Yes No Maybe So: Boys in the Band (2020)
Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 12:04PM by new contributor Gabriel Mayora
This week Netflix released the trailer for the Ryan Murphy-branded second film adaptation of Matt Crowley’s iconic and controversial 1968 play The Boys in the Band. Crowley’s play is often seen as a landmark in mainstream gay representation though at the same time as it has developed a reputation as “dated.” This new adaptation is based on the hit 50th anniversary Broadway revival produced by Murphy and helmed by acclaimed Tony-winning director Joe Mantello (who also directs the new film), with the entire cast from the revival—all of whom are openly gay actors—reprising their roles. Here’s the official IMDB synopsis:
A group of gay men gather for a birthday party in 1968 New York City, only to find the drinks and laughs interrupted when a visitor from the host’s past turns the evening upside down.
Will the remake provide audiences with a fresh new perspective on a classic gay play? Netflix is releasing the film on September 30, so we don’t have to wait too long to find out. In the meantime, let’s give the trailer the Yes, No, Maybe So treatment...
Mary, take me home. These queens are crazy.
YES
Veteran stage actor Robin De Jesús received glowing reviews for his performance in the Broadway revival. Latinx gay characters in American film are still rare and De Jesús looks like he’s having a blast playing the role without going too broad. Although he’s one of the few actors in the ensemble who is not a recognizable name beyond the theater world, his performance doesn’t come across as stagebound. The fact that he receives so much screen time in the trailer suggests he is being positioned as the scene stealer of the group. Based on what I see in the trailer, I can see why.
Given Hollywood’s long history of sidelining gay actors while rewarding straight actors for their “bravery” when they play gay characters, it is exciting to see a group of openly gay actors—most of whom have longstanding careers on film, stage, and screen—come together as an ensemble to play the type of roles they were surely told would cost them their careers when they started out in the profession.
Jim Parson’s reaction after hearing his character’s straight friend utter the words: “I couldn’t care less what people do as long as they don’t do it in public”
NO
Earnest line readings of moralistic, clunky dialogue meant to telegraph the message of the play like “If we could not hate ourselves so much” tend to be the worst part of the Ryan Murphy brand and it’s not helping alleviate any concerns from those questioning the filmmakers’ ability to bring much-needed nuance to this remake.
• Zachary Quinto is so woefully miscast. More troublesome is that there is little here to indicate he adapted his stage performance for the camera. The line readings come across as line readings and not in a “it’s a character choice” kind of way. He’s also the one who comes across the most like he’s wearing a costume
• Speaking of which the costumes and hair design make nearly all of the actors look like they are playing dress up.
• The decision to “open up” a play by simply switching the setting of scenes that take place indoors in the original stage production to outdoor locations or, worse, a moving car is rarely a sign of a great cinematic take (see Proof or August: Osage Country for big offenders)
MAYBE SO
• Jim Parsons delivered a hammy, cartoonish take on a similar character type in Hollywood (somehow he was Emmy nominated). He is not the most convincing dramatic actor, but when he is playing the witty and bitter dimensions of Michael, it feels grounded. At least in this short glimpse.
• On stage, Mantello is known as an actor’s director (not surprising since, in addition to winning multiple Tony awards in the Best Director category, he has garnered Tony and Emmy nods for his own acting). His most memorable productions are grounded in the carefully calibrated, cohesive, performances he brings out from his cast. However, his only other film credit is the well-acted if cinematically uninspired screen adaptation of Love! Valour! Compassion!, another gay classic of the stage that shares a few similarities with Crowley’s play. Will Mantello come up with a way to translate what is a very stagey play into a visual medium? Or will this end up being more of a filmed play than a cinematic adaptation?
Your turn. Are you a Yes No or a Maybe So... and why?
Reader Comments (30)
I was lucky to see the Broadway production and I hope the film preserves the magic. ( Yes Matt Bomer is that beautiful in real life) Robin de Jesus gave the best performance as the now Latino Emery. The Friedkin film has aged very well- and it's going to be tough to beat that original cast
Jaragon -- one of my saddest true stories is that a reader of TFE had tickets for this he couldn't use and he facebook messaged me to give them to me (on the day of the performance) and since I dont look at facebook all that often. i missed the message and the play. CRIES
Why are 60's 70's and 80's period look of films designed now go all wrong,it never looks like how it looked back then,the 60's wasn't lived in day glo orange,the 70's wasn't all brown and grey and the 80's wasn't neon pink and blue,do your research people.
Nathaniel- I'm sorry you missed it. Matt Bomer alone was worth the price admission. ; )
I'm glad someone is trying this, but I don't love the source material. The whole "party game" conceit is so theatrical and excruciating from moment one that it's hard to believe anyone would go along with it if they weren't in a play. Or movie, I suppose. "Maybe so", though I'm definitely going to watch.
Not a fan of Ryan Murphy just putting the same old actors in any productions despite there being infinitely more exciting options. But of course this is a big yes.
I am a no unless proved otherwise. The whole premise is so horribly dated and stereotyped. I also think of Sheldon every time I see Jim Parsons, which is not his fault but I don't really see him as a dramatic actor. He comes off as forced. Similarly the less said about Zachary Quinto the better.
Yes, regardless of perceived quality or actual interest. Just happy to have something new to take in. It does help that I am actually very interested. Based on the trailer it looks lighter in tone than the original film, which can only be a good thing in my opinion. I remember the original film being well acted, but a downer. All of its qualities were overshadowed by how dreary it all played out. I can’t imagine this cast being dreary, and hope they haven’t been trapped in some Gay Misérables. That is not the evening I’m looking for.
gabriel, welcome to the team...nice first article! i also saw the broadway production. the party game conceit is, as Dave S mentions, a real groaner. but FWIW, i thought zachary quinto gave the most complex performance in the show. in a risk, he plays up the artifice and creates a purposefully empty human...as played by quinto, that person wouldn't exist without the playacting. he doesn't know who he is...the persona he's created has eaten the human part. everyone else gave solid performances, but quinto really tried something interesting, in my opinion. not sure how it will translate to the movie but i admired what he was trying to do.
It's a "yes" because I've seen the original movie, but was not in NYC for the play. But the trailer looks like it has some same shot for shot as the original movie.
And let's get Netflix's algorithm to add more LGBTQ+ material.
It's netflix so effectively free so of course I'm going to start it. Looks diverting enough, with a bottle of wine at hand.
I saw the film quite a few years ago and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. I have a hard time seeing this work outside of a theater-loving audience excited about its history. Unless this gets raves, I’ll pass.
There are so many parallels between the gay culture depicted in Crowley's play/Friedkin's movie and contemporary gay culture. The self-hatred is still there in so many gay men's worship of straight/straight-acting men and disavowal of queers like Emory. The 'ironic' anti-black racism that Michael and Emory spew at Bernard feels pretty relevant, even if the references are dated. The treatment of Cowboy is like reading a comment thread at Str8UpGayPorn. Actually, I'm not sure that the forums on DataLounge aren't populated entirely by Mart Crowley characters.
But also, they way that they come together through wordplay, in-jokes, music and and dance, gay references to pop culture, sex - in those moments, you see the joy that gay communities can produce in their best moments. One of the moments that always sticks with me from the 1970 movie is the beautiful dance sequence out on the roof... which is so cruelly curtailed by the arrival of the straight "friend."
As Gabriel said, even at its best the play's dialogue can come off as moralistic and clunky. I think it takes a lot of nuance to really get at what this play is doing and translate that to the screen. I don't know that Mantello, stage legend though he is, will be able to do that in a way that feels cinematic. And Ryan Murphy's worst and corniest impulses come through when he's trying to do something historical and IMPORTANT.
And, I agree with Gabriel, the casting of Quinto is just wrong. I realize that Leonard Frey is a very specific type and a hard act to follow, but Murphy would have had to leave his twink/twunk/former twink/former twunk (and almost always WASP-y) casting comfort zone to cast the role porperly, so obviously that didn't happen. I'm glad they went with gay actors - seriously very glad - but Murphy's gay 'types' run the gamut from A to B.
David S.: you are right about the telephone game which one of the reasons you really can't update the play- bit it works within the context of the play
I watched the 1970 film version this summer and wholly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it or has a fondness for the source material. Having watched that film version so recently, I feel the need to hold out a bit before watching this one. The trailer suggests to me that the filmmakers studied how director William Friedkin staged the film and then copied that.
Some of the casting seems like it's trying very hard to remind you of the actors in the first film, which is a little distracting and unimaginative. Jim Parsons is a good actor, but when he plays unlikable/unsympathetic he really leans into it with little or no nuance/attempt at playing anything other than what's on the page. At this point, all I expect from Ryan Murphy is either a watchable disaster or disappointment. I'm definitely going to watch it, but I don't expect anything revelatory.
When I first read about the play's casting, I thought Parsons and Quinto should have switched roles tbh.
No
Uh no. Ryan Murphy + Jim Parsons=FUCK THIS SHIT!
I'm a YES. I cannot wait. I'm dying to watch it.
i'll watch right up to the telephone game and then i'm out of there [mary]
No.
I am mixed. The original film has aged badly, in my opinion, but it certainly was groundbreaking back then - as plenty of Friedkin's work.
Problem with a remake is simple: this is not "back then" anymore, and for many audiences will be difficult to get the correct mood to understand it and aprecciated, probably. In some way, it is like remaking "Gone with the wind" repeating the same beats and tone. Unless you update it to a 2020 sensibility... it is going to be felt as unnecessary... just check out why "The Lion King" disappointed...despite being a competent film, even a great one at key moments.
It genuinely doesn't look like they've done... anything? Apart from casting actual gay actors.
I've never seen the original film or Broadway, so I'm a YES and will watch the day Netflix drops this.
i'm gonna say yes, because Ryan Murphy is not directing, he's only producer, and the cast looks really good
I'm going to watch this. But I'm not really looking forward to it.
I'll see it, because it's a fine cast, I have some hope that Mantello can find something interesting in the material, and LGBTQ projects should be encouraged. But I'm not optimistic, because the source material is such an awful play. It's a collection of vicious homophobic stereotypes that was a hit on Broadway because gay men were desperate enough to see themselves represented that they choked down the nastiness of the play, and straight people loved seeing the confirmation of all their worst nightmares about gay men.
Nathaniel - I completely forgot about offering you the tickets! I had broken my foot the night before the show and you were the first person I thought of! They were damn good seats, too!
God, no!