The Boys Of St. Vincent

[TotallyOz]

The Boys Of St. Vincent

Here we have one of the most well-made films about an uncomfortable topic ever. Told in two parts, it goes to the heart of the blackness than can exist inside humanity. Its effect cannot be understated it leaves you both in awe of the acting, directing and filmmaking, while at the same time horrified and repulsed by what you see on the screen.

That it was made in 1992 is astounding. Six years later, Todd Sololdz would make a far less explicit film called Happiness, covering roughly the same subject matter, and would be reviled for it.

What makes this film able to do what it does and get away with it is that it is based on true events at the Mt. Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland. The events had been written about throughout Canadian media, and the film was made to give the nation a sense of catharsis.

If nothing else, the film is a great argument for ending celibacy in the priesthood. One of the running themes in the film is that repressing your sexuality will cause it to be expressed in ugly, damaging ways.

I was afraid of sex, of what sex made me feel, Brother Peter Lavin (played by the same actor who portrays Conrad Greystone on Revenge says to his psychologist. That's why I entered the brotherhood, so I would not be able to act on it.

If he'd been placed in a remote monastery, who knows what would have happened to him. But as it was, he was put in charge of St. Vincent's Orphanage - and what happens when you have a grown man repressing his sexuality while surrounded by young boys is, if nothing else, somewhat predictable.

The first half of the film documents in great detail the abuse that Brother Lavin and three other monks heap at the boys in their care. The boys constantly try to run away; when they do, the police bring them back and as punishment, the monks beat them senseless before making them suck their cocks or buggering them.

Eventually, though, a police officer does get involved; he interviews the children and gets sworn statements of the abuse that has been taking place. But, his captain refuses to press charges, saying he has been told to repress the case by officials in the Justice Department who want to avoid a scandal.

Then, the church removes the three monks and sends them to other dioceses. New monks take their place, and the cycle of abuse begins again.

The second half of the film takes place 15 years later: A new police captain has been going through old files and finds the sword statements of the boys. He instigates a real investigation, and Lavin and the other monks are quickly charged.

By this point, Lavin is no longer a monk. Instead, he is an architect - and a married man with two young boys of his own.

We now see the boys as adults, and it's far from pretty. As a result of their abuse, they are all severely damaged people. Some have become male prostitutes. Others have drug and alcohol problems. Some start bar fights. All are heterosexual, but have problems with sex. In fact, the one who was molested most often admits to his girlfriend that he is afraid of sex chilling, given Lavin's words to his shrink in an earlier scene.

What transpires next is a great argument for our current rape shield laws: The defense attorneys have free range to interrogate the victims on the stand and bring every single mistake they've ever made in their lives against them.

In fact, one of the victims kills himself the night after he testifies. Meanwhile, a separate investigation is made into the cover-up of the abuse but nothing comes of it. The local bishop, who simply moved the monks elsewhere instead of disciplining them or getting them treatment, simply says that he was told by church officials in Rome to do so. Given that the Vatican is its own country, there is no way for the Canadian government to force those officials to come to the trial to testify.

The police chief, who ordered the investigation to be suppressed, claims that a prostate operation wiped out 20 years of his memory. His boss says he was told to suppress it by a deputy justice minister who has been dead for five years. At that point, the trail runs cold.

Meanwhile, Lavin himself remains in deep denial over having done any wrongdoing. When his wife finally asks him how he feels about what he did to the boys - and what has happened to their lives since he was arrested - he responds, I feel like a martyr to those lying boys, and now a martyr to you, my supposedly loving wife.

She then asks him if he has molested their own children, to which he responds, Why don't you ask them? Then, the film fades to black.

What we have here is a film of damaged lives. The monks themselves had their souls twisted by a church that told them their sexual urges were a sin. If they had not been part of the church, who knows what would have happened to them. They might have simply become happy gay men.

As it is, they became monsters; the children themselves are twisted and damaged beyond repair. Who is to say what their lives would have been like if the church had not placed them in the care of these monsters?

So, at the end of the day, the film is not so much a tale of a few horrific people as it is an indictment of a religious institution that shames people with alternative sexualities to the point that they become soulless beasts, and then when confronted with the results, shrugs it off as just another sin that can be washed away in the confessional.

There is an emptiness and emotional vacancy that haunts this movie. Knowing that this was not an isolated incident, and in fact happened in every country that the Catholic Church operates in, defines the concept of sin in a way that the Vatican would probably not be comfortable with.

[Lucky]

Having seen the movie, I can agree that it does a good job of showcasing a bad situation. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as I can think of so may ways to spend time other than watching a movie about a sad situation.

[BiBottomBoy]

But it's good to see really good movies, even if they are stressful.

[Lucky]

Speak for yourself!

[AdamSmith]

Would one not want to read a book about a bad or sad situation?

That would encompass a good deal of great literature.

If a different criterion for film, why?