Dress Code

My name is Collette aka Coco Mojo, and I just bought this movie on Amazon.This is the amazing tale of a spirited, incredibly courageous boy named Bruno who DARES TO BE HIMSELF against all odds. Shirley MacLaine plays his rigid, hyper-critical "gender-conformist" grandma (in quotes as she herself doesn't practice what she preaches -- she is not your stereotypical "feminine" woman!) who has a big change of heart. Kathy Bates plays the cold, uptight, anal-retentive Mother Superior of Bruno's boarding school, who has no heart.This is a wonderful, entertaining story that makes an excellent point -- who makes the rules, anyway? And -- why should we let others tell us who we are? Bruno refuses to "sell out" and insists on being himself -- come hell or high water! And that takes incredible courage, bravery, and integrity -- "TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE."I APPLAUD director Shirley MacLaine and ALL the writers and makers of The Dress Code. What on earth were they thinking? Could it be the human race (and society) really is waking up after all?I myself would like to see a day in which there is simply NO "masculine" or "feminine", just HUMAN (male and female are unalterable biological conditions, whereas masculine and feminine are ONLY CONCEPTS and as such are entirely flexible, alterable things. These ideas are also ARBITRARY: What one culture considers "feminine," another culture considers "masculine"). And, within that, each person has his or her own personal style, which is simply whatever that person chooses as self-expression...and that can be a flexible thing, changing day by day. If today I choose to wear leather, tomorrow I might choose lace (and MEN too should have the same option!). Why be confined as an individual to any one thing, when there is so much room for creative diversity?Bruno wears dresses, and he also wears curly long wigs, make-up, and nail polish. Yet, he DOESN'T want to switch sexes, as he tells his grandma. And -- it is clear he isn't desiring "power," as one reviewer mistakenly stated. He simply wants to be a beautiful boy -- as beautiful as an angel!, as the movie strongly implies. Bruno is entranced by grace and beauty as exemplified by the angels he saw in his vision. These angels wear flowing dresses and robes -- and it is true that female (and not male) earthly secular attire more closely approximates this style of clothing, traditionally speaking. Bruno loves spirituality and holiness, and is aware that spiritual leaders like priests and the pope wear dresses -- just like the angels.So -- what's wrong with "feminine" boys and "masculine" girls? These categories (masculine/feminine) are arbitrary, contrived, and confusing to begin with, as they dichotomize HUMAN qualities into polarities based on sex. This makes little sense, and it has also served to devalue that which is considered "feminine."I think many people missed the point of this film. Which is this: BE YOURSELF, always -- even if that means being "feminine" if you're a boy and "masculine" if you're a girl. After all, HUMAN qualities aren't owned by either sex, but are available to everyone. If Bruno wants to look and feel beautiful, then he should be able to express himself in this way (unfortunately, our society punishes boys for this).I myself never wear dresses; at present, I only wear pants and shorts, though this could change someday. I wore make-up for a time, but lately have not. I have never worn high heels. Yet I am not a lesbian -- I have never been attracted to women. I have a boyfriend. Likewise, just because Bruno likes to be beautiful doesn't mean he is gay (don't get me wrong: I believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality).Is beauty and the desire to look beautiful "feminine"? Or is it simply HUMAN? Maybe we should throw these confusing, genderizing "masc/fem" concepts and terminology out the window!

It was a great movie, real and thought provoking, not to mention funny. All grandmothers, for sure, should see it. That little boy was the cutest kid, and his face was so expressive, especially in the drinking scene--classic. All the characters were quirky, and lovable in their own ways, except maybe the dad, but by the end there was even hope for him. Shirley Maclain didn't miss a beat--she was the kind of grandmother I wish I were. I do not understand why this movie was not in general release, unless it was the hint of possible homosexuality, and how stupid is that? It's a reality in today's world, and anyway, I don't think that adorable little boy is going to grow up to be gay--hey, he may grow up to be the pope. I liked the way religion was important to them even though they didn't act particularly pious--kind of like the real world. I liked the grandmother's toughness and her rethinking of how she had raised her son. I loved the over-weight mom in the hospital, and the camera focusing several times on the dessert, and you knew she was going to eat it, and then--swoosh! into the garbage can. It was a story of how people can change. I loved it.

I saw this film on HBO, or Showtime...one of those channels and thought it was just the sweetest film.Alex Linz is just too adorable and is a wonderful actor. He plays a young boy who wears dresses, but to him they are "holy vestments". His mother, a flamboyant 450 pound woman nursing a broken heart, is loving and understanding. His grandmother, played by a VERY manly Shirley Maclaine,who also directed this film, thinks both son and mother are crazy. She soon falls under the boys charms and encourages him the way she never did with her own son, the boys wayward father, played by Sinese, in a very small but important role.I love the performances in this movie. It seems that the actors are having a wonderful time and it comes across in their acting. The characters are very real and genuine. It is a bit "Afterschool Special"ish, but the strong cast and performances carry it home.

Not only a movie for today but of yesterday, of a time when intolerance was acceptable. This is one of my favorite movies, one I keep coming back to as a classic in my mind, a movie I hope one day to be a reminder of the limited past humans once had filled with judgment not just of each other but children. It is also a movie that represents self-determination and freedom of expression, a reminder to those claiming rights under the original dreams of the American founding fathers (and mothers). It is clear that each actor involved took their roles seriously and embraced their characters, so much so, we get lost in the story not just the implications of the story.I use this film in my writing and educational classes and groups to spark conversation on a variety of topics from freedom of speech to cross-dressing. This is the fourth version I've purchased as I've worn two VHS tapes and gave a DVD away to a fellow teacher in interpersonal communication to use her in classes.

This film was a very pleasant surprise. Not having seen it, I purchased it on the strength of its cast. The film's success rests on the small shoulders of its lead character. Alex D. Linz proves, as he did in HOME ALONE 3, to be an absolutely charming presence. The scene in which he explains his lack of fear of dying to his grandmother is a gem. The film itself is a little unsteady at the beginning and, at 108 minutes, is a bit overlong, but, once it gets going, the story is filled with wonderful, quirky characters. It bears a passing resemblence to the Belgian film MA VIE EN ROSE ("My Life in Pink"), which is also recommended viewing.

I couldn't find the product I wanted on the U.S. site and the Ca. Site had it. Thanks so much!!!