This is another legendary indie film that has been talked to death. We'll skip the production stories here - that's all been abundantly documented elsewhere, most notably in the documentary
"Overnight" directed by Tony Montana and Mark Brian Smith (a version of the story Duffy hotly disputes). I'm more interested in (1) how does this stand up as feature directing debut, and (2) what can we learn from the film and its execution?
OK? Here we go...
When I mention that I like this movie, it becomes immediately apparent that this is a movie that polarizes audiences. It's the epitome of a cult classic - people either loathe it and dismiss it out of hand, or they adore it and defend it to the hilt - there doesn't seem to be room for middle ground. My memory of seeing it in 2001 is of a badly made low budget action movie, of which I've seen plenty, but re-watching now I see a bit more than that going on. Granted, my perspective has changed given the number of low budget films I've seen since, but even back when I first saw it I didn't
hate "The Boondock Saints."
Perhaps people object to the film's jet-black working-class vigilante morality, which, while celebrated in characters wearing capes and cowls, or in hard-bitten cops and ex-military types, it's despised in movies about regular Joes who happen to be Catholic.
Or not. Who knows...
I absolutely understand that the script is flawed, and flawed in the most male-oriented and sophomoric ways - there are no positive female characters, and the pervading philosophy is that true justice can only be served via the barrel of a gun. In this regard it's a throw-back to the morally reprehensible but nevertheless popular vigilante films of the 70s like "Dirty Harry" and, more appropriately, "Deathwish". There was no place for that in the landscape of independent cinema at the turn of the 21st century, as Tarantino inspired as it was. In a post-9/11 world, living in the aftermath of the vengeful U.S. foreign policy, it all seems so troubling and appropriate now.
But, then again, I'm just speculating...
For my money, as a first feature directed from his own script, Troy Duffy's debut is quite spectacular. Yes, it died at the box office, but "The Boondock Saints" has gone on to serve a loyal niche audience that embraced the movie on DVD. I heard about it while I was in film school, adored as it was by the very sophomores whose morality this movie reflects. And when I watched it I did enjoy Willem Defoe's scenery-chomping performance as the gay, cross-dressing FBI investigator hot on the trail of the celebrated Saints. But it was something about the fanboy adoration of the movie that turned me off. This was a movie that wasn't made for me, and that's just fine as far as I'm concerned.
After seeing it again on the film's 10th anniversary, it's refreshing to step back and see the craft behind the hype. While the script has some huge arc problems and significant plot holes, on a scene-by-scene basis the film is quite successful. The action sequences are inventively low-budget and fun, and it's not until the movie wades into irretrievably bleak moral territory that the fun evaporates and the black-hat world view is exposed.
That's where it all falls apart, really.
But it's in the earlier scenes, when the playful, exuberant tone dominates, where Duffy shines. Even taking into account the transparently "Reservoir Dogs"-esque scene-within-a-scene narrative compression when Dafoe's investigator describes the Saints in action (which does get a bit repetitive, I don't deny), and the excessive cat explosion that echoes Marvin's untimely backseat death in "Pulp Fiction", Duffy infuses his chatty gun-buddy scenes with lots of vigor and more than a little "Man Bites Dog" cynicism and charm. In fact, I'd go as far as to say "Saints" has more in common emotionally with that disturbing French mockumentary than it does with Tarantino's florid genre escapades.
Regardless, Duffy's first feature follows a fairly typical indie film format - a genre film that puts into play certain minority-driven narrative elements that place the film into a narrow demographic. Duffy targets a very specific niche and drills down on the themes and tropes that inspire his audience - guns, drinking, loyalty to your friends, moral outrage - all good right-of-mainstream conservative values in contemporary America. More than that, he frames his fairly standard shoot-em-up within the Irish subculture of South Boston, which crystallizes his audience demographic even more narrowly (the fact that I saw the film in the days leading up to St Patrick's Day was no marketing accident, put it that way).
Troy Duffy himself received so much name recognition from this film that it's a wonder he didn't become the next (or should I say "another") Kevin Smith - an indie director churning out derivative but profitable niche movies for decades. Instead of being able to capitalize on this, however, Duffy disappeared from the scene until his recent lackluster and inessential sequel to "Saints", which, I suspect, is the final nail in the coffin of what could have been an interesting career.
(Note to self: I need to write about something that doesn't involve mobsters and guns next time...)
another bumper crop...
Posts
