Festa per il compleanno del caro amico Harold

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.

"The Boys In The Band", in my opinion, remains to this day the quintessential gay film and still holds the test of time against such recent gay films as "Philadelphia", "Jeffrey", and "In And Out". The film is also a landmark in another way, keep in mind that when it was originally released in 1970, homosexuality was still classified as a "mental illness" by the American Psychological Association, and the Gay Rights movement was barely a year old. The plot is quite simple: 9 men get together for a birthday party and one of them is straight. What transpires evening long examination of themselves and each other. Many today have stated that the film perpetuates gay stereotypes, but I disagree. Every type of person at that party exists in the gay community. Others have had a hard time with the characters self-loathing, but how many of us gay and lesbian Americans haven't gone through a period like that in our lives, especially before we are out. The film is both funny and sad and for most of us can bring about strong memories of what life was like before self-acceptance and coming out of the closet.

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.

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 went to see "The boys in the Band" the weekend before it opened in Chicago in 1970 by accident. I took a new girl friend, fresh from a farm town in Wisconsin on her 20th birthday to see "Endless Summer." It was the movie that she most wanted to see, and since I mostly wanted to be around for breakfast the day after her 20th birthday, we went. As a "Surprise Sneak Preview" we also got "The Boys in the Band." The next morning, after a Wisconsin style hearty breakfast in bed, I found that I could not remember a single scene or line from "Endless Summer," but to this day I remember nearly all of "The Boys in the Band." Caroll and I were not an item for too long, but several years later when I bumped into her strolling on Michigan Ave. with her new husband, she mentioned "The Boys in the Band" and how glad she was that we'd seen it.

The reason that I liked it so much then, and even went to the trouble to hunt down a very hard to find copy for a weekend mini-film-festival that some friends and I held two years ago, is that it is a brilliant play about people. You could substitute a group of straight folks, set it in downtown Shanghai or Moscow or Rome and nearly every line would still ring true. Good art must be universal or it is just advertising! "The Boys in the Band" is very good art. It portrays the everyday, not particularly larger than life, not particularly unique everyday flaws and quirks of people. The message of this film is "What the hell, were all the same under these cheesy facades we polish so brightly and value so highly and couldn't justify for two seconds in the light of any true intelligence and logic."

I don't mean to hurt anyone's sensibilities or detract from the real ground breaking value of this film. This was a big first. Gay guys right up there on the silver screen just like Rock Hudson and Doris Day, BUT admitting it. In a sense, being a "Period Piece" is the highest compliment that you can pay to a production based on "social commentary." Of course it looks like 1970, Folks, it was 1970. Now if you want a period piece, I just saw "Endless Summer" on AMC the other weekend. Talk about dated!

As far as filmed stage plays go, the production effort on "The Boys in the Band" is not really fabulous, but it isn't bad enough to detract from the story or it's impact. As literature I rate this film a solid 10. As a movie I rate it as a 7.5. Compared with other similar efforts of the time, "Butterflys are Free" or Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf" for instance it stands up.

If you can find it (which ain't easy), rent it. It is well worth an evening.