EN 5252: Movies, Spectatorship &

Subjectivity

Masters of Arts (Literary Studies)

Boys Don’t Cry,

but Girls Do Cry:
A Failed Gender Performance

Done by: Wendy Ng (A0075363)

Supervisor: Dr Valerie Wee
Submission date: 11 Nov 2010

1
Boys Don’t Cry was released in 1999 to overwhelmingly positive acclaim from

critics. It is based on the real life story of Brandon Teena1. Brandon, a

transgender2 man, was cruelly raped and murdered by his male acquaintances

as he acted like a man but he was biologically female. This paper aims to show

that Brandon’s gender performance only destabilises and fails to subvert the

binary between sex and gender. Hence, Brandon’s failed performance heightens

the return to the rigid, heterosexual order. The distinctive categories of sex and

gender have great impact on gender performativity and construction of gazes in

the film. Firstly, this paper uses Judith Butler’s theory to discuss Brandon’s

gender performance. Next, this paper discusses how Brandon’s gender

performance destabilise Laura Mulvey’s traditional paradigm of the active male

gaze and passive female gaze due to the intrusion of the transgender gaze.

Finally, this paper argues that even though Brandon has destabilised the gender

and sex binary, his gender performance fails to subvert the dominant male gaze

which undermines his transgender gaze. Furthermore, his gender performance

fails as the notion of sexual difference is ultimately predicated on biological sex.

The main premise of this paper lies in the distinction between sex and

gender. Sex refers to the biological features that differentiate men from women.

On the other hand, gender refers to culturally learnt characteristics of what it

means to be masculine and feminine. The differences between sex and gender

1
For the purposes of this paper, I will use the name ‘Brandon’ and masculine pronouns.
2
The term ‘transgender’ will be used to describe Brandon. According to Halberstam, ‘transgender’ proves to be an
important term not to people who want to reside outside of categories altogether but to people who want to place
themselves in the way of particular forms of recognition (Halberstam, 2001, 14).

2
are further discussed by Judith Butler. She extends Simone de Beauvoir’s

famous quote, ‘one is not born, but rather becomes a woman’ to suggest that

‘woman’ is something we ‘do’ rather than something we ‘are’ (Salih, 2002, 10).

Hence, this asserts that gender is a process which has neither origin nor end

(Salih, 2002, 46). The key to Butler’s contribution is the notion of ‘gender

performativity’ as ‘gender identity is a kind of performance; it is the imitation and

impersonation of sexuality’ (Butler, 1990, 21). Gender is learnt through repeated

performances and involves manipulating codes such as clothes, gestures and

behaviour. In the film, the gender and sex binary is destabilised as the fixed

biological reality of Brandon is female. However, he performs and constructs his

gender as male. Brandon’s performance illustrates that gender is performative

and ‘man and woman are not expressions of prior internal essences but

constituted through the repetition of culturally stylised acts’ (Prosser, 1998, 28).

Moving on, it is important to understand the distinction between

performance and performativity. Butler emphasises that gender is the

performance that is performative. Gender is a kind of ‘enforced cultural

performance, compelled by compulsory heterosexuality, and that, as such; it is

performativity’ (Jager, 2008, 20). Butler further explains that ‘gender is not a noun

but it proves to be performative, that is, constituting the identity it is purported to

be’ (Salih, 2002, 50). In this sense, gender is always a ‘doing’, though not a

‘doing’ by a subject who might be said to pre-exist the deed (Salih, 2002, 50).

This means that the performance presupposes a pre-existing subject as the

3
‘doer’ is produced in and by the act (Jager, 2008, 22). On the other hand,

performativity contests the very notion of the subject (Salih, 2002, 63). In the film,

Brandon’s gender performance refers to his repeated and sustained social

performance which creates the reality of gender for both the spectators who are

watching the film and other characters in the film itself. Brandon’s masculine

identity is created because of his performance; his ‘doing’. He does not exist

before the performance as his masculine identity is constructed because of his

performance. Hence, his failure to conform to gender binarisms reveals the

instability of those categories and questions gender and the viability of ‘man’ and

‘woman’ as nouns (Salih, 2002, 49).

In the beginning of the film, the spectators view Brandon’s preparation for

his masculine performance. He urges his cousin, Loni, to cut his hair shorter as

he wants his performance to be more authentic. He attempts to stuff socks in his

pants. Loni calls it a ‘deformity’ and warns that his performance cannot be too

exaggerated as he may become a ‘deformity’ too. Despite Brandon’s rather

drastic performative strategies, Loni acknowledges his success, “If you were a

guy, I’d want to fuck you”. Therefore, the use of the conditional ‘if’ establishes the

artifice of Brandon’s performativity. The spectators are reminded that his

masculinity is performed carefully. He has to prepare his gender performance

with masculine costumes like big shirts and baggy pants. Moreover, he also

performs his ‘sex’ as he alters his body by binding his breast and carrying a dildo.

In contrast, other male characters like John and Tom never prepare for

4
masculinity. Thus, there appears to be no preparation for a performance that is

not exposed by the film as a performance (Esposito, 2003, 232).

Next, Butler develops the notion of gender performativity and states that

the gendered body does not simply embody social norms but is produced by

discourses that provide meaning (Butler, 1990, 93). However, what is being

performed is a phantasmatic, an object distorted by perception, ideal of

heterosexual identity (Butler, 1990, 21). Therefore, there is no ‘natural’ notion of

heterosexuality but instead we construct an ideal version through our

performances. Rather than expressing a core identity, the performance of gender

produces the illusion of such an ‘essence’ that is a product of particular signifying,

cultural practices (Jager, 2008, 20). In the film, Brandon tries to construct an ideal

heterosexual masculine identity that is accepted by the society. The most crucial

factor in his performance is his ability to capture the ‘essence’ of masculinity

because of his successful interactions with both the male and female characters.

Firstly, Brandon’s performance works well as he is able to establish his

male identity with other male characters. Brandon bonds with John after he has

survived the masculine ‘rite of passage’ during a bar fight. Subsequently, John

uses masculine labels like ‘Tyson’ to describe Brandon and this affirms that

Brandon has successfully appropriated codes of masculinity. He imitates the kind

of overly aggressive male machismo that John and Tom represents (Cooper,

2002, 53). The first masculine activity that Brandon participates is bumper-ski.

John taunts Brandon with various connotations of maleness: “Come on, Stud.

5
Let’s go Cowboy…Go ahead. Be a Man.” Eager for acceptance into his

newfound community, Brandon jumps onto the trunk to prove his masculinity.

Subsequently, when Lana asks him, “Why do you let John tie you to the back of a

truck and drag you around like a dog?” Brandon answers naively, “I just thought

that’s what guys do around here”. It is evident that Brandon tries to enhance his

performance as he strives to exhibit masculine traits which are associated with

‘bar brawl, bumper-skiing and heady chase along the dustless highway’ (Pidduck,

2001, 100). Hence, Brandon destabilises the sex and gender binary as he

constructs a performance that is accepted by the male community.

Another essential factor which facilitates Brandon’s flawless performance

is his successful interactions with the female characters due to the dearth of men

with positive masculine qualities in the film. The two prominent male characters,

John and Tom, are violent ex-convicts. Brandon, on the other hand, exudes

desirable masculine qualities. In the beginning of the film, Brandon kisses Nicole

gently and insists that he will wait till she is home safely. Similarly, Brandon acts

as the responsible man who sends Lana home. His masculinity is affirmed by

Lana’s mother who gives Lana an approving expression when he puts the driving

fine in his pocket and assures Lana that he will pay it. When John asks Lana

what she sees in that ‘wuss’, Lana retorts, “I know he’s no big he-man like you,

but there’s something about him. Hence, this shows the existence of a spectrum

of masculine qualities in the society. While John and Tom are obviously

masculine, their violent and abusive male traits are not as valued as Brandon’s

6
ideal masculine qualities. When juxtaposed with these inferior men, Brandon’s

performance appears even more authentic. His masculine performance illustrates

the constant effort to construct and imitate gender ideals (Butler, 1990, 338). He

portrays an ideal image of a strong, masculine man who protects the female and

is sensitive enough to cater to her emotional needs. For a while, his performance

seems to destabilise compulsory heterosexuality as he creates the ideal gender

that is radically independent of his biological sex.

Furthermore, the crucial achievement of Brandon’s performance is Lana’s

acceptance of him despite her suspicions about his identity. The film confounds

issues of gender fluidity and there are hints which illustrate Lana’s awareness of

Brandon’s performance. During their first love-making session, the camera

deliberately focuses on Brandon’s cleavage and immediately moves to Lana’s

confused expression. Lana’s doubts are also shown when she moves her hand

to touch Brandon’s penis. During her friends’ interrogation, Lana’s ambivalent

replies indicate that she may know that Brandon is not biologically male.

Furthermore, in the jail, she declares, “I don’t care if you are a half monkey, half

ape”. Thus, the rigid sex and gender binary is destabilised as Lana ‘embraces the

ambiguity and constructiveness of Brandon’s masculine identity’ (Cooper, 2002,

56). The ambiguity of Lana’s attraction to Brandon as a man and her acceptance

of his biological sex highlight the disruption of the compulsory heterosexuality

order. Adrienne Rich defines compulsory heterosexuality as the dominant order

in which men and women are required or forced to be heterosexual (Salih, 2002,

7
49). Rich denaturalizes heterosexuality with her theory of the lesbian continuum

to include a wide range of women-identified experiences which is not included in

heterosexuality definitions (Cole, 2008, 282). Similarly, Cole uses Rich’s logic to

describe the transgender continuum which encompasses those whose gender is

outside society’s narrow frame of ‘normal’ and destabilises heteronormative

binary (Cole, 2008, 282). Hence, the idea of the transgender continuum can be

applied to argue that Brandon exists on this continuum as his performance

denaturalises and destabilises the strict binary between sex and gender.

One of the crucial reasons why Brandon’s gender performance succeed

initially is his ability to ‘pass’ as a real man. Passing threatens to ‘call attention to

the performative and contingent nature of all seemingly natural identities’

(Schlossberg, 2001, 2). Hence, Brandon’s passing highlights that his gender

performance is closely linked to the construction of his masculine identity. His

passing foregrounds the artificiality of his performance as he needs to ‘pass’.

Moreover, Prosser complicates Butler’s idea of gender performativity when he

comments, ‘Namely, there are transsexuals who seek very pointedly to be non-

performative, to be constative, quite simply, to be. There are transsexuals who do

not want to represent gender artifice; they actually aspire to the real, the natural,

to the very condition that has been rejected by the queer theory of gender

performance’ (Halberstam, 2001, 16). His views are relevant if we examine the

medical examination scene. Brandon asks the nurse vulnerably, “How do you

know that they rape me?” This scene is most heart-wrenching moment in the film

8
as Brandon truly believes that he is a man. He obliterates his true sexual identity

as he wants to not just ‘pass’ but he wants his performance to be real. However,

the notion of real is problematic. According Dorian Corey in Paris is Burning,

realness is ‘as close as we will never come to the real’ (Halberstam, 2001, 17).

Realness is ‘not exactly performance, not exactly an imitation; it is the way that

people appropriate the real’ (Butler, 1993, 129). Realness, the appropriation of

the attributes of the real, is the transgender condition (Halberstam, 2001, 17).

Brandon’s performance fails to ‘pass’ precisely because he believes that he is

‘real’ and fails to acknowledge that he is actually performing ‘realness’.

Furthermore, the idea of passing is intimately linked with failing to pass

(Aaron, 2001, 92). The dynamics between passing and failing are complicated by

Butler’s point: ‘Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated

acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the

appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being’ (Prosser, 1989, 30). This

emphasises that gender ‘congeals’ into a form that creates an illusion of a natural

state (Prosser, 1989, 30). However, ‘congealing’ is ‘an insistent and insidious

practice that is sustained and regulated by various social means’ (Salih, 2002,

46). Brandon’s performance unravels as he unable to ‘congeal’ fully into the form

that is accepted by societal norms. He lacks the core principle of

heteronormativity which defines the phallus as the sole signifier of maleness

(Cooper, 2002, 46). This principle is emphasised when John and Tom strip

Brandon to ‘examine’ his masculinity. The phallus is an essential signifier of

9
Brandon’s masculinity and this is highlighted by Tom’s confusion as he is so sure

that he saw Brandon’s ‘dick’ when Brandon urinated. Fruhling notes that,

‘Brandon’s charade ended in the bathroom of the small house with her trousers

pulled down to her knees, his pretence began unravelling, and his true identity

came to light’ (Sloop, 2007, 200). Brandon’s performance fails when his lack is

exposed. The tragic moment of recognition in this surreal scene is presented

when the ‘imagery’ Brandon witnesses his failed performance as he stares at the

feminised Brandon who is stripped of his masculinity. Despite the ‘evidence’ that

Brandon is not biologically a man, Lana pleads, “Leave him alone”. Lana’s use of

the masculine pronoun shows that Brandon’s performance has destabilised the

gender and sex binary. However, Brandon’s performance still fails as he is called

a ‘freak’ as Lana’s mother accuses him of exposing Lana to his ‘sickness’. This

illustrates his failure to subvert the gender and sex binary as he is ostracised

because ‘genitals always, inevitably outweigh agency’ (Cooper, 2002, 57).

Since gender is a ‘corporeal style, a sequence of acts, a strategy which is

sanctioned by certain societal norms’, those who do not ‘do’ their gender

correctly are punished by society (Halberstam, 2001, 17). Brandon is not the only

character who performs gender, John and Tom perform their masculinity through

violence once they expose Brandon’s performance. Thus, John and Tom’s rage

towards Brandon and his almost successful performance is not quenched by the

violent, stripping humiliation, thus they have to punish Brandon with more

violence: rape. The collapse of the distinction between sex and gender causes

10
anxiety in John who is emasculated by Brandon’s triumph in gaining Lana’s

affection when he is not a man (Phillips, 2006, 144). Hence, the ‘heterosexual

performativity is beset by anxiety’ and John has to overcome his insecurity by

exerting his masculinity. The most effective way is to penetrate Brandon and the

rape is considered a symbolic castration as it terminates his performance. The

assault on ‘Brandon’s usurped male body aims to punish him for transgressing

the long-cherished conception of gender as a reflection of sex’ (Swan, 49, 2001).

Despite Brandon’s failed attempt to subvert the gender and sex binary, he

destabilises it in the last scene. This is shown when Lana looks at Brandon and

asks tearfully, “Teena, why didn’t you leave? We can still do it”. This highlights

Lana’s willingness to elope with Brandon even though she acknowledges his true

sex when she calls him ‘Teena’. This is the final insult to John’s threatened

masculine ego. He shoots Brandon immediately after Lana’s plea. Moreover,

Tom continues to stab Brandon after he is shot. This symbolic penetration is

Tom’s final reinstatement of his manhood. Even though Brandon destabilises the

polarity between gender and sex, his failed performance does not subvert but

reinforce sex and gender norms which are socially instituted and maintained by

the system of compulsory heterosexuality.

After examining Brandon’s failed performance, this paper will continue to

investigate the impact of his performance on the division of male and female

gaze. Laura Mulvey’s traditional paradigm of the active male gaze and passive

female gaze is problematised in the film due to the intrusion of Brandon’s

11
transgender gaze (Mulvey, 1990, 28). Halberstam argues that Peirce creates a

transgender gaze that accompanies Brandon throughout most of the film. In the

first car chasing scene, the transgender gaze is established as Brandon’s eyes

are reflected in the car’s rearview mirror. His transgender gaze is introduced

together with his transgender identity in the next scene when the spectators

witness his preparation for his performance in the mirror. When Brandon

scrutinises Nicole, he is the bearer of the look and his gaze is active. However,

his transgender identity complicates Mulvey’s theory. His gaze refuses to be

classified by heterosexual terms because his sex is female but his gender is male.

Similarly, during Brandon’s first encounter with Lana, Brandon’s gaze is

emphasised as his gaze differs from the male gazes of John and Tom when they

sit in front of her and look at her. Lana is objectified as an erotic object for the

male and the transgender characters. However, she returns the gaze and looks

only at Brandon. It is interesting to note that she responds to the transgender and

not the male gaze. Hence, the film establishes the legitimacy and durability of

Brandon’s performance by forcing the spectators to adopt, if for a short time,

Brandon’s transgender gaze (Halberstam, 2001, 294).

Halberstam proceeds to prove that the gaze is shared between Lana and

Brandon in the first two thirds of the film. The power of Lana’s female gaze is

highlighted as Brandon’s masculine performance is validated by ‘Lana’s gaze

and her refusal to dismantle Brandon’s performance with the scrutinising gaze of

science and truth’ (Halberstam, 295, 2001). Hence, the transgender’s body is

12
‘preserved as male’ because of Lana’s female gaze. By deploying the

transgender gaze and joining it to an empowered female gaze, Peirce keeps the

viewer focused on the seriousness of Brandon’s masculinity and the authenticity

of his presentation (Halberstam, 297, 2001). The existence of the transgender

gaze and the empowered, active female gaze highlights the limitations of

Mulvey’s structure of the heterocentric gazes. Hence, Brandon’s transgender

performance produces a transgender gaze which destabilises the simplistic

definitions of male and female gazes. As a result, his performance also

destabilises the sex and gender binary that is pivotal in the construction of gazes.

While Brandon’s transgender gaze challenges the ideological content of

the male and female gazes, it only temporarily disarms the compulsory

heterosexuality paradigm (White, 2001, 219). Butler argues that ‘there is a

temporal aspect of performance as it involves the ritualised repetition of

conventions, which are shaped and compelled by heterosexuality’ (Jager, 2008,

20). This is shown by the temporality of the transgender gaze as Brandon’s gaze

is consumed by the active male gaze. The interrogation scene is continually

intersected by the brutal rape scenes. The intercut scenes foreground Brandon’s

double violation. Firstly, Brandon’s transgender gaze is rendered powerless by

the physical abuse and rape by John and Tom. Secondly, Brandon is raped

metaphorically by the policeman who objectifies Brandon with his intimidating

male gaze. In the end, Brandon and his transgender gaze are eliminated by men.

Peirce’s inability to sustain a transgender gaze introduces a set of questions

13
about the inevitability and dominance of heterosexual binary (Halberstam, 294,

2001). While the film functions to contradict gender stereotypes by destabilising

the male gaze through the intrusion of the transgender gaze, ‘the transgender

subject position is still fortified by the traditional operations of the gaze and the

conventional modes of gendering’ (Halberstam, 296, 2001).

“Another dream that ended way too soon,” Lana’s eyes linger over

Brandon when she sings The Bluest Eyes in Texas. This haunting line depicts

Brandon’s broken dream as his gender performance eventually fails. While his

performance destabilises the accepted systems of gender recognition, his

potentially transgressive gender is ultimately tied to his body. The connection

between body and meaning is stated by de Certeau: ‘Give me your body and I

will give you meaning, I will make you a name and a word in my discourse’

(Esposito, 2003, 231). This reflects how ‘our bodies are both objects and agents;

our identities are simultaneously both performances and interpretations’

(Esposito, 2003, 232). In the same way, Brandon’s performative body becomes

gendered through embodied meanings which are created by external

interpretations. Hence, Brandon only manages to destabilise and not subvert sex

and gender boundaries as the film eventually reverts back into a traditional,

heterosexual normativity. Even though boys don’t cry, Brandon cries like a girl in

the end as his gender is dependent on his biological sex. His failed performance

destabilises the sex and gender binary only to confirm the absoluteness of the

compulsory heterosexual definitions.

14
Works Cited

Aaron, Michele. “Pass/fail,” Screen 42.1. (Spring 2001), 92-96.

Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matters. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Butler, Judith. Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New

York: Routledge, 1990.

Cole C. L. and Shannon L. C. Cate. “Compulsory Gender and Transgender

Existence: Adrienne Rich’s Queer Possibility,” Women’s Studies Quarterly

36.3/4 (Fall/Winter 2008), 279-287.

Cooper, Brenda. “Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life and

Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality,” Critical Studies in

Media Communication 19.1 (March 2002), 44-63.

Esposito, Jennifer. “The Performance of White Masculinity in Boys Don’t Cry:

Identity, Desire, (Mis)Recognition,” Cultural Studies <=> Critical

Methodologies 3.2 (2003), 229-241.

Halberstam, Judith. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender bodies, Subcultural

lives. New York: New York University Press, c2005.

_______________ “Telling Tales: Brandon Teena, Billy Tipton, and Transgender

Biography,” Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and

Religion, María Carla Sánchez and Linda Schlossberg, ed. New York:

New York University Press, c2001, 13-37.

15
_______________ "The Transgender Gaze in Boys Don't Cry," Screen 42:3.

(Autumn 2001), 294-298.

_______________ “The Brandon Teena Archive,” Queer studies: an

interdisciplinary reader, Stephen Valocchi, Robert J. Corber, ed. Oxford:

Blackwall, 2003, 159-169.

Jager, Gill. Judith Butler: Sexual politics, social change and the power of the

performance. Routledge: New York, 2008.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Issues in Feminist Film

Criticism, Patricia Evans, ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990,

28-40.

Pidduck, Julianne. “Risk and queer spectatorship,” Screen 42.1. (Spring 2001),

97-102.

Philips, John. Transgender on screen. Basingstoke [England]; New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Prosser, Jay. Second Skins: the body narratives of transsexuality. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1998, 21-60.

Salih, Sara. Judith Butler. London; New York: Routledge, 2002.

Sloop, John M. “Disciplining the transgendered: Brandon Teena, public

representation, and normativity,” Sexualities & communication in everyday

life: a reader, Karen E. Lovaas, Mercilee M. Jenkins, ed. Thousand Oaks,

Calif. :SAGE Publications, 2007, 195-215.

Swan, Rachel. “Review: Boys Don't Cry,” Film Quarterly 54.3. 2001, 47-52.

16
White, Patricia. “Girls still cry,” Screen 42.2. (Summer 2001), 217-22.

17