This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
References to use
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Moss, Donald; Zeavin, Lynne (2001). "The Real Thing? Some Thoughts on Boys Don't Cry". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN1855752751.
On the negative reaction
The negative reaction to the movie is kind of buried, something like when the newspaper buries something at the bottom of page 14. I would think that it would be better to divide the Critical reception section into two sections, one for the positive and one for the negative. Just move the paragraph that begins with "The film was not without detractors" and the paragraph about the family's reaction to the film to the separate Negative subsection. Isn't that a more logical design? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this is actually a very good question. If you look at the list of negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, there's not really any more reliable, significant negative viewpoints on the film that I could find. There was something from the San Diego Union-Tribune, but I could not access it though archives or the link provided on the page, and the snippet included is not enough to provide adequate context. As for your section titling query, it is not really standard for film articles. In addition, the negative section would be rather short. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 04:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can certainly understand that format for a standard movie about fictional characters. This movie is different as it's about real people and the way they're portrayed on film. I remember when this movie came out and the negative reaction of the people who are portrayed in the film. That question is why I came to this article in the first place as I wanted to see what was written about it. The fact that I had to hunt for it made it feel like it was buried. And since other people would come here for the same reason it deemed like a reasonable idea to me. Thanks. __209.179.0.121 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The negative reaction to this film came mostly from the people involved in the real life case. Any issues with character depiction is mostly incidental from a critical standpoint; directors and writers are always going to take artistic liberties when they bring a true story to the screen. 58.170.146.62 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of Judith Halberstam's "Transgender Look"?
In an essay from her book In A Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives Judith Halberstam coins the phrase the "transgender look" and references Boy's Don't Cry in many cinematic instances. Perhaps her ideas of the transgender look, the "rewind" of a transgender character, and the re-examination of the transgender character reveal should be added. Halberstam offers substantial overview and example of this idea in Chapter 4 of her book. Perhaps this could go under Cinematography or with the rest of Halberstam's critique within the page? Rainegrayson (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not “Trans”
When this film came out there was nothing in its narrative that described her as Trans, as there was not in The New Yorker article that was the basis of the film. Rather she was described as a lesbian female who dressed and behaved in a butch lesbian style, a “dyke” so to speak, someone who was 100% female with no evidence having been presented that she viewed herself different based on some sort of “gender” delusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.116.215 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The old articles misunderstood Brandon Teena. This article is written according to the understanding that he was a transman and not a butch lesbian. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
