The Crying Game

Interestingly, I think the one thing that was supposed to draw people to this movie is now outdated and almost banal. Is it just because I’m a gender studies minor, or is that infamous twist absolutely obvious from about the half-hour mark? Somehow I made it 12 years without seeing this film and without having the twist spoiled for me, but I knew what it was the moment the character it involves opened her mouth, and so did my brother. I’m not going to spoil it for anyone else, but by 2004 I think this is something the average viewer can spot a mile away, even if I fear the average viewer’s reaction might still be the same as Rea’s initial one.

So yes. The “twist” was a bit of a disappointment. But I’m saying, the promise of a blindsiding plot twist should not be the only reason people see and rave about this film. It is a brilliant work of art in every respect, and should not fade into obscurity or be dismissed for its shock value or lack thereof.

Initially the story of a group of IRA terrorists (Stephen Rea, Miranda Richardson, et al) who take a soldier hostage in the hope they can get some of their own forces released in exchange for his life, an unexpected turn of events propels the film in an entirely new direction. From the start we’re meant to understand that far from actions following logically from “their nature,” nothing and no one is what it seems.

(Unfinished review)