The Boys in the Band

I suppose all gay men must have a reaction to BITB one way or another. It must be respected for being incredibly daring when it came out: the first play to focus exclusively on gay characters and show us as average men with basically normal lives. (As late as the 60s few plays, & far fewer films, even acknowledged gays existed; those that did used gays as symbols of abasement or decadence. 'Different from the Others'-1919 and 'Victim'-1961 were isolated exceptions.) The sexually frank dialog was also a groundbreaker. A gay friend who saw the original stage production remembers being astonished by Harold's line, 'Your lips are turning blue. You look like you've been rimming a snowman!' Crowley wins laurels for being the first playwright to present our community without apology.

That said, I admit I found the film dated when I first saw it in the 80s, when I was in my 20s. Watching it now, I have a different reaction. For one thing, I adore the brilliant dialog. What an inspiration to write a comedy of manners set in the archly mannered world of New York gays! There hasn't been a screenplay with this many epigrams per inch since 'All About Eve.'

The first act is funny and marvelous. The second act teeters into melodrama, stealing the device of all-night boozing and humiliating party games to 'strip characters bare' from 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' Michael, the host and game emcee, is such a bitch that we can't feel sympathy when Harold confronts and effectively destroys him. Kenneth Nelson's performance as Michael doesn't help: it's like an acting class exercise, all shrieking and hysterics.

While the ensemble as a whole is strong, Leonard Frey's brilliant, definitive Harold enables him to walk off with the film. The straight Cliff Gorman does fine work as the flaming, ultimately touching Emory; Keith Prentice is very good as the one well-adjusted party goer, the happy sensualist Larry; and Reuben Greene and Frederick Combs make the best of underwritten characters (Combs get lots of chances to show his rear end to great advantage, including a gratuitous nude shot).

Besides good acting, the film has other points to recommend it. The film's 'opening up' of the play is never intrusive or contrived. Friedkin's camera never seems trapped, though almost the entire picture is shot in one apartment, and he keeps the story moving swiftly along. And Crowley shows courage in leaving the question of Alan's sexuality somewhat ambiguous, despite his affirming his wife as the person he truly loves, thereby rejecting Michael as a gay man and precipitating his collapse.

The themes of love, truth, self-loathing, friendship and relationships speak to audiences gay & straight. They are dealt with in a well made film and a script crafted with wit and humor. While the 'if we could just not hate ourselves so much' viewpoint does date the movie, it has more skill and substance than 75% of the films on the market-and (I agree with other posters) 99% of the 'gay' films out there now.

I can watch this film over & over. I find some Gay men dismiss it because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I embrace it because I can relate to it. As far as it being "dated", how can it not be in some ways?? It was filmed in 1970! The characters & situations are universal & timeless: Who doesn't know a mean drunk? Who hasn't laughed at & with a loud boisterous friend? Who hasn't felt imprisoned by a relationship? etc. These are people & things that we've all dealt with & faced, whether you're straight or gay. My favorite scene in the film is when they start dancing to a Motown classic. A bunch of old friends remembering younger days on Fire Island. It's bittersweet & poignant.

"The Boys In The Band", in my opinion, remains to this day the quintessential gay film and still holds the test of time against such recent gay films as "Philadelphia", "Jeffrey", and "In And Out". The film is also a landmark in another way, keep in mind that when it was originally released in 1970, homosexuality was still classified as a "mental illness" by the American Psychological Association, and the Gay Rights movement was barely a year old. The plot is quite simple: 9 men get together for a birthday party and one of them is straight. What transpires evening long examination of themselves and each other. Many today have stated that the film perpetuates gay stereotypes, but I disagree. Every type of person at that party exists in the gay community. Others have had a hard time with the characters self-loathing, but how many of us gay and lesbian Americans haven't gone through a period like that in our lives, especially before we are out. The film is both funny and sad and for most of us can bring about strong memories of what life was like before self-acceptance and coming out of the closet.

Yes, I know, it perpetuates loathsome stereotypes. But it's also a period piece, and the final legacy of a number of talented actors lost to the AIDS epidemic -- yes, I know they made other movies, but the gay community isn't going to remember Leonard Frey primarily as Motel Kamzoil. They're going to remember him as the "pockmarked Jew fairy" with the pot garnished salads served to dear Ma-Ma. LOL

I was only three years old in 1968 when the original play came out, and I didn't see this movie for myself until the late 1980s. But it still records for me an era and a mood that should not be forgotten, if only because it reminds us of how very far we've come. People should not be shielded from the realities of the past in order to sugarcoat history.

RIP Robert LaTourneaux; Leonard Frey; Kenneth Nelson; Keith Prentice; and Frederick Combs.

I know I'm walking into a minefield by writing this, but here goes:

To begin with, I should say that I was born one month before the Stonewall riots and, of course, entirely missed the era this movie portrays. I have read countless reviews insisting that this is a dated film, and a time capsule of a long gone age of self-loathing. But, speaking as a single gay man living in Manhattan now, all I could think was that this movie hits closer to home than a lot of folks would like to admit. For every character in the movie, I could think of at least one acquaintance of mine of my age who could easily step into those shoes. I have met numerous "Michaels" who shrug responsibility, live off credit cards and (try to) drown their insecurity in endless parties; Walk into any bar in Chelsea and you'll see at least a dozen snide, contemptuous "Harolds" skulking around radiating disdain for everyone around them; and let's not get started on the legions of airhead pretty boy "Cowboys" out there!

This is not to say that all the gay men I know are like this. I certainly don't share the P.O.V. of Michael, Harold, etc. In fact, I know just as many well-adjusted, happy and likeable gay guys, and I'd bet money there were similar folks like that in 1968, when the original play came out (no pun intended). But it seems very p.c. to write this movie off as a history lesson and I can't. The whole tone of the movie, the suppressed anxiety the characters feel about themselves, and the bitterness they feel towards each other, the resentment the gay men feel for the (possibly) straight guy, and above all the need for the characters to bury their self-esteem problems by getting drunk and partying with abandon happens too often among people I know to dismiss as long ago and far away.