Annotated Bibliography
The Boys of Saint Vincent. Dir. John N. Smith. Perf. Henry Czerny, Johnny Morina, Brian Dooley, and Phillip Dinn. CBC, 1992. 2010, Web.
While the film is careful to proclaim at the outset that it is not based on a single actual event, The Boys of Saint Vincent is based on accounts of sexual and physical abuse at a boys’ orphanage in Newfoundland, Canada. Close-ups and montage are central to this film. From just a few choice close-ups, we quickly understand the special nature of the relationship between Brother Peter Lavin and the very young and very small Kevin Reevey. This film raises obvious issues of abuse within a single-gender educational institution. Abusive, punitive relationships between educators and students are prevalent and seemso intrinsic to the nature of the institution, which is part of the problem revealed in the group of boys’ school films. I will continue to examine the nature of spaces and the roles of educators in these boys’ school films.
Carroll, Noël. “Film, Emotion, and Genre” Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, Eds Noël Carroll and Jinhee Choi. Place: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 217-233. Print.
In this essay on emotion in film, philosopher and film scholar Noël Carroll shows how certain emotions are central to our experiences of film. Carroll defines our emotional states as directed, or as possessing a certain degree of intentionality and cognition (219). Carroll continues with an emotional genre study of melodrama, horror and suspense films. Character portrayal, for Carroll, is essential, and he tells us that we tend to accept the actions of “virtuous” characters (231). In some ways, Carroll’s approach seems too formulaic, but then again, this approach acknowledges certain similarities and shared understandings among audiences, as well as certain expectations we have of individual films and of groups of films. It is here that Carroll’s argument (specifically emotion-focused) intersects with Chandler’s presentation of genre theory. In my examination of boys’ school films, I will attempt to distil and compare the emotional prefocus of each text.
Chandler, David. “An Introduction to Genre Theory.” 1997. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre1.html. 01 October 2010.
In this essay, Chandler introduces and explores the concept of genre, quoting varied and important sources, and guiding the concept as it relates to film. A consistent theme of the essay is that not all critics or viewers will agree on genre labels, and that “defining genres, “ as Chandler explains, “may be problematic, but even if theorists would abandon the concept, in everyday life people would continue to categorize texts” (3). Rather than seeing genre as a limiting factor, Chandler sees it as a means through which people can gain comprehension and make sense of things. I intend to refer back to this essay as I examine a body of boys’ school films. While I will not necessarily ask each of the 50 or so questions suggested by Chandler, I will have the general ideas in mind as I categorize and analyze films. I am essentially defining a genre (or subgenre) of film, and this essay is a useful review of genre theory, posing its strengths and limits. As suggested by Chandler, I will pay attention to certain “textual; features” of the boy’s school film: narrative, characterization, themes, setting, iconography, and filmic technique.
Flirting. Dir. John Duigan. Perf. Noah Taylor, Thandie Newton, and Nicole Kidman. Kennedy Miller Productions, 1991. MGM, 2002, DVD.
Flirting tells the story of Danny (Noah Taylor) as a student in an all-boys, rugby-focused boarding school. At a debate competition with the all-girls school (conveniently and inconveniently located across the lake), Danny connects with Thandiwe (Thandie Newton) a beautiful Ugandan-Kenyan-British student who is new to the girls’ school. A romance ensues between them, despite teachers and classmates, and all the other issues that arise. The film brings forth issues of sexuality and race, and is particularly adept at handling the former. In many ways, this film is an antidote to the boys’ school film, as it provides a much-needed female perspective. Rigid structure, surveillance, and punishment figure prominently in this film as in the others, and certainly jives with my understanding the of the educational/disciplinary systems in place.
Foucault, Michel. “Boys.” The History of Sexuality, Volume 3, The Care of the Self. New York: Vintage, 1988. 188-240. Print.
Foucault discusses the ancient “love of boys” and how the way in which one questions oneself about it has changed. Three important texts on the subject remain: Plutarch’s dialogue on love, the dialogue of Lucian, and the lectures of Maximus of Tyre on Socratic love. The latter distinguishes two sorts of love: one that is fine and just and one that is not. Plutarch and Lucian also distinguish two forms of love, but forms that are naturally distinct: love of women and love of boys. The paradox, notes Foucault, is that pederasty developed in Greece for its possibilities of pleasure, and then declined for the same reason. The love of boys, while not completely dismissed, will decline as a preference, and not as a way of life. This work is a key to understanding the complex relationships among male teachers and male students as portrayed in boys’ school films. The genealogy of the love of boys is ancient and evolving, though I think still more problematized than Foucault concludes. Also, the concept of sexual abuse needs to be discussed in reference to these works and the realities from which they are drawn.
Giordano, Peggy C., Longmore, Monica A., and Manning, Wendy D. “Gender and the Meanings of Adolescent Romantic Relationships: A Focus on Boys” American Sociological Review 71. 2 (Apr 2006) 260-287. Web. 03 October 2010.
Rectifying a noticeable absence of studies’ of boys’ perspectives on romance, this article examines the experience of adolescent boys and girls in romantic relationships. The central argument is that adolescent romances constitute a potentially important moment of “socialization and reference, one that fosters new definitions and interrelated emotions” (266). Results differ from traditional accounts of gender role in relationships. Findings show, that contrary to expectations, boys and girls reported similarly on emotions and feelings of love (276). This study highlights the complexity of a boy’s approach to this type of relationship and the obstacles facing intimacy. A film to watch with this study in mind is John Duigan’s Flirting [1991], which carries an overt female perspective of adolescent relationships, and definitely highlights an awkwardness in male communication.
If…. . Dir. Lindsay Anderson. Perf. Malcolm Macdowell, David Wood, Richard Warwick, and Robert Swann. Paramount, 1968. Criterion, 2007, DVD.
Set in a British public school in the 60s, If…. presents a world run by boys. “Whips,” specially appointed seniors (like prefects) run the school, surveilling and disciplining their fellow students, specifically our three heroes: Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell), Wallace (Richard Warwick) and Johnny (David Wood). This film exposes the British school system as archaic, and clinging to privilege, tradition, and values. Violence is so deeply rooted in the school, from the fighting in rugby, to the disciplinary system. Besides issues of revolution and violence, If…. raises issues questions of friendship, freedom, and sex, all common themes to be further explored in the boys’ school film subgenre .
Janosik, Mary-Ann. “Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Do Reflect Us: Community, Catholic Education, and Traditional Values in Two Generations of Hollywood Film.” U.S. Catholic Historian 13. 4 (Fall 1995): 97-116. Web. 09 October 2010.
Mary Ann Janosik posits that films about Catholic schools reflect the values of the communities in which they are produced, offering insight into the ways in which certain societal groups operate. By examining two films, Boys Town [1938] and Heaven Help Us [1985], Janosik identifies the changing values in American society. While they are reflective of societal values, films also manufacture certain myths and perpetuate stereotypes, like the strict discipline exercised in Catholic schools. Janosik’s article is a good starting point for an analysis of Catholic school films, but at this point it seems that my study is not just of Catholic boys’ school films, but of boys’ school films in general. That being said, Janosik’s distinction of different eras of Catholic school education is important and enourages me to examine pedgagic/religious/historical settings of the films. Knowing that I am including non-American films, may expand or end up arguing some of Janosik’s points about Catholic school education. Also, I hope that by this time (2010) there is at least one new generation of Catholic school films to analyze.
Lee, Valerie E., Marks, Helen M., and Byrd, Tina. “Sexism in Single-Sex and Coeducational Independent Secondary School Classrooms” Sociology of Education 67.2 (Apr 1994): 92-120. Web. 19 October 2010.
This study investigated how engenderment (socialization to gender) operates differently in boys’ schools, girls’ schools, and coeducational schools. Though sexism was exhibited in similar frequencies in all three types of schools (no school in their study was free of sexism), it was most sever in form in boys’ schools. Gender equity in faculty seemed to create environments of less severe sexism. In this study, low numbers of female faculty are faulted with the creation problems in boys’ schools. Many of this study’s observations are true of the films that I am examining, giving weight to this body of film. The absence of female faculty (and other important female figures, as well) is noticeable among the films, and no doubt relevant to the plots and themes. The paper certainly accuses all-male environments of fostering sexism, and it calls for women as a corrective force. This view can be supported by a number of the films I am studying, but it many ways it seems too simple. Also, this paper, focused on gender, makes no mention or observation of sexual preference and how that is treated in the classroom. Similar to the way in which Lee, Marks, and Byrd examine gender relations, I will attempt to look at the ways in which homosexuality (and homophobia) get treated and expressed in the boys’ school environment as portrayed in film. I will treat the schools in the films as they treated their case studies.
Schwartz, Jack. “The Portrayal of Educators in Motion Pictures, 1950-58” Journal of Educational Sociology 34.2 (Oct 1960) 82-90 Web. 03 October 2010.
In this article, Jack Schwartz describes the ways in which American films (as of 1960, when the article was written) are “changing or perpetuating the image of the educator” (82) as portrayed in literature. Searching through thousands of film reviews, Schwartz examined any films which characterized an educator at a public or private school.
The educators in these films are mostly male, middle-aged and unmarried, though often involved in romantic relationships. Male educators often display violence or rage. These films are simply building on the literary tradition of an unsympathetic portrayal of educators. This brief, quaint article offers brief, quaint insight on the topic of boys’ school films, or more specifically on the portrayal and role of educators in these films. As I continue to note, the educators in boys’ school films are predominantly male, and often dissatisfied, aggressive and abusive. I am not familiar with most of the films mentioned by Schwartz, but he certainly makes no observations about any transgressive behavior exhibited by these educators, whereas in the subjects of my study, much of the interaction between teachers and students is abusive in some way. What is the role of the educator in these films?
