The Boys of St. Vincent

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.

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.

In my opinion, this is the greatest Canadian film of all time and a true primer on Canadian cinema style. I originally saw this film as a teenager when it premiered on Canadian television in 1992 in two parts, one part on Sunday and one part on Monday. The film should be viewed in this manner, on separate days, to allow the emotions to seep in. Last year, I felt that I was ready to see the film again, and I watched it with my family. The indelible images returned, such as the raging Brother Lavin in the basement towards the end of the second hour. Please see this film.

Horror films as such have nothing on the THE BOYS OF ST. VINCENT. Loosely based on the Roman Catholic child molestation scandals as they unfolded in Canada, this 1991 film was first show on Canadian television but later shown theatrically in the United States. Directed by John N. Smith, featuring an extraordinary cast, and boasting an excellent script, the film is one of the most fearsome experiences you could ever endure.

The story falls into two parts, first offering a portrait of St. Vincent, a Catholic orphanage for boys, as it existed in the early 1970s; then presenting a portrait of the various characters some fifteen years later as the original accusations of child molestation and abuse result in a high profile court case. The film focuses on a number of characters, but most particularly on Henry Czerny, who begins the film as Brother Lavin of St. Vincent--a truly dangerous pedophile who uses his position to sate his desires while also looking the other way re abuse of children by other Brothers at the orphanage. When the scandal at last breaks around him, it is quickly hushed up by the authorities, and Lavin leaves the church. Some fifteen years later he is a respected businessman, a husband, and the father of two sons when the long-forgotten and covered-up case begins to explode relentlessly in the public eye.

The cast is truly amazing here, chief among them Henry Czerny as Lavin, who creates a truly multi-layered portrait of a man at once pitiful but both vicious and dangerous. Equally amazing are the cast of children and their adult counterparts in the latter half of the film, most particularly Johnny Morina and Sebastian Spence, who play the role of Kevin as a child and an adult respectively.

Perhaps the single most impressive accomplishment of the film is the delicate balancing act director Smith achieves, a stance which does not attack the Catholic Church as an institution but which relentlessly exposes the corruption that can exist within it. The film does contain some child nudity, all of it "back shots," and while some may find this in questionable taste it is all carefully filmed and not explotational--and indeed has the effect of further demonstrating the innocence of the children while emphasizing the evil of those who abuse them.

Painful as the film it is, I cannot recommend it too strongly. It should be seen by every responsible adult, not simply for the artistry involved in its presentation, but for the warning it offers. A must see.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

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.