The Night Larry Kramer Kissed Me

This filmed version of the one-man monologue has been updated somewhat for the start of the 21st century (with hilarious, but strangely preternatural references to Ben Affleck and Matt Damon--wasn't this filmed well before "Good Will Hunting"?), and the ending has been updated from 1999 to 2017 with a rather amusing and possibly prescient reference to a future US President.

As a result, we end up with a period piece embodying the ACT UP anger of the mid-80's/early 90's mixed with anachronistic attempts to update the play (admittedly in scenes portraying a future reality), along with timeless set pieces about gyms and bars, which still characterize much of urban gay life today.

As an encapsulation of one man's awakening in the mid-80's to urban gay culture and the simultaneous threat of AIDS, and the mandated, if diffuse and [IMHO often misdirected], anger that one had to express at the disease and the apparent lack of research for its prevention, treatment, and a cure, I found the original would have sufficed without any additions. Not that I would have enjoyed it better; it would simply have been more organic a work, regardless of its flaws.

Still, I have to ask "What planet was this guy from to have to see 'The Normal Heart' in NYC in 1985 in order to suddenly wake up about AIDS?" Gad, the musical version of "La Cage aux Folles" opened in pre-Broadway tryouts in Boston in 1983, with Boston's newly formed AIDS Action Committee as the recipient of an associated fundraiser. The syndrome (under any number of names) was infamous from the very day the column about the mysterious "gay cancer" appeared on the front page of July 1981's New York Times. Would the play have received less attention or accolades if the name of screenwriter/novelist/activist Larry Kramer hadn't appeared in the title?

I found the play's frequent sentimentality and almost suffocating self-absorption of the narrator incredibly distasteful. Every one of the stories of his friends or acquaintances dying--this is supposed to be the emotional highlight of the work--are filtered through an almost stupefying egoism: the details of their lives and deaths aren't enough for us without their first being filtered through the prism of "me-me-me" and how they impact, inconvenience or anger the narrator.

I suppose that one can't reliably equate the author of a (semi-) autobiographical monologue with the character of the "author" behind the proscenium, but that's a risk a monologist takes.

This is a 1999 video recording of David Drake's one-man 1992 stage play about his first several years as a gay man, in Baltimore and later in New York.

There's nothing inherently wrong with filming a stage play. However, THIS play should not have been filmed. Its only possible value is to David Drake himself, as a document of his obviously heart-felt but tiresome work.

No one else besides Drake and his close friends could enjoy watching his grotesquely magnified face filling the screen, mugging and reciting in a stilted, wholly unnatural manic monotone infinitely repetitious histrionics that have a rhythm like poetry but none of its beauty or power.

He sounds like he's giving some sort of manic, post-modern recitation of the Iliad, but what comes out is self-obsessed drivel, filled with mindless rap-like repetitions of meaningless phrases.

Drake obviously is fascinated by himself and by his own life, but I'm not. The "kiss" from Larry Kramer, by the way, is metaphorical - proving that at least Kramer had sense enough to avoid this flaming narcissist.

I felt like I was getting preached at, and -- already knowing the sermon -- felt I'd heard it delivered better from other sources. They tell me the live performance was better, but I doubt I'd have liked that, either. Still, if you were playing this to a young gay man who'd never heard anyone give a call to arms for the war on AIDs and for gay rights, this would be an acceptable 1st movie. For anyone else, it isn't worth your time. Older gay men and women know this stuff from more entertaining and other superior sources. Non-gays have heard it from more sugar coated sources that allow them to separate Equal Rights from the reality of the gay bar scene, Golden Showers references and/or other behaviors that might turn them off.

Mr. Drake explained that in the 8 years between the play's debut and it's capture on celluloid, he changed a few things (such as the details of clubbing), but the major points remained the same. I do agree that the points are still relevant. I don't think this is an entertaining way to bring them up.

This is the worst: a self-indulgent one-man show filmed for all those people wise enough to stay away in the first place. It seems that David Drake had all the usual gay experiences of coming out, of over-indulging, etc., and wants to tell us about it. The script is in some sort of quasi-poetic lingo. In order to create excitement, there are lots of quick camera moves, and drum-like intensifying sound. It gave me a headache, and I had to walk out. It was intolerable. But David Drake was standing at the door (I saw this at a festival and the auteurs were in attendance) and he wouldn't let me leave because the on-screen performance was reaching a crescendo. If I opened the door at that moment, the effect would have been ruined for the enthralled masses. So I waited for the great climactic moment, and walked out. You really don't want to see this movie!

I did not have the opportunity to see the play and had only heard David Drake do a small portion of his work at a book reading 8 or so years ago. I had always wanted to see the play performed and was very happy to see it released on film. I was not disappointed. Mr. Drakes writing and performance are excellent. The style of the work evokes those nights of staying awake by thoughts that you cannot control. The play is the continuous reliving of your day and the past that jump through your mind. I was totally involved in the film from start to finish.