The Mudge Boy

`The Mudge Boy' is a tragic film about the failure of masculinity. Masculinity, at its most advanced, mature, and evolved is a protector of women, a mentor to children, a caretaker of animals, and a steward of the environment. We do not get to see this mature masculinity very often and its very rarity has led so many to believe that the only form of masculinity is its degraded form of tyranny, irresponsibility, violence, and mindless cruelty.

This film is close in genre to a prison movie or film noir. Its males, except for young Duncan, the Mudge boy himself, are all so degraded that they are fermenting in their toxic wastes and are unable to produce any positive energy even if only just to get the hell out of there. Their isolation cells are not made of steel bars, but of the wood of dense Vermont forests and the walls are not made of stone bricks, but of rolling green hills covered in pasture. Their prison is made of insularity and ignorance. The film is so relentlessly dark and uncomfortable to watch with its atmosphere of ever-existing potential and erupting violence, and with any hope of redemption wrung at the neck, that I think of this as a new genre, "rural' film noir, instead of urban, and something that should be categorized alongside a movie like `Deliverance'.

Femininity, with its life-giving fecundity, fares only slightly better in this film with at least one female having enough compassion to not only extend tenderness to someone weaker, but also attempt to protect herself from physical exploitation. But even she is ultimately helpless and alone in the face of relentlessly rampant violent and unrestrained male energy to which women are only as useful for copulation as animals are for the extraction of eggs and milk. The Mudge boy's mother, too, who in her absence seemed to leave her husband empty of all reason to live, had only herself been sucked dry of her life blood and left to die with an empty heart. The illusion of escape afforded by alcoholism was not enough to protect her with her basketful of tender eggs from the same fate of her beloved and memorialized chickens. How much better will her son fare?

So much of the Mudge boy's mother lived on in her son, but so did so much of his father, who was unable to communicate the needs of his heart and thus left his son alone with this rejection of their mutual need for tenderness. Although this film is presented as a gay film, and even won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2003 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, this is much more a father and son film, and a story about how ultimately lost masculinity can be without fully developed and receptive hearts.

In this film's setting, the gentle, caring heart of the Mudge boy could be considered feminine and weak by those who confuse such qualities with the homosexual, but I think the boy's desire was only for tenderness and understanding, as was his father's desire. And in this involuted, backward setting, rather than that being enough for the men to earn what they wanted, what was required was for the Mudge boy to finally sink to a level so low as to chew off the very portion of himself that yearned for and needed such love. In the swallowing of what was precious in him, he was finally able to attract what he had wanted. But I wonder if by then, it was already too late to matter.

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.

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?

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.

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.