My mysterious skin
August 14th 2006 07:04
As I walked towards the Dendy cinema in Newtown I knew I was about to see a harrowing film, Mysterious Skin. The film, based on the novel by Scott Heim, explores the journey of two very different boys who come to find the key to their future happiness lies in the exorcism of their collective demons. It depicts the parallel stories of the two boys growing up in a small town in Kansas in the 1980s and early 90s. Whilst seemingly different in every way, both share a past that slowly unravels itself in lyrical toughness. The director Gregg Araki uses a series of flashbacks to illustrate the story of the two young men - Brian Lackey and Neil McCormick - who were abused by their baseball coach when they were eight-years-old.
Films with such strong social messages tend to attract media controversy and I felt I needed more information before making a decision of whether or not to see it. Personally, sometimes I find it’s just as hard to make the decision whether to not to see a film with such a potentially harrowing message as it may be to actually see the film.
My first article was from the At The Movies web site, a source that I trust and respect, as well as other reviews from more mainstream media such as the Sydney Morning Herald. I also spoke to friends that had already seen the film at a preview the week before in Paddington. According the SMH article, the film was in danger of being banned because of its explicit content of child sexual abuse. Fortunately the film escaped being banned, but retained its R rating. According to a further article by the ABC Online on Monday 1st August 2005, The Classification Review Board reviewed the movie’s rating after the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) received complaints from the Federal Attorney-General and family groups about the film's subject matter. AFA spokesman Richard Egan says, without seeing the film, it was a "how-to manual" for paedophiles, that after seeing the film potential predators may have new information on how to prey on young boys. This opinion voiced by Egan and held by others solidified my decision to see the film and form my own opinion. I was aghast that someone could make a public analysis about a film he hadn’t even seen.
I saw the film alone, not an unusual decision for me, yet this time I was slightly nervous and I felt rather self-conscious when I entered the cinema. I decided to sit in a seat close to the end of the row, in the middle in the cinema. I was astounded when three men chose to sit in the seat next to me. There were enough seats for there to be a spare seat in between us all and I strongly needed my personal space. I wished I had put my bag down on the next to me to preserve my moat of privacy, but it was too late now. I knew I could either get up or find another seat, which might look quite obvious or sit there and be uncomfortable with the other person sat close to me. I decided that my need for personal space was greater than my worry of looking conspicious so I moved to another seat closer towards the back.
I was more aware than usual of the cinema audience, noticing the majority were males in their thirties or forties. I found myself wondering about the people in the audience, why they were there, had they also had similar experiences in their childhood or were they like me, wanting to learn more about such an important issue? The words of Egan swept through my mind, was he right, were some people there for some sort of sexual exploration? With shame for having such thoughts, I dismissed his opinion and concentrated upon my own thoughts regarding the film.
The film was agonizingly open, disturbing and bleak. Some scenes were extremely difficult to watch. It was painful watching each boy deal with their horrifying abuse and make sense of the chunk of their life they lost and were desperately searching for. There was an air of heaviness in the cinema. In the difficult scenes, people gasped, shook their heads and exclaimed. People left quietly, heads low with sad expressions. It was an extremely moving and emotional journey. Despite the pain and discomfort of watching such a distressing film, I was glad I made the decision.
Films with such strong social messages tend to attract media controversy and I felt I needed more information before making a decision of whether or not to see it. Personally, sometimes I find it’s just as hard to make the decision whether to not to see a film with such a potentially harrowing message as it may be to actually see the film.
My first article was from the At The Movies web site, a source that I trust and respect, as well as other reviews from more mainstream media such as the Sydney Morning Herald. I also spoke to friends that had already seen the film at a preview the week before in Paddington. According the SMH article, the film was in danger of being banned because of its explicit content of child sexual abuse. Fortunately the film escaped being banned, but retained its R rating. According to a further article by the ABC Online on Monday 1st August 2005, The Classification Review Board reviewed the movie’s rating after the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) received complaints from the Federal Attorney-General and family groups about the film's subject matter. AFA spokesman Richard Egan says, without seeing the film, it was a "how-to manual" for paedophiles, that after seeing the film potential predators may have new information on how to prey on young boys. This opinion voiced by Egan and held by others solidified my decision to see the film and form my own opinion. I was aghast that someone could make a public analysis about a film he hadn’t even seen.
I saw the film alone, not an unusual decision for me, yet this time I was slightly nervous and I felt rather self-conscious when I entered the cinema. I decided to sit in a seat close to the end of the row, in the middle in the cinema. I was astounded when three men chose to sit in the seat next to me. There were enough seats for there to be a spare seat in between us all and I strongly needed my personal space. I wished I had put my bag down on the next to me to preserve my moat of privacy, but it was too late now. I knew I could either get up or find another seat, which might look quite obvious or sit there and be uncomfortable with the other person sat close to me. I decided that my need for personal space was greater than my worry of looking conspicious so I moved to another seat closer towards the back.
I was more aware than usual of the cinema audience, noticing the majority were males in their thirties or forties. I found myself wondering about the people in the audience, why they were there, had they also had similar experiences in their childhood or were they like me, wanting to learn more about such an important issue? The words of Egan swept through my mind, was he right, were some people there for some sort of sexual exploration? With shame for having such thoughts, I dismissed his opinion and concentrated upon my own thoughts regarding the film.
The film was agonizingly open, disturbing and bleak. Some scenes were extremely difficult to watch. It was painful watching each boy deal with their horrifying abuse and make sense of the chunk of their life they lost and were desperately searching for. There was an air of heaviness in the cinema. In the difficult scenes, people gasped, shook their heads and exclaimed. People left quietly, heads low with sad expressions. It was an extremely moving and emotional journey. Despite the pain and discomfort of watching such a distressing film, I was glad I made the decision.
| 76 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
The chaaracters are well drawn, the acting is immersive and the script can be described as poetry. The confident direction and inventive camera work only add to the experience.
An emotionally challenging film that stays with you.
Ridiculous the films they try to ban, anything with substance essentially seems to be the rule. Any movie that attempts to dig beneath the surface of sex and violence has censorship problems.
Any film that operates in the black and white universe of good guys and bad guys gets through no problem. In this world the violence is usually fun, the sex is usually anatomically incorrect and the bad guy is always a one dimensional villian who is murdered with no repocussions. (Except applause and delight)
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
This and "The Woodsman" are two very challenging films that treat this topic with an objective eye.
I will be doing a review of Mysterious Skin myself in the next few weeks.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
That was my previous post but as I'm still getting used to Orble, I signed as anonymous. I agree, I hope that people continue to see it and films like it. I have 'The Woodsman' on DVD, I won it from a Dendy competition but haven't watched it yet. I will do soon especially as it is in the same vein of challenging films. I'm looking forward to reading your review of 'Mysterious Skin.'