In The Company of Men: Homoerotics in Boondock Saints

Until today I had never seen the Boondock Saints, now I’ve seen not one but both films. Watching the first on Netflix (a distracting environment, in which I folded laundry and cleaned up a bit while it was on), I saw why the film inspired a cult following: it’s a low budget, shoot-em-up with a few funny moments, nothing groundbreaking but it’s Boston location is also I think part of what makes it original and the city was well used. (Predating The Departed, of coarse).

Boondock Saints is a classic good verses evil story and a reluctant super hero story: alone one brother could not pull off the crime or become an iconic vigilante - they need each other. This conclusion was of coarse drawn by Capote in In Cold Blood. Like Capote, (and I base my observations of that of Bennett Miller’s film), he begins to develop a close relationship with the subject he’s investigating, that being one of the suspects, Perry Smith. Now consider Willem Dafoe’s Paul Smecker of the Boondock Saints series - he's a homosexual. While I couldn’t find evidence as to why that was relevant to the first film aside from a few jokes and a cross-dressing stunt, it dawned on me while watching the second film - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day - which contains an overwhelmingly gay subtext.

Consider it’s leads: Roger Ebert observes they are unmarried, they live in Ireland with their father. They also show no sexual preference. The films don't help with a curious shortage of women in this world. Throughout the film jokes are made involving prison rape, gay sex, “getting fucked up the ass with an elephant dick” and so forth. Consider the gangsters: there are no token “video ho” type of women hanging around in bars and clubs that add nothing but eye candy to the film, in fact the pubs they hang out in are a strictly male domain - from the corner bar to an elegant gay bar Paul Smecker goes to unwind after a day at the office in the first feature.

Another gangster picture that commented on the abserdity of women that added nothing except for eye candy in these back rooms and VIP lounge where gangster transactions occur was the Vin Diesel action film XXX - where after a deal is settled, a Russian mobster exclaims "Now that business if finished, we party - Bitches, come!" (signaling the entrance of several knockouts).

The lack of sexual preference leads to Boondock Saints II oddest, darkest and most confused passage: an musical montage about masculinity - one might think that if such a conversation needs to be had, doubt about one's identity exists, especially if one is actively aware they are performing their identify. The film contains a Mexican side kick trying to find his way in the world, especially in the dark world inhabited by the Saints - whose masculinity is called in to question when he's given an almost ineffectively small gun. Once can consider for the Saints giving death is linked to giving sexual pleasure, or a substitute for it: they rome around looking to start fights after nights of drinking, instead of hoping to go home with a pretty women they picked up in a bar.

However, there is one female, central to the story, an FBI agent. Although she's introduced in a series of slow tilts upwards, showing her legs and "fuck me boots" - the image of desire quickly fades after this brief sexualized moment, which independent of the narrative feels arbitrary. She's played by the normally very sexy Julie Benz. Recently her career, it suggests has gravitated towards material like this: B-grade action and horror flicks such as Saw V, Punisher: War Zone, and Rambo. I remember her as a high school student in Jawbreaker, and as the “crazy white girl”/personal trainer in the African American centered comedy The Brothers. Here she uses her gender to get her way, but it is clearly performance of gender, aside from flirting required at times, she state no sexual preference as well.

Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day contains no sexual content: that is there is on screen sexualized images, aside from a curious amount of male nudity which seems a bit unnecessary. The film would suggest that “Boston” is a city of male gangsters who have no wives, mistresses (although one goes to a message parlor) - luckily for Boston, a city that was once shut down by light brights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) the film was shot in Toronto which explains it’s bland visual cityscapes.

I really hate that Boston, as a character itself in the Boondock Saints films (and the first was filmed in Boston) is replaced by Toronto, normally I say (as I did in Hulk) why not have the fucking movie take place in Toronto, why does New York always have to get destroyed, Toronto is a worthy world class city.

The problem is architecturally: as the character’s sexuality is an autopilot so is its backdrops - it’s generic. Boston is a city of brick, while Toronto has these neighborhoods they are underused. While it’s a well shot film, it lacks a Boston authenticity that the first flick had. Much like the Rock Hudson melodramas made by Douglas Sirk in the 1950-60’s - this film felt like it was shot on a soundstage, in addition to having its characters hide their sexuality.

Most filmmakers would introduce a gay character in the second film, if comments like this were made about their first film. Troy Duffy does it in reverse, spawning this reading, I suppose (that and the aforementioned dialogue relating to gay sex acts). Ebert, again observes Duffy did it in reverse, I had seen the hilarious documentary Overnight about the making of Boondock Saints, showing Duffy as an out of control, alcoholic hell bent on taking over the world from the outside, after Miramax gives him a deal to make Boondock Saints. Things go downhill from there, Duffy is exsactly the most likable character you could have in a film.

As it would turn out Troy Duffy is a skilled director, sure his films have many flaws, but he’s only made two so far, both the same story, in the same comic book style. Boondock Saints II is a purist action flick: it’s just that - gun fights, a bit of plot, character development that arrives just at the right moments. It’s all thrown together - a bit messy but the Saints are in a messy business, and business is booming, even in a down economy.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not bothered by the Saints being gay, or even asexual - I think it adds an interesting demention to the what could be perceived as a lack of character development. If one gets into patterns: gets married, has children, ect - they will chose to fight for the betterment of their communities not with guns but by running for town council or to an officer position in the development/condo development. With this being said, and the fact that (SPOILER) they’re in jail at the end of II (come to think of it, that’s also the ending of the 4th installment of the Fast and the Furious series - the-dumb-as-it’s-name: Fast and Furious). Let’s see what happens in Boondock Saint’s III.