intense moments throughout the entire film heightened the telling of the story to superb levels. My vote is a little above the IMDb voting average, and that in itself puts this production way up there among the best TV mini films of all time. Only a few European super-productions beat it - and not by much.

Firstly, the casting is superb. Nadia Rona has carried out an immense task as just simply every person in the film is exactly as he/she should be, right down to the minor characters. Even the photography echoed or parallelled the intentional downplaying of the drama unfolding, such that at no time is there any sense of ladelling on exaggerated scenes so as to artificially create a tense atmosphere: the simple acting and filming of each scene is magnificent.

All the actors stand out, even the secondary players, so perfect is the building of this Canadian production; from the boys right up through the priests, police inspector, investigating tribunal, archbishop, magistrate, and so on. Such that the telling of the story is at once gripping, you are rivetted to your seat, but fortunately with just enough breaks for commercials so as to let you get a beer from the fridge, light a cigarette, and think over the part you have just seen. Henry Czerny's reading of his part is magnificent; but in no way are other interpretations at all inferior: the whole cast is absolutely splendid. There is just simply no other way to describe the impact that the actors make on you. Supposedly based on real events in an orphanage in Newfoundland in the mid 70s, this film defies any attempts at being categorized as exaggerated for `popular consumption', precisely because the film was made so soberly, with such careful sensitivity, especially in the child abuse scenes, so magnificently photographed, that you accept the story as it is being told.

In case you should have any doubts: I myself can remember my unhappy years in a children's home in South London (U.K.) in the mid-fifties when I was about 10 - 11 years old. There was no sex abuse, true, but there were all other kinds of vexation and cruelty. If you still do not believe me I will willingly send you by e-mail the name of the "Home" and its address. It still exists today.

This TV film stops just a little short of being a masterpiece. When it ends you should rise to your feet and give it an ovation. Most definitely a courageous indictment, so exquisitely handled: otherwise it might well have been a disaster. `The Boys of St. Vincent' is most definitely one of the best TV films I have ever seen.

This is a difficult film to watch, made even more so because it is reportedly based on fact. "The Boys of St. Vincent" is mature film making on an important subect, and should be widely seen. The "endictment' of institutional abusers may be extended to a wider sphere than that focused on in this film. The public needs to be aware of such situations, so it can act (and vote) more responsibly. This is a superior production, with astonishing performances by the youthful cast, and headed by a powerful Henry Czerny in the lead role.