It’s here! Actually, it came out on Netflix last Wednesday, but I didn’t have a chance to watch it until over the weekend, so I saved it for this week’s Book of Rannells post. Really glad that this movie was put together, and it brought my memories of seeing this cast onstage flooding back.
Written more than 50 years ago, The Boys in the Band gives us a window into a single night with a group of gay men in a New York City apartment in 1968. Host Michael has assembled the usual suspects to celebrate the birthday of his friend Harold, but the party shows signs of going off the rails even before the unexpected arrival of the uninitiated Alan, Michael’s old college roommate who doesn’t know about the life Michael leads. As the night wears on, quips become barbs, discomfort becomes hostility, and Michael becomes his own worst enemy, urging his friends into a shockingly ill-conceived party game that puts all their emotional vulnerabilities on display.
Even though I know the original off-Broadway cast of the show also starred in their own film version (which I haven’t seen, by the way,) I was a little unsure how this would come off in a movie, and on the whole, I think it succeeds. It’s a story that would be very easy to have feel like a play instead of a movie, and as I’ve said before, what works well onstage doesn’t always work well onscreen. Luckily, Broadway director Joe Mantello adjusts nices for the different medium. The script offers a few small expansions, adding opening and closing sequences of the assorted guests both before and after the party, and the iconic Affairs of the Heart game features some snippets of flashbacks to add a bit more action amid the long monologues. And even just in the depiction of the party, there’s just enough movement between different locations in the apartment to give a sense of flow. It makes the whole thing feel more cinematic without sacrificing the almost claustrophobic feel of all the characters being trapped at the party together.
And putting these stage performance in the context of a movie adds an interesting energy to the film. Even when a character isn't in focus (or onscreen, for that matter,) it's like I can still feel them acting, contributing to the energy of the room. It comes through for me in a lot of little moments, and I think the film is more textured for it.
As I did in my review of the Broadway production, I’ll spend most of my time looking at the actors. It might seem counterproductive, since this is the exact same cast as the revival, but again, film is a different medium, and that has bearing on the performances.
Unfortunately, Zachary Quinto’s Harold is still kind of the odd one out for me. I usually like him as an actor, but this role feels too conspicuously "performed." Like I said in my review of the show, I get that part of Harold's whole deal is the artifice of his carefully-crafted presentation of himself to the world, but it feels less to me like something the character is doing and more like Quinto, to borrow from Emory borrowing from Norma Desmond, going "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up." By contrast, with Robin de Jesús as Emory, I can buy the mix of him being naturally feminine and also leaning into it deliberately as a persona, whether to scandalize "the straight" or preempt those giving him crap about his mannerisms. I’ll admit, I wasn’t sure how de Jesús’s performance would translate to the screen, and a lot of it is definitely broad, but it’s broad in a way that works. Because it’s Emory being loud and broad, putting on a show for his friends, and in his telephone scene, we see some of that get stripped away and de Jesús takes it down accordingly.
Not a whole lot to say about Brian Hutchinson as Alan, just that he’s effective in the role. Charlie Carver remains fun as the Cowboy, and I like seeing some of the little bits of onscreen business that add to his goober/himbo vibe. Maybe some of these were in the stage show, but when nearly everyone is onstage the whole time, there’s plenty to draw your eye and you don’t always catch what everyone’s doing. I think Matt Bomer’s Donald is also helped by the film medium. Onstage, I thought he got kind of lost in the shuffle during the second half, but having reaction shots and things keeps him from fading into the background, so he remains a little more present.
I actually think Jim Parsons comes across a little better here as Michael –while I thought he was good in the show, there were moments where I could feel the acting a little more. Here, though, I feel like he inhabits the character better. He still feels a little too actory in the really big moments, but for the most part, his performance here is subtler and feels more lived-in. He plays especially well off of both Bomer and Hutchinson, and he handles Michael’s gradual descent over the course of the evening well. It’s a treat to see Michael Benjamin Washington as Bernard again. This is a really understated but effective performance, and it translates well to film – his telephone scene is masterful. I still like Tuc Watkins’s Hank, although he doesn’t leave quite as much of an impression on me here as he did in the show. That surprises me, because he has far more experience in front of the camera than onstage, but he only really pops for me when he’s centered in the action. When he is, though, he’s good – as with de Jesús and Washington, he does really well with his telephone scene, and I just like the different way he relates to the other guys at the party.
And then there’s Andrew Rannells. I maintain that he makes a great Larry, both onstage and onscreen, and both with their advantages for me. I’ll probably always remember the show for being the first time I got to see him perform live (hopefully not the last!), and he had an infectious stage presence that pulled me right in. But here, I love being able to see the close-ups, little moments of business that I missed onstage and his fantastic emotional performance during his telephone scene.
Obviously, Rannells plays wonderfully off of Watkins, but he sparks wherever you put him. Even in minor interactions without much dialogue, the chemistry is there. And funny? Oh, man. Rannells has golden comedic timing as far as I’m concerned, and Larry’s lines made me laugh out loud multiple times. I’m so glad that this performance was preserved, albeit in a different form than the one he gave onstage. My memories of the Broadway production are their own thing, but I’m excited to be able to revisit this whenever I want to.
Recommend?
In General – I think so, as long as you don’t mind that the material is fairly dated and the movie goes to some dark places. It’s rare that I find a film adaptation that I feel really captures the spirit of the show it’s based on, but this one does a fine job.
Andrew Rannells – Absolutely. This is a supporting role, but Rannells makes the most of every moment, and his big scene in the second half is my favorite part of the whole piece.
Warnings
Language (including homophobic and racial slurs,) brief violence, drinking/smoking/drug use, sexual content, and thematic elements.
No comments:
Post a Comment