This guide and all of my reviews contain occasional bits of rude language,
and opinions some people might find offensive but for which I won’t apologise.
Don’t read any further unless you are open-minded.
As hard as I try not to give away too much, I can't guarantee there are no spoilers.
-------------------------------
Crimes of the Heart - Movie 1986 USA -- 105 Mins - Dir Bruce Beresford
Crimes of the Heart is a DIY Master-Class in making movies, adapting plays for film, and looking at social change.
The story of the three Magrath sisters, Meg, Babe, and Lenny, who reunite at Old Granddaddy's home in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, after Babe shoots her abusive husband.
Review revised 2020
THIS REVIEW IS FULL OF SPOILERS
This movie was long one of my all time favourites. It doesn't seem to be available for purchase new anymore, presumably because it's script and tone are now being judged tasteless on a dozen fronts. Interestingly, while the film has disappeared, a web search for Crimes of the Heart images reveals lots and lots of shots from reviews of live shows - seems there is a never ending stream of live productions of the play still happening all over the US.
I have to admit that back in 1986 the bit about Willie Jay being sent away made me cry – now it just makes me cringe. For years I saw this hideous attitude the character as "unpalatable but truth".
In my original posting of this review - a recent post of a review I wrote ages ago - I did not comment on the racist stereotype at the heart of another "humorous" storyline. May I explain - not to defend the lack of judgment on my part, but perhaps just reveal the thought process?
Babe is married to some big white bigwig - a senator, if I recall. He's racist AF. Babe starts sexing a young black teenager - Willie Jay, who is only 16. First confession, it never occurred to me until I posted this that the age discrepancy is probably statutory rape in action. For more than 30 years I just took it be yet another in a long string of stories about younger boys and older women - a coming of age ritual (usually white) no one (myself included) ever thought to question.
Towards the end of the movie, big sister Meg who has been out of town for years, is struggling to recall who Willie Jay even is, then she realises and says "But he's a boy... he's just a boy!" Meg then sees photos taken of Babe and Willie Jay sexing in the shed and delivers the punchline "a BIG boy". I can't speak for US audiences, but I always interpreted that through Australian ears to be a reference to his age with a bit of double entendre at the end, which is to say I never took the word "boy" to be a reference to Jim Crow behaviour.
Am I a typical Australian? Can't say. I can say I never interpreted the word "big" as a reference to another stereotype.
And I always took Meg's other comment to Babe "I never knew you were a liberal" as satire.
Continuing the Willie Jay storyline; the racist pig senator is in hospital recovering after Babe shot him. Babe's lawyer visits the senator in hospital and whispers, in front of hangers on, that he should drop charges against Babe for fear of being seen as a deficient lover, and giving her reason to start sexing a young black teen. I saw this as a deliberate appeal to the senator's own racism, and what I presumed would be his belief in that stereotype about black men. While I wouldn't call it satire, I always thought of it as a case of the senator being "hoist on his own stupid petard". Karma, if you will.
NOW OF COURSE I REALISE WHY THIS IS SO WRONG
The "relationship" (if I'm allowed that word) in the story seems to be built on mutual consent, but in retrospect, this is not enough to make it okay. It plays into one of the foundation stones of US racism - Black men of ALL ages are sexual predators who cannot be trusted around white women. In turn, the sad truth is that white women are therefore a threat to the lives of Black men (because white men have bigger egos than penises). This story has Babe's young Black lover removed from his family by bus (bad enough) whereas in real life he would undoubtedly meet a much more violent end.
---------------------------------
Why did I love this movie so much?
I love gallows humour. And witty lines.
I love anything that takes the piss out of stereotypes. (This is too subtle.)
I love the central theme of the story, which is about what to do when you are having a bad day - my focus was actually on the family tendency to commit suicide.
I love the sub plot of the story, which is about the shame women carry when they are the victims of domestic abuse.
And heaps of other plot related stuff - e.g. the blurb defines the 3 sisters solely in terms of their relationship to men.
“Meg Just Left One, Lenny Never Had One, Babe Just Shot One.
The MaGrath Sisters Have a Way With Men.”
I enjoy movies where the actors are having fun (there is a lot of corpsing in this one.)
Finally, plot politics aside, this was by far the best movie I know for beginners learning about
a) how to adapt a play for film, and
b) learning about how to relay information with pictures, not words
c) a master class in film editing.
------------------------
What do we do with movies like this once we realise we were so wrong? It would be wrong to re-write history - I think we are supposed to own our mistakes and learn from them. (There are some Australian movies that seem to have quietly disappeared from sale, too, and I suspect for similar reasons.)
Having pondered this awhile, I'm guessing the decision-making flowchart should be "yes, this shows a contemporary reality of sorts, but that is not sufficient to make it okay. Does it actually challenge the reality?"
In all honesty, while it took the piss out the reality it did not directly challenge it at all. If there is no clarity at all about the writer or director's intent, the movie should probably go back in the vault - not because it must be censored, but because nobody needs to see it.
What do we do with movies like this once we realise we were so wrong? It would be wrong to re-write history - I think we are supposed to own our mistakes and learn from them. (There are some Australian movies that seem to have quietly disappeared from sale, too, and I suspect for similar reasons.)
Having pondered this awhile, I'm guessing the decision-making flowchart should be "yes, this shows a contemporary reality of sorts, but that is not sufficient to make it okay. Does it actually challenge the reality?"
In all honesty, while it took the piss out the reality it did not directly challenge it at all. If there is no clarity at all about the writer or director's intent, the movie should probably go back in the vault - not because it must be censored, but because nobody needs to see it.
