El hijo de Mudge

This is a remake of the short film Fishbelly White by Michael Burke (1998). The plot line and characters are all the same, but the story is fleshed out in The Mudge Boy.

In Fishbelly White, Duncan's character is more homo-erotic; the under-the-track-scene is more deliberate and graphic and explains much of what is left out of The Mudge Boy. In Fishbelly White, Duncan bites the head off his favorite chicken during the pick-up scene with the drunken youths and the rape scene never occurs.

The two films make for an interesting comparison of the two director's visions.

I got to give this film a chance. There's a story told, and it is very strong, I know. It could be seen as gay, stupid, mean. Yes, the movie is extremely mean and that makes it difficult to watch. You have this quiet, interesting kid, and then all the jerks; hanging out drinking beer, having sex. These are the type of relationships Duncan (Emile Hirsch) had never thought about until they arrived.

The movie makes a great job in narrating the two sides of the story. Duncan's mom died; the boy is living with his cold, severe father, Edgar (Richard Jenkins). Duncan remains unnoticed all the time; he spends the hours by himself. Sometimes he rides his bicycle, just to get out a little bit, or plays with his chicken. This chicken, together with many of the things (a sweater, a lamp) Duncan has, belonged to his mother: "It was her favorite", he says later when a girl asks about it. Edgar, otherwise, is hiding his pain, but why? He loved his wife but now has a boy to take care of. Maybe Edgar is scared to see Duncan suffering because of his wife's death. Maybe Edgar doesn't even want to take care about Duncan, although he seems to be doing an effort. When they both sat at the table for dinner (prepared by Duncan), the boy asks his father about his day: "It was fine", Edgar answers. Then Duncan asks about the food: "Ok", his father says. After this, Duncan starts talking to himself, asking questions about his day, just because his father hasn't asked him about it. This is the relationship they handle. Eventually, Duncan will start working for his father: "You're strong boy", Edgar says. But is he? The other side shows to us the relationship Duncan creates with the other boys, the ones I couldn't call friends, and the problems he has with them. He wants to get along, we can see. Even more when he meets Perry (Tom Guiry), and starts buying beer and going out at night with elder people. His father is being good about it because he knows that Duncan could use some friendship. But then Duncan is stealing alcohol from his father for them. They all go to a party, and some people start to bother Duncan: "Chicken boy, chicken boy". Perry gets angry and punches them. Duncan can't believe it. He likes Perry, they are probably friends, but does he like Perry in another way? Is Duncan gay? Is this a question we should ask to ourselves? Probably, because Duncan and Perry experience things together. You could know Perry wanted to do it, to try something different, or to teach some sex lessons to Duncan; the boy with no experience (touching his own nipples in his bed). All of these could be.

Emile Hirsch is a very good actor. I have seen him in all of his movies, except for "Imaginary Heroes". He trapped me in "The Emperor's Club" and in "The girl Next Door". Great acting jobs, in not great movies. Here he is just great (again), with all of his weird faces. He is weird; also calm and gentle. Many things. Richard Jenkins is superb, in showing what I named "silent emotion". Very interesting how a man can feel very much, but say very little. Tom Guiry is the one that steals the show in the end. He is brave and risky, as no other young actor. He says his lines so strongly that they get to you, just as in "Mystic River".

And of course, we can't forget the creator of the whole project; because this is an indie gem. Michael Burke wrote a beautiful and real script. He directed his actors so naturally that everything seemed perfect. His editor also did a hell of a job putting all those still shots together. Very good film-making (I love still shots).

When the film ends, we could feel like there is something missing, something unsolved. But anyway: is there anything else to solve?

It's always difficult to watch a film where we know more about the protagonist than he (or she) knows about himself. That's the case here: it's obvious to us viewers from fairly early on that Duncan Mudge has some significant homoerotic attractions. When he would turn out to be "gay" or not when his adolescence is over we don't know, and it's really irrelevant (except that he seems a little on the old side for still being in that sexually indeterminate stage). What we are asked to deal with is a sensitive young man in a particularly insensitive corner of a culture that is becoming more and more callous to the inner lives of young people by the day. We're not told exactly when the action takes place, but we have to assume it's pre-Internet; otherwise we'd fault the character for not reaching out that way. In any case, Emile Hirsch does a fine job with a difficult role, and leaves us wounded on his behalf, but not without hope that the whole experience will in the long run have made him, and perhaps us as well, a better human being.

The sensitive hero, Duncan Mudge, beautifully played by Emile Hirsch, is victimized by a society characterized above all by fear and the cruelty this fear generates. In another lovely film with a similar theme, ("Get Real"), Steven, the main character asks, "What is everyone so afraid of?" Indeed that is the question that lurks at the core of this film. The answer is, of course, that everyone is afraid of being who he/she really is, thus earning the ridicule of everyone else who is suffering from a similar fear. Duncan seeks acceptance and affection, which he cannot get from his uncommunicative father, from a neighbor boy, Perry, whose instincts are in conflict, who is only half eaten by fear. Duncan tries to reach the better other half of Perry and crashed into Perry's ambivalence and is exploited in the process. Another reviewer here has said that Duncan is stupid. Can't Duncan see what is happening, why he is treated so cruelly by his peers? Why doesn't he give up his quest to be himself and conform? Isn't that what all of us do? I am put off by the question so often raised of whether this is a "gay film," or whether Duncan and/or Perry are gay. What bothers me about that is the need to categorize, to fix a label on a person, to commodify him. This provides an escape from seeing and relating to someone else as a complex person in his own right, not someone who fits in this box or that box. This need to classify, to objectify and to control is also a product of fear. I think it was H. L. Mencken who defined Puritanism as "that haunting fear what someone, somewhere, might be different." We are still in essence puritans.

A very brilliant movie, very powerful, with EXCELLENT and remarkable performances from the two lead boys as well as the father, as well as a very effective supporting cast, a profound script, divine direction and cinematography. Amongst all of these elements, it really surprised me and kept me guessing. I would think that it was going to go one direction, and then it would go another. It rode the thin line between painful and warm/fuzzy, with perfect balance, never becoming saccharine nor falsely-depressing.

This is one of the better gay films i have seen in some time, even if the end is a bit disturbing.

I found the movie to be very bleak and touching all at the same time, and I would say it is a highly recommended film, I could not take my eyes off of it.