A very detailed discourse on THE BOYS IN THE BAND

this was written by MATTHEW RETTENMUND for his blog BOYCULTURE...



What Is It? What Was It? What Does It Hope To Be?: Untucking THE BOYS IN THE BAND - boy culture http://www.boyculture.com/boy_culture/2018/04/boys-in-band-gay-movies-mart-crowley-lgbtq-broadway.html#disqus_thread

I admit that I don't know much about the show critically, only a quick glance at a summary when I first heard about it, but the cast looks amazing and I've been trying to see more plays this season as they're definitely what's been standing out, at least for me. However, broke college student and all that.....but I stopped by the box office last week and they said they're definitely doing standing room for this show, just probably not til after opening night, so I'm hoping to go for that. As long as that works out, I definitely plan on seeing this and am excited! Looking forward to hearing more from others once previews start next week

It's been reported that Crowley made large cuts to the text; that, in addition to the previous work of some of the cast and the director inhibit my interest to see what (I think) promises to be a slick, glossy, and superficial reduction of the play.

There's a bizarre quote on the marquee of the Booth at present, stating that the play "inspired a revolution." Although it's true that the play debuted a year prior to the Stonewall riots, I can't imagine who in their right mind would attribute causality to this rather self-hating play. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it drove many viewers deeper into their closets in 1968.

I'm going May 7th. Gay life changed rapidly in the 70s.I can't help but wonder if this will come across as very dated or just as pre-Stonewall history. Nonetheless, with this cast and director -- it should be interesting.

Could not agree more, Kad.

This is something that should be up my alley, too. Maybe it'll surprise. But pretty much everything about the way this production is being presented just turns me off.

I love the play and the movie; I'm just wary of seeing a 21st century pop Cliff Notes/TV dramedy version.

The "masc" thing goes back at least to the turn of the century. It existed before the idea of homosexuality as we recognize it now was even commonplace.

I think there's genuine interest, for the names in the cast alone.

I was super excited for it for about a day and a half. It was gonna be the show I paid full price for this year (that honor has gone to My Fair Lady...happy birthday to me!). But, I find myself feeling the same as Kad and newintown. I LOVE the play (in script form, never seen a production) and the movie. I think a case can surely be made that it sparked a revolution in terms of gay theater...but this feels unessential to me right now.

BrodyFosse123 said: "This is something thatshouldbe up my alley, too. Maybe it'll surprise. Butpretty much everything about theway this production is being presented just turns me off.

Seems to be an opinion shared by many,even those excited by the cast and creative team. Everyone mentions how much they do not likethe film for its bitter nasty viewpoint of homosexual menand no one, aside from me, embraces it as a time-capsule of late 60s gay stereotypes. Millenials who've seen the film, flat-out hate it. It a complete disconnect from the gay subculture they grew up in. There goes any hopes for a younger generation buying tickets."

No they just are so narcissistic and don't have the self awareness to see absolutely nothing has changed and it's a complete joke to even suggest that it has.

If they don't see it, they don't get out often.

Updated On: 4/27/18 at 12:55 PM

I can't speak to the production, which is being marketed oddly, admittedly (and I'm suspicious of cutting almost 30 minutes), but invite anyone to doubt the play's cultural impact to read the wonderful, deeply moving intro to the last edition of the published play, written by Tony Kushner. Kushner admits there would be no "Angels" without "Boys," and make a strong case for Crowley's bravery, not the opposite. Hey, a lot of people were mad Kushner was a Hillary Clinton supporter, so I can expect "so Kushner likes the play, so?" But Kushner did write a truly revolutionary play, and his willingness to honor what came before is powerful and poignant. Just my take.



I'll go out on a limb: With Quinto as Harold, I suspect this production will feel more Harold-centric and less about Michael. If you read the text, Harold is the man ahead of the time, or rather the character breaking out of the world Michael deplores. Harold speaks with a sociopolitical savvy that will land as very contemporary. Just read his lines in act two. He's absolutely a gay man with agency and perspective on Michael's angst. Quinto, attractive, charismatic, may be the event here. Just a guess. But I bet we get to his entrance much quicker, with cuts, and thus a text-based reason for my guesswork.

Updated On: 4/27/18 at 01:06 PM