Threaded Order Chronological Order
| NEW - THE BOYS IN THE BAND - Talkin' Broadway's Review | |
| Posted by: T.B._Admin. 08:00 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Howard Miller takes a look at The Boys in the Band: The big question hovering over the 50th anniversary production of Mart Crowley's groundbreaking play The Boys in the Band, opening tonight at the Booth Theatre, is whether it will seem terribly dated in its portrait of a group of gay men in the 1960s, a relic of the past that traffics in unflattering clichés and stereotypes. Or will the strong and talented cast and director manage to honor the play's place in history while finding in it a compelling story that resonates today? . . . |
|
| Link | THE BOYS IN THE BAND Review |
| reply to this message | |
| THE BOYS IN THE BAND -- NY Magazine Review | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 03:53 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: NEW - THE BOYS IN THE BAND - Talkin' Broadway's Review - T.B._Admin. 08:00 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Sara Holdren's intelligent assessment of Boys. She is now one of my favorite theater critics, better than Jesse Green whom she replaced. Holdren finds things to like and not like. | |
| Link | New York Magazine Review |
| reply to this message | |
| Agreed! | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:19 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: THE BOYS IN THE BAND -- NY Magazine Review - lowwriter 03:53 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
|
|
|
| I have been getting worried that at the age of 52 I am growing farther and farther away from the zeitgeist and that anyone in their 20's or 30's is inevitably going to be impossible t connect with when it comes to assessing older work. But she seems to have a respect and understanding of the past without the slavish emotional attachment that I might feel towards something. I'm a Green fan so I was worried he'd be irreplaceable but I'm glad to have Holdren's voice added to the mix. (I wish Elizabeth Vincentelli wrote as compellingly as she talks about theatre: I have been enjoying her on Theater Talk.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And Brantley | |
| Posted by: Clancy 10:01 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| In reply to: NEW - THE BOYS IN THE BAND - Talkin' Broadway's Review - T.B._Admin. 08:00 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not much love. "I wish I could report that this charismatic and capable team, directed by the busy Joe Mantello, transported me vividly and uncompromisingly into the dark ages of homosexual life in these United States, and that I shuddered and sobbed in sympathy. But even trimmed from two acts to an intermission-free 110 minutes, the show left me largely impatient and unmoved. Part of this is a matter of the miscasting of the production’s biggest marquee names, the seriously talented Mr. Parsons and Mr. Quinto. More important, though, is that this real-time drama only rarely seems to be happening in real time, with real feelings." |
|
| Link | NYT: Review: Jim Parsons and Zachary Quinto Enter Sniping in ‘The Boys in the Band’ |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: And Brantley | |
| Posted by: aislestorm 10:32 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: And Brantley - Clancy 10:01 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Brantley's review reads like the chapter on BITB in Vito Russo's "The Celluloid Closet". Plus, his review is a minority opinion, as proven by reading other critical pieces. He bitches about the casting, praises the portrayal of Emory to the heavens, and attacks Parsons and Quinto. It's a misanthropic review, which is pretty much how he describes the play. Methinks Dame Brantley doth protest too much. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And Brantley | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:25 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: re: And Brantley - aislestorm 10:32 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
|
|
|
| It's funny: I don't have a copy to refer to at the moment, but my memory of Vito Russo's take on BOYS is not all that negative. Even with the more offensive portrayals throughout cinematic history, I always felt an undercurrent of love and appreciation for the mere existence of them. I was young reading it (late teens) so I might be misremembering. Or I might have let my one meeting with him colour my impression of him, which was of an extraordinarily generous and sweet man. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And Brantley | |
| Posted by: aislestorm 11:46 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: re: And Brantley - portenopete 11:25 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
|
|
|
| I adored Vito. We met while I was doing a production of BITB. He was not a fan of the play, and back in the 70's, despised and railed against it. We would argue about it a lot. What he REALLY hated was the film, although considering the film is pretty much a filmed staging, he always made it clear how much the piece horrified him. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Agree about casting - and that SET!!! | |
| Posted by: Genealley 11:46 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| In reply to: And Brantley - Clancy 10:01 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Parsons too bitchy - why are any of these people friends with him? Quinto - marijuana does mellow one out but his speech is strictly qualudes. And that set forces everyone to DECLAIM! Felt like an American Airlines Admirals Club lounge. The night I saw it, DeJesus rushed his lines. Lost them. Liked Bomer and Watkins. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: why are any of these people friends with him? | |
| Posted by: jjbkvm 07:37 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: Agree about casting - and that SET!!! - Genealley 11:46 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| I have seen this question over and over again. The answer is simple...at that time we were made to feel “less than” and the ability to find and make friends was very difficult. I was 13 in 1968 and would have done anything to have a friend who understood me. I didn’t meet anyone who was gay till I was 21 years old. I would have been Michael’s friend!! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: why are any of these people friends with him? | |
| Posted by: duckylittledictum 09:41 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: re: why are any of these people friends with him? - jjbkvm 07:37 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
|
|
|
| As the play states very clearly, these are mostly "Harold's friends." Not all of them hang out with Michael on a regular basis. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Community was informal but fiercely observed for survival. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 09:17 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 09:15 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: re: why are any of these people friends with him? - jjbkvm 07:37 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
|
|
|
| Michael's circle of friends strikes me as a period-specific collected one. The social solidarity was almost a survival tool when gay men were rounded up in rest rooms and even bars. One of the big points of the play -- and to me it's a positive, others disagree -- is the idea of a community forming around common social issues now taken for granted. The gathering in "Boys..." reflects a time when shared gay lives mattered, in the existential sense, because simply being a gay man was illegal in so many places. Arrests were routine, and destroyed careers and lives. Many newer New Yorkers fail to remember those times. NYC was a mecca but could be a dangerous one. If you've ever had a friend call you after an arrest -- which could result in overnight unemployment -- you won't forget those days. I had two friends, prominent in their professions, almost ruined by ordinary cruising arrests. Perhaps they all stand by Michael because he's loyal in that era-defining sense. Coming out at work was rarely an option, except for men in specific careers (Hank gets that profile). Perhaps the ability to eliminate negative influences within a circle was a luxury, then. Only a handful of men had sociopolitical participation in LGBTQ rights (and anyway, that's a different play). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Well as usual... | |
| Posted by: garyd 10:17 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| In reply to: And Brantley - Clancy 10:01 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Poor stupid me had to look up a few words. Odd to me though, wasn't Emory always the hope of this play? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Don't blame Ben Brantley for having a vocabulary. He is a writer. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:07 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| In reply to: Well as usual... - garyd 10:17 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Consanguinity"? "Sepulchral"? "Oracular"? It's a rich language, English, and it is all to the good that writers use as many out-of-the-ordinary words as possible: they enliven and enrich us. Try looking on it as a positive when someone challenges you by using a word you don't immediately know. Use the language that you've been bequeathed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Variety: 'Super ensemble' and 'superbly mounted' | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 11:40 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:38 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| In reply to: Don't blame Ben Brantley for having a vocabulary. He is a writer. - portenopete 11:07 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Link | Variety.com: Jim Parsons heads 50th anniversary revival of Mart Crowley's historic play |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| The Hollywood Reporter: 'A high-caliber cast of out gay actors' and 'bitingly funny and moving' | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:46 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
| In reply to: Variety: 'Super ensemble' and 'superbly mounted' - WaymanWong 11:38 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Link | The Hollywood Reporter: Broadway review of 'The Boys in the Band' |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| To my eyes, best review of the lot. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 10:42 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:41 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
| In reply to: The Hollywood Reporter: 'A high-caliber cast of out gay actors' and 'bitingly funny and moving' - WaymanWong 11:46 pm EDT 05/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Insightful and truly well-written review, one that really digs into how the text resonates now instead of reductively dismissing the play as (too) tied to the era. "It's in those signs of connective tissue able to withstand even the worst flagellation — both self-induced and otherwise administered — that Mantello and his gifted cast trace a sense of outsiders finding fortifying protection in one another, no matter how much damage they inflict. And the final image of resilient sensuality, a directorial flourish not in the text, eloquently brings home that point of survival, unity and love that won't be denied. They're here, they're queer, get used to it." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Spoiler Request | |
| Posted by: BigM 12:48 pm EDT 06/04/18 | |
| In reply to: To my eyes, best review of the lot. - Delvino 10:41 am EDT 06/01/18 | |
|
|
|
| I saw this production but had to leave a little before the very end to catch the last bus home. Can someone tell me about that "final image of resilient sensuality?" Thanks in advance. For the record, I greatly admired the production. I always liked the play; for me, it has no more obligation to present an admirable view of the gay community than Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf has to present an admirable view of academic marriages. De Jesus falls a bit short of Cliff Gorman's original tour de force as Emory, and Quinto, though good, can't quite measure up to Leonard Frey's brilliant performance as Harold. Otherwise, the cast does excellent work, and all the technical contributions are top notch. Mantello has staged it with great skill. Anyway, I would appreciate someone filling me on that final image. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.053089 seconds.