ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,8/10
19 k
MA NOTE
Un groupe d'hommes homosexuels se réunit pour une fête d'anniversaire en 1968 à New York, jusqu'à ce que les festivités sont interrompues par un visiteur du passé qui chamboule la soirée.Un groupe d'hommes homosexuels se réunit pour une fête d'anniversaire en 1968 à New York, jusqu'à ce que les festivités sont interrompues par un visiteur du passé qui chamboule la soirée.Un groupe d'hommes homosexuels se réunit pour une fête d'anniversaire en 1968 à New York, jusqu'à ce que les festivités sont interrompues par un visiteur du passé qui chamboule la soirée.
- Prix
- 1 victoire et 5 nominations au total
Robin de Jesus
- Emory
- (as Robin de Jesús)
Avis en vedette
A bunch of queens together in 1968 is still the same as a bunch of queens together in 2020. Full of gin and regret.
While the actors were all very convincing in their roles, and the art direction was satisfying, I still don't think I got the point of this film. So, regrets and arguments abound amongst a group of gay friends, how is this the fodder of film? Maybe I just don't get "slice of life" scripts. It kind of left me feeling empty.
I read the screenplay which was published in book form decades ago-maybe in the mid-seventies-and recall finding it depressing.
Just finished watching this new Netflix film and must comment on the terrific casting and production-the clothing and set design were as "spot on" as possible, but more importantly the acting was superb. Each character was distinct and believable. The setting was close and intimate, but not claustrophobic. In revisiting this drama decades after first reading the screenplay, I would describe it as sad, rather than depressing.
Fortunately the LGBT community finds much more visibility and acceptance today. This production clearly depicts self-loathing, repression and invisibility felt by some in the sixties. A good period piece with some light moments, but still very sad.
Just finished watching this new Netflix film and must comment on the terrific casting and production-the clothing and set design were as "spot on" as possible, but more importantly the acting was superb. Each character was distinct and believable. The setting was close and intimate, but not claustrophobic. In revisiting this drama decades after first reading the screenplay, I would describe it as sad, rather than depressing.
Fortunately the LGBT community finds much more visibility and acceptance today. This production clearly depicts self-loathing, repression and invisibility felt by some in the sixties. A good period piece with some light moments, but still very sad.
I really looked forward to watching this so-named "remake". Kudos for the production team trying to re-capture the pre-Stonewall atmosphere of the play. Unfortunately, the actors - and ultimately the director - are all victims of the current age where we gay men feel "comfortable" in our homosexual skins. There was not tension, no notion that the party as well as Michael's apartment was a space where the boys/"girls" could "let their hair down" due to oppressive mainstream attitudes about being gay. Furthermore, what was also lacking was - and I say this as a gay man who was in his prime during the 80s before the current LGBTQ "openness" was in full-swing - a sense of "competition", where gay men were always trying to "out-clever" one another with swipes at their identities. In this age of "Everyone needs to feel safe", gay men have abandoned - for better or worse - that self-deprecating attitude that united us back then. Yes - it's good that we don't embrace that attitude anymore - but it's deadly when you're trying to revive a gay play - in fact THE gay play - from the past/pre-Stonewall era.
I'm sure some might find this film "outdated", too depressing and pessimistic. But it must be taken into consideration that it depicts gay life and identity in 60s. If it had depicted them from a very 21st-century point of view, it would probably have betrayed the authenticity of the period. Here, the characters are trying to come to terms with their identity, to find their place in a society that mostly rejects and bashes them, and remain a closed group of friends despite their personal differences. It touches upon issues like beauty, aging, depression, self-rejection, self-hatred,relationships (romantic and friendly), religion, race as they all relate to gay identity. Nine characters all representing different aspects of gay identity, when brought together, present a comprehensive and multi-faceted understanding of being a gay man in the 60s. The acting is good and the roles really fit the actors playing them. (Matt Bomer is such an eye candy, I wanna see him more in movies!!!) The dialogue of often witty and sassy. I must admit that while the overall sassiness was quite fun for the first half of the movie, in the second half, where things get pretty serious and dramatic, it felt a bit cruel.
I have also seen the 1970 Friedkin version. What new elements does the 2020 one offer? It has scenes ourside Michael's house. The film opens with little scenes depicting each of the characters in their lives and contributing to character development from the start. During the phone call game, the film also has flashback scenes, which make the past memories somewhat more concrete. It also has a few sexually explicit scenes. Other than that, the story and dialogue are pretty much the same.
Lastly, we must not expect all queer stories to tell empowering, optimistic stories. Yes, this film is very dark and depressing, but it is just another prespective on life and individual experience. No queer character represents or talks on behalf of the whole queer community, nor do the characters in this film. They mostly manage to feel real within themselves, which is more important.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesTuc Watkins and Andrew Rannells are a couple in real life.
- GaffesWhen Michael takes the Valium he lifts his bottle to his mouth with his left hand but lowers it with his right.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Boys in the Band: Something Personal (2020)
- Bandes originalesHold on I'm Coming
Written by Isaac Hayes and David Porter
Performed by Erma Franklin
Courtesy of Brunswick Record Corporation
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Boys in the Band?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Các Chàng Trai Trong Hội
- Lieux de tournage
- société de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée
- 2h 1m(121 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant