Queer History vs Queer Representation: The Boys in The Band

What originally started as a short review of the new Netflix remake of The Boys in The Band has grown into a tangled web of something else entirely.

I'd put off watching the original 1970's film mostly due to its length and the fact it's hard to find. While it may be one of the most important LGBT+ films ever made it's not one you'll stumble across on your favourite streaming service. I assumed it was one of those "groundbreaking at the time" films which had now withered to irrelevance and dated stereotypes therefore not worth adding to amazon's much forced "Pride" playlists.

Then I saw the trailer for the remake. Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto, Matt Bomer and Andy Randles, just to name a small portion of what can only be a dream cast of brilliant openly gay actors. The trailer gave me a better idea than the wikipedia of what the film was about and my interest was peaked. If The Boys in the Band is relevant enough to warrant an all star remake, why is the original not worth showing?

Especially interesting to me is how both versions of the film were made in the only time periods it would be possible to make them. The original for its unique time in history, right on the cusp of change and the remake at a time where box office numbers are becoming irrelevant. Without Netflix I doubt any major studio would have forked out the cash for a remake to a film that originally made $2,695 gross worldwide. Similarly the subject matter and language in the film was incredibly daring for 1970 nevermind anytime before that. While both films follow the same script, use the same characters and are set in the same time period, both are expressions of the time in history they are made.

1. Plot

Based on Matt Crowley's play of the same name, the film follows a group of gay men as they throw a birthday party for their good friend Harold. Michael, the host, is a recently recovering alcoholic and paranoid about aging, fussing over his hair and comparing himself with his attractive part time lover Donald. Before the festivities start Michael gets a worrying phone call from his high school friend Alan who breaks down crying telling Michael that he needs to tell him something. Knowing his friend isn't one for emotion he agrees. The problem is Alan is straight and Michael is scared that his flamboyant friends could scare Alan away, or worse make him call the police.

However Michael's friends aren't all that willing to "play straight" and things quickly get out of hand leading to a black eye and Michael back on the booze all before the birthday boy has even arrived. Things escalate as the boys get more drunk and high. Michael uses his power over his friends and their own self-hatred to manipulate them into a twisted party game where they must call the one person they believe they have truly loved and tell them.

There's a lot going on in this play but what both versions establish very early on is the dynamic between the characters. Without ever having to spell it out you know who has a history with who, how their friendship works and a pretty solid idea of why these men are all friends. It's not just their sexualities they have in common but also a sense of humour and overall outlook on life. I thought with so many big actors in the remake that that sense of friendship might be lost. While I still think the original is more convincing the comradery of the new cast is just as endearing. Again an expression of the time we're in now where being in this film can only further their careers, not end it.

2. Character, Performance and Direction

The Boys in the Band is a play and it's meant to be performed as a play. There is a fixed location, Michael's house, where all the emotional beats take place and how the space is used is paramount. The direction and movement of the characters is what differs the most between the two projects.

In the 1970's version like a lot of films made back then, the acting still feels like it belongs on a stage but it uses this to its advantage. The blocking and the movement of the characters is masterful because just looking at where each character is sat will tell you everything you need to know about what's happening in that scene no dialogue required. While it is obviously meticulously planned the fact that it looks like a stage play doesn't make the movement feel out of place.

In the re-make however the performances are more grounded, all the actors have experience in film after all, however the blocking is still extremely rehearsed. A recurring problem I have with a lot of Ryan Murphy's work is that everything feels over-polished. The blocking in the re-make almost feels like choreography, like they are being placed in certain positions by the hand of god and not their own decision. This is also not helped by the new addition of cut away scenes when the characters are telling their stories. While it's another marker of how far we've come that we're allowed to add some visuals to the words, breaking up the performances makes them lose their intensity.

3. Queer History Vs Queer Representation

For all its progressiveness, The Boys in the Band is a dated work. It did after all give us the line "you show me a happy homosexual and I'll show you a gay corpse". The racism in the piece, while accurate to the time period is also problematic when taken into account the lack of scenes Bernard has to defend himself or assert his character. More scenes/character development for Bernard was something I was hoping the re-make would include.

The Boys in the Band is an important piece of history but its relevance to us in 2020 is debatable. There are a lot of stereotypes in the film and a kind of catty/bitchy humour which paints a picture of gay men as all being sad and mean. The themes of the film as they applied to the 70's were about finding pride and learning to accept yourself and those around you. Their self-hatred was their undoing. I'd be really interested to see a modern version of The Boys in the Band and what that might reveal about our community today.

While I'm happy that the remake exists to remind us of that time, there is something about the realness of the original that this new version will just never have. Watching the original gave me chills while this version seemed like quite an empty imitation because it didn't have anything new to add.

It is not the job of every LGBT+ film to "push the cause" forward so to speak but I do think it's the job of the filmmaker to say something important about today. Maybe this filmmaker thought we needed to look back and see how far we'd come. Maybe they were frustrated that The Boys in the Band wasn't getting the recognition it deserves, or that it wouldn't with the theatre look and acting.

It puts me in a weird place because while I'm glad it exists and it is better than the original in some regards it still feels like a shell of what this story could be and what it ought to be. It's history over representation and like most Ryan Murphy productions, style over substance.

I wonder if in fifty years or so this version will stand the test of time or whether the original will survive quietly on the fringes of cinema as it's always done.