THE BOYS IN THE BAND

US, 2020, 121 minutes, Colour.
Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto, Matt Bomer, Andrew Rannells, Charlie Carver, Robin de Jesus, Brian Hutchison, Michael Benjamin Washington, Tuc Watkins.
Directed by Joe Mantello.

The Boys and the Band was a celebrated drama of 1968, written by Mart Crowley, a venture into gay themes, not to the fore in mainstream American theatre the time. It proceeded the Stonewall demonstrations of the next year. AIDS was more than a decade away. Then a film version was made in 1970, directed by William Friedkin. It was a signal that gay themes would emerge in American cinema during the ensuing decades – and, of course, beyond.

Here is a remake which keeps close to the play and to the first film version – and, interesting to realise, that this first film version was released before all but two of the present cast was born. They have worked together, an overtly gay cast and Dir, with theatre presentations of the play in 2018, winning the Tony for Best Revival of a Play, and now the performances and the drama are on the screen.

Audience perspectives have changed powerfully over the half century between the two versions.

In many ways, The Boys in the Band could be described as a drama of the gay male psyche – especially in Western cultures. The film and its treatment would still be under suspicion (or even ban) in a number of other cultures and religious traditions.

The two-hour running time is divided almost equally in two parts. The first part, as might be expected, introduces all the characters, the screenplay opened out for street scenes, subway scenes, their characteristics and eccentricities, each of them as individuals, but their all gathering for a party, a birthday party, for their friend Harold, at the apartment of their host, Michael. The initial focus is on Michael, played by Jim Parsons, sympathetic but fussy, harried and caught with a problem when his roommate (Brian Hutchison) from college days phones and wants to call in. As the guests arrive, some of them quite flamboyant in manner and camp style, the audience has time to get to know them, begin to like them or dislike them, and get caught up in quite some embarrassment as the friend actually turns up and is repelled by some of the camp behaviour, leading to a fight, but the friend deciding to stay.

Just when the audience might be wondering where this could all be going and, perhaps, already finding it a bit repetitious in the behaviour of the characters, the guest of honour, Harold arrives. He is played with intensity by Zachary Quinto (looking and acting in a very similar way to Leonard Frey in the original film). He dominates. He is idiosyncratically supercilious. He is mysterious.

Then the change in tone and the film becomes much stronger. It moves in the vein of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and other dramas where assembled party guests are invited to play the psychological game of Get the Guest. Michael is drinking, becomes exceedingly mean-spirited, dares the others to phone someone and declare their love for that person. It is here that the performances, especially of the ethnic characters, Emory (Robin de Jesus) and Bernard (Michael Benjamin Washington), come into their own, very moving attempts to find someone they love. The drama is intensified by the relationship between the seeming straight man (Tuc Watkins) and his very free-spirited lover (Andrew Rannells).

It all comes to a head with Michael’s denunciation of his college friend, demanding that he ring a mutual friend from those days, forcing him to declare his love. Which is not quite what happens.

This makes the last half of the film much more interesting and powerful as drama, intensity of friendships and hatreds. And, Michael left at the end with his Catholic background, humiliated by the failure of his game as he intended, going out to Mass, some exploration of his Catholic guilt, compounded by his orientation, initially closeted, coming out, the consequences in the 1950s and 1960s.

This version is being released on Netflix, available for audiences at home – not only in Western countries and cultures but throughout the world.

1. The significance of the play in the late 1960s, in the United States? The significance of the film, 1970, worldwide release? The significance of the revival in theatres in 2018, the winning of the Tony Award for Best Revival of a Play? Capturing that performance as a film? The availability on Netflix, and throughout the world?

2. The text of the play, the language of the 1960s, tone and relevance later? The importance of the dialogue and the character interactions?

3. The opening out of the play, the opening sequences, situating the characters outside Michael’s apartment, on the streets, shops and restaurants, the library, on the subway? And the flashback sequences for the various characters in the latter part of the film? Giving background to the characters and their situations?

4. The action of the film taking place in Michael’s apartment, the different rooms, upstairs, the main room, kitchen, bedrooms upstairs? The musical score?

5. The focus of the film on Michael (and Mart Crowley basing the character somewhat himself)? Jim Parsons as Michael, his age, Catholic background, college studies, childhood, closet, dating, Alan as his friend, the bond with Stuart? His hosting the party for Harold? The guests? His fussiness, worried about his hairline? Looking in the mirror, vanity?

6. Donald arriving, his manner, friendship with Michael, with the group, his work, the shower, the fact that he enjoyed reading, flirtatious talk, waiting for the guests, his being in the background during the first half of the film? His relationship with each of the men?

7. Bernard, his work in the library, in the subway, eyeing the men, the critical look from the woman? African- American? His manner? Part of the group? Friendship with Emory?

8. Emory, Hispanic, his manner, very camp, the steps of the dance, chatter, his arranging for the Cowboy to arrive as the birthday present for Harold? His friendship with Bernard, their banter, race issues?

9. The cowboy, the hustler, hired, not educated, looked down on by Michael, kissing the wrong man? The birthday cake?

10. Hank and Larry, Larry and his roving eye, the pickup in the street, yet his being with Hank, permissive? Flashbacks? Hank, the married man, children, with Larry, his coming out? The divorce? A seemingly unlikely couple?

11. Michael, the phone call from Alan, weeping, wanting to call in, changing his mind, eventually arriving? His reaction to Bernard and Emory dancing? Emory and his camp style, Alan insulting him, the fist fight? Alan having the drink, the story about college days with Michael, girlfriends, Stuart? Alan not leaving, staying, the effect on him, on each of the men?

12. The buildup to Harold’s arrival, his look, glasses, disdain, dominance, ironic comments? The interactions with each of the men? His reaction to the Cowboy? The meal, his eating, and his range of comments? His own background, his mother, Jewish?

13. The shift in the second part of the film, playing the game? Michael in charge, his drinking, his being mean-spirited? Getting at people? The ugly aspects of his own character? Setting up each for the game, the phone call, to identify the person on the phone, declaration of love? His own bitterness, his comments? Harold and his observations, comments?

14. The challenge to Emory, at school, the older boy, his sister, the gift for the dentist? Everybody finding out? His being ridiculed? His phoning the dentist, his being put off? His humiliation?

15. Bernard, as a boy, his infatuation with the young man of the house, the memory of the swimming together, the effect on him, on the boy, on the family? Bernard phoning, getting the man’s mother, the failure of his three marriages, out on a date, not admitting the love, comforting the mother?

16. Michael, and his goading Bernard, that Emory referred to him as “boy�, the racial issues? Emory embarrassed and apologising? Bernard and his standing his dignity against Michael?

17. Hank and Larry, the awkwardness between them, Alan and his observations, identifying with Hank as a married man with children, Hank and his explanations of his life, the flashback to the toilet sequence, his admitting his homosexuality? Larry, the contrast, justifying his roving eye, the bond with Hank, but his being free and other relationships? The dramatic effect of the phone but not phoning, Hank and his being able to say that he loved Larry? Larry being affected, his response?

18. Donald and his observing, not being asked to make a phone call?

19. The final taunt, Michael and his hostility, taunting Alan, pressurising him to ring Stuart, his talking about Alan and his relationship with Stuart? Alan making the phone call, quietly, the declaration of love – and the irony that he was ringing his wife? Michael seizing the phone? Embarrassed?

20. The cowboy and his observing? His ill-timed comments? His emerging as ignorant? The snobbery of the others taunting him?

21. Harold, observing, Michael taunting him about his background, his leaving, taking the Cowboy and the cake (and the scene in the car as they left)? Harold promising to phone Michael the next day?

22. Michael left with Donald, his being upset, the discussions about his Catholicism, God language, faith, homosexuality, sin and guilt? His deciding to go to mass? The scene in the church? His returning home? The final image of his running towards…?