The Boys in the Band Movie Review **SPOILER ALERT**
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Gay homosexuals Nick and Joseph spoil The Boys in the Band - a 2020 American LGBT drama film directed by Joe Mantello, based on the 1968 play of the same name by Mart Crowley, who also wrote the screenplay alongside Ned Martel. Crowley had previously adapted The Boys in the Band for a 1970 film version directed by William Friedkin and starring the original 1968 Off-Broadway cast.
Premise: A group of gay friends reunite to celebrate one of their birthdays. When the host's potentially closeted college roommate shows up uninvited, the evening is thrown into turmoil.
Find them on Instagram:
Nick (@ragingbells)
Joseph (@joroyolo)
Fish Jelly (@fishjellyfilms)
Nick is also the Lead Film Critic at Ioncinema (www.ioncinema....) and a Tomatometer-approved critic on Rotten Tomatoes (www.rottentoma....
Jim Parsons as Michael
Zachary Quinto as Harold
Matt Bomer as Donald
Andrew Rannells as Larry
Charlie Carver as Cowboy
Robin de Jesús as Emory
Brian Hutchison as Alan
Michael Benjamin Washington as Bernard
Tuc Watkins as Hank
Cinematography by Bill Pope
Edited by Adriaan van Zyl
Keywords: Men on Film, reaction video, trailer, Leonard Frey, Cliff Gorman, Sheldon, Big Bang Theory, Netflix
While I'm sorry you didn't give the "remake" the 5 I feel it deserved, I really appreciate your in-depth consideration. A 68 year-old gay man, I had the privilege of seeing the first film in its initial release, and I''ve loved (and watched) it ever since. For me, everyone in the "remake" cast added wonderful layers of new appreciation and, while I still watch and love the first film, I found this new version a resounding 5. BTW, you're both stunningly handsome men yourselves, not to mention eloquent and intelligent. Ah, to be 40 years younger.
You’re very kind.
I lived “The Boys In The Band” as a High School Senior in 1970, having just stepped into gay bars, and it was the first film I ever went to alone given the social stigma of being gay in those hyper closeted years. Being bitchy was a protective mechanism for many, and part of creating a new self then, albeit being destructive. I will watch the remake tonight with an open mind, looking for interesting choices in the acting, music selection, and hopefully not too many bad wigs. Thank you both for wetting my appetite with your thoughtful observations. I’ll get back to you
Agree. Best to watch the 30 docu attached right after. It will make you appreciate the movie more. For me, a strong performance from Jim.
As a companion piece I recommend the documentary "Making the Boys". They take an in depth look at gay life during that era & talk with the playwright and other gay men and examine the unique turning-point in history when this was made. First off, the play was performed pre-Stonewall and the Friedkin film was released in 1970, the year following the Stonewall Riots. The birth of the gay liberation movement had just happened when the film was released. It also features a closer look at the actors who were in the cast.
The 1970 version has style, great pace, fun editing and broad, in-your-face camp vs. wrenching confessional. The new one is a sad remake. For instance, Michael's breakdown in the first film is wonderfully cumulative. In the remake it almost seems incidental. The remake is just not in the same league as the Friedkin film. Unless you're taking a vastly different take on a classic why bother? Anyway, Thanks!!
Omg, just saw this fr you guys, I played Emory for 6 months here in Belgium, we toured and had succes.. The strange things are that whenever the play ended we were all emotionally broke. I love playing this and I'm trying g to bring it back on stage here in BELGIUM, we also played LA Cage aux folles for 6 months and Hosanna (which I loveeee).
Excellent film. 🤩I have been looking for a copy of this movie for years 1970 version. ☹ I think everyone should see this play too. The 1970 version.... Even str8 people like me. 🙂
All the actors from the broadway revival are in the film, as well as the director.
And I think you guys are right, there is a level of intimacy in this film that makes sense. I know them, you know? It's like a weird Sunday brunch at your house... and people just won't leave. Lol. I really liked the film and what joe m did with it. Adding the flashbacks gets us out of apartment & gives us context into who these guys are & why they are making their choices. The jazz music, the vulnerability in the device of the phone call to tell the truth...some of the images were beautiful...I also believed these guys were friends & had sex with each other before, during or after...lol. Not always true for str8 actors, directors or writers... in the material or performances.
Period wise, maybe the sense of danger was missing. I spotted the themes of identity, self-acceptance & searching for love but maybe filling disappointment with an addiction to cope-i.e. Sex, pills, church, a bar, the bathhouse... open relationships...
But real talk to see how far we have come as a community...
Well honestly, folks can get married now and I guess there's reality show representation... although I laugh- i can't say I relate... is that what we fought for? A weekly televised drag show. ..
What about a disease that decimated a whole generation & still impacts today? Did we forget.? ...and uh sometimes , if I'm honest, it doesn't seem to be as far as I would have expected in 2020.
Good review guys. Questions: Are you a couple? And what part of the country are you both from?
Thanks for watching. We are a couple and live in Los Angeles.
@@fishjellyfilmreviews I enjoyed u guys. And I asked because you both looked familiar. And now, I know why- I live in LA too. I subscribed n I look forward to watching ur other reviews. Thanks.
The movie was good on Netflix, of course Joe Mantello altered a lot of the script! The original is ingrained with excellent performances, and a lot of references and a pace and a New York trueness, that can't be duplicated, it stands on it's own as a classic!
For your info: Mart Crowley and his writing partner rewrote the screenplay based on the original (1970 film) screenplay . Mantello simply directed (superbly ) .
@@silaswhite1972 I think Joe Mantello is a excellent director, that is no question! I saw his direction in 'll Eat You Last", with Bette Midler! He brilliantly reigned her mannerisms in, and got a great performance out of her as Sue Mengers! I guess they cut a lot of the original text for today's audiences! I did like the fact, that they showed you, what the characters did afterward, which I thought was a good touch!
Love the original. Watch it often
The original version is head and shoulders above the remake. No comparison. The acting feels so much more authentic. Is that because the cast are living it, rather than re-enacting a historical study piece, and sadly five of the original cast members died of aids related illnesses in the late 80’s/early 90’s. Either way it’s really poignant and powerful.
Disagree. The remake had much more nuanced performances from the actors making more understandable characters.
I agree with relax"s comment. But, your point about 5 of the original cast members is painfully poignant. Lots of hiding, fear, random unprotected sex, sharing needles...some lessons learned freedom n liberation may have deadly consequences. So today, we have more awareness, more safe spaces, more empathy for ourselves n others n hopefully more transparency with our partner or partners. I like this stream n the responses it produced. Thank u.
I could have listened a bit more to Nick's ongoing thoughts, perspectives and reflections on BITB and gay lives now
The Harold character in the new remake is tired. When he laughs at the card on the trades wrist it sounded so weak and fake. The original Harold cackled for days with emotion and complete delight.
The self-loathing and absence of PRIDE that is so prominent in the 1970 version of the film "Boys in the Band" was -- maybe -- typical of those times. But -- hello! -- Gay Pride happened, and a remake of that film now seems superfluous. I was married to another guy for 20 years, until his death, and currently received Soc. Sec. Admin. surviving spouse benefits. I left the "Boys in the Band" mentality in the dust decades ago. Who would want to revisit that world now, other than for historical purposes?
...and NOBODY wants 'cracked crab' - they ALL refuse it when offered. (Personally, I can't blame 'em)
Hahahaha - that has just GOT to be a euphemism!
hint: for 'sunt' ('that's French; with a cedilla)
(oh, I'm lowering the tone)
I didnt see the 1970s movie. I fell in this trap where i didnt realize it was 1968.... It was a great movie but I didnt get why Michael was so upset at the end. I think there was a lot of nuances that I didnt pick up on.
Is the new Netflix movie on DVD ? 💿
Yes
After watching your interesting review , I felt the need to ask you something. You both stated that the film failed to give you the feeling of being in 1968 NYC. Looking at you two I had to ask myself how you could possibly know what late sixties NYC felt like. I went to NY the first time as a freshman in high school (1969). I still visit regularly. Trust me, it was very, very different. Without millions of dollars worth of CGI, you couldn't recreate it. I think the choice to deal with the emotions and socialogical realities of the times was the right one. As an elder I always like to remind our younger people that the party in the play/movie was ILLEGAL at the time. They could all have been arrested and their lives ruined. There is nothing in your LGBT experience to compare to this. Just take the show as a slice of your history. Learn and remember.
Wow Silas. You are definitely keeping it real. I'm from the Bronx originally n grew up in NYC. (I live in LA now, which is another planet. Lol.)You might have waited for an answer to your fair question.
Look I'm not fully sure -what it didn't feel like the time period means either. That's why it is important to ask the question. But, what I got from the statement was it felt too now vs. then.
Your point was excellent n true. It was pre-stonewall n u could have gotten arrested for same-sex play/parties or even how you dressed.
The other interesting point the guys made was that this cast was more attractive n fit... and body type was probably more contemporary (more muscles) than 1968.
Besides, in my opinion, we can't really police other people's thoughts or feelings, if they don't match ours. We can agree to disagree. Right?
@@fc8240 I concur. We should always be ready to agree to disagree. I do think the point about the guys looking too modern is confusing to me. Again, having been there, I could argue the point, but, what's the point? Why ask the actors to change their bodies, when you can dress them properly for the period. It really wasn't important to physically recreate the period. It's about the feelings and emotions, right?
Have you ever watched a movie set in the past(say 1800's) and wondered why there's no horseshit in the streets?
Stay well.
@@silaswhite1972 you are funny. I appreciate your response. You made some interesting points. Lol.
@@silaswhite1972 ps...i meant if you cast more popular or contemporary actors- but yes costumes, actions, goals, emotions are whats important. But, if you don't look like it and don't clearly understand the culture and context- it could make it more difficult. (And actually I liked the film- I thought this cast had an intimacy that really worked.) You are definitely fun. Be well Silas.
@@silaswhite1972 You don't have to ask actors to change their body, you cast actors who look the part. A lot of American actors are to modern in their look, mannerisms and vocal inflection and it pulls you out of the movie. I don't understand why the late 60s early 70s is so hard to get right. The actors in this movie look like they are wearing costumes, either that or modernized reproductions of the late 60s clothing. If you want to see a gay themed movie that gets this look right watch 2005s "C.R.A.Z.Y." A Foreign language French- Canadian film that starts in the 60s and spans several decades.
The original was perfection.
This breathed a fresh twist to it I guess but fades under the shadow of the original I'm afraid.
I feel like the host of the party was very angry at his friends, little undersettling.
It was really much funnier and not as mean as a play. I don't know why.
Subscribed
Having now seen the new Netfix version of
“The Boys In The Band”, which I approached with some trepidation having come up in the era of the original film, I was deeply moved by the outstanding all-gay casting, acting, and production values.
Like a Cherished Old Home that gets repainted, the new shadings of emotion and thoughtful reflection moved me to tears throughout, still allowing the foundational work to shine through.
While the original was surely moving, it maintained a distance that this current version overcomes, leaving a feeling of greater catharsis and hope. Gay Pride was a new concept to aspire to then, but I couldn’t have felt prouder today by this stellar labor of love.
This is lovely, sky; thank you for this! ps--I'm a gay man, despite my you-tube name! Cheers!
blanchefan Big Thanks for your Heartfelt response . May we go from Strength to Strength 💪🏻💛🌈✨
:) And you're a talented writer!
blanchefan 🤔 💭 📝 🤗 TY4👇🏻Kind Words