User reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BOYS IN THE BAND (4 outta 5 stars) Great movie adaptation of the acclaimed stage play. A bunch of guys get together to throw a birthday party for a friend. A few underlying tensions come to the forefront and complications ensue... alcohol is consumed and tempers flare and things get said which shouldn't be said and may be unforgivable. I love these kids of movies! Even though the movie is very "stagy" (it mainly takes place on one set), the acting is so natural that you'll begin to believe you are actually eavesdropping on a rowdy party next door. Oh, did I mention that the characters are all gay? As the ads for this movie proclaim: "This is NOT a musical!" I first saw this on the late show when I was in my early teens and now, some thirty years later, I still find the movie extremely powerful and compelling. Cliff Gorman is especially good as the effeminate Emory. I think this is the only time he ever played "camp" and can't believe that he wasn't totally typecast after his performance here. Leonard Frey is also great as the enigmatic and intense Harold (the birthday boy). But Kenneth Nelson in the lead role of Michael really holds this movie together. He starts out as such a nice guy, the person the audience is supposed to identify with... but as the evening commences his personality becomes uglier and uglier, until he is no longer playing the movie's "hero".

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

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

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

I was 20 years old when this pre-AIDS movie came out. It meant nothing to me. I was still in the closet and would be for another seven years. But striking a deep chord the first time I saw it (about a year or two after coming out), I invite myself to rewatch it every so often just to show myself where I am, where I was, and the strides I've made. In some ways, incongruous as it may seem to some, this movie has become my `Schindler's List.' It allows me to never forget the past and try to change the future. `Boys in the Band' was an aggressive turning point in gay awareness - a huge, sure-footed step. It was both a sweet and bitter pill to swallow in its self-examination. Admittedly dated in certain aspects, the overall power of it cannot be denied. Interesting enough, the play was first performed a year before the 1969 Stonewall Inn riots. The movie version came out a year after.

The stage play was a surprisingly huge hit and fearless playwright Mart Crowley had the know-how, the resources, and keen sense to keep his talented stage cast together when it transferred to film, knowing the importance of a tight ensemble. In short, a festive NY chic birthday party involving eight gay men turns sour and savage when a ninth man (married, but questionable) inadvertently intrudes on the proceedings. Landmark in that it presented homosexuals as thinking, feeling human beings and not caricatures set up merely for ridicule or a chuckle, director William (`The Exorcist') Friedkin zeroes in on the whole gay package - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Kenneth Nelson as the acerbic, vindictive, persecuted Michael first impressed me with his beautiful singing voice as the original Matt in the off-Broadway musical `The Fantasticks.' This was his film debut and what an auspicious debut it was. Had it been a straight role, he could have launched an enviable film career that might have lasted decades. Nelson's character lashes out with such alarming rage and self-hatred. The nice, obedient, church-going `yes man' lost in a straight world, who takes society's scorn and repulsion and turns it back on himself and anybody else within a close proximity. Living a lie outside his apartment door, he punishes himself for it while inside. I could never go where Michael goes emotionally, but there is an identification factor to his anger and his anguish. Frederick Combs' effectively underplays Donald, Michael's good friend and polar opposite, a man who solves his own problems with a joint, pills and as little hostility as possible. A walking failure, he rather retreat than confront. The self-imposed pacifist with little drive and even less direction, Donald concerns himself with just making it through the day with as little pain as possible.

The exceptionally handsome couple of Keith Prentice (Larry), the man who's feeling the chains of his relationship, and Laurence Luckinbill (Hank), who prefers a monogamous home life, gave me my first connection to what a mature but complex gay union could be like. Despite their serious problems, I actually saw two, non-stereotyped gay men trying to make a go of it while dealing with the many pressures - one still craving an exciting night life of promiscuous sex and the other striving to overcome the guilt of leaving his wife and children.

While Ruben Greene as the more centered but embittered Bernard puts a mild black perspective on the turbulent gay lifestyle, Cliff Gorman's Emory comes equipped with a ferocious swish and campy, razor-sharp quips to handle his hostility and self-loathing - sure to be the center of attention as a life-of-the-party diva. Birthday boy Harold, the 'pock-marked Jew fairy', and played with bold, captivating flamboyance by Leonard Frey, is an inspired cynic and wit, supposedly insured with a thick skin and quick tongue, but actually frayed by massive, self-destructive insecurities. Harold's `birthday present' in the form of Cowboy, well-played by Robert LaTourneaux, eeks out a nowhere life for himself playing dumb, icing-on-the-cake stud boys, using body muscle and not brain muscle to get by. Forlorn-looking Peter White as Alan, Michael's gloomy, married friend who unwittingly sets off the party fireworks, makes the most of his character's uncertainties, keeping the guessing game of his sexuality a constant intrigue until the end.

Nobody's character gets off easy here. Although Nelson, Gorman and, especially, Frey have the flashiest roles, the rest of the ensemble finds opportune times to expose their heart and heartache. Depressing as much of it may appear with its vituperative `Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf' style of game-playing and raw confrontation, it also shares that movie's agility in delivering potent, poetic dialogue with much-admired gusto. `Boys in the Band' will leave you just as exhausted as `Virginia Woolf' did and will stay with you long after the explosive climax. But, just as importantly, while it succeeds as a bitter commentary, it also triumphs as a devilishly funny campfest.

It is important for me to address Babe Hardy's thoughtful but highly naive July 15, 2001 comment that the entire cast of `Boys in the Band' was made up of straight men. She couldn't BE more wrong. As of this date, more than half of this brilliant cast succumbed to AIDS. In death, however, Robert LaTourneaux (1986), Leonard Frey (1988), Keith Prentice (1992), Kenneth Nelson (1993), and Frederick Coombs (1993) have left a life-affirming legacy with brave, uninhibited performances way ahead of their time. True, Larry Luckinbill is straight, as is Cliff Gorman, who, ironically, plays the über-queen Emory, but the rest? You ain't got the facts STRAIGHT, ma'am.

Unlike the gay comedies of today that are softened to appeal to a more mainstream audience (this is not a bad thing), `Boys in the Band' will be too bold in its observance to attract many outside the personal freedom fort. Me? I am thankful and rejoice in its honesty and intent.

A bunch of gay men (and one straight guy) get together for a birthday party. Things slowly barrel out of control, the men attack each other and "The Truth Game" tears them apart.

I'm an out, proud gay man and I love this movie. Yes, it's a downer--yes, they all hate themselves--yes, they tear each other apart. But you know what? Those men EXIST! I met them when I came out in the 80s and they're still around now almost 20 years later. Go to any popular gay bar on a Saturday night and you'll find plenty of Michaels in full voice. Also, this film was made in 1970 when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness and was against the law in many states--no wonder these guys were miserable. Also, it was a milestone in Hollywood--the first movie which dealt with all gay characters and not one of them killed himself! I saw it unedited on TV when I was closeted and it didn't depress me at all. It was uplifting (in a strange way). Even though these men are clawing at each other, they're still friends and they are there for each other. Also, the "Truth Game" has never been played at parties I've gone to. So, you may not like it, but gay men like this do exist. Avoid at all costs the cut TV version. It's 13 MINUTES shorter and is incomprehensible.

The Boys in the Band is an adaptation of a stage play by writer Mart Crowley. It was an intelligent but controversial drama of gay life in New York City with a group of thirty-something men who throw a birthday party for one of their friends.

The film version is directed by William Friedkin, who would go on to win a Best Director Oscar the following year for the hard boiled thriller, The French Connection and later get further acclaim for his film The Exorcist.

Michael (Kenneth Nelson) is Catholic, he drinks too much, acerbic but can also be witty as well as waspish is preparing the birthday party for his friend Harold. He is helped by Donald to prepare for the party. Micheal's old college friend, Alan rings him that he is in town and dropping by to see him. Alan is straight and at college, Micheal kept his gay identity latent and Alan is unaware that he is gay.

When the party gets going we see the different personalities. Emory is a stereotypical queen, Hank is married but is about to get divorced as he now lives with Larry, a fashion photographer. Bernard is the most amiable of the lot, a black bookshop clerk.

Once Alan drops in who is clearly uncomfortable with what he sees the drama steps up. He gets involved in a scuffle with Emory who ignores Micheal's instructions to tone it down. Alan has a rapport with Hank, who is outwardly the straightest, but then shocked to discover Hank is bisexual despite having kids.

Micheal realises that Alan has actually come to see him as he might be having issues with his sexual identity and creates a party game. As the game progresses, certain truths are laid bare but things do not turn out as Micheal envisages.

For a film that is nearly fifty years old, I was astonished to see how little the film has dated. Even the featured song, The Look of Love, fits well. Since 1970 there has been more liberalization of gay rights in the west, but still the drama feels very real, it is all about relationships and how people communicate with each other.

When Micheal recalls the stories about when he was younger and went to parties 'I was so drunk last night' that he could not remember that he might have had gay encounters, when in fact he really knew what he was doing. I am sure some in the audience might agree with him albeit reluctantly.

With Harold you see someone like Micheal who has religious issues, Harold being Jewish. Harold is also more preening, forever wanting to look young and popping various pills and he is the only one throughout the night who can respond in kind to Micheal if he so desires.

The one thing that ages the film although it is touched upon in the film with mention of Hepatitis, is of course AIDS which emerged in the 1980s. AIDs has had a devastating impact on the mainly gay cast, many of them who died relatively young.

This is a landmark film for queer cinema as it is an attempt to bring it into the mainstream and has a complex look at gay life.

The Boys In The Band is my favorite all-time movie. It still sends a message and holds up well even in this decade. Every actor in this cast is perfect for the character they play. This film may have been the first major film to portray homosexuality in a mature way and still is the best film above all. This is not a disgusting film. It is honest and dramatic. I have seen this film several times through different ages and chapters of my life. I get more out of it each time. Sadly, most of the cast, Robert La Tourneaux, Leonard Frey, Frederick Combs, Keith Prentice, Kenneth Nelson and Cliff Gorman are no longer with us. All men should see this film. The best instrumental version of "The Look Of Love" by Burt Bacharach can be heard here. I wish "The Boys In The Band" could be restored and re-issued on VHS video and for DVD.

Any examination regarding the gay explosion in cinema during the 1970s might well begin with this picture, though it isn't a movie that exalts in its theme. Mart Crowley's play about a gay birthday party gone sour has been brilliantly visualized by director William Friedkin, though the material is essentially a downer (and dated and sexually timid besides). The ringleader of the "Boys", Michael, also serves as the picture's emotional core: this is a homosexual character who detests himself and loathes the gay lifestyle in general. Even more telling, he is disgusted by his friends and the fact they're not as unhappy as he is. He spends the entire film trying to expose the others for the miserable liars they surely are. Some of them may well be miserable, and they all get to show different sides of themselves, but Michael wants more than surface tears; he wants to tear down walls, to humiliate and annihilate. The film is full of bitchy comedic relief, but it's really a movie about self-hatred. It makes terrific usage out of the one set (Michael's apartment) and features an incredible array of actors. Also, Burt Bacharach's personal arrangement of "The Look Of Love" is memorably utilized. Nevertheless, this is a picture filled with drowning people, and a "friend" who keeps pushing them under. Apart from the snappy, lively opening montage, there's hardly a pleasant moment in it. *** from ****

Originally I saw this in high school in the mid '70s. It was exciting to see gay men on screen, even if they were in then end mostly unhappy. I watched it just recently (2003) and I find it is still a more thoughtful gay film than 90% of the films that come out under the genre of "gay" these days. Unlike its contemporaries, Boys in the Band is about thinking about being gay, not just cute bodies and such. The scarfs around the neck, and the tight polyester flared trousers do lend it an hint of fashion horror to me. It was also quite an accomplishment for William Friedkin to bring this play to the screen in such an effective way. Many contemporary gay men will think; my how far we have come. I say, watch it a second time and look and listen and see if things have really gotten any better. Cinematically or socially.

There is a part of me that is tempted to believe that the type of debate concerning the film The Boys in the Band , which has taken place over the last three decades, is a unique occurrence in the queer community. I'm not really sure why I would ever believe that. The ultimate reality of our society is that our perceptions are shaped by our experiences growing up. Based on how we perceive the world some of us believe that proverbial glass to be either half empty or half full. Given that the film is one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasures, I do tend to think of it in a positive light. But of course there are those who let the negative aspects of the film prevent them for seeing the writing itself as a milestone in American cinema.

Mart Crowley wrote the play Boys in the Band in1967, the summer of which he says life "came crashing down" around his ears. He managed to get his play to Broadway producers Richard Barr and Clinton Wilder, who in turn passed the work to another popular playwright had written the Broadway theatrical sensation of1963. The play was Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and not surprisingly the playwright, Edward Albee became interested in Boys, which has since been‹very understandably‹compared to Woolf. Eventually Boys in the Band became enough of a hit on Broadway that it was made into a film in 1970. It was directed by William Friedkin, a little known director who followed Boys with The French Connection, The Exorcist and eventually Cruising, which also caused great controversy within the queer community with it's rancid portrayal of the gay leather scene in New York.

There are usually at least three popular reactions to Boys in the Band among many gay men. First, there is an overwhelming opinion that the film is depressing and it shows gay men in an unsympathetic light. Secondly it supports negative gay male stereotypes. Lastly the extent that the play airs the dirty laundry of "gay male culture" makes even some of the most liberal amongst us squeamish.

The way my perceptions of the Boys were formed by my experiences growing up involves my seeing the film the year it was released‹as I was in the midst of dealing with my identity as a young man who was attracted to other men. I must've been about 16 and I remember the almost unexplainable desire I had to see this film which I knew I wasn't supposed to see because of my age. I felt like an undercover agent who had to sneak into the theater. Instead of the horror and disdain that so many other gay men seem to have experienced as they viewed the film, I watched in awe at the different types of gay men parading in front of my eyes. The film follows what happens during a single evening when a group of nine gay men get together to celebrate a birthday and are infiltrated by a supposedly straight friend of the party's host.

As a young African American male I was especially drawn to the fact that the film featured what seemed to me to be a fairly well-adjusted, well educated, handsome black gay man among the group. There didn't seem to me to be anything stereotypical about Bernard. It was a milestone to not only include a gay couple but the issues that Hank and Larry were grappling with are issues that gay men constantly deal with today‹to boink or not to boink outside the confines of a committed relationship.

Even as a teen I was able to look beyond the admittedly heavy handed direction by William Friedkin to appreciate Crowley's writing and his fairly complex cast of characters. I was too fascinated by the "boys" to think of them as unsympathetic and too engrossed by the storyline to find the film depressing. One would have to be from the "Ostrich School of reality" to ignore what seems to be the negative aspects of Boys is still based on reality.

Groundbreaking early gay movie mainstreamed by director William Friedkin has this heterosexual looking forward to watching the remake for comparison. Has all the stereotypes, but I don't believe gay men are that miserable, nor do I think many straight men are really closet queers. I watched it on TCM, with host Ben Mankiewicz and a guest movie reviewer virtue signaling nonsense, like how they couldn't believe the brush back the movie suffered in the early 1970s. Are you kidding me? I can take that kind of review of American history from a 21-year-old college woman, but a couple of folks past 50? Good lord.

Sure, it's a landmark film, but the adaptation to the 1967 play lacks any real merit about homosexuality; in fact, it presents a very negative view on the subject of gay people and how they act. Granted, it's filled to the brim with witty dialogue and filled with riveting drama, but the wittiness is pelted too much to the viewers face and begins to wear them down, especially due to the fact that all the wittiness is almost always centered at humiliating or degrading another character. The film has, in almost all ways, a negative effect of homosexuality and the way people view it. The utter self-hatred which is filling all the characters would make a 70's-era movie-goer think that virtually all gay men are incredibly flamboyant man-whores who are spiraling into an abyss with their abuse of marijuana, alcohol, and sex. If you name a stereotype about gay men it's contained in this film: ascots, silk sweaters, prada shoes, drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, and even the fact that they always think straight guys are secretly gay. All things considered: yes, there are in fact homosexuals who have the utter self hatred and horrible actions of the characters in this film, but to be a film maker making the first film about open homosexuals, making one such as this which almost degrades the gay lifestyle is not what any choice should have been. It's tacky. Oh, and I didn't even mention the racist slurs.

Upon first viewing this film, about a year ago (having wanted to see it for some time), I thought it was not only very depressing, but also painfully dated. A group of gay men get together for a birthday, and an unexpected (presumably straight) guest shows up, igniting hostility amongst the others. The fashions, viewpoints and technical delivery all seemed a wee bit stagnant.

Having recently rewatched this film, I can say that my opinion of it has changed considerably. Though the look of the film, is indeed characteristic of the time period, and the fashions are also passe, the characters are anything but obsolete. These people and their bitter mentalities continue to exist today, both in and out of the "gay community". In some ways this movie does play like a gay version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", with it's host turning the unassuming party into a game of "get the guests" (to use a phrase from VW). The script by Mart Crowley is sharp with stinging one-liners and thoughtful observations. There are some high comic moments in this film, but the latter half of it mellows down and keeps the level low, for the most part. The clausterphobic sets also add to the proceedings.

Kenneth Nelson, as the ringleader, Michael, is vibrant and really over-the-top almost. He is met in his venomousness by Leonard Frey as Harold. While it's amusing to watch them going at each other's throats, I feel that Larry Luckinbill and Keith Prentice are the more interesting of the actors, playing a couple, each of whom is very different from the other. Cliff Gorman is wild as the flamboyant Emory...his is probably the most stereotyped character of the lot, but he plays it with a good degree of dimension and sincerity, different then some of the lispy one-dimensional gay stereotypes seen in films up to that time. The other actors are also in good form, but I felt that Peter White's Alan, is a bit of a nuisance. I guess his dead-pan expressions, and generally confused look was needed for the part.

If you're a fan of "gay film", I would seek this one out as required viewing. It ranks high in my Top Five for that genre. A very solid piece of film making, and acting especially. Hardly as dated as it may seem.

This movie is my all time favorite. It's somewhat dated in a cosmetic sort of way, but still entertains some thirty years later. The characters mirror people I've known throughout my lifetime. From self-hating Michael, flaming Emory, butch acting Hank to bitchy Harold, the characters are real. Some people think the movie is a downer, but when I'm feeling a little lonely or blue, I pop in this tape and I'm transported to a great party with friends I've known all my life. The characters are so familiar, I really feel like I'm there!

A film with interesting ideas, raising questions about sexuality as well as minorities in society, it is generally written quite well, with some good lines, however it spirals into drone, tiresome territory towards the end, and although some of the characters are well developed, others just feel overdone. There is a sort of dry, claustrophobic atmosphere to it all, and the technical side is dead ordinary, yet the film is still worth a look. Even though it runs out of steam towards the end, and some sections are messily put together, it is adequately interesting to begin with, and overall better-than-average stuff.

This movie has not aged well at all, but is still immensely watchable, and hysterical to boot. Leonard Frey and Cliff Gorman steal the show, to the extent that the rest are invisible at times. Should go into a time capsule.

It's groundbreaking and interesting from a historical standpoint, but all these very one note, shade throwing queens just get annoying after awhile.

This is one of my favorite films of all time. Although some think it is dated, I think it still stands up as an examination of various types of people and how they deal with being gay in a world dominated by breeders. The first time I saw this I loved the first half, but felt uncomfortable with the second half when Michael turns on his friends. On repeated viewings ,I found I could relate to Michael's plight. He wanted to be loved and accepted by society, but he felt this would never happen since he was gay. And since he was miserable, he wanted to inflict his anger and misery on others. Of course this backfired and he ended up alone and with a hangover at the end of the movie. I agree with Michael Jones in that I have known people like "The Boys in the Band".A perfect 10 of a film!

I Saw "The Boys in the Band" at a midnight screening with a friend and about 30 people in attendance. it's one one of my Top 10 Favorite films of all time. The print of the film was good and in widescreen,i was able to see details of the Apt. and the characters faces and movements. I got a copy of the out-of-print movie on videotape for my Birthday and watch it once a week from start to finish to preserve the tape. I have The original Broadway cast Album of the play,My playbill of The Revival @ the L.Lortel theater with an autograph from "Spamalot" s Christopher Sieber who played Donald.

I am aware of a deleted scene from "Boys" when Hank and Larry were lying in Michael's bed upstairs. There is an image of it in Vito Russo's book "The celluloid Closet". The trailer is on a DVD called Homo Promo.

Looking at "The Boys in the Band" today is a depressing experience and not because it's about a group of self-loathing homosexuals being very nasty to each other, (you do have to put it into an historical context), but because several members of the cast have died from AIDS-related illnesses. Of course, the film does present us with every gay stereotype there is and what once appeared liberating, now might seem offensive. On the plus side, it is superbly played, (by the original NY cast), which makes the loss of so many feel all the more tragic. It also has some of the best dialogue ever written for an American play. Viewed today it is a period piece and while you may find a lot of it hateful you have to bear in mind it was groundbreaking, coming as it did at a time when homosexuality was not as freely visible on screen as it is today.

Kenneth Nelson is throwing a birthday party for Leonard Frey and all of their friends are invited. Peter White, Nelson's college roommate, is not, but he shows up unexpectedly distraught about something. White doesn't know that Nelson is gay, so the situation is unstable and only gets more so when Nelson starts drinking and everyone's demons are unleashed.

I'm of two minds about this film. Mart Crowley's play is an important one, and it's good to see it preserved with a screenplay by Crowley and all of it's original cast. I also think there's something oppressively about the way Friedkin films it, and many of the performances are not bad, but are bad film acting. Nelson, in particular, is very mannered and much too big. This isn't helped by the way Friedkin shoots everything in tight close-ups.

It's a film I admired, but didn't really like.

I'd thought I was going to hate this movie because of the usual reason gay men in my generation hate it: it's supposedly dated. But when I finally did see it, I found that it wasn't at all. The things that are dated about the movie can be updated with mere cosmetic changes--a character would be in therapy rather than seeing an analyst, the party would feature Ecstasy rather than pot, the men would be more muscular, the apartment would be in Chelsea rather than the West Village, etc.

hat makes me dislike this movie is that the characters are so loathsome, and in such a shallow way that it isn't even interesting to see them get what they deserve.

I rated the film as high as I did (3 stars) because it was groundbreaking in its way, but it's still not a good movie.