I am watching “The Boys in the Band” and I have more questions than answers

Beats me.

“Listen ass-HOOOOLE, what AAAAAM AYE GO-IN TO DOOOOOO?”

And then an animated hummingbird appeared and sung Zip a Dee Doo Dah.

Mart Crowley, the writer, just died so you may never know, OP. There are a lot of interviews with him on YouTube, though. Maybe Joe Mantello or Ryan Murphy could answer the casting question.

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?

Jeez, Parson’s character doesn’t shut up. You should never cast Jim Parsons as a character who constantly talks.

Parsons was completely wrong for the part except for the facts that he’s gay and famous. He was the weakest link on broadway.

It's not always easy to get rid of an accent. I know a vain queen who downplays his Minnesota roots, and who clearly desperately wants everyone to think he grew up in NYC or the Hamptons; but when he says certain words (like "root" or "roof"), you know instantly where he's actually from.

Why do Bomer’s eyes look like he just stuck a fork in the electrical socket?

Have none of you seen the original? Parsons is not that far off from that guy.

Parsons is great and deserves a emmy nomination or whatever they are going for.

Why are these people even friends?

Why are Larry and Hank together? They annoyed the fuck put of me from.scene 1.

When Andrew Rannells is lit from below, he could pass as a Roswell gray alien.

I don’t even buy Jim Parsons as a. Catholic.

I though the characters were more sympathetic than in the original and I liked the backstory flashbacks.

Why on Earth did they try to pass Quinto off as 32?

I think Jim Nabors nailed that part at the successful Burt Reynolds Dinner Theater revival.

Connie Casserole seemed the most natural character. Good actor, like the original movie.

OP, do you think that only beautiful people can be vain? Or that a fey Southern accent is something that all gay men would try to cover up?

Well, do you?

Does this count as a theatrical film?

I don’t have a problem with Zachary Quinto’s diction, but why does he move his body like Quentin Crisp as Queen Elizabeth in Orlando?

“The long winter of his DAAAAAY-EEAAHHH -THHHHH.”

Everytime he opens his mouth a riverboat falls out.

That was Andrew Rannells? I thought it was Amy Schumer.

This project was doomed the moment Ryan Murphy got his hands on it. The producer of a racist and homophobic minstrel show like [italic]Pose[/italic] should not be in charge of a production of a play with the lines “you may someday be able to live a heterosexual lifestyle.”

Jim Parsons has the posture of an octogenarian Alan Alda.

If I were Harold, I would’ve beaten Michael to death at the sound of the first racial slur he used.

R7, your comment made me laugh. I'm originally from the Midwest, and like to think that I've suppressed most of the nasal twang, but one "ruff" for "roof" gives me away every time.

A good friend of mine is originally from Wisconsin and has that Upper Midwest "dont'cha know" accent. I think it's adorable and I've told him to never get rid of it.

The character is based on Crowley himself who was passable but no looker when young. Passable but not a looker gay men are insecure about their looks which is what the character is, not vain.

Andrew Rannells with this hairstyle looks a bit like a Pekingese.

This movie sucked balls. I couldn't even finish it.

I'm with R29. Turned it off after about an hour. They were all so off putting I didn't want to spend any more time with any of them and wondered why they even spent time with each other.

Same, r30. I just don't get the praise for this catty bitchfest. If you knew guys like this IRL you'd run away screaming. Things have changed so much, I don't know why it was necessary to resurrect this ancient old dinosaur of a show. It's such a time capsule.

Zachary Quinto didn't even look 32 when he really was 32.

You might’ve felt differently if you had watched the original movie instead, like every gay man worth his homosexuality.

I actually did watch the original movie and it made me cringe. I found it embarrassing and beyond dated.

This really is a career nadir for Bomer. He takes his pants off and then does nothing for 90 minutes. He should be credited as part of the scenery.

The idea of Bomer being insecure about his looks would be laughable. Plus he is not a strong enough actor.

Parsons is believable as someone who is insecure out his looks. And he can act.

Jim Parsons was completely unlikeable. I had no sympathy for that character.

The whole thing was a contrived, stagey time capsule that should have stayed in the past.

Parsons can act as a character actor. Casting him as the lead was this movie’s fatal mistake. I could not for one second believe someone so unpleasant would still have this circle of people around him. They needed to cast someone either like Bomer who can do neurotic well, or Andrew Rannells who has charisma. There’s nothing about Parson’s Michael that suggests the kind of alpha-dominance that the character should have. It’s like watching Regina George being played by Shari Lewis’s Lampchop.

R35: not while that shitty fucking Mark Ruffalo movie still exists. Gay white men are the biggest sellouts in the gay community.

Rannells has charisma? He just projects such unpleasantness. Not a bad actor but just an unlikable one.

Again, have none of you watched the original? They are almost the same characters as the Netflix.

The fact that Matt Bomer is nothing more than a pretty face was already demonstrated on Will & Grace (as was Fran Fine/Drescher being the modern Lucille Ball over Grace Adler/Debra Messing).

I thought Parsons and Quinto were the best part of the movie. The short interior decorator had the best one-liners. The whole Hank and Larry story/relationship felt underdeveloped.

It was still better than the debate.

No, I have not watched the original Freidkin film. If they are the same portrayals as the Netflix film, then the creators of BITB 2020 failed to breathe new life into the project to justify its existence.

I'm old enough to have seen the original movie when it first came out, and there was nothing like it at the time. I've never understood the impulse to remake an older movie; especially one that is pretty much perfect as it is. I expected to hate the remake, but I actually thought it wasn't half bad. It felt a little lukewarm at times, but it held my interest. There wasn't a single actor who was better than the original, though I think Quinto came the closest to at least being as good.

They should have mixed it up with lesser knowns from gay cinema. Matthew Montgomery could have pulled this off. Chad Ford could have pulled this off. Instead they went with the Hollywood gays and everyone knows the first generation to break into Hollywood are bound to be some damaged, unsalvageable individuals.

After all it is their difference from mainstream gays that make them salable to the hets.

I thought we'd get to see Matt Bomer's cock. I'm so disappointed. All we got was his trimmed bush. (Did they even trim their bushes like that back then?)

Are you so sure he actually has a penis?

They should get Canadian Charlie David to update the script for contemporary audiences!

Sarah Shulman wrote an updated lesbian version. She translated the like "Who do you have to fuck to get a drink around here?" to "Who do you have to eat to get a drink around here?" which is an improvement!

Jim Parsons is the luckiest actor alive. He's severely limited in range.

I prefer the version with Robin Williams and Martin Short.

Oh stop it! All you cunts are just being cunts. It's GREAT! Parsons is fantastic.

I hated it in 1975 and I still hate it.

Well I hate you, too, R54. I hate ALL of you rotten little bitches! Thanks for coming to my pity party.

Why does 1968 look like the mid-70's?

Were the gays then really that ahead of their time?

They can never get the 1970s right because they always make it look like [italic]The Brady Bunch[/italic] meets [italic]Shaft[/italic].

ryan murphy always wastes bomer. i had no idea what a good actor he was till i saw doom patrol. an actual well rounded gay character played beautifully my bomer and zuk.

Definitely thought Bomer was underused.

Jim Parsons was really good in it - I feel like the reason they were friends with him despite how unlikeable he was, is because they understood that it was his self-hatred rather than him being a nasty person. Also brought about by the booze.

This is like the third time I’ve heard someone mention Doom Patrol, but can Boomer really be that good in some kid’s show?

R61

doom patrol is about as far from a kid's show as any show can be. there is a whole episode about sex ghosts.

Shecksh Ghoshtsh.

[quote]I thought we'd get to see Matt Bomer's cock. I'm so disappointed. All we got was his trimmed bush. [bold](Did they even trim their bushes like that back then?)[/bold]

NO!

Add me to the list of gays who don´t like the original. I understand that back in the 70´s, when it was more complicated to meet gays and make friendships, you kind of HAD to befriend any gay in your orbit, whether you liked him or not. But most of these characters had been living in NYC enough to meet gays they actually liked, so why are they hanging out together? I also found it deals with the tired self-loathing and meanness that straight people love to recite at traits that are inherent to homosexuals, so not a fan . . .

I think the friends in BITB do like each other. They just have a pattern of teasing insults. One night they get drunk and go too far, triggered by the uncomfortable presence of someone outside the group. The party would probably have been fine if Alan had not shown up. In the end, all except Alan are still devoted to each other.

They did not feel like friends at all. It made no sense why these gay men living in the village together would be friends with each other. Virginia Woolf worked because its characters were trapped in this academic university town setting... maybe this should have been set on Fire Island or something where different uncompatable people can get stuck together.

There were no "teasing insults" except between Emeey and Bernard. All the others engaged in straight for the throat attacks.

I don't get this stupid question at 1. Are you saying only handsome people can be vain and obsessed with appearance? In the real world ugly people are way more obsessed about their looks than pretty people. Are you dumb?

The original is so realistic -- that is how gay men (still) treat their friends until you learn not to take the bullshit and find friends who actually like you. All catty like they're on the set of Sex and the City.

I can understand why they were friends. I used to be friends with people like that. Everyone parrying with quips to see who could outsmart the other and land a clever blow.

I, finally, realized that these people were not my friends at all. And stopped having anything to do with them. I have never looked back.

Maybe a year from when the play takes place these people who realize that, too.

That being said, I think this play is a time capsule best left buried.

The Parsons character was likeable at the beginning when he was still in his non-drinking phase. Charming and welcoming to his guests. It wasn't until the party started going south and he began to drink that his terrible side came out. I figured his friends know and love that "good side" and maybe think it's worth the times when he becomes awful? I don't know. I do have a few friends like that who are great, but sometimes become terrible when they drink---I don't hang out with them much any longer, but I would probably see them at a mutual friend's birthday party.

I think it's a typical group wherein everyone is casual friends, but they also have their own "special" friends. For Michael it's Donald. And Harold, For Emory, it's Bernard. etc etc/

Also Donaldisn't part of the group, he is Michael's friend.

[quote] The original is so realistic -- that is how gay men (still) treat their friends until you learn not to take the bullshit and find friends who actually like you.

I don't deal with catty queens or effeminate men so I don't know anyone who acts like this except for some women who work with me, but I'm enjoying this film. I'm surprised i'm enjoying it, because I tried to watch the original and gave up.

Maybe I'm just enjoying this in sort of like a car wreck you can't help but look. I've shut down many catty queens before, I work in film and they're all over hair and make up and occasionally at the publicist side, though most gay publicists are bro types as no one takes catty queens seriously anyway.

The original movie an abomination, and this new version is only slightly better.

I forgot to ask, who is this movie for? I genuinely want to know. I can't find an explanation why such outdated stereotypes are being made in 2020. I get this is historically relevant, but don't we already have the original?

I would've punched that fem annoying queen just like that dude did. I bet he's a closet case, haven't finished watching this film but I enjoyed him beating that annoying cunt. I also feel sorry for the hustler being belittled by these awful people. Why would anyone take these insults and not fight back is beyond me. Maybe because he's being paid?

i bet these characters died miserable and they deserve it.

Such a double standard that the non-PC N-word was changed but "F-ggot" was not.

[quote] Such a double standard that the non-PC N-word was changed but "F-ggot" was not.

Was it? I'm not surprised at all and it's faggot and nigger, we're not 5 year olds. Write the fucking words, we can handle it.

I enjoyed the half hour "Making of" more than the movie. Mart Crowley and Charlie Carver have a total lovefest.

The material suffers mightily from the type of heavy handed hotbox “psychodrama” conceits that were a staple in American plays after WWII through the 70s. Even when done successfully , Virginia Woolf, Death of a Salesman, all of T. Williams; it’s still usually seems a bit much to contemporary audiences — don’t any of these characters have access to their car keys and a modicum of self respect? Those problems are compounded here because BITB Is not a truly great play and every virtually character is an unlikable nasty queen.

The entire "You WILL call the person you TRULY love" sequence was so stagey -- and utterly unbelievable.

Those types of creaky drama devices can work in a play, but not in film, where there is a greater expectation of realism.

[quote]Write the fucking words, we can handle it.

Oh, look! A racist thinking they're being cute by writing the N-word. On Datalounge! I'm ... not shocked.

[quote]Such a double standard that the non-PC N-word was changed but "F-ggot" was not.

Joe Mantello and Michael B Washington talked it out (they said so in an interview) and that was the solution they came up with in addition to the decision a long time ago (which I'm sure had nothing to do with the actor) to cast Emory as Puerto Rican.

They did say it on stage. However, I said it before when this movie was announced, Netflix was never going to let that word fly from "Sheldon's: mouth and be caught on camera forever. I wouldn't be surprised if Jim didn't want to say it since they had the opportunity to change what they wanted to make the film better.

If [bold]you[/bold] weren't a 5 year old you'd realize that you don't need to say it for us to know what you meant.

[quote]i bet these characters died miserable and they deserve it.

I'm sure Emory and Bernard were fine. They had each other.

I just think the reviews of this film were so positive because they were reviewing it against the play and the original. If you were to write a movie about a group of gay men in this time period who all get together for a party TODAY it would have been written very differently.

Also I know people are slamming Matt Bomer but I never understood the point of the Donald character. He was probably the weakest character overall for me other than being a confidante for Michael & there to hear his thoughts before and after the party.

It's not even in Netflix's Top 10, they shot it over a year ago, the closeness to the release of Ratched and the Wednesday drop instead of Friday onto the platform were clear signs Netflix had low expectations for this.

Netflix original movies always drop Wednesday, new series drop Friday

[quote]I don't deal with catty queens or effeminate men so I don't know anyone who acts like this except for some women who work with me

Congratulations, guess you never tried to make gay friends in a new city!

Sorry R77, that last line got displaced when I was typing it. That should have been for the other person who actually said the word.

R74 sounds JUST like a character from BITB.

The N-Word: Parsons says "Nigra" the first time and then the actual N-word is covered over with other voices when it's used a second time. Both are spelled out in the closed captions.

[quote]I am watching “The Boys in the Band” and I have more questions than answers

You have two questions.

Does this mean you only have one answer?

[quote] Oh, look! A racist thinking they're being cute by writing the N-word. On Datalounge! I'm ... not shocked.

Give me a fucking break, not wanting to infantilize discourse and referencing slurs as adults that we are doesn't make anyone a racist, if you weren't and infantile imbecile you'd know the difference, or maybe you know and just like to play the fucking victim.

Its funny how effeminate guys get offended when they see themselves of film and then when someone says they can't stand them they project and say we sound like them.

[quote]Why on Earth did they try to pass Quinto off as 32?

Yeah, really!

[quote]Why on Earth did they try to pass Quinto off as 32?

He's not supposed to be good looking, so being older worked.

Although, as someone else noted, Quinto's vanity got the better of him. He should have had worse skin.

I thought Quinto's was by far the best performance of the lot. He went the farthest to develop a character that was completely unlike himself and he stayed immersed in it the entire time. He's a level above everyone else, IMO.

The problem with this play is that the first half should have been funny--really funny and entertaining--for the second, serious, psychodrama part to have a real impact. But it never was funny. It was just catty and bitchy and not entertaining. I wanted to flee from the company of these people. And I'm SO tired of sad gay stories. For fuck's sake, somebody write us something where we don't die or beat each other up.

R41 has asked the key question. Have you seen the original? Bomer’s character is meant to be handsome but wooden, obsessed with his weekly analysis, overthinking.

I’m not a huge fan of Parsons but the original Michael was insecure and was not gorgeous. He lived beyond his means and was pretentious. He was not likable and was not an “alpha” as someone above suggested he should be.

I did find Rannels not quite right for the role. He was cute and channeled slutty well but not masculine enough like the original Larry. I think Hank is drawn to Larry’s more masculine appearance (compared to the others) as his segue from married straight guy to partnered gay guy.

I wondered why the actors were all in their forties when the characters were in their early thirties. Then I remembered that early thirties today looks much younger than early thirties back then. The original cast looked like a rough 45 even though they were all the appropriate ages for the characters.

...........

Really, r97? TRIPLE-posting?

Who the fuck put all these BITB threads in the first place?

r98, time to change your tampon.

You forgot "pus filled", unimaginative twat R99.

Larry is described as being extremely handsome, while Donald is supposed to have boy-next door good looks. Bomer and Rannells should have switched roles. But Murphy just wants to get Bomer naked so he made him Donald.

is it all bitchy gays with no redemption at the end?

there is a sweet moment at the end. parsons shines and bomer does really well too. it's the only time poor bomer gets to act a lil.

Donald is largely a thankless role. He arrives at Michael's at the beginning so Michael has someone to play Capt. Exposition with so the audience knows what's what. Donald doesn't do much more until the end when, again, he is a sounding board for Michael. This is baked into plays of this sort from this (and earlier) eras, and it's difficult to get out.

R104

i felt like donald's character seemed more incosistent this time because he is supposed to be an "anxious queer" but murphy et al clearly also want to capitalize on matt's hotness, so he seems to abruptly switch from anxious to confident. like in the bathhouse scene, Matt takes charge, even tho Larry is supposed to be the confident player/

I found Emory unwatchable although real. I've known Emorys in real life and they are unwatchable there too.

How is Carver in this?

I found Donald and Michael's friendship completely unbelievable.

Friendship? The fact that they were a couple is completely unbelievable.

the director said Michael has this longing for Donald and Donald knows it and uses it a bit

[quote]The fact that they were a couple is completely unbelievable.

I got the impression they were more fuck buddies. But I found that unbelievable, too.

why does harold dislike donald

Maybe Harold knows how much Donald uses Michael.

I was reading about this film and Matt Bomer said that (at least as he played it and was discussed) Donald and Michael were a couple but broke up because of Michael's drinking and pill problem.

If Michael didn't have that issue then Donald would be with him again. Otherwise they just remain friends.

R114, if memory serves, that is what the script indicates if you read it closely

Jim is cute. You should have seen Matt's bf in Papi Chulo

Carver is fine--it's not exactly Hamlet.

They all did OK, but somehow it seems a pale carbon copy of the original (despite the revised script). Which is probably inevitable, since it's a museum piece.

there is no way matt bomer and jim parsons would ever have been a couple.

[quote]why does harold dislike donald

I always got the subtext that Harold is secretly in love with Michael, but Michael is too superficial to be with someone ugly. So Harold resents Donald, who gets to reject Michael if he wants to.

R119 ooh, I like that explanation

You know who could have made a good Michael? Lee Pace. Handsome without being too good lucking, very charismatic and visually striking. You'd really understand how he dominates all the other characters.

Lee Pace is a bit too hot for Michael.

I got the impression that Michael and Harold had been lovers in their youth. What's written on the photo that is so blatantly not revealed. Is it "I love you"? Who would Michael or Harold call in the telephone game?

Unless my wind wandered, I noticed two little cuts that relate to the relationship between Michael and Donald. In the original script (as well as in this production when it played Broadway), there is a brief exchange where Michael reacts to a question about their relationship by singing a line or two of a little ditty about lovers vs. friends, and saying that he and Donald became friends too quickly to last as lovers. (This is a total paraphrase, as I don't have a script handy.)

And in the final scene, Donald tries to help Michael during his breakdown by telling him that at least Michael is (in psychological terms) in better shape than he used to be.

Did I miss those lines in this new film version?

[quote] I don't deal with catty queens or effeminate men

Smell her!

Lots of gay guys feel the same r125. I can't stand a guy who's a sour bitch just for the sake of being a sour bitch. Most people can't

Is Michael a male Carrie Bradshaw? Self-involved, uses friends as props, and sets requirements for lovers that no man could ever meet?

First of all, as I was watching the opening scenes of the characters preparing for the party and Donald parking his car in a lot, I realized this was a filming of Mart Crawley's screenplay for the 1970 movie and not an adaptation of the Broadway script.

Firstly, this was a WAYYY better acted, designed and directed version of BITB than what conspired on Broadway with the same cast a few years ago. Zachary Quinto was a faded xerox of Leonard Frey's original Harold, Jim Parsons was strained and flat as Michael with no searing emotional highs or lows. I agreed with the poster above who said that Parsons is a character actor and Michael needs a leading man or dramatic male lead. Well, Quinto really went toe to toe with Frey in the filmed version and though Parsons didn't have the demonic glint in his eye at Kenneth Nelson had in the movie when Michael gets mean, they both convinced me.

Matt Bomer was bland onstage and faded away when Donald isn't speaking which is most of the time. Here, Mantello was obviously taken with his beauty and gave him lots of reaction shots and close-ups which kept Donald in the picture in Act 2. Bomer has more screen presence than stage presence. I found Rannells very glib and posey onstage - he registered more strongly in the film with less mannerisms.

Wonderful on Broadway and perfect in his role, Tuc Watkins as Hank and his performance was equally wonderful on the film. Watkins should do more Broadway. Robin De Jesus I thought was a better Emory than Cliff Gorman was in the movie (Gorman and Laurence Luckinbill were the only straight actors in the original cast). He basically stole every scene onstage. The movie made Emory more part of the ensemble and dampened some of De Jesus' bravura.

Reuben Green was so mysterious and sexy leading man as Bernard in the original film - he pretty much disappeared and no one knows much about him. Michael Benjamin Washington was more of an ordinary shy guy which I think is a better fit for Bernard who is kind of a bystander in life.

Brian Hutchison really registered so powerfully in the Netflix film - he didn't make much of an impression onstage and he was overwhelming here.

Also, on Broadway there was this two-level purple Barbie Dream House penthouse with velveteen walls and also sort of silver chrome and mirrors. It was an eyesore. Following the movie, Michael's apartment is much more bohemian and run down chic with that balcony. It is very similar to Tammy Grimes' apartment that was used in the 1970 movie.

I agree there was enough humor in the first half of the play as R94 said. Parsons is mostly known as a comic actor and he could have scored here but played fairly depressed and neurotic in his initial scenes.

I have always had a lot of older gay male friends decades older than myself who are the same generation as the characters in this play. The self-loathing and bitterness can be very real with them. When Michael says in the last scene "If we could just learn not to hate ourselves quite so very much." it is a plea to his generation to have more self-worth and bravery. That attitude led to the Stonewall Riots in the summer of 1969. This play in its way was pushing gay men past this self-pity and self-destruction - Crawley was making a diagnosis and not supporting the internalized homophobia.

These men also cling together because of society's rejection of them - Mantello's production did capture the pain and feeling of rejection these men share.

I've always liked this play. But it is a snapshot of its time. It points out problems Crawley saw in himself and his community. Gay men still treat themselves badly and fuck up to punish themselves. They still abuse drugs and each other. They still kill themselves. So it isn't like we are all perfect.

This was a stronger ensemble onscreen than it was onstage and there is lots of strong writing and witty humor to be savored. I was glad I saw it.

Sorry about the typos above - there WASN'T enough humor in Act I, etc.

Also Reuben Greene said in a later interview that he also was straight like Gorman and Luckinbill.

Random thoughts:

I was surprised by how much I liked Parsons. I hated him in “Hollywood”

Bomer’s pretty-but-not-sexy look worked for Donald.

Quinto was excellent. Made that iconic part his own.

No complaints about any of the acting.

Didn’t miss anything that was cut from the script (which was a lot), but didn’t like most of the additions.

Loved the flashbacks. Didn’t like Michael running away at the end. (Where was he going to? The baths?)

I couldn't watch the whole thing. I had to turn it off, mostly because of Jim Parsons. And the story itself? They were all so mean to each other. Why bother staying at the so-called party? And the telephone game was cruel.

I know I'm reading way too much into this, but I didn't like it at all.

Yes, watched the first one in my 20's. Like 30 years after. Cringeworthy and the worst stereotypes. I don't think I want to watch this.

It lacks the smooth and snappy pacing of the Friedkin film, which had the advantage of stage actors who had done it many times on Broadway. The knew how to make it fluid, whereas this seems jerky. and the wit is mostly gone. Parsons is OK, Quinto seems to be rehearsing for a different production of the play. Rannells just seems out of place. I'd agree with others that some the actors obviously are too old.

The film really lacks a feel for the time. NYC was in decline but still had some of the glamor left over from the 50s and early 60s. The apartment seems like a relic of the 50s--it reminds me of Jack Lemmon's abode in "The Apartment".

All this does is reinforce gay stereotypes we knew from the past, which people who don't know, think it's us today.

r134 that's a big complaint about this. It reinforces stereotypes and makes a lot of straight people think this is what we're still like.

Are a lot of straight people watching this?

I have a question:

Michael quotes Judy (“Forget your troubles, come on get happy. We’re going to chase the blues away, sing hall....”) and Bette (“I adore cheap sentiment”) and, if I’m remembering correctly, gets both of them wrong

Doesn’t Judy say “chase all your cares” and Bette (the worse misquote) “abhor” cheap sentiment?

Speaking of Judy and Bette, it's notable that this version removed almost all of the show-biz references, from Rosemary DeCamp to Sebastian Venable. And while this Michael answered the phone with "Backstage--"Funny Girl," the first Michael said "Backstage--"New Moon."

The hair style on Bomer and Rannell were way off. Plus Rannell's clothing was disco circa 1974. I thought the apartment was pretty much spot on for 1968.

Quinto deserves a nomination for whatever awards they go for. He is great in the role. Great!

He deserved an Emmy for Notorious. I think it was his last great role until this.

[quote]I could not for one second believe someone so unpleasant would still have this circle of people around him.

Kenneth Nelson was good at being a charming host just often enough to explain why people still hung around him, but I also think the implication in the play is that the gay community in 1970 was so insular and closed-off from mainstream society that gays often HAD to choose to hang around assholes, or else they wouldn't have a friends group to even be part of.

I'm wondering if you even get a sense of that in this remake. I'll watch it this weekend probably but I'm curious to know if this even comes through at all; most people watching it won't have any real idea of what it was like to be gay in 1970.

I went off on the clothing on another thread R139, and yeah, the clothing is all over the place, mixing early 1970s with late 1970s. Those of us alive in the 1970s will notice it straight away. But maybe we're not the intended audience.

Qunito does little things badly--he wears the glasses as though this is a read-through. There's no connection between him and Parsons. There's more chemistry between Parsons and Bomer. Rannells chews scenery a bit too much and seems unbelievable as Watkins' partner, even though they are together in real life.

No, R137. Margo detests cheap sentiment.

I could see axing Rosemary de Camp (although it's a great obscure reference made better by having "camp" in it), but Sebastian Venable? Even if people don't get the reference, the name is pretensions and funny in its own way.

[quote] No, [R137]. Margo detests cheap sentiment.

So I wonder where Michael gets “adore” from? It’s a very strange mangling of that line.

Parsons was okay. The one that bothered me was Quinto. I realized with this role that he pretty much comes off creepy/sleazy in everything he does.

[quote] It reinforces stereotypes and makes a lot of straight people think this is what we're still like.

At least the stereotype of giving a shit what straight people think of us is still alive and well

It matters r148.

This was an exhausting watch and reminds me why I don't got to many parties.

Other people are insufferable.

[quote]This was an exhausting watch and reminds me why I don't got to many parties.

Isn't it because you don't get invited?

I did laugh at the idea of Zach Quinto turning 32. As others have said this cast is noticeably too old to be playing characters that are supposed to be in their early 30s.

As Harold seems like more of a caricature than any semblance of a real person, not Quinto's fault, I've always felt that about the role.

Overall I did enjoy it for what it was. I'm not a huge fan of the source material so it is what it is.

Absolutely agree that Bomer and Rannells should have switched roles. They obviously should be playing the other role.

[quote]The idea of Bomer being insecure about his looks would be laughable.

Says the ugly person.

Not one comment about Charlie Carver’s ass in those tight jeans?

You bitches are slipping.

I found it incredibly boring and almost all of the characters to be pretty unlikable. Particularly how they all trashed on Carver's character for being dumber than them but also for a lot of the other stuff they did throughout. The phone game seemed completely unbelievable, who would agree to that? It's not like there was a legitimate prize... and I don't know why the "straight" guy stayed put and dealt with all of it. Quinto's character was clearly meant to talk that way on purpose, but it was so unnatural that it took me out of it. I never watched the play (or any plays, actually) but it really felt like a play rather than a movie to me which I don't know if that is a good thing when they're trying to change the medium.

The phone game was so silly. It made me think of today, when the person we ever really loved is probably on our friends list anyway.

This film was hilarious!

Especially Parson's breakdown when Alan called his wife.

It’s sort of odd watching a bunch of gay men play “gay”.

Quinto especially seems to be marking Leonard Frey’s performance.

Tuc Watkins looks like they’re grandfather.

These guys are all too far removed from the pre-Stonewall eta to nail the tone of this play. There should be a sense of urgency and risk taking, a sense of danger. This is more like a poetry reading compared to the originals sense of authenticity.

I don’t get the point of reviving/remaking this other than to assemble this cast. Cliff Gorman added a lot to the original; all of the original cast seemed like different types of gay men, surviving in the big city and busting out behind closed doors, a secret society.

I really liked it, and don't know that I was expecting to.

love to have seen Bomer as MIchaell or Harold, play against that purdy boy face

Parsons was so hilarious with his prissy prancing about.

"Ith that Juthin? You thon-of-bitch!"

You could have shaved a good 10 minutes off the runtime cutting down on pronouncing the "s" sound as "sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss"...

Could someone please explain R1's "Dick Van Dyke" joke. I don't get it.

Dick Van Duke = Worse stage Cockney accent ever.

[quote]You could have shaved a good 10 minutes off the runtime cutting down on pronouncing the "s" sound as "sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss - ss"...

I don't shee the problem.

the author said there was a sequel and was performed in San Francisco.....any word on that being done /????

"Juthin Thewart ith a homothexual!"

"You ended the friendthip, Alan, becauth you couldn't fathe the truth about yourthelf."

"You pick up thith phone and you call Juthin. I want you to call him and I want you to apolothize and you tell him what you thould have told him yearth ago. CALL HIM!"

"Ith that Juthin? I thould hope to think tho after all thith time."

"Hooohooohooo You geth the God Damn bonuth. 10 pointh thotal. Jackthpot!"

"Juthin, did you hear what that thun-of-a-bith thaid? Fran! Boo hoo hoo, of courth I knew it wath you. My love to the kidth."

"Tho me a happy homothexual and I'll tho you a gay corpth."

I like Parsons in certain things, but he was completely wrong for Michael. He had zero of the required venom. He wasn’t nearly angry enough. He couldn’t say cunt or bitch with any real conviction. He was just not right. He was afraid of the dark side of Michael and that fury is absolutely required to play the role. Quinto didn’t really get it either, but came a bit closer. Rannells was unfortunately miscast. Maybe he would have been a better Michael? The kid from Desperate Housewives wouldn’t pass muster as a whore in a third rate suburb of Iowa. They should have hired an actual porn star. Tuc Watkins, Robin de Jesus, and Michael Washington were all competent, not extraordinary. I was pleasantly surprised by Bomer, he was quite good. I believed that everyone would think he was gorgeous and he handled his character and dialogue well. I don’t understand why he hasn’t figured out that he has to keep his crazy eyes partially closed, it makes him look bizarre when his eyelids are wide open. Surely this has been mentioned to him by multiple directors. Stand in front of a mirror Bomer, and figure it out.

Overall it just never really gelled. It all needed to be so much angrier.

I thought he did a good job. Because even when he was bitchy and cruel he was vulnerable. It's like....I've known people like him. I know it's not part of the plot but damn I sure would love to see a story featuring Matt Bomer and Andrew Rannells. They ought to do something together because they were a serious turn on. HUGE chemistry.

[quote] They ought to do something together because they were a serious turn on. HUGE chemistry.

Serious chemistry? If you mean they were both miscast and should have been playing different roles as people even said during the run of the play then yes. That makes sense.

[quote]I like Parsons in certain things, but he was completely wrong for Michael.

He read as loud, angry, Sheldon to me and that was a problem.

Be fun to see their screen tests for this, if there were any, and who got which parts originally....they should have switched roles every night. Imagine the hooker as.....Harold or Michael

whatever happened to the black guy in the 1969 version????????? does anyone know.........

Well, the character is from Mississippi but I still can't bear to watch Parsons in this. Looks like kids playing dress up or a themed Halloween party. I'll stick to the original classic, thank you, especially since it hasn't been updated or anything else innovative.

i found parson's voice shrill screechy and annoying. There must be a way to play bitchy with a , listenable to , voice... Rest of cast was fantabulous.

R80 has it. The whole feel of the play is so typical of the era - it's very much like Who's Afraid of Viriginia Woolf? A lot of yelling and psycho drama over drinks - where the other party is really free to go the entire time, but somehow decides to stay like a hostage. Nothing is wrapped up - it's just a sad explosion of emotions and yelling.

It's certainly no party - not with all that shit going on. And what's with that 'game' where people are psychologically tortured? Again - sooo dated and the drama is copied from other plays of that era.

That being said - I thought this was much better than the original, which was hard to watch or even follow. I think they actually improved it - not that I think this work is worth saving.

I still don't understand the relationship between Harold and the host. Were they lovers once?

Really, Parsons just played gay Sheldon.

Out of all those guys, I think Tuc is the only one I’d love to fuck. Or have fuck me. Deeply.

Leave me outta this shit show, please!

no kiddinng, tuc and rannells were HOT HOT

Charlie Carver is a fine looking guy, but Howard has that whole speech about looks and how Carver is gorgeous....and it doesn't work.

.............................................gay lives matter...............................................

I think this play should have been completely rewritten for the screen.

i was HORRIFIED! to learn that Quinto was 42, Forty-Two!, when this was shot.

He's supposed to be 32!

R119 is right. I've always wondered why Harold & Michael are friends. My take from this film version is Harold was once deeply in love with Michael but M's superficiality, avoidance of intimacy and caustic sense of humor just did not work. Nowadays they know each other too well and know exactly what to say to each other. I don't think Donald and Michael are lovers; probably fuck buddies sometimes. Harold is jealous of Donald because Donald has taken over his spot in Michael's life.

I was in a production of TBITB a long time ago. During rehearsals and performances, the cast was great and Very funny (only one straight guy in the cast - The Cowboy). However, when offstage and hanging out together, drinks and weed were flowing and "The Boys" came out. This whole "who would hang out with people like this?" I find very funny. Cattiness and lies and insults were evident....slowly but surely. It is NOT simply a time-capsule 1970s thing. Since it was a play for a limited time and we all didn't keep on touch with each other as time went on, the camaraderie simply died out and moved on.

This cast was pretty good in this version but I have a dislike of Andrew Rannells. I find him smarmy. There's an ick factor about him. I found myself reading his autobiography just to see if I was wrong. There's a "poor me" attitude and an actual 'Larry' side of him . I'm sure he's a nice guy and his friends love him but he just turns me right off.

[quote]I have a dislike of Andrew Rannells. I find him smarmy

He looks like one of the vampires from 30 NIGHTS

I didn't like it. I was really hoping in this version Alan got his arse handed to him when he attacked Emory. Once again, the main topic of conversation seems to be why was Alan there or was he secretly gay, rather than why 7 gay men allowed their friend to have the shit kicked out of him and yet did nothing. If I'd directed this Alan would have been turfed over the balcony at the end of the first act, Michael would have been called out for using the N word and the whole thing wouldn't have ended up like some bad version of the Reading challenge from Drag Race. At least in the original there was some sense they liked each other. Here, banter just ended up sounding bitchy. I get that Alan and Howard are just figurative, Alan is supposed to represent heteronormativity, and that the whole thing is shit deep in Catholic shame, but, ugh, why do it again? My version would have been so much better.

I liked this film much more than the original. And I think most of the actors look young enough to play 30-somethings. Especially Parsons and Bomer.

In my experience, gays guys like that, who aren’t drop dead handsome, who behave in that way, do so as a defense mechanism. Even the southern accent, they think it makes them sound aristocratic.

You really can't compare this production to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf----the intensity was not there and the characters did not really seem connected to each other. The original film benefits from better casting and people who had worked together over many, many performances. The question of why are these people friends seems less evident in the original film. Friendship groups often have people who can't stand each other except through a thrid party, and inexplicable ties that mostly have to due with time and familiarity---here they seem thrown together. A better comparison is "The Big Chill" which has psychodrama/group therapy elements, terrible casting and a lack of chemistry among the actors. Absent the sound track, "The Big Chill" would be just another flat, somewhat preachy Lawrence Kasdan mess. Bill Hurt, who really seemed to be playing himself, was the only interesting character and like Emory in this film turns out to be the emotional center more than the "stars".

the original film was a flop. it's weird to see people acting like it was a masterpiece.

Hurt was very good & very sexy in "The Big Chill".

Is there full frontal in this? & Who?

original movie 1969 black guy?????????? still alive?????????? he just dropped out of sight and memory.........apparently??????????????

The phone "game" was absolutely disgusting, but I've been around enough "friends" who fly off the handle at parties and will bully anyone they want. As one poster mentioned, can we get some gay entertainment with some redemption? Instead of the same old tragedies?

It it leaves me feeling as horrible as the original, I will not watch it.

The remake was superb! Each actor was perfectly cast and the acting was phenomenal.

The character of Donald, I think, was Mart Crawley’s sense of irony. Here was a beautiful man who was a wallflower. Usually, a man as stunning as Matt Bomer, would be the center of attention.

R196

acc to original character descriptions, Larry was supposed to be the extremely handsome one, while Donald is boy-next-door good-looking. I guess Murphy just wanted Matt in the shower scene.

it's top 10 now

It's not on my Top 10 in the US, R198.

1. American Murder

2. Ratched

3. The Outpost

4. Emily in Paris

5. Enola Holmes

6. Sudden Death

7. The Great British Baking Show

8. Wentworth

9. The Good Place

10. CoComelon

pass andre rannells my way now, he is cute as hell and his ass belongs in the Louvre... found his smoking ssexy as fuk. he kisses good and knows how to take dik.

Connie Casserole was the worst. A hyperbolic queen playing a hysterical queen.

I wanted to punch Connie Casserole in the mouth!

I have not read all of the comments, but can someone please explain the architecture/design? The building is a brownstone, with the hallway of a tenement building. Michael's apartment appears to, at first, be a tenement, but has decorative moldings found in prewar middle-class apartments. The duplex nature of the apartment includes a balcony/minstrel's gallery which would involve removing structural beams. The wall by the spiral staircase has extremely elaborate moldings that are more appropriate to a theater and they cover the whole wall which means they were installed after the balcony. (Also, the moldings do not relate to the moldings on the other side of the apartment.) The kitchen has filthy, rusted metal cabinets. At the very least Donald would have scrubbed them clean, but more to the period, Michael (or Emory) would have decoupaged them with ads from turn-of-the-century magazines or New Yorker cartoons. So much of the design makes no sense.

I expected to hate it after reading reviews here, but it was a good watch. I thought Parsons elevated the original film role for Michael while Quinto was good but not nearly as impactful as Leonard Frey as Harold. Life was hard for the average queer back then despite how we romanticise and envision aspects of it now. It was also classist and racist, and the script is a good time capsule even if cringeworthy now. I do agree that some of the styling reached too far forward to the 1970s, and I kept having to remind myself it was 1968.

[quote] It was also classist and racist

Thank god those days are over.

Loved that cute white old spiral staircase in the apt......wanna live there!

R206, yes but how did it get there? It is late 19th century, early 20th century staircase. Again, it is a design element that makes no sense.

Perfect casting, loved it

spiral stairs was a 70's thing.

R209, yes, but not the Victorian wrought iron kind. It should have been a 1970s spiral staircase. Yes, you can jump though hoops to justify it by saying that Emory found it on an antiquing trip and thought it would be perfect for Michael's apartment. Still kind of dodgy since anything screwed to the wall becomes the property of the landlord.

Actually, I just went back and looked at part of the film. Michael's *entire* apartment is built on the roof. He would *not* have neighbors across the hall. The exteriors of the apartment do not relate to the interiors at all.

who is gonna jump through hoops? i don't give a fuck.

R203: Short answer---it's whatever Tammy Grimes' apartment was. That was the model---I think she was a friend of Crowley (the playwright). Spiral stair cases have been "design elements" longer than the 70s. I know someone with a c'1960 house with one and it was original equipment along with the still functioning Frigidaire Flair cooktop/oven.

There is a lot of good work in the Netflix version. Lots of holes in it, too. I don't get the love up thread for Zachary Quinto's performance of Harold. Leonard Frey's performance in the role is indelible and Quinto did everything possible to run from it, something which cannot be done. At every turn, he seemed to be working to do something different with the role. But Frey got it right and that leaves Quinto constantly aiming at second best or worse. Leonard Frey had every advantage. He was immersed in the period depicted by the play. A huge advantage. He was a gay Jew from New York. THREE specific cultures and he knew them all. Quinto missed the 70s, he did not grow up in a Jewish home with a Jewish mother, nor did he grow up in New York. He's gay. But that's not enough to bring to the table to play a character as complex as Harold. There is just so much about Harold that Quinto can't really know. He's good in other things, but Harold was too much for him.

Parsons was in over his head. He can nail a joke with the very best of them. He did Michael as well as Lucy did Mame. They both nailed the jokes, but the richness of the characters went missing. There is something tragic about Michael and Parsons could only go about as far as peevish and self-pitying. "As my father said to me when he died in my arms, "I don't understand any of it. I never did." Kenneth Nelson made that statement a very specific reply and defensive reply to Donald's inquiry about why Allen had called and wanted so strongly to speak to Michael. Parsons treats it as a statement he doesn't really understand, but has to say before he can exit the stage.

Michael, Allen, Fran and Justin Stewart were all at Georgetown together, being educated by the Jesuits, 10 years before Stonewall. The play makes some passing references to Georgetown and to Catholic guilt, but Michael and Allen are consumed by it. It is a huge motivating force for both men. I didn't see much of it on display in the Netflix production. Michael is from Mississippi, educated at Georgetown and lives in New York City. That's a huge upward trajectory. He would have exterminated that accent. It's part of his running from who he is. Parson's grating Texas twang undermined everything.

Lastly, the fucking apartment in the Netflix version is FILTHY. The set designer and decorator should have their asses kicked. If Michael is awash in debt, he would have long before gone to the hardware store and bought a quart of white enamel Rustoleum and painted those fucking awful kitchen cabinets. They are dirty and rusty in this film. The plaster walls are smudged with dirt. They would have been painted. Michael might not be able to afford a bigger apartment, but he would clean the one he has. So wrong headed.

R212, not exactly. Tammy Grime's apartment was used for the film, but it did not influence the stage set. However, the set is clearly intended to be a garden apartment carved out of two floors of a brownstone or Federal row house. It is not a dove cote perched on top of a building.

R213, thank you.

Tammy Grimes' apartment was used for the EXTERIOR shots on the roof deck in the original room. And there aren't that many of them in the film. The deck was re-created in the studio for most of the dialogue scenes, as was the doorway to the deck, etc., that were needed for continuity. The interior of the apartment in the film is built in the studio.

[quote] There’s nothing about Parson’s Michael that suggests the kind of alpha-dominance that the character should have.

Michael never was the alpha of the group. Harold was the Queen Bee, because he was rich. Michael was up to his eyeballs in debt and - when provoked - Harold threw that fact in Michael's face. The Cowboy was a tribute of Emory to Michael, because he wanted to suck up to Harold, the Queen Bee of the group.

agree with above re quinto and parsons.....better actors could have run with the part.....murphy, tho i love and admire him, mis casts roles often...stilll, a hell of a good movie. im also one of the dinosaurs who saw the orig bway show in 1970......wht a special peice of work : thx mart crowley.

a sequel must be possible somehow, its a beloved bunch of characters nd has longevity

R218, Crowley wrote a sequel. It is terrible. I have read it. I don't know if it has ever been revived after the initial production in San Francisco. It was not well received.

In the hands of a gr8 director/script doctor im sure it could salvaged. whts it like?

[quote] ... im sure it could salvaged. whts it like?

You're sure it can be salvaged, but you don't know anything about the property? That is a remarkable statement, even for Data Lounge. How do you get through the day?

R220, the "Boys" get together in Michael's same apartment because Larry has died of cancer. Part of the problem is that the characters have not changed over the years, and part of it is an old man (Crowley) raging against change.

[quote]an old man (Crowley) raging against change.

Sounds like DL would love it!

Judging by the queens' negative comments on here, i would concur that things have not changed much.

R222 Joe Mantello just talked about this in an interview. He mentioned there were also younger gay men in the sequel and there is a bit of a culture clash between the older gay men and the new younger ones.

I hope they never do it but at least once they were asked about it.

I have always hated Boys In The Band because of the nasty, self-loathing, hate-filled characters, contrived plot, and stilted dialogue. The first time I save the original movie on a VCR in the 90s, I cringed at the stereotyping of gay men as bitchy, fucked up, pathetic, self-hating. etc. I saw the play in Chicago about 20 years ago and thought it was even worse on stage. None of that has changed with the new Netflix version (I didn't expected it to). But I do think that the direction and pacing of the Netflix film are an improvement. My basic problem with the story is I don't understand why anyone would show up at Michael's house and why they didn't leave. Are people that desperate for a free drink that you would put up with being insulted the entire time?

[quote]Are people that desperate for a free drink that you would put up with being insulted the entire time?

Alcoholics are. And the characters in this play all drink like fish.

They believed in therapy to cure them of homosexuality back then but apparently AA was still not big in the gay community.

Michael could have used a meeting.

R199

it was in mine when i watched. but i guess it's niche since it's a gay film and R rated

I did feel that the telephone game in this version was paced out and made a lot more sense with Parsons being a bit more empathetic and less venomous. It made a little more sense that his friends would stick around and do it. The whole second half was made a lot more palatable for modern audiences.

what if it were played by dykes.....tee hee

the sequel wouldn't work with the changes in the film, especially in the donald/michael relationship.

What are everyone's professions in this movie? I know Harold is rich, but what does he do? And did they mention that Donald cleans houses in the Hamptons for his parents and dropped out of Columbia? I don't remember that in the movie.

Why is Harold rich? Where are people getting that?

He is a retired ice skater. "The Vera Hruba Ralston of the Borscht Circuit." The Netflix production even included a little spinning ice skater on top of his birthday cake.

They do mention that Donald cleans houses and lives with his parents. I’m assuming. Harold is family rich.

Michael was thrown when Alan showed up and saw him with his friends. He felt ashamed and angry at the same time. He got drunk and invented the telephone game to try to force Alan to admit that he was secretly gay too. Michael’s behavior plus the presence of an outsider plus the alcohol provoked the interactions between the others. In the end, Michael was mortified by his own behavior toward his old friend and his current friends, which he realized was fueled by his own self hatred, which apparently was aggravated when drank. At the beginning, he told Donald he had quit drinking to avoid the icky feelings the next day.

Harold isn’t rich, just fiscally responsible.

It’s mentioned in the text that Hank is a math teacher, and Larry is a commercial artist.

Bernard worked in a bookstore and Emory was an interior decorator.

Michael was an actor

Emory's profession is confusing. In the 2020 film, he seems to be an antiques dealer. In the play, he is listed as an interior decorator. However, as played per the script, I never thought he was that high up. It seemed more like an assistant in an antiques shop than an owner and never someone who had the people skills to be an interior decorator.

It takes a fairy to make things pretty.

[Quote] I did feel that the telephone game in this version was paced out and made a lot more sense with Parsons being a bit more empathetic and less venomous. It made a little more sense that his friends would stick around and do it.

But you have to admit that Parsons screaming out “Make the call!!” was utterly idiotic.

"I am a model fairy"

This is just a badly written play—no one talks like that, even when they’re drunk

Was everything the same as in the original play? I barely even remember.

The Netflix film is substantially like the 1970 film which is substantially like the original off-Broadway play. There are small changes, but they are indeed small and subtle.

Mantello is getting a lot of credit for "opening up" the film with vignettes not in the original script. That started with the 1970 film, though it is not so frequently used after the characters assemble in Michael's apartment.

I've always said there is one fundamental flaw/plot hole in the play and the film so will say it again: when Michael first tells Donald about Allen Mc calling and coming by later, he says emphatically "He's STRAIGHT, asshole." In fear of what Allen would think of his "freak show he booked for dinner." And how Michael wants to be respectful of oithers' opinions, whatever.

But later the same night, Michael goes on a major rant about knowing that Allen Mc and Justin Stewart had sex (Justin even told him) and more than once. So why would that not enter what he is telling Donald earlier? He hardly thinks he is straight, let alone adamantly. And Michael is honest and even vulnerable with Donald so no reason he would hide that info.

What do others think?

well Michael also knows that he dropped Justin because he was ashamed of that side of him, and married Fran, so he is being extra careful.

I did find it funny when Larry and Hank have that whole "who would you call" fight in front of him and he STILL DOESN'T GET IT.

and why is everyone so mean to cowboy

R246, Michael does not *know* that Allen slept with Justin. Justin is not a reliable source. Michael throws that at Allen hoping that he will get a confirmation and to hurt him, but Michael is basically throwing something at Allen hoping it will stick.

IMHO, it's just not that good a play....groundbreaking for its time, yes....a never before seen look at a historically marginalized community, yes...but in the end, not a very good play...

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf deals with the same emotionally crazy, dangerous game-playing and is a great play.

[quote] and why is everyone so mean to cowboy

Because he’s stupid (which makes him an easy target), beautiful (which they resent), and they know only one of them will sleep with him, and even he doesn’t have to be nice to him to get it.

I hope Harold tips well

Remember gay men could still be arrested for a party like that back then. Emory jokes, “It’s a raid! Everyone 3 ft apart” when there is a knock on the door.

Mart Crowley wrote a good play with great dialogue. The man can write a joke as well as anyone in the business.

"The Boys in the Band" made him famous, but it was Hollywood where he worked the most and made some money.

Maybe Michael was jealous of how close Alan and Justin were in college and projected his own sexual feelings onto Alan? But why DID Alan suddenly need to talk to Michael? Did the bizarre behavior at the party scare him back into living his straight life? Would it have gone differently if he could have talked to Michael alone?

[quote] But why DID Alan suddenly need to talk to Michael?

That's Mart Crowley being a playwright. Alan needs to talk to Michael because he has separated from his wife and is miserable. However, it is never explained why Alan and Fran have separated. The actors and the director can make some agreements about how it is to be played, but the playwright deliberately gives no explanation.

Michael dated Fran in college, maybe that's why

Mantello says Michael is in love with Donald

I wonder who Harold and Donald would have called

The game is a variation on the "truth game" which was popular in pop culture and in settings like dorm room bull sessions during the 60s and 70s. Absent a "game structure", that kind of dialogue was common in films before Boys in The Band and well after it---Big Chill was a later example but far from the latest. Plays still have 3rd acts that are structured this way (Osage in August, for example). It's time may have passed as a parlor game, but the basic script/plot device is still with us.

The film was one of those things that kept me in the closet a bit longer---the idea of being part of such a hateful, destructive social world wasn't attractive. I was less put off by other things like the frank sexuality of John Rechy. The characters were critiqued as stereotypical by the time the film was made, but that bothered me less. I had met people like most of those characters at one point or another and they seemed real enough and most of those characters are still with us. Emory is both the most flamboyant and the most tragic.

Parsons and Quinto weren't great casting, but a lot of the problem is the flow---the original makes the patter seem fluid and effortless in the early party sequences and enables the drama to build. This seems like a production with inadequate rehearsal. Quinto, in particular, seems to be doing an initial line reading and doesn't seem comfortable in those not quite period glasses. Parsons seems a little more adept, but he has no chemistry with Bomer. Watkins seems too old for his part and has little chemistry with Rannells---some couples have the problem of not wanting to let parts threaten a relationship or reflect it---maybe those were issues here. If they had replaced Rannells with someone else, then Watkins might have been better---Rannells seems the most miscast.

The sequences "opening up" later parts of the film seem un-necessary and distracting.

In the added scene at the end of this movie, Alan is crying in a bar. He is not on his way home to Fran.

[quote]Emory is both the most flamboyant and the most tragic.

That's quite an interesting interpretation. There's nothing in the script that necessarily makes Emory tragic. He's effeminate and he's brave to about his business effeminately. He takes no shit from anyone. Everyone at the party seems to like and care about him. He even seems to cook well.

R257

I thought Parsons and Bomer had sparkling chemistry, and the critics noted it too

R260 I thought so even more in the movie than the play.

Michael is the very definition of a mean drunk. The straight friend, who shows up unannounced, drives all of Michael's insecurities to the surface, and he goes full on Grand High Witch (from Roald Dahl's Witches) on his friends.

Why was Jim Parsons, the highest paid actor on television not so long ago, given the largest role in this project? I can't think why.

[Quote] That's quite an interesting interpretation. There's nothing in the script that necessarily makes Emory tragic. He's effeminate and he's brave to about his business effeminately. He takes no shit from anyone. Everyone at the party seems to like and care about him. He even seems to cook well.

He also has his own antiques business.

[Quote] In the added scene at the end of this movie, Alan is crying in a bar. He is not on his way home to Fran.

Ugh. I hate that.

R264, The play makes it clear that an effeminate fag is the lowest of low in the gay cast system.

"the gay caste system. "

[Quote] The play makes it clear that an effeminate fag is the lowest of low in the gay cast system.

It's caste, you fat whore. And there's a reason that Emory is given racist language to use...

R265

well he had to wait for the next flight home

Gotta agree, parsons screech filled voice did get on my nerves....he such obvious casting. would rather have seen bomer or rannells play that meanie part with gusto.

What's brave about being annoying and clowning women? It's one thing to be effeminate and some men are, both gay and straight, now being catty and acting like you're a clown performing 24/7 is a choice. If you choose to act this way don't be surprised when you're punched in the face.

So Alan wasn't gay?

Of course he is, didn't Parson's character say he was on and off with the other college friend in a sexual relationship? He's either gay or bi and will remain in closet, that's what the movie suggests.

It’s also left ambiguous, r272. As is how truthful Michael’s recollection of Justin’s description of Hank is.

If Hank is gay, this party clearly scared him back into the closet.

You mean Alan, not Hank, R274

alan is str8 f g sake.

im diggin the actor that played him....wanna swing on him.

Yes, thank you r275

Admittedly, the entire cast is too old.

Jim Parsons may be over-parted, but he is exactly right for the part as Mart Crowley wrote it. Michael = Mart, and Mart was a smart, middling-attractive gay queen from the south with an accent.

matt looks young for his age, i couldn't believe that alan and donald were supposed to be the same age. and that larry is older than harold?

You can change the dialogue. Why not not it Harold's 40th birthday? Simple fix.

Isn't Michael from money? Mart was Natalie Wood's assistant.

It's unclear if Emory owns his own business. Comic relief is often the lowest status in a group.

Parsons may be demographically like Mart, but he's still not great casting for the role. They're all a bit two dimensional, with Quinto being the worst.

[Quote] You can change the dialogue. Why not not it Harold's 40th birthday? Simple fix.

Making characters ten years older changes how the story reads. Donald makes more sense as someone past 25 (but not too much past it) who still hasn't made his way. You make that character 39 instead of 29 and the character becomes quite pathetic. 39 is already sort of "gay invisible" whereas in the original we see Donald getting cruised by the parking lot attendant. He's meant to be in "gay prime."

Similarly, Harold is 32. And though he is thirty two, though he is thirty two, though he is THIRTY TWO, he feels ancient. Again, it changes it to make him 42.

[Quote] Comic relief is often the lowest status in a group.

Harold is the wittiest. Is he the lowest status?

R284, Harold's wit is caustic. Emory's clowning is servile. There is a difference.

La Tourneaux looked much more callow youth in the stage production. And Frey was dressed much less sharply. Prentice was not dressed like a high flyer either.

Nothing beats Harold's high pitched cackle in the original movie when he reads the birthday card attached to the Cowboy.

R283

well Bomer is definitely not gay-invisible

[Quote] well Bomer is definitely not gay-invisible

Yes, but the effort is starting to show.

Combs looked more effortless.

And crucially, Combs was somewhat jolie laide. Donald is something of a wallflower. Matt Bomer, even a "cut" to the point of too low body fat Bomer, would never be allowed to be a wallflower.

R289

I don't understand what you are trying to show?

Combs was never meant to be a stud.

Fun fact, they both have the same birthday

We see Combs cruised at the beginning of the movie. We see him strip off to take a shower. We see that he and Larry have fucked. He is not someone who lacks for male attention. He is not a stud in the sense of cock of the walk confidence. He is a stud in terms of how much sex he gets, but he's not a dominant or domineering personality. Look how he's hanging out on the steps in the back of this still. That wasn't a random choice on Crowley or Friedkin's part.

R291 Funny, in the two Murphy films Bomer has done (Normal Heart and this one) he hasn't played the stud. In Normal Heart, Taylor is the gorgeous one everyone drools over. And in this, it's the cowboy and Larry (implied) and Hank.

R293 Well Bomer's Donald doesn't seem shy in the flashback sex scene, he is clearly dominating Larry. There is no indication he lacks for male attention. Unlike Michael and Harold, he is not insecure about his looks. His depression is about his addiction to failure, not the ability to get laid.

[Quote] There is no indication he lacks for male attention.

That's what I wrote...

Donald is not a dominating personality. The roles people play in the bedroom don't necessarily reflect how they are outside of it... Hank may be fucking Larry's brains out when they retire to the bedroom. That doesn't mean Larry doesn't give Hank a hard time by playing around on him.

I am very confused. I thought you were saying Matt's donald is a wallflower unlike combs'

The original Donald is practically getting eye fucked by the mechanic at the beginning. He was anything but a wallflower in the looks department. In the play and the movie he does fade into the background, because the other characters get all the lines and attention.

[Quote] Unlike Michael and Harold, he is not insecure about his looks. His depression is about his addiction to failure, not the ability to get laid.

I never said he was. I linked to a pic of Combs quite fine physique. But Combs' looks - and I mean his face here - were the not the kind where whole room stops when he enters. He is not a beauty, like Matt Bomer. It's believable that he's reserved, watchful, that he puts up with bitchy Michael, maybe even admires him for his more extrovert personality. I don't believe a Matt Bomer type has ever been that to anyone. Bomer is the type to be honed in on and snatched up, whisked away.

R299 I supposed that's why they have Michael ogling him in the shower, unlike in the original

[Quote] I am very confused. I thought you were saying Matt's donald is a wallflower unlike combs'

No, I was saying that Matt Bomer is too beautiful AND too old to play Donald. (And beauty doesn't trump older, sadly.)

[Quote] I supposed that's why they have Michael ogling him in the shower, unlike in the original

That's something I like about the original.

Crowley has said that the characters represented different part of him--by that measure and R278's logic, they should all be a bunch of Southern queens., a kind of Steel Magnolias without the illness/death tragedy.

Were there even gay daddy and bear subcultures in the 70s? IMO Comb was very pretty in the movie.

Comb was a cutie. Original Larry was GORGEOUS though.

I had no idea Bomer was 42! He looks 35, max.

i found all characters very familiar. i know people who are like each one...seemd realistic to me....well when drunk or fukd up.

bomer was damn good in normal heart, he deserved a bigger more challenging part.

Yep, Keith Prentice was the best looking and that made sense.

Combs is cute in the movie but he is not beautiful. I would have cast Jonathan Groff in his role. Attractive, but not stunning.

Ezra Miller might be a good Michael. We know he can drop a bitch to the ground, he can probably cut a bitch with words too.

Connor Jessup might be a good Cowboy. Not many lines, but an expressive face.

Miles Heizer is sort of a Donald. Cute, always has a man around, but not an extrovert.

Matt's real-life personality is very Donald though. quiet but liked by everyone.

I still love that Cliff Gorman and his wife took in Robert LaT (Cowboy) and nursed him when he was dying of AIDS.

Matt Bomer showed off his armpits to great effect in this film. It was my favorite moment of his performance.

Didn't LaT threaten to out people he'd slept with? No wonder Luckinbill didn't take him in...

I can't believe these guys in the original cast were only 30-ish! They all looked like a modern late-40s. Jesus Christ.

What's funny is that guys with the professions these characters had would never be able to afford Manhattan today.

We'd all have to live with Tammy Grimes!

Crowley musta been a hoot: best buds with nat wood and t grimes..

One of the reasons people looked older back in the day is that they all started smoking when they were 16, or younger. And NOTHING dries your skin out faster than cigarettes. By the time the actors in the original company of Boys in the Band reached their mid-30s, the age they were when they were doing the play, most of them had been smoking for 20 years.

And of course, people wanted to look "adult." Check out the image Combs chose for his bio.

This is obviously another shot from the era of the play, not the movie. Frey looks like he plays Vegas.

Were White and Gorman the only heterosexuals among the original cast?

The original Hank was Laurence Luckinbill, who has been married to Lucie Arnaz for many years.

The reason that people seemed older was that they wanted to be adults, or in many cases were forced to be adults. Parents did not coddle their kids. Many people went to work right out of high school. Failing all else, there was the draft which knocked the bloom of youth off fairly quickly. The school of hard knocks involved actual hard knocks.

R310 He would be great in a project like this or even HBO's Looking. I love his face.

[quote]One of the reasons people looked older back in the day is that they all started smoking when they were 16, or younger.

Not everybody smoked, though. It seemed to be universal that people looked older no matter what they did or didn't do.

Archie Bunker was 45...TG for whatever makes most more youthful now.

The stage set for this was much more modern

[Quote] The original Hank was Laurence Luckinbill, who has been married to Lucie Arnaz for many years.

Don't get me started...

[Quote] It seemed to be universal that people looked older no matter what they did or didn't do.

Not true. Debbie Harry looked like a librarian in her high school photo.

Not so in her first group.

Another reason people looked older in 1968 was that the huge social revolution of the 1960s was only getting started. Up until the mid to late 1960s, people worked to look more sophisticated and accomplished. Just a few short later, they would all begin striving to look 18 years of age. Foundation garments were out and tie-dye was in. Everything changed at that moment in American history. But actors in New York in 1968 would not have been outwardly championing that. Most would have been pushing to present themselves as Serious Artists. (TM)

As for smoking, research puts the 1950s as the peak for cigarettes with 45% of the population being regular smokers. By 1970, it had only decreased to about 40%. Most actors would be smoking. They would absolutely have to know how to look convincing handling cigarettes, lighters, ash trays, and the smoking itself.

It was more than just clothing, though. People looked older facially.

did luckinbill come out?

Little Larry came out plenty.

It wasn't just clothing, indeed. It was also make up and other aspects of styling. Look how much more youthful (if not young) Mamie Van Doren looks next to DL fave Barbara Nichols.

didnt lucy marry a gay man before larry? that bway singer.....

Yes to lee pace, love him, awesome and hi on the sassy factor.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I find the original actors very bland looking and somewhat ugly, but again I'm not 70, so maybe your standards are different. I don't mean it in a derogatory/ageism way, btw.

Yeah, none of the actors were Harry Styles beautiful.

If Keith Prentice were around today, he'd be Jacob Elordi.

Datalounge now has its own version of Godwin’s Law, which posits that the longer that a conversation on the Internet continues, the greater the likelihood of Adolf Hitler being invoked.

The Datalounge version will be called Parsons’ Law, thanks to R213’s post, and it will posit that the longer a conversation about a film or TV performance goes on in a Datalounge thread, the greater the likelihood of Lucille Ball’s Mame will be invoked.

[quote] He's gay. But that's not enough to bring to the table to play a character as complex as Harold. There is just so much about Harold that Quinto can't really know. He's good in other things, but Harold was too much for him.

Be real. All these characters are one dimensional pathetic stereotypes, even the writer admits they're versions of himself. You make it sound like this story is an Ingmar Bergman film, it isn't.

it's just a nasty display of caricatures being mean to each other because they're self loathing. I'd even consider this a black comedy.

No, it's not. How is Donald mean? I bet you won't answer. It's sort of ironic. Your take has as much depth as you claim the play contains...

[quote] All these characters are one dimensional pathetic stereotypes

R345, you can tell yourself that to protect yourself from the fact that these aren't stereotypes, they are photo-realism, but it doesn't make it so.

The play is written in a style that was popular in the 1960s: a lot is left for the actors to flesh out. For instance, we never know what was inscribed on Michael's gift to Harold. Al we know is that Harold was extremely moved by the gift. Try reading Marathon '33 (developed at The Actor's Studio). It is virtually entirely neutral dialogue. Harold isn't one dimensional, but it is intentionally left to the actor to create the backstory and inner life.

lee pace and matt were high school buddies and are still close

parsons lived up the street from matt

matt and quinto went to college together

michael and andrew met in high school

R348, and Matt Bomer and Michael B Washington hung out when Matt first moved to NYC.

Tuc Watkins, Charlie Carver, Brian Hutchinson & Robin de Jesus were the people outside of the group who hadn't known each other for 10-20 years before doing this.

(Also Lee Pace set Matt up with his husband.)

I love the play, the original movie, the 1996 revival, the 2018 revival, and this new movie.

R341 - the original actors are more bland, or “realistic” looking for a few reasons. The movie uses the off broadway cast, and stage actors are still, usually, less striking than film or TV stars. This was even more true in the late 60s when a more ethnic and slightly “Everyman” look was in vogue even in Hollywood.

The fact that everyone on American TV is now routinely very attractive (compare the British an US casts of The Office) doesn’t help BITB - Harold is supposed to be ugly, not jolie laide Luke Quinto. And as discussed upthread Donald makes much more sense as a good looking guy, but not a drop dead gorgeous guy - he’s insecure about almost everything and internally doesn’t think he’s as attractive as he actually is. People who look like Bomer get treated differently from childhood, and learn how to work it even if they don’t overly rely on their looks.

Jesus spellcheck on a phone is ridiculous - like Quinto, not Luke Quinto.

R203, I do not think that is a plot hole at all.

I knew guys who had gay sex in college but who ended up straight. Especially in the 60s when being gay was as much a social status as a sexuality, I could imagine this.

One thing Parsons plays very well is reclassifying Alan as something other than straight in the bedroom scene. When Alan starts admiring Hank and dismissing Emory, you can see his consciousness raising right in front of us.

R349 apparently simon pursued matt for years

Let's not turn this into a Bomer/Halls thread.

who was larry going to call

Boomer was also friends and roommates with Joe Manganiello in college.

Sorry, Bomer of course (not Boomer).r

Has this devolved into a fangurl conversation? Who gives a fuck about "friends".

velvet mafia

If I remember correctly, after Crowley would get pissed and be a tranny mess, the next day he would send gifts, with the apology, 'I am sorry for everything'...which was what was meant to be on the birthday present to Harold.

I can’t believe some of the inane comments here: “they were unlikeable;” “why didn’t they just get up and leave?”

Jesus H. Christ, people, it takes place in a different ERA with different SENSIBILITIES and SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS and SOCIETAL PREJUDICES which resulted in SELF-LOATHING and DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIORS.

As soon as Quinto walked in, I knew he was doing a carbon copy attempt at Leonard Frey's performance. How awful. Create your own fucking character.

To clarify of the original cast: Laurence Luckinbill (Hank), Cliff Gorman (Emory), and Reuben Greene (Bernard) were straight. Peter White (Alan) has been identified as both gay and straight and never publicly clarified it.

If I were filming this, I'd cast twenty-something actors in the parts. I'd find the proceedings much easier to believe had it been young, immature guys acting that way. And goodness knows there are plenty of twenty-something actors who are out now. Could be easily cast.

Quinto said he has never seen the original. So how could he base his character on it? I guess there are YouTube snippets.

r365. I disagree, because most of these 20 something actors would very likely lack the gravitas to pull off the telephone game scenes.

wanna see pace fucking bomer deep fast and hard....

Having thought about this a little more, I actually think I would have much preferred to see a modern take on this - I think all the themes are still relevant today, and it would have felt more fresh and impactful.

R369, I saw a production that did that. The appearance was that it was a 1960s apartment, but actually it was a contemporary mid-century modern apartment. The line dance was done to Vogue. The telephone game on cell phones.

Quinto is, of course, probably lying. And Murphy, of course, did see it.

If Quinto really has not seen the 1970 film, he's an incurious oaf. It's an important play and important film, at least historically. The film preserved several magnificent performances. One of them is better, much better, than his.

Quinto is probably lying.

r239 I figured Emory was the one with money. Maybe an heir to a mattress empire or something. I've only ever seen the Netflix movi (and LOVED it).

1. He had a doorman. So he wasn't living in a ghetto.

2. He brought over a silver casserole dish. Maybe it was fake, but he doesn't go for cheap.

3. As a teenager he could afford to buy the Dentist a gold lighter and have it engraved.

I was like damn, these guys are fools for sleeping on the trust fund kid. Him being more openly effeminate makes sense if his bills are paid no matter what.

There’s a lingering shot of a cake left out in the rain which I thought was a nice touch considering the original MacArthur Park (not Donna’s) was released in 1968. I found the original scene on Vimeo, and it was a really brief close up of a smashed wet cake in comparison. The 2020 version milked that cake for all it’s worth.

r362 exactly. I just went to a birthday party bonfire type event (COVID) that was all gay with two lesbians present. The host is awesome at putting on an event, but he can get catty, and bossy like a stage director. At times he can be downright rude. His behavior is only 10% of him at best. The other 90% is worth the minor annoying traits . This party represents a snapshot in time of a host that's financially stressd, socially, stressed, hates himself, and has a bleak future. I get why he was a mess.

I also foget how unearving it must be to have his closted public image get "tarnished" when his friend shows up out of the blue.

Michael's sobriety is also brand new at the time this all transpires. And until that night, largely untested. Facing them all for the first time while sober would be a daunting task. Undoubtedly, he has been dealing with that all day long as he prepares for this party.

It doesn't take all that long before Michael fails this test. The birthday party itself would have been stressful. Throwing Alan into the mix takes it over the top.

It might have been better for everyone if Alan left his wife after Michael had six months of sobriety under his un-paid-for belt. Better for everyone except Mart Crowley.

" I do not think that is a plot hole at all.

I knew guys who had gay sex in college but who ended up straight"

Yeah but what Michael would tell Donald would be different, certainly in private. If he hadn't mentioned this already. The notion of being afraid of the straight buddy coming by is necessary for the plot but none of us would be that scared if Justin had told us what he told Michael -- or would have asked Alan himself at one point. "Three times, YOU LIKED IT!"

I haven't seen the movie in a while. Is Alan who Michael would have rang in the Telephone Game?

R378, not really. If Justin told him in confidence or if he had a doubt, he would probably not say anything. (I sure as heck would not, nor would most people.)

Before he gets drunk, Michael actually appears to be a good friend to a number of people. A good friend with a bitchy sense of humor, but he is not someone spilling other peoples secrets. (He actually steers people away from uncomfortable situations.)

After he drinks, however....

yea parsons is too obvious, his usual lout mouth self, bomer woulda be hella fun....

I believe Alan was straight since the friends knew about Michael's other college roommate who came out, but they didn't know about Alan. They would have remembered if either Michael or Michael's gay college friend had mentioned that Allen hooked up with guys in his college days.

Drunk Michael freaked out homophobe Alan would drop him just like he dropped their college friend after he came out to Alan who was quite fond of him before he found out that the guy was gay. And - that's my interpretation - Michael hated it that he cared so much for Alan's approval even though Alan no longer played an important role in his life.

And maybe Alan signifies a life Michael might have, if he wants it desperately enough.

Alan is everything normal. The guys at the party are everything abnormal.

And Crowley's savvy choice was to make them all unhappy.

Alan is a closet case. Are you kidding me? Come on. He kept asking for Hank to leave with him. Why would Michael’s friend Justin tell him that. Please. He was a closet case. It’s practically the entire point of the play.

I bet Larry and Hank are perfectly happy in that bedroom.

[quote] because most of these 20 something actors would very likely lack the gravitas to pull off the telephone game scenes.

I don't know what's more laughable, and old queen who thinks younger people lack gravitas or the fact that he thinks this ridiculously stereotypical film requires any.

[quote] I don't know what's more laughable, [bold] and [/bold] old queen

OH, DEAR!

I played Hamlet at 22.

Would you look at the grinny granny grammar queen (I love some cacophony) at R388. That's a typo from a phone gran, and while we're at it this is a orthographic mistake not a grammar issue.

r390 has orthographic footwear.

[quote] Would you look at the grinny granny grammar queen (I love some cacophony)

I think you mean “alliteration”.

death to queens who correct graffitI spelling on the street....OR HERE

Posters who point out and gloat over obvious autocorrect typos shod be condemned to the Sisyphean Task of stripping and repainting Michael’s grotty, eternally rusting kitchen cabinets.

r388 has never seen a typo before.

These grammar assholes really expect perfect spelling and grammar on an Internet forum where people quickly type their random thoughts. JFC this isn't a college paper or a work document. Loosen up, girls.

If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Emory

Bomer's role was so minor that he didn't particularly have a point.

if u cant go all mark twain and have fun/wack a doodle grammar/spelling on DL.....then i ask u where can u???

According to Harold, Michael can't call anyone because he doesn't love anyone. Michael's response is pretty awful. Did it make it into the remake as well? "No matter how you figure..." etc.

Think the niggers were cut. Well, that one was.

it's all in the sequel

I feel like 90% of the ppl here trashing the film haven't even watched it

I thought Rannells' delivery of the "pick up the phone!" line was better than in the original. The drama and hysterics was a better fit at that tense stage of the movie.

r386 that really disturbed me that they would brazenly hookup in their friend's bedroom. Why would anyone allow someone to hookup in their room like that? They couldn't just head home to their own apartment? Super weird plot hole.

That's not a plot hole.

Oddly Bomer is doing a ton of press for BITB like he's the star.

It's kind of sad.

It reminds me of American Dad where Stan creates a fake morning talk show, "Morning Mimosa," to keep Francine occupies. I wonder if Simon does the same for him.

r404, that's what friends are for. They give you a place to fuck so you don't have to fuck in front of everybody else when you're horny and ready.

Yep. I went to a dinner party once and I ended up sleeping over in the host's bedroom. The host slept elsewhere.

I too have fucked someone other than the host in the host’s bedroom (with his knowledge and permission) during a party. More than once. But years ago.

Everyone at the party expected nothing less from you, whore R409.

He is doing press because Murphy is Simon's client, duckling troll. He promotes all Murphy projects on his instagram because he is helping Simon.

R404 goes to P&P where they fuck right in front of everyone.

I don’t think Ryan Murphy needs his help

Ratchet went to #1 on Netflix without Bomer, while BITB still hasn’t cracked the top 10.

You do realize that promoting his projects helps the actor himself? All actors need profile maintenance/boosting.

Oh, R409! You remind me of a three-way in the 1980s that happened away from the party on the host's bed. That collapsed.

No one admitted anything.

Bomer promoted Ratched on instagram

And you can't compare a campy tv series to an R rated niche art film

R414

Promoting on talk shows, sure. Doing 50 junkets with unknown youtubers, no.

Jesus. Bomer does too much press for a movie he's in it? Burn him in a grease fire!

R418 Duckling troll needs fodder

r419. WOOOOOSH!

Flew right over your head, didn't it?

[quote]I did laugh at the idea of Zach Quinto turning 32. As others have said this cast is noticeably too old to be playing characters that are supposed to be in their early 30s.

I haven't watched this new version yet, but I always understood Harold's age claim ("I'm a 32-year-old pockmarked Jew fairy...") as a vanity lie. I never believed that Harold was 32.

42, maybe.

If Harold were lying about his age, Michael would say so at some point.

[Quote] Doing 50 junkets with unknown youtubers, no.

This movie is niche, niche, niche. Bomer ain't getting a sit down with Oprah.

[quote]If Harold were lying about his age, Michael would say so at some point.

R422, that's assuming he knew. And even if he did know Harold's true age, there's that detente they both share - Harold knows things about Michael that ℎ𝑒 doesn't want shared. (Hell - maybe Michael is also lying about his age.)

Leonard Frey was born in 1938. Boys in the Band opened off-Broadway in 1968. He wasn't even 32 yet.

Let me get this straight. YOU can tell that Harold is 42. But Michael, who stores every piece of information as a potential weapon, can't spot it.

Sure, Jan.

Harold lying about his age would hardly be the ultimate "secret" for Michael to reveal.

[quote]But Michael, who stores every piece of information as a potential weapon, can't spot it.

Not "can't spot it," R426, more like "can't afford to use it."

At some point, when Michael starts getting too nasty, Harold warns him.

It's like 'MAD' - 'mutually assured destruction.' Weapons you've got, but cannot afford to use.

Most relationships, especially fraught, complicated ones of long acquaintance, have something like this between the friends.

Ummm...just go on Grindr for hateful gays.

I don't get the point of this at all.

Sad.

Watched this last night. I am a huge fan of the original film, which I saw for the very first time in 1999 or 2000 when it played for a week revival at the Regent Showcase in LA. (I'm in my 40s.) I've seen it several more times since. Yes, it's dated, but so what? It's one of the best ensembles committed to film ever, and Friedkin directed it masterfully. It's an almost perfectly shot and acted film. Kenneth Nelson, Cliff Gorman and especially Leonard Frey should have all been remembered at awards time (not that it was ever going to happen back then).

This remake was benignly awful. Watchable (in that in went by without too much annoyance), but I feel very sorry for anyone who makes this their first exposure to the material. Miscast in all the crucial roles - Parsons really shit the bed, he was so terrible and wrong for the role, Quinto is lying if he says he never saw the original because he was doing a Leonard Frey impersonation while attempting to add his own spin, and Robin DeJesus as Emory was more concerned with getting his accent correct (at which he failed) than coming up with a performance- and very poorly directed by Mantello. It was shot boringly, edited badly and the addition of the flashback scenes added nothing. Yes, Friedkin opened up the film during the opening credits, but once we were in that apartment, we were there to stay. And it never felt stagey.

I'll say a few nice things. Michael Benjamin Washington and Tuc Watkins were both superb. Brian Hutchison actually did a better job than Peter White in the original, and Bomer was very good in a thankless role. (I have nothing to say about Rannells and the twink.) But none of that matters when you are performing material for which you have little to no understanding. And many of these actors were just saying the lines with nothing behind it, especially Parsons.

I hope that anyone who hasn't seen the original seeks it out. It really is a special piece of cinema. You don't have to like what the characters say or how they act towards one another, and you can feel superior knowing you're in a much better place simply by virtue of your age, but every gay man ought to pay homage to their forefathers.

C'mon now. It's much more unkind for Michael to introduce how Harold has his suicide pretty much planned out than it would be to out Harold's "real" (in your opinion) age. Harold is obviously no Donald in the sex department, otherwise a hooker wouldn't be one of his birthday gifts. And Harold reminds Michael that all he has is bought and paid for....

[quote]It's much more unkind for Michael to introduce how Harold has his suicide pretty much planned out...

Hmm. I don't recall anything like that in the original, R431.

There's petty stuff they hit each other with, but more serious secrets which are off-limits. If Harold is celebrating being 32, someone revealing that that isn't true would be a hit below the belt, worth destroying someone over. These catty queens practice 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡, something I doubt many of the younger gays here understand or respect - they likely cannot conceive of knowing something like that and not using it. They would blurt out everything they know at once, and be canceled from the group.

[Quote] Hmm. I don't recall anything like that in the original, [R431].

Well, guess what, Mimi...

[Quote] Michael: And the pills. Harold has been gathering and storing and saving up barbiturates for the past year, like a goddamn squirrel. Hundreds of Nembutals, hundreds of Seconals, all in preparation for and in anticipation of the long winter of his death. Well I'll tell you something, Hally. When the time comes, you won't have the guts. It's not always like it happens in plays, not all faggots bump themselves off at the end of the story.

If one takes your suggestion as read, Harold is 42. Is everyone else in that age range?

Point conceded, R433 - I didn't remember that. It has been at least a decade since I last watched it.

[quote]If one takes your suggestion as read, Harold is 42. Is everyone else in that age range?

Most everyone, R434. Some are younger, some are older.

Oh, well, shit. Make the next revival cast another decade older and we can bill it as the gay(er) FOLLIES.

What is with the gay obsession with FOLLIES?

R420

umm, you are the one who misunderstood, i was calling out the troll who looks for reasons to trash matt

they basically used matt to draw in fans, all the promotional images for the film featured him either solo or with parsons. they tricked us.

Matt Bomer doesn't have legions of fans. He's not nearly as famous as his delusional DL obsessives think he is.

It seemed like everyone was having a good time until Alan showed up. The Fire Island dance was fun.

R440

don't you ever get tired of repeating the same things over and over

r438, my sincere apology. I thought you were claiming I was said troll. Completely misinterpreted that.

Matt Bomer, not Matt Bedknobs & Broomsticks.

It's true r442. I would barely even know Matt Bomer existed if it weren't for DL.

Well, chalk me up as a Bomer fan and not because of his looks. I think he's a very good natural actor. I find him very believable in the things I've seen him in. He's not a flashy actor and he doesn't have a schtick or a particular nuance he leans on to distraction (like Parsons does). Yes he's handsome, but he's blandly handsome, which to me, allows him to play different characters without bringing the baggage of being Bomer along with him. You can forget what else he's done and just concentrate on who he's playing at the moment.

I can understand that his looks likely get in the way of playing certain roles (the Michelle Pfeiffer as Frankie in Frankie and Johnny problem) but I think he's managed to put together a respectable body of work despite that.

R445

idgaf bout that, I just find the repetitive troll tiresome

Michael’s college friend what was he crying about do you think?

[quote]Ratchet went to #1 on Netflix without Bomer, while BITB still hasn’t cracked the top 10.

It's too late now, the BiTB won't crack The Top 10 ever.

I doubt they expected it to after dropping it on a Wednesday a week after another Murphy series had debuted. I said before this should have come out during Pride Month in the US. The film was completed over a year ago.

The cast is promoting the hell out of it, bless them, with Parsons, Quinto and Bomer doing most of the work. (And the later tweeted he's on Kelly Clarkson and The Tonight Show this week.) However, the promotional photos make no bones about putting Parsons in the center with Quinto and Rannells while Washington, De Jesus & Bomer are usually far off to the side.

However, it's not necessarily that BiTB didn't perform up to hitting Netflix's Top 10 at any point because it's a gay film. AJ and the Queen got there and that show is long cancelled. Tales from the City did too. Currently, Big Daddy, an Adam Sandler film that came out in 1999 & Zoe Saldana's, Columbiana that came out in 2011 are both recent entries into their Top 10.

This part is anecdotal but my friends, who are all gay millennials, recognize that it's well reviewed but don't necessarily want to visit a piece that is so negative.

r448 - Because he missed the dorm food, Rose!

The remake has some good moments. Parsons's Michael has a good scene at the end with the DeMille closeup and the "If we could not hate ourselves so much" line. I also like the, although superficial, vignettes of various characters' back stories and the closing scenes at the end.

To me the only weak link was Brian Hutchison as Alan. He didn't do anything with the role. Plus, Peter White in the original looked simply stunning in that tux.

for 2 days Boys in band was # 2 or 3 on my netflix....i doubt seriously those top ten are real, never heard of some of em....payola.

Bomer has a highter Q rating on imdb than any other actors....he is very loved. hence his doing lots of press....

I thould think tho!

Only one BITB actor is on the IMDB 100, Charlie Carver. It looks like this flopped badly.

The highest ranking IMDB actors this week are mostly the stars of Enola Holmes, Ratched and The Boys.

what is enola holmes???

A Netflix movie about Sherlock’s sister.

OP is being petty. This show was well-received because it wasn’t written by Ryan Murphy or his lackeys.

Pretty much every homosexual is “a vain, superficial, image-obsessed queen.” Many busted gays obsess over their looks and think their frosted bang tips and Hollister T-shirts at age 68 look good.

So the OP can just lighten up on Parsons.

Parsons reverts to his Texas accent because that’s where he’s from.

His character could be the same. Catholics are everywhere and the gay ones always flocked to NYC in those days.

It was 10 when I watched

It's not just a gay film, it's an R-rated, SERIOUS, arty gay film. Dialogue-heavy, no music. It's doing as well as it could have. And mostly because of the cast. Many ppl are watching it just for Bomer. Because it's R-rated, it doesn't show up as a suggested watch. You cannot compare it with Enola Holmes etc. I bet Prom will do very well because it's fun and frothy and meant for all ages.

So stop with your concern trolling. You know very well that you are being disingenuous. Why don't you make a list of how many R-rated movies are in the top 10?

Also, I remember Bomer being in the top 50 on imdb throughout White Collar, and then this very same troll would insist that he was a flop because imdb ratings don't matter.

but tl;dr- top ten, imdb etc is determined by a teen audience, which is not watching R-rated art films. It's why Riverdale was number 1 for so long. and R-rated films will never compete.

Mad it through Bomer's nude scene (technically full frontal, I guess) but Parsons feels like a lightweight. And hate that they cut one of my favorite moments from the original -- Donald with the very hot valet parker. That great look and then the sniffing trick before "Keep it." I steal that all the time and it still works. They might not have been stars but the 1968 cast were trained actors and it shows. And it had Friedkin at the wheel so that helped.

Who was the cutie in the gay bar scene in the original? He looked like a model.

One of the extras? Yeah, I always noticed that. Think he was chatting up Larry or maybe just in foreground with another guy. Ryan of course took it further in the remake but it didn't add up to much. Even as a kid, Larry was my idea of a nightmare partner and unattractive to boot. Hank could do better (in both versions).

Harold's final scene where he tells Michael that he will call him tomorrow shows that no matter how awful Michael is when he's drunk Harold still remains his friend. It shows that they've been through a lot together and not even the worst birthday party ever could ruin that friendship.

I don't see that as toxic but friends who go through thick and thin.

Indeed, that boy in the bar with Rannells was HOt and good actor, he should have had a major role....new face! fresh energy...

thts why i iked the alan actor, he was new 2 me....and good

I don't understand WHY Hank loved Larry. In the original I could sorta get it because the actor was very handsome, but Rannells, while cute, is certainly not worth the hassle. Also does not look like the type every hot guy has hooked up with, including Justin whatever. But this Hank is so much hotter than Larry.

[Quote] I don't understand WHY Hank loved Larry.

It always seems so righteous at the start When there's so much laughter When there's so much spark When there's so much sweetness in the dark

r466

He's also OLDER.

[quote]Many ppl are watching it just for Bomer.

Who the fuck are you people who think Bomer is some big star?

i don't know about bomer, but his ass is

andrew rannells has a lot of fans too

Rannells is starting to look like an old boy but he is still miles more fun to watch than Parsons, ugh.

It's a classic question in American drama: Why do Nick and Honey stay?

I guess, the drama compels them to.

Is it not meant to be a wifeswap?

And that's how you play "Get the Guests".

No, just hump the hostess. Honey is pretty sexless, although she does dance like the wind.

[quote]Many ppl are watching it just for Bomer.

Parsons was on a top rated series for years which currently has a spinoff. He is much more popular with your average person than Matt Bomer. Parsons is the focus here as he was for the play. Matt Bomer's middle aged lady fans, a few random gays and his other old lady fans which happen to be here are the only reason you're hearing a lot about him HERE.

[quote]Because it's R-rated, it doesn't show up as a suggested watch. You cannot compare it with Enola Holmes etc. I bet Prom will do very well because it's fun and frothy and meant for all ages.

Oh, dear.

You realize Netflix released it's top streaming movie list ever and out of the top 10 films: 6 were rated R, 4 were not rated R and only 1 of those 10 was a teen film? None of them were kids movies. Being Rated R doesn't mean less people will see your film on Netflix. You can just stop that suggestion right now. Yes, you can compare it with Enola Holmes, etc.

Also this (Being rated TV-MA) meant absolutely NOTHING for The Politician Season 2.

People just didn't want to revisit the subject matter. I really wish Ryan Murphy would use his pull to produce ORIGINAL work written by someone other than him and use the same tactic of an all gay cast for it. He'd probably have much more luck.

[quote](technically full frontal, I guess)

Girl, no it wasn't.

[quote]People just didn't want to revisit the subject matter. I really wish Ryan Murphy would use his pull to produce ORIGINAL work written by someone other than him and use the same tactic of an all gay cast for it. He'd probably have much more luck.

Exactly. Many people didn't want to watch this old dinosaur that's embarrassingly dated.

[quote]Being Rated R doesn't mean less people will see your film on Netflix.

Fewer.

I wish I was less people.

We don't need our 9th grade English teacher on DL r479.

No English teacher here, r481. Actually, English is not even my first language.

So stop correcting grammar on a stupid internet forum, it's obnoxious.

It's obnoxious that you don't know the difference between less and fewer.

It's very Heleneque.

Grammar trolls are so tedious. We all knew what he meant. This isn't an English class.

R477's post was obnoxious.

Maybe Murphy will produce one of the SLAVE PLAY writer's works.

No it wasn't r487. People really don't want to revisit this subject matter or watch these pathetic characters.

Looking in the mirror can be uncomfortable.

r490 most of us aren't like these characters and don't wish to see them.

It really is generational. the elders are all about "you hate Boys In the Band because you're just like these men!"

And everyone else is just "no, it's a dated time capsule and these men are all assholes."

[Quote] It really is generational

It's really not.

Can you back up your statement, r492?

Read the signature.

I wouldn't take an Instaho as the voice of thinking people.

R477

I thought it went without saying that people are watching for Parsons. I was pointing out the smaller section of ppl that are watching it just for Bomer,

And yes, an R rating literally means fewer people will watch because it is meant for a restricted audience.

You sound like a Michael.

[Quote] I wouldn't take an Instaho as the voice of thinking people.

I may not say much but that doesn't mean I'm thinking.

A Matt Bomer troll? Lol. Now I’ve seen everything on DL. He’s harmless.

How come we never saw "Juthtin Thewart" in a flashback?

Or Fran. Poor neglected and unwanted Fran!

R499, I am sure someone will do a production with a "ghost" Justin hovering, unseen by the characters. He will be naked, of course.

Yes, R501! Just like the ghosts in FOLLIES!

I bet FOLLIES is where Mantello got the idea for the flashbacks. The ghosts of our pasts hovering eveywhere.

Just like in FOLLIES!

was overwhelmed with joy at this movie, so good , yes sequel !!!!! give bomer big part !!! specially his ass

Homer looks like he has facial wasting

Bomer damn autocorrect

R504

you are a bad person

[quote]Maybe Murphy will produce one of the SLAVE PLAY writer's works.

Maybe SLAVE PLAY. Maybe with James Cusati Moyer.

with whites? for dramatic effect?

So, what band are these boys in?

r508 James Cusati Moyer was in the original cast of SLAVE PLAY.

Murphy will bring an all-albino Porgy & Bess to BAM next season.

Bone doesn’t look anything like facial wasting. He looks like he has no fat on his body and he’s forty. Something you queens wouldn’t have a clue about, lol. Unfortunately, after forty you have to choose ass or face, and he chose ass.

Nah. He had the shower scene coming up so he went extra hard. He looks fine in the recent pics from the Friedkin interview.

How come Netflix doesn't have Boys in their "recently added" and "popular on netflix" lists? It hasn't since the beginning. I had to go looking for it, whereas all the other relatively new shows/films are all over their homepage.

it's not even in the "Netflix originals" list

I don't know where you gals are looking, but it's under all three.

Wow. I did not have to look for it. It was pushed prominently. Immediately upon logging on... there it was.

Netflix must know I'm a big ol' homo.

Could other countries be not featuring it on purpose?

[quote]He looks like he has no fat on his body and he’s forty. Something you queens wouldn’t have a clue about, lol.

At some point he's going to have to learn that he looks better when he doesn't starve himself. Yeah, he's ripped there but he looks like he hasn't had a sandwich in years. At a certain point being that thin ages you. I'm straining my memory but he looks better in The Normal Heart.

[quote]Nah. He had the shower scene coming up so he went extra hard. He looks fine in the recent pics from the Friedkin interview.

The film was shot over a year ago. I'm glad to see he has chosen to eat solids again.

Why does it mention Band?

R520 It's a reference to A Star is Born, where James Mason tells Judy Garland, "You're singing for yourself and the boys in the band."

omg, I never realized that's where the title came from. How perfect that it would be a Judy Garland reference.

omg, I never realized that's where the title came from. How perfect that it would be a Judy Garland reference.

He looked amazing in the normal heart, before the extreme weight loss obviously.

Just finished this. Thought it was pretty good.

Is it supposed to be implied that Michael and Harold had a thing in the past?

I am totally embarrassed that I hadn't known that either, r522. And, I'm...o-l-d....

The only thing worse than a queen who doesn't get a Judy Garland reference...

I know Mart Crowley has been quoted saying the title came from that line of dialogue from "A Star is Born," but it's a pretty commonly used phrase. Glenn Miller. Tommy Dorsey. All the others. The bands were all male. They would tour with a girl singer, but there was the singer and then there were the boys in the band. Even if Crowley wants to foolishly credit "A Star is Born" for his title, the line refers directly to something very specific and important; the all male instrumentalists coming together, traveling together, living together, and making music together. All of it intimately relevant to his play. Dragging "A Star is Born" into it is just ridiculous.

No, it's not.

carver woulda been a fun harold for shitz n grins....luv hims

Luv hims? Are you doing a parody or something?

R525, I think it is a bit more complicated. Harold and Michael are the perfect match who will never get together because they both have unreasonable expectations of what a lover should be. This is why Harold hates Donald (remember Donald is not supposed to be at the party. He is only there because of the botched psych visit.) Donald has the relationship with Michael that Harold would like to have. Michael should be with Harold, but Michael is too caught up in superficial appearances to have an unattractive partner.

IMO the animosity between Harold and Donald seems like a BFF who thinks the lover is not good enough for his best friend. Yes, Michael and Harold love each other, but just as friends. Thex must've went through a lot and even after the birthday party they seem to be on good terms (Harold: I call you tomorrow). Their relationship goes beyond ex-boyfriends or unrequited crush (because in such a context the nasty things being said during the play would've at least cooled off that particular bond).

Harold's reaction to the gift shows that there is something very deep between them that goes beyond the superficial bickering and sniping or casual sex in the past.

"carver" WHO, r530??

Soap carver, Rose.

Bomer recorded an IG Post with his electrical socket eyes

R532

No, Donald is supposed to be at the party. He says specifically that he had to be in town for a birthday party anyway, and Harold mocks Michael for always needing his crutch.

Michael clearly has feelings for Donald (ogles him when Donald is not watching) and Harold seems bitter about that. And that Donald seems to take advantage of Michael.

R536 oh it's his birthday! happy birthday matt! steer clear of cracked crab.

HAPPY BDAY MATT!!!

U GEORGOUS CREATURE !!!

UR FAMILY SO LUCKY TO HAVE U.....AND VICE VERSA....

How much was Michael paying for that apartment in 1968?

NYC was a lot cheaper then. People with the occupations these characters had could never afford Manhattan (or even much of Brooklyn) today. They'd be living in Queens with roommates.

Is New York very important to the story?

In '78 my grandparent's two bedroom apartment in Flatbush Brooklyn was $77.00 a month, so a decade earlier in the village -- maybe $250.00.

$250 in 1968 is the equivalent to $1,800 today.

my sugar pop had a apt over lookin the hudson, he was a fur coat seller, him rich, i never spent $ on rent......but had to let him fuk my cherry ass hole ev nite with his big meaty fat cock ouch daddi

Is there even a single line of dialogue in The Boys in the Band that puts Michael's apartment in Greenwich Village? In the 1970 film, the apartment was OBVIOUSLY on the Upper East Side. And frankly, these bitchy guys seem way more East Side than Village. Much more bourgeois. Only the Cowboy is vaguely Greenwich Village.

R546, the play script specifies UES.

Thank you, R547. Thank you.

Larry was my least favorite character in this whole dinner party from hell. Hank could have done better -- even in 1968.

Jim Parsons' character was without a doubt the worst piece of shit in that horrendous movie. Im glad we've moved on from the 60's. It must have been a nasty ass time to be a gay based on these miserable fucks way of going about.

Jim Parsons' character was without a doubt the worst piece of shit in that horrendous movie. Im glad we've moved on from the 60's. It must have been a nasty ass time to be a gay based on these miserable fucks way of going about.

[Quote] —Thank u Boomer gays, we'll take it from here

Where are you taking it?

[quote] It must have been a nasty ass time to be a gay based on these miserable fucks way of going about.

If not for many of those *miserable fucks,* you wouldn't have the freedoms you do and you'd probably be dead from AIDS, so go fuck yourself you ungrateful twat.

But r553 the men from that era were pretty awful. I'm glad I'm around now and not then.

I'm glad you're around now, too. You would have been useless back then.

Tell us about your life now, r554. Do you have a tight knit group of friends?

R554, if you had to deal with all of that pre-Stonewall crap, it's quite possible you might have behaved as bitter as Michael. Especially after some martinis.

Oh shut up R557. Nothing in Ryan Murphy's spoke to the reason of Michael's bitterness. Don't try to rewrite or excuse this most boring and pathetic film

[quote]I'm glad you're around now, too. You would have been useless back then.

Hisss! Hisss!

The elders really don't understand why later generations are quite frankly appalled by the Boys In the Band.

Boys In The Band is appalling. It's meant to be. It's supposed to be a curtains-pulled-back look at what goes on when a bunch of nervy queens get together, guys who have been bullied an humiliated all their lives. They then turn it on each other and it isn't pretty.

Nothing spoke to his bitterness? I'm a '90s kid. You need to do some research, Xoomer.

R558, the onus is on you -- not Ryan Murphy -- to know/understand some very basic history about gay history and why characters from another era might behave the way they did.

Gosh, makes u thankful most of them bitter queens got drained in the 80's holocaust. Get over yourself

Troll better, r563.

Hold onto ur tittys, its a g damned comedy..

The plot could’ve been solved in a few minutes if Harold had brought enough weed for everyone.

Or Matt presented hole.

[quote][R558], the onus is on you -- not Ryan Murphy -- to know/understand some very basic history about gay history and why characters from another era might behave the way they did.

Gimme a break, Nell Carter! Ryan Murphy is the one who put up the money for this rehash rather than adapt a heretofore unadapted work, so the onus is very much on him.

[Quote] Ryan Murphy is the one who put up the money for this rehash rather than adapt a heretofore unadapted work, so the onus is very much on him.

I don't see the logic.

Getting the period details right is the filmmakers' responsibility, not the audience's. The audience shouldn't have to point out anachronisms. Otherwise, the filmmaker isn't doing his job right.

R570, specifically what are you referring to? Many anachronisms are intentional, either because the filmmakers think the audience will reject historical accuracy, or because they find it too restrictive. Ever since crew member pointed out that a 1930s film was using the La Marseillaise years before it was written, the standard response has been, and still is, "Only a fag like you would know that!"

The original has anachronisms too. Casserooles weren't invented until 1972.

The biggest change between the original and the remake was probably the dialogue where Bernard defended Emory for calling him the n-word, because they are friends and he knows how Emory's life sucks.

One critique Boys in the Band seems to get is "why would these people be friends with each other?" but I wonder how much interactions they have daily. Michael, Bernard, Emory, and Larry (and I assume Harold as well) shared a Fire Island summer house once upon a time. Looking it up, "Heatwave" was released in the summer of '63 so it's been at least 5 years or so since the gang first line danced together. Michael tells Donald that the party will be the same group of fairies since year 1 but then Larry and Donald have that whole cat and mouse exchange of trying to place how they know each other. Larry and Hank have been together for two years but Michael and Donald seem to have an old married couple style routine down that would seem like a longer than two year history. Harold and Donald have obviously had to hang out together with each other thinking the other one is being a third wheel. Bernard is the closest to Emory so I assume one brought the other into the friend group but perhaps they were both friends separately of Harold's and decided they liked each other most.

From what I understand, back in those days if you were a gay man you kind of had to make do with the other gay men who were in your immediate orbit. Everything was so secret and closeted, it was hard to meet other gay men. That's why they all tolerated each other. It was that or nothing.

R575, that greatly overstates the case. Even in the midwest where I was raised, but especially in New York City.

Someone posted a link to archive.org that had had Gay in San Francisco documentary. It's worth a watch, especially for the footage of gay gatherings, including one in an apartment where gay men would meet to dance and hang out. Lots of friendships are about proximity, necessity etc. But, of course, it's overstated by people who loathed the property that the characters in Boys in the Band are hideous to one another. Most of them aren't.

What do you mean r576?

It's called co-dependency. Exaggerated by the idea that this was before Stonewall and you could still be arrested for being gay. So they stuck together like glue even though it was often painful.

They don't all stick together like glue, though. Otherwise Larry and Donald wouldn't have their moment(s) of recognition. They're not the Friends cast meeting up in Central Perk.

R575 is another one of those DL posts where you cannot figure out if it is meant seriously or if it is supposed to be some sort of parody of the clueless.

The thing is that the group seems perfectly pleasant and cordial at the beginning doing some friendly banter without any of them being offended. It gets tense the moment the outsider shows up. The mood and dynamic changes completely. What was acceptable before (Emory being his campy self) is suddenly offensive and vulgar. When Michael's friend attacks Emory and Harold has his big entrance that's when Michael is completely overwhelmed and starts drinking and when it starts to rain Michael is drunk enough for the birthday party to go off the rails.

And, if you think about it, this isn't so uncommon that an outsider has the power to completely change the dynamic of a group that was previously comfortable with the boundaries they've established.

Great observation, R582. Amongst themselves, they are all a great deal more comfortable. Not until Alan shows up and sneers, judges, and starts with the physical violence, does it all fracture. They are programmed by straight society to hate themselves, and Alan is the trigger.

r581 they had to make do with what they had back then. There weren't too many opportunities in those closeted, illegal days.

It reminds me of when I came out and started going to the bars -- none of those first friends I met I keep in contact with now, I was just excited to have any gay friends. Over time, I realized that first gay social circle wasn't a good fit.

R581, there were gay bars and many of the characters in the play work in professions that were known for attracting gay men. And New York City was known for a large gay population.

We were not exactly cockroaches scurrying in fear of the sun. If you did not like the gay friends you had, you could get other friends.

Did you really think gay men in NYC each only could find 10 other gays?

But so many men were closeted back then and didn't participate in gay life.

R587, but that is not the case with the characters in BITB.

The script tells us that they go to Fire Island, parties, and gay bars.

The idea that they would do all that but not meet other gay men than the people at Michael's party is ridiculous.

Parsons was perfect in the role. He's perfect as a guy who's still concerned about what the straights think -- doesn't want his college roommate to know he's gay. And he's concerned when his gay friends spill out into the hall as the straight neighbors are walking by.

He's created this entire facade of the perfect life, but he's a mess inside...can't pay his bills, for instance...and he's buying just the right stuff to wear...makes him look perfect but his life is imperfect. He's planned the perfect party, but a guy from his other world crashes it. That guy sparks the tension in the conflict within Parson's character, and Parson's character explodes.

Emmy award-winning performance.

I’m a bit confused by people upthread saying Rannells seems out of misplace of this. I think he’s one of the best actually, he plays a charismatic slut well.

I’m a bit confused by people upthread saying Rannells seems out of misplace of this. I think he’s one of the best actually, he plays a charismatic slut well.

Rannells is good in this film and I am not one of his fans.

The problematic comparison he faces is that he's not handsome and Keith Prentice, the actor who originated the role, was simply gorgeous. His beauty was ethereal. One look at Prentice and you can see that men throw themselves at him and he just goes along with it. Rannells has to work at being attractive and that changes the dynamic of the character a great deal.

Larry Luckinbill's Hank was drawn to Keith Prentice's Larry just like everyone else is. But he is then consumed with jealousy and insecurity and Larry won't promise to be faithful. It makes sense coming from Keith Prentice. Coming from Andrew Rannells, he just seems like a slut. And that makes it harder to understand why Tuc Watkins' Hank would stick around.

Rannells was also too old for the character.

Because Larry has a Tony, bitch!

Rannells and Watkins have surprisingly little chemistry here and Rannells doesn't seem like a "guy magnet" unlike Prentice.

[Quote] Rannells and Watkins have surprisingly little chemistry here

Actor chemistry is only good BEFORE they fuck.

And Rannells and Watkins are a couple in real life.

I thought it was hilarious that Larry wants his freedom to sleep around but is furious about Hank suggesting threesomes.

Hank is a little clingy. A little too clingy.

Well, Hank gave up a perfect straight life for Larry. With Larry gone, and any new lover around, Harry lost his straight family life for nothing.

Perfect straight life? Da fuck!?