Os Rapazes da Banda

A bunch of queens together in 1968 is still the same as a bunch of queens together in 2020. Full of gin and regret.

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.

Love how this was shot and it was extremely emotional. Beautifully acted and I loved some of the directing choices and music choices. Respect to all the 'boys' they were all fantastic.

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.

Perfectly cast and well acted film of a stagey stage-play. It's been opened out a little here and there, but since its claustrophobia is part of its power, I don't know that letting us out of the New York apartment in which it takes place is particularly helpful.

The play has historical significance, in that author Mart Crowley aimed at and succeeded in capturing the self-loathing of a then despised part of the American population. It was particularly galling that the gay community of New York City was treated with contempt at the time, given the central role it played in much for which the city was admired and famous for throughout the world. Within a year of the first production, the worm turned at the Stonewall Inn. The Boys in the Band is what life was like in New York before Out and Proud became an option. Twenty years later, the wider population, led by the American government, turned its collective back on gay people to devastating effect, casting the community adrift to face the AIDS crisis. That period's chronicler was Larry Kramer. who died just a couple of months after Mart Crowley in this year of pandemic, 2020.

So much for the historical gap. That between Crowley and Kramer as writers is largely one of dramatic self-restraint. Kramer had no talent for it, whereas Crowley seems trapped by it. THE NORMAL HEART is a prolonged howl of pain and anger, while THE BOYS IN THE BAND, its one moment of violence aside, is dedicated to sharp stiletto stabs. So many, that the overall trauma endured by this group of birthday party guests is submerged by slow-death melodrama.

The playscript, then, its truths notwithstanding, is creaky. That was just as true when the film with the original, off-Broadway cast was made in 1970 as it is here, with its 50th anniversary revival cast. What we do get, because all these actors know these roles inside out, is a detail and depth in performance that most Hollywood films never achieve, because film actors get so little chance to rehearse. But look here at Matt Bomer, in the under-written part of Donald, listening to everything being said with the attention of someone who is really in the room. Same with Michael Benjamin Washington, who is nuanced and truthful in another of the less flashy roles. Which is not to undersell those whose lines do flash: Jim Parsons, Robin de Jesús, and Zachary Quinto are all excellent, as are Andrew Rannells, Tuc Watkins, Brian Hutchison and Charlie Carver. Joe Mantello, no mean actor himself, directs what was undoubtedly a first-rate theatre production, but as a film it primarily has historical value, just as had producer Ryan Murphy's parallel project of THE NORMAL HEART. Historical, but not irrelevant.

I write this when to be gay in certain countries in the world carries the risk of a death sentence. In Poland, the rights of gay people are increasingly curtailed as the government finds it useful to find scapegoats. As is the case in Russia, too. I write this before the Supreme Court in the USA is likely to face a new direction. The battles may well have to start anew, and yesterday's historical document may need to become tomorrow's manifesto.