At the end of Neil Jordan's commentary, he comments that the prison ending is probably about the most positive that could be expected, where she can visit her fantasy "knight in shining armor", and he can be visited by a "beautiful vision" who brings him food and cigarettes!
It's a bit of a sexist set-up, though, isn't it? I don't remember much of Dil in terms of values, of actions (as opposed to emotions and reactions - I think the distinction matters). In fact, I may be wrong, but the first moment where she is seen, is as a performer, isn't it? As a beautiful, alluring woman. This is complicated by the gender-fucking reveal, but the first image of this woman as woman-performing, woman-appealing is ultimately reinforced; this is Dil's success, this is Dil's sucessfully performed function; radical, genderfucking, liminar, yes, but ultimately - if only to an extent - competent female object of desire.
Throughout, the male protagonist (Fergus, is it?) is consistently represented as investigative, as active, as decisive. By the end he is punnished (heroically so?, I don't remember); she supports, she compensates, as love interest. And ultimately, his whole drama as far as allowing himself to love (refering to Jack's post) is the one of a (white) male subject projected onto a rather passive (half-black) transgender body, an image, an interest - not a peer. I don't see that much of finally liberating about "The Crying Game".
On a side note, I thought that sequence where she had to cut her hair and pass as male was bizarrely violent (on purpose, I felt; I'm not accusing, I felt it was nicely done).
I saw the movie years ago though, so there may be a lot I remember incorrectly, or not at all; and I'm sorry that my writing isn't very clear and structured, I'm not used to English by now. |
