The documentary “Boys State” came into my life at the perfect time. I had been meaning to watch this film for a long time, but when I was presented with an offer by the production studio A24 to both watch the film and participate with other college students in interviewing the directors, my motivation reached new heights. When A24 decides to produce a film, that film is virtually guaranteed to be an engaging experience. This is, after all, the same studio that distributed the Oscar winning movie “Moonlight,” and the critically acclaimed “Lady Bird.” They seem to consistently co-sign great movies, and in many ways, “Boys State” lives up those high expectations.

The nearly two hour long documentary focuses on a popular educational program that takes place over the course of a week in the summer of 2018. This program simulates the United States government in an attempt to familiarize young men with civic and public services. Think Model United Nations on steroids. Run and organized by the American Legion, the program operates in all 50 states. With notable alumni ranging from Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton, to Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen, I’m actually surprised that such a documentary hadn’t been made before. Directors Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine took particular interest in the Texas Boys State, after discovering that, in the year prior, there was a motion to secede the Texas Boys State from their Boys State union. Intrigued by such a peculiar verdict, Moss and McBaine felt compelled to document the program.

The next logical step for the filmmakers was to create a story, and a vehicle which could drive that story. Enter Steven Garza, Ben Feinstein, René Otero, and Robert MacDougall: four teenage boys with big ambitions and strong political leanings. The film centers around these four boys’ journey through the week-long program, each with their own goals, successes, and failures.

It may surprise you to learn that Moss and McBaine’s decision to follow these particular boys was based on very loose criteria. From the post-screening interview, I learned that their choices were informed by three months of planning and two basic criteria: is the candidate politically sophisticated, and is the candidate planning to run for governor of Texas Boys State. Using that criteria, the team ended up with a vibrant and diverse cast. This consisted of two left-leaning people of color (Steven Garza, and René Otero), one right-leaning white double-amputee (Ben Feinstein), and one white right-leaning participant (Robert MacDougall). Each one of them brings a larger than life personality to the table.

Garza is the son of an immigrant and—at the time of filming—was on track to become the first person in his family to graduate from high school. We quickly learn that he’s incredibly driven and down to earth, and I came to admire his integrity. Otero—who actually ended up at the program by last minute happenstance—establishes himself as mature beyond his years and beyond the majority of the boys at the program. MacDougall fills the role of the archetypal lovable jock, who can befriend anyone through sheer charm and energy, and yet he also displays a certain nuance of thoughtfulness that is equally endearing. And then there’s Feinstein, an incisive, crafty, yet charming individual who introduces himself as a politics hobbyist; he even owns a Ronald Regan bobblehead.

Directors Moss and McBaine are strikingly good at capturing the big and the small moments in the boys’ journeys. The format of the documentary is constantly shifting between preparation and light discourse to debate and elections. These shifts in perspective are smoothly executed to immerse the viewer in the arduous election processes. In between the seemingly non-
stop bustle of their fourteen hour days, we meet the four boys through short, periodical interviews that give us more intimate and personal accounts of their experiences. Often, through these interviews, we learn their inner thoughts and feelings—many of which they would otherwise never have
shared.

Neatly furnishing the whole production is the intimacy and warmth of the documentary’s cinematography, led by Thorsten Thielow. The 28-person film crew did a phenomenal job of maintaining a close but not invasive view of the action. This was achieved with a single camera and lens for the majority of the film: Canon’s C300 Mark II paired with a 35mm lens (if any camera nerds wanted to know).

All of this is to say that the viewer’s experience of “Boys State” should be generally engaging. However, my concerns for the documentary lie in what we don’t see or experience, most prominently the lack of other perspectives. The format of following only four boys, while enthralling, tends to favor the “winners perspective.” From a storytelling perspective, this makes sense. It allows the filmmakers to tell the story of Boys State and show the program’s peak moments all through the various first-hand experiences of the boys. But, in a program featuring 1000 boys, not everyone can be a winner, and levels of commitment vary. One thing I would have liked to see was the perspective of those who ran for lower offices, whose stories matter too.

Additionally, the separation of females from males via the creation of Girls State (a separate program exclusive to girls) from Boys State feels noninclusive and regressive. Especially considering the popularity of topics like abortion and reproductive rights within Boys State, although this is more of an effect created by the Boys State program itself. In fact, the
directors stated their intention of filming a “Girls State” documentary in the future.

Despite its demerits in inclusivity, “Boys State” presents a nuanced take on political unity that I think is crucially relevant to today’s tumultuous political climate, particularly for the upcoming presidential election. In the interview that I attended, Feinstein—arguably the most politician-like character in the documentary—admitted some remorse for how he treated his opponents. After seeing the rough cut, and without what he called the “fog of war goggles on,” he found himself empathizing with those he ran a campaign against.

“I was like, I did that and I would be really hurt if that happened to me,” Feinstein recounted.

It often amazes me the lengths politicians and those in power will go to in order to preserve or extend their positions. But I’m even more amazed by how protracted the effects of an election can be considering how short the election process actually is. Every four years, on one lone day in November, we make a decision that has the potential to divide families, friends, coworkers, and the populace in general. Besides urging you, the reader, to vote, I can’t claim to have the answers to America’s problems. But I do believe that we won’t get anywhere without a sense of unity and an understanding of each other.

This urge for unity is clearly shared by the filmmakers of “Boys State.” In the interview, MacDougall reflected on the events of the documentary.

“We all want the same thing, but we just have different ways of getting there,” McDougall said.

I strongly agreed with this sentiment. We do all want, in a general sense, the same thing: the progression and prosperity of humanity. Most Americans are seeking a prosperity not stained by discriminatory ideologies, but rather a true freedom that elevates us beyond our own strained interpersonal relationships.

Feinstein might have regretted the way he ran his campaign. But the fact that he feels any remorse at all shows his ability to empathize. Perhaps, if he had empathized with his opposing candidates, the election would have been less tumultuous. This signals to me that we need to treat politics in a less combative and a more constructive way.

If “Boys State” proves anything, it’s that our common humanity can supersede any petty political clashes. So, as we reach another possible inflection point in American history, I urge you to consider and deeply empathize with your neighbor. Consider their various identities and their most basic needs.

 

Cameron Scott can be reached at cyscott@wesleyan.edu.