Michael Heldman | Boys Beware (3rd edition) / 1979

what they did

by Douglas Messerli

 

Michael Heldman (screenwriter and director), Boys Beware (3rd edition) / 1979

 

Although this 14-minute film describes itself as the 3rd edition of the Boys Beware series—which it literally is since the first version was produced in 1955 and the second of 1961 was just a colorization—it seems to have forgotten that the true “second edition” had a different title. More importantly, however, is that this film, made by Michael Heldman, not Sid Davis, that represents a totally different approach to the subject of adult sexual molestation of young boys. Why it would even want to associate itself, accordingly, with the first two versions is fairly puzzling.

    Heldman’s work not only lists a number of serious consultants, but was filmed in cooperation of The Pasadena Police Force, as opposed to the Inglewood, California organizations. Like the earlier version, it uses variant examples, the first based on the newspaper boys from the Sid Davis film, maintaining basically the same character names and plot, except in this case much more dramatically portraying the events.

      The second incident, however, is a far more complex, new story involving a young black boy, Mike, who becomes a “friend” of a black man with a Porsche named Bert. In this case, it only takes Mike to visit his friend a second time before Bert invites him to what appears to be a slightly hippie-like party with both men and women drinking and smoking dope. It quickly becomes apparent, nevertheless, that Bert is serving as a pimp for one of the partyers, a white man who has been waiting for the young boy to show up, shoving him quickly into the bedroom to engage in sex. It is a far more specific and gruesome incident than in the earlier films, and we are not certain that the white bearded partyer is the only one who molests the child, particularly since the boy’s voice narrating the event, speaks of “what they [italics mine] did,” using the plural.

       The film’s third example, focusing on one of the most common forms of child abuse, concerns sexual molestation from a trusted friend of both the boy and his parents, in this case the boy’s baseball coach Mr. Galloway, who having troubles with his wife, turns his attentions to his young player. Since he lives near the boy’s family home, the coach always drives the kid home after practice. But like Ralph in the earlier series, this eventually escalates into the man buying the boy a Coke. Like Ralph, moreover, Galloway tells the boy some dirty jokes. He also pats his young friend on the shoulder, referring to the development of the boy’s body, all seemingly innocent acts but which, nonetheless, make the boy uncomfortable.

     The next week after practice, coach Galloway asks his young charge to stay after for a while. The coach shares pictures of naked women, unlike the earlier version making quite clearly the male sexual gender of the “pornographic pictures” the elder shares with the boy. But at this point the elder puts his arm around the young man suggesting they had known each other long enough to have some real secrets together.

     The narrating child recognizes immediately the strangeness of the behavior and leaves, reporting the events to his parents, although like so many boys in his situation fearing that they would not believe him since the man was such a good friend.

      In this case the parents take their son’s report quite seriously, and they, in turn, “call some people to talk to Mr. Galloway.” What that comment actually means is terribly vague, but presumably they called a psychiatrist rather than police authorities or, even worse, the juvenile authorities as the mother did in the earlier version of the film.

      The narrator reminds boys that it is not always easy to talk to one’s parents about such a situation, providing a list of other possible people the boy might approach: “teacher or counselor, police juvenile officer, doctor, clergyman, or a crisis hotline.”

      The final moments of the film summarize the dangers, reiterating the appropriate behavior, but also mentioning, if somewhat off-handedly, “not every adult who offers you a ride, asks for your trust or becomes physically affectionate intends to attack you.” 

      But the truly important aspect of this revisionist version of the film is that not once is the word “homosexual” or even “pedophile” mentioned. The abuser of the boys is simply called the “attacker,” and there is no suggestion that any of these figures might be a homosexual, particularly Mr. Galloway who is engaged in a crumbling heterosexual marriage. 

       The film also describes itself as an ancillary work to demonstrate that not only young girls can be attacked, but young boys equally. Although, it might have been interesting if the film had included an attack upon a young boy by a woman, a crime that often doesn’t get reported because it is perceived by both the boys and the culture as normative behavior and for some young males almost seen as a kind of “trophy.”

     Increasingly, however, the idea of conveying our cultural fears of child abuse by film has diminished, presumably in favor of more informed discussions with family or educators. But, in fact, it appears that many parents and teachers are simply incapable of discussing these issues, and over the past few years, more importantly, child abuse has become such a taboo subject that it cannot even be brought up in a classroom and is talked about almost in hysterical whispers by most parents. A sane discussion of the numerous issues surrounding such a truly complex issue is now almost impossible. Perhaps in retrospect, the “Boys Beware” films were the last attempt to even openly discuss this serious problem.

 

Los Angeles, December 30, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2023).