The Boys in the Band | Film Analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- This film analysis/video essay means to explain why Mart Crowley's play and William Friedkin's film, 'The Boys in the Band', was an ahead-of-its-time achievement. Like the film, this analysis is mainly a character piece. Through character dissection, I am meaning to deflate the general consensus that this film only ever perpetuated stereotypes.
Please note that this is my first shot at a full-out video essay. I'm hoping to improve as I continue. I know this video has flaws, and if you feel the need to express your criticism, then you know what to do.
Also, sorry for the shitty quality. It's a pretty unknown film, and the only footage I could find was on here: • Video
letterboxd.com...
'An Analysis of 'The Boys in the Band'' is a non-profit project intended for entertainment purposes only. No copyright laws were intended to be broken. All rights to any material used remain courtesy of their respective owners.
This video is protected by copyright, Title 17, Ch 1, section 103. The copyright extends only to the material assembled and arranged by the author, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. This video may not be reproduced or sold.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
This video, created by RollingBottleFilms, is protected by copyright, Title 17, Ch 1, section 103. The copyright extends only to the material assembled and arranged by the author, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
Edited By Tighe Gill © 2014
Harold obliterating Michael after watching him wreak havoc on the entire cast throughout the film was brilliant. It was a hard watch at times due to such viciousness but also very necessary & brave for 1970. It certainly paved the way with brutal honesty. Friedkin was fearless with his directorial execution.
***Spoiler Alert
I love the movie.
I’ve always given Emory credit for being the most honest person at the party, sometimes to his own detriment. He refuses to play along with Michael’s deception, even after taking a beating.
It's a brutal film, a relic of a time when losing your career, family, and your home was some of the least awful things that could happen to you if anyone found out. When your only psychological defense was developing that stereotypical gay wit. I try to take some comfort in Michael's line "If we could learn not to hate ourselves..." when he finally breaks down at the end. I like to think that it implies the message is that we shouldn't have to be self-loathing.
I think it's pretty much guaranteed that that's what the author meant.
Brilliant review. I saw this film for the first time in 1979 after graduation from college and had just come out. I was astonished so many of my gay activist friends decried the film for the very same (and ridiculous) reasons you outlined. It’s a great film and seems to be finally getting the acclamation it deserves with the recent 2019 Broadway show and the 2020 Netflix remake of the film. (Nowhere near as good as the original)
Casting no aspersions on the 2020 cast of BintheB movie, I prefer the direction and performances in the Friedkin film. Starting with a bright and hopeful opening and then turning the lights down as the mood becomes darker was a great decision. Frey was hypnotic as Harold, Nelson was bitter as salt and the characterizations of all were finely detailed. So sad that five of the cast members died of AIDS. An incisive look at all relationships, not just gays.
I just saw the remake and was looking for some interesting character analysis content. I’m glad I found this in the sea of “reviews”.
What remake? Who was in it? I know the theater version has been done twice but not the film version. I have the original as just seen. I've watched it many times.
@@rayewen3347 the 2020 rendition of the same title
@@rayewen3347It's on Netflix
It uses the same script
Excellent analysis - the movie and the play made me cry then, and seeing and hearing your analysis today make me cry again. I am a 67 year old female who lost far too many friends, that she would still like to have continued to hang out with, to AIDS and more. To each of my dear friends I say, you are often remembered as the days and the hours go by - see you all again someday.
venice mentor It's TERRIBLE! All the characters reflect the self-loathing of playwright Mart Crowley. I was a closeted 20-year-old when I sneaked off to see it by myself, and it terrified me. Was this what life had in store for me if I embraced my sexuality? The narrator here constantly apologizes for the overwhelming negativity of the characters, and I suspect that her appreciation comes from the naiveté of what I assume is a hetero woman's perspective.
Rafael Storm I don't understand your last comment, and I quote, "I suspect that her appreciation comes from the naiveté of what I assume is a hetero woman's perspective."
She is making an observation from a sensibility that many people have acquired today because, time passes and perspectives change. I thought assessment was quit on point, and thoughtful - but out of "naivete´" - never.
venice mentor I don't know how much clearer I could possibly be. All I can say is that perhaps you have reading comprehension issues.
Rafael Storm LOL - whatever.
Rafael Storm How do you know the characters represent facets of Crowley (or are you assuming that since he was the author and gay that he just drew solely from experience)? Interesting thing to say, but seems to stem more from your general disliking of the work, rather than any credible source. The woman narrating the video didn't write the essay, so your asinine opinions towards heterosexual women are irrelevant here. Your other negative comments do nothing but reiterate what others have said. I can totally sympathize with your initial reaction, especially at 20. However, there are a lot of qualities in the film that you possibly misinterpreted or ignored. Maybe watch it again.
When was the last time you saw the film? How many times have you seen it? Has it gotten worse for you? Why?
Here is the only analysis you need. The film is just about perfect. Does not matter if the viewer is gay or not. There are no flaws.
HUH? Must be your white ego talking
Cant remember how many times I have watched this incredible movie.
Each time, I usually find a different aspect.
I've always thought that Harold would be the character I'd want to portray, love the way he carries himself throughout the film.
I have personally known several guys who express themselves much like Emory.
My interpretation of Alan's phone breakdown is his confusion of who he is ,then seems to snap out of it.
As for Michael's gift to Harold, I always thought it may have been a mirror, when Harold opens it there is a reflective shimmer that crosses his face, Earlier Michael had made mention about Harold not being that bad looking ( he's not ugly in my
opinion) so a mirror would give Harold a sense that he just as beautiful as the next person.
Thank you for uploading this insight to a marvelous film.
It was silver, it can flicker
Great job on this. "The Boys in the Band" is such a deeper and more clever movie than people realize. I also disagree with the criticisms that the characters are merely stereotypical (namely Emory, Larry, and Michael, as you said) because gay men like that DO exist. The best way to combat harmful misconceptions is to show that these men have rich inner lives AND that they should be able to live authentically without worrying about "harming" the perception of gay people, which I think the movie does perfectly. I think I'll go rewatch "The Boys in the Band" now..
I remember those times and I would say it was quite accurate in each character's case
Excellent points made in this critique! Nice editing of film clips and supporting historical clips that really illustrate your points well! An often overlooked film, worth watching.
There’s a lot I agree with in this analysis except for the speculation about Michael and Harold once being lovers. I didn’t get that impression AT ALL. What I saw was a very deep but extremely complicated friendship. They know each other better than anyone else on the planet and as Harold noted, have to tread carefully. In a battle of wits, Michael is no match for Harold.
I think they were lovers. To present photo is too personal even for gays.
Two things that have always boggled my mind about this film was #1, What did Michael write on Harold's gift. Harold only said it was 'something personal' Also why did Alan cry over the phone to Michael?
Sparky Doggy Well, to be fair, both of those things are supposed to be ambiguous.
Thomas Marshall Sp you're not going to tell me? :(
Tell you what? They're both supposed to be left up to the viewer's interpretation. Personally, I think Michael was correct and that Alan was gay, and the phone call was in relation to that.
As to the gift, it being "something personal" is the only explanation we're getting. Maybe this video is right, and they were lovers once. I have to say I'd never considered that possibility before.
Thomas Marshall I think so too...Especially when Alan said to Hank "Leave with me". So you think maybe he cried because he was confused about his sexuality and wanted to talk to Michael about it? So many people ragged on this movie back then because they though it was stereotypical, but please, walk down Castro in the 70's and everyone work tank tops, jeans and moustaches...
Sparky Doggy If I might hop into this discussion? I've often wondered if Cowboy was the person Hank was with at the train station. They exchange a look not long after Cowboy enters the scene. It's not even a sexually-suggestive look. It's one of recognition and unspoken understanding.
I REALLY enjoyed this analysis and want to express my appreciation to the creators. 'The Boys in the Band' is arguably one of the most important Gay American Plays of the 20th century and your analysis of it is absolutely spot on. I saw the movie and read the play prior to coming out in the 1980s when gay and lesbian characters on television were ones of mockery and derision. At the time, it terrified me because I had such a limited exposure to LGBT people and thought that was what the future held. I wonder how that same experience would be in today's world where LGBT actors and characters are embraced, almost celebrated and questioning teens have access to positive role models and more support in general.
If you happen to watch 'The Celluloid Closet' and "Making the Band", viewers will get a better understanding of the play/movie and *should* be able to see beyond their knee-jerk reaction to stereotypes and realize it's about MUCH more than a bunch of queens getting catty and hating themselves. It's not offensive at all. Actually, I think the play/movie show a much more diverse array of gay men than the singular flaming hairdresser character I saw over and over as a kid. Great job!
Thank you so much, Rob. Your feedback touches me greatly. Thank you. And you're welcome.
RollingBottleFilms Also, I love The Celluloid Closet (it's where I heard about the film/play). Jeffrey Friedman and Rob Epstein are bitchin' to the max.
This was a beautiful assessment, and while I agree with you on many points I disagree about Alan. I don't believe he was gay at all. I think he was in emotional turmoil over his marriage and needs a safe place and a safe person not embroiled in his own social circle, hence going to Michael. He latches onto Hank because Hank represents what is "normal." He can't readily accept that Hank is gay because it shatters his illusions of what "gay" means. Also, I think Cowboy might be the young man Hank mentions having sex with in the train station bathroom. There's a look they share not long after Cowboy enters the scene. It's not a sexually-suggestive look. It's a look of recognition and understanding.
Analog Child Very interesting and well-thought out points. You might just be right. I'll definitely need to watch the film again now. Thanks.
pluggthis
Beautifully put, pluggthis.
RollingBottleFilms
Thanks! I notice something different every time I watch.
Incredibly intuitive, Analog Child, and as well as I know the script and the show, I never noticed that about Hank and Cowboy in the subway. It's why Crowley's script is so great Thank You
If we assume Alan is not gay, what are we to make of the story told to Michael by their mutual college friend Justin Stuart? Justin claimed that he and Alan had sex repeatedly during their college days, and Alan "dropped" him because he could not accept the fact that he was in a gay relationship. Why would Justin invent such a lie and tell it to Michael? Alan will probably never accept the truth about himself, but he's gay or bisexual.
This essay on the Boys in the Band is absolutely ingenious. I do not recall reading or hearing of anything so insightful in the realm of the theatrical arts, or the creative nature involved in the making of a true work of film art. The critical analyses of this film, here on RUclips should be used in all college courses and vocational courses on ,modern film making. BRILLIANT! Now I know why I love this movie so much!!! Thanks for the insight!!!
OK Tamease
Excellent analysis.
I’d only add that the fact that his is a rare instance of where the datedness is an asset. I like to see TBITB as a time capsule, and all the better for it. Of course, traces of these people are around today but not necessarily the full extent on display. For all it’s good intentions and brilliance , why the 2020 remake can’t match the 1970 adaption.
I may be dense but I couldn’t understand Michael’s motivation for being so hateful until the end when it all comes crashing down around him. This was an excellent analysis.
love when emory says, "connie casserole", he's so sweet and endearing.
Polly Paranoia and Denise Deluge also
12:19 That lecture would have scared the heck out of me as a child/young adult. Things aren't perfect now, but I am glad life is a bit easier than the past thanks to the hard work of pioneers in the social rights movements.
8
Long one of my favorites. Brilliant piece of work, and very enlightening analysis of it. You're right, this should be studied in film classes, and I would add, embraced as a fearless and astute chronicle of earlier history by the LGBT community. I think that objections to the 'negative stereotypes' in Boys have a common thread with knee-jerk attempts to remove the N-word from Huck Finn. How can we learn from the past if we erase it? How do we know how far we've come if we can't see where we've been? I've been around long enough to have seen every one of these characters, or parts of them, in gay men I've known or been. Guess what? I still see them, in younger versions, but with the addition of hope, self esteem and fuller, more authentic lives. This film shows the darkest part of the night, just before the dawn of Stonewall. Regarding Harold, I may have a different take on the comparison to Michael, who embodies every self-loathing pot hole on the road to gay self-acceptance. Harold is a hero of mine, because in my opinion he has emerged from the other side of stigma; battle-worn, brittle and sharp-tongued, but self-aware, able to cope and learning self-acceptance. He's been where Michael still is, and survived it. Yes, he still hangs on to all of those Nembutols in his cabinet, but he doesn't use them. Hard to describe what a hopeful revelation he was to me the first time I saw this film. Btw, I think Harold was a former figure skater, not stage actor. thanks for the excellently-guided tour down memory lane...:)
Interesting analysis. Incredible film/play. So underrated. Extraordinary performances, every single actor. Harold was a former figure skater and I did not think that Michael was an actor. I felt Cliff Gorman's portrayal of Emory was a bit too much. Looking forward to seeing it on Broadway soon.
Really nicely done! A new narrator working for Rolling Bottle? Fabulous!
Pretty spot on analysis. Great film / play. A hard watch at times. I have known every single character in almost 40 years out of the closet. I have probably been all of those guys at some point. So I don't think it stereotypes gay men. That film/ play could not be made nowadays without a reference to the time it was set in. It is of its time. A very important document for gay culture. As I said a spot on analysis. Thanks for posting.
Hetero persons review, I give this one 10/10. I first watched it on HBO in the mid 70's. I liked it back then. I watched it recently. Unfortunately here on youtube there was two clips missing so some huge parts of the film were omitted. The dialogue in TBITB is brilliant. Every line said is like that.
Smart, compassionate review. 😎👍🏻
Harold is insecure about his looks not his sexually. Harold is stronger than any of the rest. You missed that
I appreciate this analysis of TBITB. I haven't watched it in a great many years, but I remember it well. I have made many of its lines part of my own shtick, like "..the pot calling the kettle beige", and I take some small pleasure in remembering certain interchanges, such as when Harold says that he is turning on, but Michael is just turning, and repeats "turning" several times after.
I watched the movie today, and I thought something that I don't know if others have thought or not, but it was a new idea for me this go 'round. When Harold opens his gift from Michael, I immediately thought that what Michael had given him, was another of Michael's poisonous acts. Earlier, Michael had beaten up on Harold about his face and how Harold had likely worsened it himself.
As Harold opened the box ad pulled out the framed object, we get cuts over to Michael's reaction. Michael seems somehow ashamed of himself. At the same time, I thought Michael has given Harold a mirror, a brutal slap in the face, pardon the pun. Harold, ever self-possessed, doesn't show any hurtful feeling and thanks Michael, as Michael still squirms as if under a 3rd degree interrogation. I see guilt and regret that, say, in a moment of self-loathing, Michael had taken a perverse joy in thinking how wonderfully cruel his little joke is.
Perhaps he knew it would hurt Harold, he knew that Harold would hold those cards close to his chest. Knowing Harold's style, Michael further expected that Harold would show the mirror to the others and laugh it off. But by the time the moment came for the unwrapping, Michael completely regretted what he had done I see Harold also covering over Michael's hateful gesture, by saying that there was a touching, personal inscription. I imagine what was written was another of Michael's spiteful digs at Harold's anguish over his looks.
On reflection, I can see that it might well have been a photograph of himself that Michael had given Harold, and Michael's regret was that he had inscribed some hateful quip comparing his looks with Harold's. After all, we don't see a hint of reflected light to tell us it was a mirror, but we also don't see a hint of light bouncing off the glass of a framed photograph.
There's something amiss however, in Michael's expressions at that moment. I don't see self-consciousness in Michael's face, as if he felt he had exposed too much of his tender side to Harold. Frankly, I don't see Michael as having that in him. He would show his caring in other, smaller and less conspicuous ways.
Anyway, I just wanted to share this.
A time in our histery when this was all true. Beeb ther-lived it and SURVIVED. It was a living hell!. That which does not kill you, makes you stronger. Being force3d to live like this, i never thought there could ever be happiness in being gay. Gladly, i have been ablr to realize differently. As a gay person now, 2020, i feel i can not be any happier.
i'm not gay but i have to say i felt some of the sorrow they feel throughout the film , this characters are very broken Human beings , this sadness is unbearable , what this people feel and felt back in the 50's to this day makes them hollow people , they want to be colourful and full of life , but their souls are dark by the stigma or self stigma , and they can cope with horrible feelings of their daily life until they can't , and that's every day i see , the last 10 min when he had the meltdown knowing that never is it gonna get better than fucking and grief gives me a feeling of their house being haunted ...of being curse.....i'm catholic and technically is the sexual act that is forbidden in our religion , just the stigma is enough to moody anybody's life....things like that make me feel really bad about my "luck" juxtaposition with a homosexual person....i guess you and i people have our discrepancies , but i'll never smile at seeing your collateral burden ...that's ominous , is a hell on earth i never want somebody experience that in a life time , that " i'm dirty " syndrome , and the only thing i can give to you lambs of our father is... sympathy even when i think that sexual act is a sin , judge you after what your going through seems like a even worse sin....bless you guys !
A friend who is now gone told me he remembered as a child of 10 or 11 watching the film with his parents and
feeling he had been exposed as Gay. He never did come out to his family.
If his family were antigay it seems odd that they would be watching this movie. Maybe they were making fun of gay people while viewing it?
I liked this analysis and found it fair and sober with good judgment of the context. The artistic qualities of this film have proven enduring and continue to fascinate. Superb acting, highly creative photography, lighting, editing etc. etc...just plain impressive direction by Friedkin overall.
Judging and criticizing this film as perpetuating "gay stereotypes" is almost...stereotypical. Stereotypical of a behavior police that filters everything through today's (very specific) lens of what's supposedly acceptable now. Yes, we've moved on to a more nuanced perception and portrayal of gay people, but that does not invalidate characterizations from 50+ years ago.
Every single one of the characters was and is reflective of SOME people even today. Right down to Emory's queeny demeanor. Nothing about this film spreads lies or promotes hatred or violence against gay people, unlike some extremist political propaganda or religious bigotry might do. Then criticism would be justified. This movie (and the play) merely painted a picture. And not an entirely inaccurate one. It was a play written by a gay man, writing about himself and the people he knew in his world.
Stereotypes are stereotypes exactly BECAUSE they reflect recognizable characteristics and resonate "déjà vu"-style with most people. Otherwise they would not work, fall flat, not elicit a reaction. Case in point being the portrayal of Emory, possibly the most controversial over-the-top "stereotype" in this film. Instead of being offended (too close to home, maybe?) or trying to censor or ignore stereotypes like this, a much better response would be to get a lot more relaxed about them. So what if some gay men act queeny?! Get over it! How does that threaten or impact in any way other men who are not queeny? Why the fear of it? It's amusing to see self-proclaimed macho types (gay or straight) get all bent out of shape when being seen in the company of somebody "stereotypically gay". Something as harmless as that derails a tough macho man? Really? Begs the question who the real sissies are. A group like the "Boys in the Band" (and the world overall) would be so much less interesting without strongly varied characters and the many textures of individuality, without the contrast between fem/flamboyant and macho or weird or whatever else. Yes, Emory represents a pretty overt gay stereotype, but such guys DO exist, and enough of them to make the stereotype. Leaving out such a distinctive character would be just as disingenuous as characterizing all gay men like that.
While generally perceptive , this analysis has some egregious misinterpretations. Michael's a struggling writer, not an actor, and there's nothing to suggest that Harold is or was an actor. Donald and Michael were once lovers but are now "just friends, lovers no more." And there 's certainly nothing to imply that Michael enjoys the Alan-Emory fight!
Harold , formerly an ice skater.
The part was modelled on a choreographer/ dancer friend of the playwright .
Touche. I agree completely, with every point. Thanks for correcting the video's errors.
HONEY... I'm not even half way through your review and I have to stop and say that your analysis is just Brilliant! You are wrapped all around this, fore and aft. You've articulated the subtleties right out of the NYC fog with clarity. I was 16 in 1986, so I knew the 70s. The film's vintage and "efficiency" about the characters leaves it somewhat vulnerable but you've probably mirrored the director's intention and salted its current value by pinning the real struggles of gays to the conflict of identity well past the one of acceptable sexuality, which the last third of the movie steps out with. It's the struggle of negotiating for loving and being loved in a world where such love would be misunderstood, not just by the ones they loved but even by gays themselves. That's how weighty the consensus of thought bore upon our minority for the while, until we worked so hard to succeed in changing it. This movie deserved your perspicacity and rivals the script itself. Thank you.
Wonderful analysis of a great movie.
I am appalled and stunned at this outrageous inquisition!
thanks for the accurate spot on insight...
gostei... aprofundou e colocou a obra na contemporaneidade.... valorizou no que precisa - é uma obra de arte...
To me, that movie is just as relevant back then as it is now.
Marvelous film! I love Kenneth Nelson now.
Excellent review. Thanks!
I still argue that it's a masterpiece for its time.. and still speaks truths.
👏 BRAV-OOOOO 💐TIGHE 💐 Wonderfully insightful, quite perceptive and beautifully balanced accentuating the painful tortured humanity underlaying ☆☆ Mark Crowley's ☆☆ still visionary script impressively guided by ☆ Willuam Friedkin ☆ and the compelling classic performances by the unforgettable original stage cast. 👏 You're to be congratulated for your artistry and sensitivity. 👏
Very enjoyable insight :) loved it just watched the new remake the original looks like it’s better paced
i was there
saw the play in nyc
most memorable was the set
minimal: b/w skeletal
the play was a horror story.
most xcellent.
I saw the film when it first came out and we (the gay guys) loved it. I found it true to life, except for the phone game and the last scene with Michael breaking down. I thought that was over the top...way over the top. We did dress that way, with the neck scarf and a collection of sweaters. We did that line dance in the bars. The early scene where Hank looks for Larry in the bar was filmed at the Ninth Circle bar in Greenwich Village. I used to go there often. It was one of the nicest bars in New York. The film is truly important because it was the first mainstream film with a homosexual cast and theme. It depicted homosexuals in a relatively attractive light, all things considered, and it did far more for injecting gays into our culture than ten years of gay lib marches seen on the news for 15 seconds. You have to realize that you could see this film in small cities in Iowa of Indiana. It was seen nationwide. Really, it is Historical.
@@normanduke8855 I would have loved to have seen the original play and the film when it originally came out in theaters. I wonder if a lot of closeted men in 1970 were afraid to go see it in the cinemas.
@@Texaslawhorn : Have you now watched the 1970ies version or the version that was released a couple days ago?
@@Solutions3000 yes, I first saw the 1970 movie about 10 years ago, and I watched the new one on Netflix a couple of days ago. I also went to the Broadway revival.
I enjoyed that, thank you. I’ve always felt the criticism of the film to be misguided. Of course it was different from the wave of gay films in the 90s; it was made in the 60s! I’m not sure about some of the conclusions about Michael and Harold being actors. I don’t see any textual basis for that. I’m also not sure how to read Allan’s sexuality. Is the idea that he is closeted merely a projection of Michael’s?
I came to a reasoned contemplation of this play-slash-movie rather through the back door, pun intended. After viewing it once in the College theatre when I was a late-adolescent Ivy Leaguer during the mid-1980's, a mainstream fraternity man and oarsman on the college crew at Dartmouth, working for Dinesh d' Souza and Laura Ingraham on the Dartmouth Review, the portrayal of gay life in Manhattan in the 1960's was utterly terrifying for one who could pass for straight so successfully and so effortlessly. Viewing it again tonight after the passage of more than 35 years (and after the extra dry Beefeater martinis with a twist of lemon enumerated in the play but curiously deleted from the film along with Michael's initial long soliloquy to Donald which advances failed incest as a possible Freudian rationalization for the existence of gay men), I found your analysis both illuminating and deft, adjectives which I commonly reserve for intellectuals and scholars long dead. My initial, halcyon visceral distaste for Emory and Harold and even Michael--symptomatic of embryonic self-loathing--has given way to admiration for the subtlety of their performances under Friedkin's masterful directorial hand. As a dramatic mechanism, I find Mart Crowley's telephone game in the final act a masterful bit of dramaturgy: what was hyperbolic and overblown at the play's inception becomes an astonishing coup by play's end. I found myself telephoning a long-lost tennis teammate from prep school and telling his voicemail that I had always loved him. Two points. Kudos to you for your analysis.
This was great, thanks for uploading :)
Didn’t know this was a remake, I just watched the Netflix version and I loved it
What Michael wrote on Harold's frame?
I love this movie but a little confused with one or two things 1, why is michael running in the end of the movie? 2, is herold his secret lover? And why did Alan later came to the party after he cancelled ?
Excellent analysis, and kudos all around. Though I wish you'd also analyzed Donald, Bernard, and Larry, all of whom contribute so much more nuance to the overall picture. The script, performances, and direction present an extremely broad picture of gay culture, one still very much alive today in 2024. I was in college in 1973, a year after the film was released. A friend had it screened in the school's cafeteria. The next day when he came out of class, he found his VW bug had been turned upside down to stand on its roof in the parking lot. That took place in the scintillating cultural hup of Pueblo, Colorado. (Sarcasm alert.)
It's a great movie and great dialog. I've known characters like this. So it's realistic.
what is wrong with the stereotypes?
really good analysis. Really brutal film.
Love the analysis but Donald and Michael weren't lovers...not during the time the films depicts anyway. They down right say that they hooked up at first but decided on being just friends/
Thank You!!! I needed this breakdown.
It really is a terrific film.
@tighe gill please, add sutitles in diferent languages. Thanks !
The thing is, these stereotypes are valid. I know several of each these characters.
👬 A classic. Bravo to all the men/actors!
still solid 2022
Nice review. I 'd like to do one myself.
Thanks. I'd like to see more people cover this film and give it the recognition it deserves.
So no one talking about Hank and Larry? 😢
What about Bernard?
This analysis is flawed in at least one important respect. Michael is not a stage actor: the text makes it very clear that he is a writer who has written an unproduced screenplay. And Michael is not in love with Harold: he’s in love with Alan, who represents everything that Michael wants to be but isn’t.
1. I, too, don't think Michael is in love with Harold; however, I did get the impression, that Harold knows something about Michael that the others don't.
2. What led you to think that "Michael is in love with Alan..."?
3. "...Alan who represents everything that Michael wants to be, but isn't?" Alan is married/husband; a father; attorney; an alleged heterosexual. What of those those situations does Michael covet?
@@Solutions3000 Why does Michael know that Harold is hiding antidepressants and stands in front of the mirror before leaving home?
@@luckibeast844: I'd have to rewatch, as I don't remember much of the nuisance, at this point. Fortunately, it's good enough to watch a 2nd time.
And if it emphasizes some gay stereoptypes?!?!? So what?!?!?!?
great commentary
At NO time in the past forty-six years have I ever gotten the impression that Michael is an actor, failed or otherwise. And where does the theory that Donald's psychotherapy is an attempt to "cure" his homosexuality come from? No where in the text or performance is this suggested. The problem with this analysis of the film (and by inference, the play) is that it is based on the life experiences of whom I assume is a heterosexual woman. It is off-base on almost every point.
+Rafael Storm Agreed. While some of the commentary of this video is well thought out and well spoken, the fundamental misunderstanding of gay people and gay culture that is always present when heterosexuals speak on gay depictions of homosexuality (culturally, socially, otherwise) colors this review greatly.
It feels almost uncomfortable to listen to someone who is presumably straight defend a film against accusations of homophobia when they themselves lack the lived experience to know what is and isn't offensive to gay people. That's not to say I think this film is homophobic, I really do love this movie a lot and I think it's depiction of the internal struggle of pride versus hatred of one's homosexuality is still very, very relevant today (at least, personally). But is it really a straight person's place to analyze this aspect of the film? Not in my opinion.
This bias is also extremely present in certain misinterpretations of characterization. Alan for example, whom the speaker automatically assumes is gay himself even though the entire point of his character in the film is that we don't know, and that we don't ever see any resolution to this question. I, personally, think it defeats the purpose of his character to make a statement as to his sexuality. The speaker also misses the point of the character of Hank, who is NOT a homosexual. Hank clearly states that he "swings both ways" in the movie- and the cultural separatism between him and the other characters is based on this (and as an extension, his more 'straight passing' nature).
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of nuances of this film that a straight viewer is just not going to see or understand. I'm not going to say that straight people shouldn't analyze gay cinema, but I do think they shouldn't be surprised at their inherent lack of ability to see the truth of it.
Let's review, Rafael. Would be actors, especially musical theater ones, always go around in everyday life bursting out of nowhere into songs from musicals and overacting the way the Michael character is playing it. And, so the Donald character is a mid western farmboy relocated to the Big Apple and his constant reading, shrink visits and generous empathic character traits are signs that he is giving everything he's got to accepting himself and fixing (curing) himself. Got it?
@@janedo8710 I agree with everything you have said so eloquently here! I am frankly surprised so many commenters accept this analysis uncritically. Anyway, thanks for taking the time and effort to "rebut" here. It is appreciated.
@@janedo8710 Huh? It says written and edited by Tighe Gill, narrated by Scarlet Downey. Why presume someone is straight?
Is ty ere a lots of sex in this movie? Why are they banned
As a gay man, my experience of first seeing this film on its release was that it must have been made by a committee of fanatical christian homophobic nutters intend on making a hate utterance. Obviously I was completely wrong; I was amazed other gay men seemed to enjoy it. I still don't understand this.This film analysis is superficial and shows no understanding of current or past LGBT experience. I'm against the pc idea that only LGBT can comment on gay matters etc, but others had better be well-informed before sticking their head over the parapet. (ps, consult dictionary re. meaning of 'deflate')
This analysis is kind of messy and presumptive
This movie reminds me of all the pain I grew up with knowing is was gay
Here in 2021❤️
It's simple and easy to understand why marginalized groups would wish to be different. Gay to be straight. Black to be white. Female to be male, and so forth. Society does not encourage happiness, only conformity, or prejudice. Unless your born a white straight male, you may never know the lonely feeling of exclusion. And, believe me, many still wish to reinforce this separation in sometimes extreme and dangerous degrees around the world. And totally delude themselves of the rightness of this behavior.
the volume is very low
Top dialogue movie
Everything Goessss!!!
Absolutely one of my FAVORITE gay movies! Screw those critics!
WRONG! It's a mirror, not a framed photo of Michael! You missed a brilliantly revealing moment !
Mart Crowley in the interview showed a photo in which his goddaughter holds a frame that was shot in this film
Thanks. I loved this. Xxx n
EXCELLENT!
However I think Harold just liked to get high!
Restrained, not abstained! Abstinate?
"abstained" is both a word and grammatically appropriate here.
@@RollingBottleFilms Abstained is a word, but it's the *wrong* word. Grammar has nothing to do with it, it's about the meaning of the word.
@@nodoboho which is correct here
What dreadful monotone.
Blue Panties
I really don’t agree with this analysis. Stereotypes? 😡I’ve lived it and so has so many other gays! There are many different types of gays in behavior! Why is Emery’s portrayal any more realistic at that time or in any time since then? Hank? Seen that! Larry, Harold, Michael, Bernard, and even Alan, seen all of that too. When someone criticizes this film on those ‘stereotypes’ portrayed in this film, then one might suspect ‘they’ find it uncomfortable because they can’t deal with it either. I’ve witnessed and felt that way so many times. Anyone who criticizes this film for any of these characters doesn’t take into account that particular time when so many gays were still living in fear. What my analysis is, is it’s a great moment of time where the gays back then we’re the great pioneers who suffered greatly for the ones who benefit from the hard work they put in to get where we are now.
Who besides Casey Donovan passed away?
Casey was not in this movie
@@lenovovo Sorry, I mistook it for the movie "Boys In The Sand".
@@francoaaraujo It's all good Franco :-) Have a great day! -Melvin
Robert LaTourneaux (Cowboy Tex) passed away from AIDS in 1986.
Leonard Frey (Harold) passed away from AIDS in 1988.
Frederick Combs (Donald) passed away from AIDS in 1992.
Keith Prentice (Larry) passed away from AIDS in 1992.
Kenneth Nelson (Michael) passed away from AIDS in 1993.
Cliff Gorman (Emory) passed away from leukemia in 2002.
Reuben Greene (Bernard) is believed to have passed away from a heart attack in 2012.
There are currently (as of October 2020) two living cast members:
Peter White (Alan) and Laurence Luckinbill (Hank) who is currently married to Lucie Arnaz
I don't understand the Whole Emory problem...he is fun! I have got to say that many gay men are just sooooo narrow minded. Nowadays it is given for granted that campy and flamboyant queens are "negative", unpleasant and above all not sexy. Soooooo wrong. People are people. You can be camp even if you are straight. SOME CAMPY MEN ARE FUNNY AND SOME ARE NOT. IT'S A MATTER OF TASTE AND CHEMISTRY. We cannot be liked by everyone. And also to say that a gay man MUST be masculine and butch acting to be taken seriously I find it to be just soooo fascist
THANK YOU, the more effeminate gay men are the ones who really pushed the idea of being yourself. The whole reason homophobia exists is because people don't like it when others don't follow the status quo so why only fight for acceptance until you're accepted and fuck over everyone whos left behind.
Noteworthy analysis. Yet, It should be suggested, "I" and "In my opinion" never share the same place or space in surmising a didactic analysis--be it film, theater or literature. Sadly, it was best to tune out at that point.
Gay men I know are masculine! This is BS
karmalevel You obviously misinterpreted this video.
+karmalevel She states there is a variety. You also need to keep in mind the time period of this movie. I'm an old gay man and at that time many gay men were self loathing (society is very accepting now by comparison). The "camp" behaviour such as switching pronouns was common at that time. I never fit in with gay men that did this but it did witness a lot of self destructive behaviours and gays letting out their anger on each other.
+karmalevel Well, are you saying because those in your milieu are a certain way, then other opinions are disqualified?
She isn't saying that at all, there's no "heterosexual" monolith. Amongst heterosexual men there is a diverse variety of types. The same is true for gay men and the film depicts this accordingly . Emery used the bravado of camp as a defence.. The same way some men use a bravado of masculinity as a defence. The film never implies emery is a walking embodiment of all gay men. It's a masterwork that unfortunately doesn't receive the recognition it so deserves.
It's a pity that this mostly intelligent analysis is delivered by a lifeless, soft-spoken narrator who sounds as if she's reading by rote. I was surprised to find in the credits that she's NOT the writer-producer-director, that she was actually hired.
catty bitch, are we?
LOL@ seriously. The narration didn't bother me one bit. Maybe we can ask Gilbert Gottfried to give it a once over.