The Boys in the Band Review: Jim Parsons leads a terrific ensemble in a gripping rendition of the revolutionary Broadway play.
In 1968, Matt Crowley’s play, “The Boys in the Band” premiered Off-Broadway and was considered a revolutionary work of art for commercial theatre. At that time, homosexual relationships were portrayed on a symbolistic level and they didn’t find the mainstream recognition in their unleashed form. This play is about half a dozen gay American friends who get together to celebrate their friend’s birthday and, through a ‘truth-and-dare’ game unearth secrets about each other’s life. This play in the pre-AIDS era was considered revolutionary, but over the years, it is considered to have dated badly.
In 2018, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, the play had a TONY winning Broadway revival, where it received critical acclaim as it stood as a testament to the long-forgotten time before the liberation of homosexuals. The new Netflix movie, “The Boys in the Band” features the same cast led by Jim Parsons with Joe Mantello serving as the director and Ryan Murphy leading the line as a producer. The film rides equally on theatrical soap opera elements in providing us with a throwback to the time when the cultural temperature of gay life was strikingly different from what it is now.
Micheal is a screenwriter obsessed with his receding hairline and the whole story takes place in his lavish two-storey apartment. He hosts a birthday party for his unpunctual and self-conscious Jewish friend Harold. Four other queer friends and a male prostitute are scheduled to attend the party but the sudden arrival of Micheal’s heterosexual and homophobic friend Allan changes the whole situation drastically. Micheal, though initially very hesitant to invite Allan to his house that night (as he doesn’t want Allan to know that he is a gay man), is forced to do so due to a sudden emotional phone call that he receives.
What follows is a gripping tale of the rediscovery traversed by characters through the confession of the secrets and truths that govern their relationships and their behaviours. The characters recount memories about their troubled past, their unrequited love, and the true realization of their self. We are introduced to the complex relationship between the uptight and traditional Hank and polygamous, carefree Larry. Larry’s involvement with Donald creates a dispute between the couple and we eventually learn how different variations and definitions of love ultimately lead to the same goal of companionship and affection. We get to know about Bernard and how his life has been dominated by neglect as he had fallen prey to the two evils of the society — racism and homophobia. Emory’s life has been laced with ridicules and unacceptance which in turn is responsible for his lack of confidence and the urge to control others’ life.
There are several ways to look at this film. We can look at it as a souvenir from the previous century. A film that explains how life was for people of the queer community back in the day when they had self-doubts and were afraid to come out to the world. But if we look closely and analyze, we are forced to ask ourselves how the situation has changed over the years. Society still looks down upon the queer community and all that the community has managed to achieve is mere legal acceptance. We as a society have held captive the ability to think progressively and are slowly but carefully instilling in the younger generation the seeds of casual homophobia. Queer men and women are still trained to doubt themselves and carry on with life in the “normal” heterosexual way by treating their inner conscience and urges as “phases” or “curiousness”. One can’t help but think whether all the fight and struggle was just to achieve legal recognition?
The film features stellar performances by the ensemble cast. The ensemble comprising of Matt Bomer, Charlie Carver, Andrew Rannells, Tuc Watkins, Brian Hutchison, Robin de Jesús and Micheal Benjamin Washington put forward commendable performances and strike a careful balance in locating the frenzy but sombre mood of the film. Zachary Quinto is exceptional as Harold and the venomous back and forth between him and Parsons is extremely enjoyable. Parsons stands out from the rest of the cast with his electric performance displaying his full range of acting prowess by jumping from one emotion to another effortlessly but earnestly. The production and costume design of the film is apt and serves great in locating the authenticity of this period piece. The swift camera work and cinematography helps in bringing out the best in the back and forth duel and anxiety between the different characters. The screenplay, especially in the ‘truth game’ scenes is exceptionally tight and keeps the audience intrigued and engaged. The film has some flaws. The film takes a bit too much time in setting up the plot and the screenplay seems senile and stagnant in a few unnecessary scenes.
I, for once, was pleasantly surprised and sort of frightened about how a 60s pre-liberalization gay play could be relevant at this time and age. Perhaps now more than ever we should reflect and introspect and let the ghosts of our horrid past haunt us for good. “Show me a happy homosexual and I’ll show you a gay corpse”, is shamefully still relevant now. Anyway, I know the film’s title pays a nod to Casablanca but, “Men on the Verge of Nervous Breakdown” for the title wouldn’t have been a bad idea either!
Copyright ©2020 AlternateTake. This article should not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL instead, would be appreciated.
