Skip to main content

Too Close for Comfort: Boyhood Intimacy and the Hazards of Gender Conformity


Lukas Dhont never explicitly identifies the lead characters of his movie Close as queer. It might be easy to make that assumption, especially coming on the heels of Girl, his controversial debut film about a trans girl pursuing a career in ballet. But it’s a distinction never made clear. And the movie is actually better for this, as it doesn’t limit the experiences and emotions highlighted through this film to only the purview of one community. Maybe Léo and Rémi are gay, maybe they’re not -it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that they are close, which they are not socially allowed to be as boys growing up in a rigidly gendered, heteronormative culture.
Extrinsic and internalized toxic masculinity and homophobia are the root of all evil in Close, a very good though heartbreaking movie about a childhood relationship torn apart by social and psychological stigma. Lukas Dhont was inspired by a clinical book called Deep Secrets, about the unique intimacy between boys and the ways such things are socially discouraged as they grow older, as well as his own experience as a queer kid obligated to conform to certain standards of masculine behaviour and interest. There’s a palpable yearning for awareness to this movie, a need to understand that these aspects of boyhood psychology are unhealthy, and could lead to the greatest of harm.
The movie is set in rural Belgium and concerns the intimate friendship of thirteen year old boys Léo (Eden Dambrine) and Rémi (Gustav De Waele), as they enter high school. They’ve been close for years, spending all their time together, welcome in each other’s families and even sleeping with each other in frequent sleepovers. But once they enter their new school, their bond is apparent to other students who fixate on their relationship with either inappropriate curiosity or outright homophobia. Léo especially is bothered by this, and begins endeavouring to distance himself from Rémi and pursue a more gender-approved character and habit.
The early portions of the movie are charged by a youthful bliss as the kids play in the field near Rémi’s home, his mother Sophie (Émelie Dequenne) sometimes joining in, followed by their whispered giggling conversations at night. Immediately the fact of their gender becomes the point of discrepancy for this behaviour: it seems a touch unusual, but only because they are boys. I found myself thinking about several movies in which similar imagery is applied to the relationship between young girls, without there being any kind of implicit strangeness. I believe the parallel is intentional, as Dhont asks the audience to think about the lopsidedly gendered way our societies perceive childhood intimacy.
It is only with the suddenness of judgement that this sort of thing even becomes irregular to the boys. Rémi doesn’t know what to think, and is content to go on in their relationship as is. Léo though, is put on the defensive, and takes a fight or flight approach. The boys are each really good, as De Waele authentically retreats into himself in the gradual abandonment Rémi feels as Léo in more and more arenas cuts him out of his life. Dambrine is the most impressive though, with a wide-eyed face whose insecurities, pride, and later guilt can be read like a book. Without ever vocalizing his true feelings until the end, he conveys so acutely the need to be accepted and fear that he is too different. It plays out in the way Léo silently joins a new friend group, involves himself intently in the school hockey team -an interest he’d never shown before, and stops socializing with Rémi or his family, even shunning him. Only in the background of Léo’s perspective do we see the emotionally cataclysmic effect this is having on Rémi, and it culminates in an explosive school fight in which Léo is attacked by a sobbing Rémi, the last bitter nail in the coffin of their friendship.
And here is where it is necessary I spoil a major development of the film, as it cannot be discussed honestly if I overlook it. Following this confrontation about halfway through, on the return from a school trip that Rémi was conspicuously absent for, Léo is informed that his former friend has committed suicide. And all of a sudden Léo is consumed by a guilt he won’t dare express openly, suppressing it through the funeral, the psychological exercises he is obliged to take with his classmates, his hockey playing, and especially in his interactions with Sophie, whom he starts seeing again after a time while carefully avoiding ever bringing up her lost son.
It is so extreme and swift a plunge into dark material that it can only really be compared to the likes of Bridge to Terabithia or My Girl -stories that deal openly with the sudden death of a child. And yet it goes a step beyond in identifying the cause so explicitly as suicide and in painting the ramifications in purely psychological terms. It is a bold choice by Dhont to attach this to his film of toxic masculinity and youth, taking on the additional weight of that loaded theme. But he is intent, and likely more than a little accurate in his estimation of so severe a conclusion to these patterns. He does earn the invocation too, as he underplays the fallout from the death in a sobering way. The gravity of this loss is completely buried by Léo, which speaks louder to a warped social conditioning than any amount of tears or open mourning ever could.
Of course, Dhont isn’t so cynical as to deprive Léo of that necessary outpouring of built-up grief, heartbreak and sense of personal responsibility –but it doesn’t come easy. And the movie makes clear that the trauma will stay with Léo for a long time, in part because of how closed off he was to it for so long. Probably the harshest thing is that the film doesn’t entirely absolve him of his role in Rémi’s death, much as he may ultimately reconcile the tragedy itself. It is a haunting indictment, but Léo is understood to be a victim too. And all because of the pressure of arbitrary restraints on young male relationships. The consequences of ill-motivated toxic masculine actions can be dire –that is Dhont’s emphatic message. And it’s one that occurs too rarely in modern discussions of social roles and gender expression –not least in the medium of film.
Close is an apt title –Dhont frequently keeps his camera close to his protagonists, for better articulation of the nuance to their feelings. In some areas it moves with a smooth, almost documentary quality, which I’m sure is Dhont’s way of relating the subject matter with a greater sense of immediacy. And it does work. Though it follows the line of its theme to the utmost extremity, it makes its point sharply, honestly, and humanely. A difficult movie, but one with some real power.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...