The Boys in the Band

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.

I'm sure some might find this film "outdated", too depressing and pessimistic.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.

As mediocre as it gets. Wow, they should have left well enough alone.

Those who think this is "good acting" need to understand the difference between acting and mimicry.

Jim Parsons barely transcends the character he plays in "The Big Bang," including his vocal intonations. It sounds like Sheldon - and that's no compliment. He barely has any change in intonation or volume in the entire play.

Enjoy it, especially if you're under 35, but don't confuse this with great acting or the reality of the original film, which was explosive when it came out. It's not that it's a failure, it's just that it is simply a scene reading, where actors sit at a table and just...read the lines. The essence of acting is to forget who YOU are and BE the character. By those standards, this is unexceptional.

As for those who deem it depressing,well, it was an accurate representation of the psyche of many gay men of the time: self-loathing. So many of the reviews come from people born after 1985, (or, for that matter, 1995), who have NO knowledge of what gay culture was like (except through books and excerpts of newsreels). I'd see these guys at parties in 1970 - and go the other way. The actors fail to convey the internal self-hatred of so many gay men of that time. The original movie surpasses this by the proverbial country mile, with tension so thick, especially after Harold arrives, that all the sadness, bitterness and self-loathing of the gay men of that era (and it REALLY was like that in the Metropolis' of that time, and especially New York, but also LA). Take it from the 75 year old.

I'm listening to it, as I type, and even without seeing the expressions of the actors, it sounds bloodless, as in "devoid of LIFE." Everyone except Quinto is a caricature of a real actor. Or even more, a real PERSON.

This is nothing more than a rehearsal reading. NO fire, NO authentic passion.

If you're going to do a re-make, do it right. This is not that re-make, but perhaps someone will get another chance to do it, although it seems so many reviews are contemptuous of their elders without having the slightest sense of what their elders had to go through. If that is the case, you have ZERO sense of gay history. Go read Larry Kramer's "Faggots," which is an accurate portrayal of New York gay culture in the '70s. The past can't be changed by those who don't understand it. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So this movie falls into the "condemned" category.

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 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.