Last night I watched BROKEN DIAMONDS, a 2021 film starring Ben Platt (this fall’s punching bag, thanks to his admittedly misguided involvement in the theatrical adaptation of DEAR EVAN HANSEN).
In BROKEN DIAMONDS, Platt stars as Scott, a young man on the cusp of moving to Paris to chase his dreams of becoming a novelist. When his father suddenly dies, Scott is forced into the position of having to care for his sister Cindy (Lola Kirke). Cindy, who has been in and out of mental hospitals most of her adult life, suffers from schizophrenia and without a support system is, at best, unpredictable and, at worst, a danger to herself. Scott must decide whether he continues on his dream of moving to Paris or stays behind to offer the care his sister needs. This decision is complicated by unresolved emotions Scott has towards his sister and the fact that her mental illness has a history of leaving him feeling overshadowed and forgotten by his family.
First things first, I really enjoyed BROKEN DIAMONDS. I thought Platt and Kirke were both very good in their respective roles. Since watching the film, I have read some criticism online that suggests Kirke’s role is a broad characature of mental illness and, while there may perhaps be some truth to that, I still thought her performance was profoundly touching and captured the pain and struggles the character was going through. I saw the truth in the performance, regardless of how broad it may or may not have been.
The film’s script had a great balance of comedy and drama and the score by Keegan DeWitt and Dabney Morris was phenomenal. While I am admittedly a sucker for tearjerkers- especially ones that deal with family relationships - I thought BROKEN DIAMONDS was a very good film and I’m glad I watched it.
All that said, I have been thinking a lot about the narrative structure of BROKEN DIAMONDS and where the point-of-view of the story was focused. Cindy, a woman who struggles with mental illness, is a secondary character in the story. Instead of focusing on her battle with mental illness, the movie explores how her illness affects her little brother Scott - a young white man. Compare this to GIRL, INTERRUPTED - James Mangold’s supremely underrated gem from 1999 that adapted Susanna Kaysen’s memoir - in which the focus is on a group of young women who struggle to assert their identities and agency while institutionalized in a psychiatric hospital.
GIRL, INTERRUPTED is, without a doubt, the version of the story that feels more worthwhile of being told- but does that mean BROKEN DIAMONDS should not have been made? A version of BROKEN DIAMONDS that was told from Cindy’s point of view might have been a more emotionally-impactful story but the fact is this: BROKEN DIAMONDS exists because screenwriter Steve Waverly pulled from his own life and his own relationship with his family to tell a story that was uniquely personal to his own experience. He wrote the script and then he managed to get the movie made. Yes, BROKEN DIAMONDS might have been a better story if the film had looked a little different - but that version of BROKEN DIAMONDS was simply not made and, if it had been made, it would not have been made by the same people who made the version that was filmed.
I’ve been thinking a lot about representation in narrative and who gets to tell what stories. What is the responsibility as a creator to tell a story (or not tell a story) - and who is that creator even responsible to in the first place?
There is, thankfully, a big demand for diverse stories today and, even better, there is a market and audience to support those stories. We can have television shows like RESERVATION DOGS and films like SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS that are written, directed, and feature talent in front of the camera that feel culturally authentic to the stories being told. Gone are the days when you would have a sea of white men telling all the stories that Hollywood deemed worth telling. Well, almost - there are still a LOT of white men telling stories in Hollywood - but the point is this: We’re in a better place than we used to be.
With this shift in who is telling what stories, there is also a greater demand for authenticity in storytelling. Cultural (and I use this term broadly to represent not just race but also sexual orientation, age, economic status, and neurological diversity) authenticity is expected as a given - books, movies, and comics have (rightfully) been called out if there is even a hint of cultural appropriation - malicious or not - behind the scenes.
I think this is a good thing. Mostly.
If a studio is telling a story that deals with a specific culture, they should of course get somebody from that culture to tell that story. But where is the line? At what point can an author step out of their own personal experience and tell a story on spec that is not uniquely their own? Do authors always have to write only what they know? And, if what a writer knows is the historically mainstream version of that story, should they not be able to tell that story?
This is not the point where I give answers - I don’t know any answers. I love the comic book series SCALPED but it feels weird to me that the series, a crime drama set in a South Dakota Indian Reservation, was told by a white man and a Serbian artist. David Ayer has made a career out of telling stories set in the Los Angeles Mexican-American community and it does seem like he considers himself a part of that community. BROKEN DIAMONDS, while it perhaps could have existed in a more progressive version of the story, also serves as a great look at what it means to be in the orbit of somebody dealing with a neurological disorder - something many of us may find ourselves in at one point or another. In fact, the movie features interviews with members of a real-life support group for family members of those dealing with schizophrenia. Is this not a valid point-of-view too?
Even if I haven’t figured out my own personal answers, I am still fascinated by the questions - who gets to tell what stories and what is the responsibility of artists to their stories’ audience.
In the end, I think it’s a sign of how good BROKEN DIAMONDS is that it sparked the inner debate it did. I highly recommend the film - it’s now available to rent on most VOD platforms.