There have been many milestones in film history over the years.
Representation of various minority groups is one key factor in achieving this. Recently, the film "Crazy Rich Asians" represented a milestone for Asian people in mainstream films.
There have also been a lot of films that were milestones for the Black community. Films like "Waiting To Exhale" and "Poetic Justice" were huge for Black women and Black people in general. You also have Tyler Perry's filmography, including the "Why Did I Get Married?" series and "For Colored Girls."
For gay men, however, our powerful, milestone moment has been a bit harder to come by.
There is a tremendous amount of brilliant LGBTQ-themed films over the years. These films have a history of being told by the community for the community. Many of them star LGBTQ actors. However, these films are all under the independent umbrella, not that it takes away from their value. They're just not what most within the mainstream will be exposed to.
When we do get a mainstream film about our stories or our history, it's sometimes told in a way that makes straight people feel comfortable. A certain amount of realness is taken from the film's content. And perhaps, the most noticeable factor of all, the actors playing the gay roles usually aren't gay themselves. When you see actors winning Academy Awards for Best Actor or Best Actress for LGBTQ films, it's the straight actors being rewarded for playing gay roles.
This isn't to say straight actors shouldn't be playing gay roles.
It's perfectly acceptable for a straight actor to do so. In fact, it can make quite a statement. When "Brokeback Mountain" was released in 2005, it was a big deal (and almost unheard of) for actors like Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger to be that affectionate in a film. They represented the epitome of a heterosexual male heartthrob. They were the kind of guys men wanted to be and women wanted to be with. Therefore, those two going at it in a tent made a lot of people confront their toxic masculinity.
But this is also the reason our mainstream representation as gay men has been so stifled.
You can visibly see someone's race and ethnicity. A person's sexuality, however, is not visible. That isn't to say there haven't been issues with racial representation in films before. However, the fundamental fact that a gay man's sexuality isn't visibly noticeable has allowed Hollywood to keep openly gay actors at a lower level. We've progressed to a place where you can be openly gay, famous, and actively working. However, you still probably won't be nominated or win Best Actor at the Oscars any time soon.
Cut to September 30, 2020, when the new remake of "The Boys in the Band" premiered on Netflix.
It was originally an Off-Broadway play by gay playwright Mart Crowley in 1968. A film version was released in 1970, directed by William Friedkin. The play was revived on Broadway in 2018 with Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto, Matt Bomer, Andrew Rannells, Charlie Carver, Robin de Jesús, Brian Hutchison, Michael Benjamin Washington, and Tuc Watkins.
Unlike the original 1970 film, however, this new film is directed by an openly gay man, Joe Mantello. The film also features the same cast as the Broadway revival, all-out gay actors. The original film had a mixture of gay and straight actors. Most of the actors in the new film have garnered a huge level of mainstream exposure, fame, and success.
For one thing, this makes an important statement.
Most people know who Matt Bomer, Jim Parsons, and Zachary Quinto are. When all of these powerful gay men are together in one film, it becomes hard to deny them A-list level statuses like George Clooney or Leonardo DiCaprio. It becomes hard to deny them the Best Actor Oscar for a gay role, like when Tom Hanks was awarded for "Philadelphia" in 1994.
The film's story revolves around a birthday party for Harold (Quinto) being held at his friend Michael's (Parsons) apartment. Michael, however, is struck with a dilemma when his supposed straight friend Alan (Hutchison) shows up unexpectedly. Alan left his wife and called Michael earlier, in tears, asking to come over. Alan says there's something important he needs to tell him. Michael warns his friends of his straight buddy's visit and asks them to not act overtly gay.
When watching this through a 2020 lens, you may not understand why Michael is so fearful. Aside from the obvious fact that he isn't out to his friend, his reservations about telling him, especially in a big city like New York, doesn't seem common now. That's why it's important to remember this story is set in 1968. It was one year before Stonewall, the turning point for the LGBTQ rights movement.
The film stays true to the time period very well.
From the sets to the clothing to the hairstyles, it is very convincing and well done. There are even pop culture references, like when Michael sings Judy Garland's "Get Happy" briefly to Donald (Bomer). There's also a scene where the guys dance to "Heat Wave" by Martha and the Vandellas. It is one of the best scenes in the film since it's a moment of pure joy and escapism. It's one of the moments that show gay men during that period, completely free, without the threat of discrimination.
None of it feels cliché, either. It all feels very real and true of the time.
A big reason for this is because the story was originally written the same year the film takes place. However, Mantello (the director) could've made the decision to remove these references to make it more relatable to the younger generation. Thank God he didn't. This story and film represent a very significant period and location in our community's history. To maintain that was essential.
Even though it's an ensemble cast, Jim Parsons carries the film and does an excellent job.
His character goes through an emotional rollercoaster that lets the audience in on his own struggles. At the start of the film, one isn't sure what to make of Michael's shady remarks and occasional rude behavior. The audience is left questioning whether these qualities are meant to be endearing or something more serious. As the film progresses and things get more dramatic, Parsons excels at keeping the audience in the palm of his hand.
He displays Michael's crudeness and insecurity so well, you're almost on the verge of disliking him at one point. You wonder why none of the men have left due to his treatment of them. You wonder why Harold hasn't left, since Michael pretty much ruins his birthday party. Yet, as the film goes on, the genuine friendship these men share becomes clear. There is a real love between each one of them. It's the most powerful emotion expressed in the film and it was done without lines, by each character.
The one area of representation the film fails at is with Harold, Zachary Quinto's character. Harold is Jewish and Quinto, by all indications, is not. It would've been nice to have a gay Jewish actor play the role, but Quinto knocks it out of the park. His deadpan delivery is bar none and he brings a mysteriousness to the role that makes him stand out. In a way, this is a necessity, since it's his birthday party. He also clashes with Parson's character in a way that helps elevate their differences. Michael's personality is all over the place while Harold's is very reserved.
Charlie Carver plays "Cowboy," a local hustler who Emory (Robin de Jesús' character) brings over as Harold's "birthday present." "Cowboy" is much younger than the rest of the men and Carver helps add a bit of comic relief to the film. On one hand, you hope his character wouldn't adhere to the stereotype of being young and dumb. But by doing so, it adds a comedic contrast to the rest of the cast that is needed as things get more serious. His interactions with the other actors deliver some genuine laugh out loud moments.
The one flaw this film has, however, is not resolving every plotline. Though this isn't really indicative of the film but the original story itself. This couldn't be more evident than with the role of Alan. It is assumed that Alan is closeted and wants to tell Michael his secret. It isn't spoken at first, but it's very obvious. When Alan calls Michael from his hotel room, his room has two beds. Has he just had an affair with another man? Were they checking into a room with two beds, as not to suggest they were together?
Alan becomes the main target of Michael's proposed game, which is to call the one person you love and confess your feelings. When it gets to Alan, he refuses to do so. Michael reveals their mutual friend, Justin, told him they slept together several times. Alan denies it, but Michael keeps pushing him to make the call. When Alan does make the call, Michael discovers he didn't call Justin, but his wife.
He then leaves the party and is seen towards the end, at a bar drinking. We don't get any kind of resolve to his story. When everyone else goes home, Donald asks Michael what Alan wanted to tell him. Michael gives a dismissive response, assuming a number of things. The truth is, Alan never told Michael what he needed to tell him. The truth is left open to interpretation. Was Alan straight all along? Was he gay, but just not ready to tell anyone? Was he bisexual?
There's even an interesting connection between Alan and Hank (Watkins). On one level, there could be a sexual attraction Alan feels towards Hank. At one point, he even asks Hank to leave with him, before realizing he's in a relationship with Larry (Rannells). His embarrassment and disappointment could be the result of his feelings for Hank. But it could also be interpreted as his comfort in Hank being shattered, since he's the most naturally masculine of the bunch and Alan may assume he's straight.
Alan's discomfort with the more effeminate guys adds another dimension to his character and more clues that he might be gay himself. At one point, he punches Emory in an unfortunate, yet perfect example of toxic masculinity. This is one of many issues the film touches on. The film also deals with gay men's relationship to religion, feeling society's shame, and in Alan's case, pressuring someone to come out.
What makes the film such an accomplishment is its relevancy. It is definitely true to the time, but the subject matter is still so relatable to many gay men today. Bringing such a story back in 2020 is a brilliant way of showcasing how far we've come, but also how far we still need to go. Another key component the film has, though, is its sense of community and humor. There's a positive element to these characters that show they're not hopeless.
Hopefully, this film inspires gay men to examine their own issues and respect their community's history.
It should also fill them with a sense of empowerment, celebration, and pride. Pride that not only can this story be told, but that the cast can all be as out and successful as they are. This film is a brilliant way of providing gay men with the mainstream representation we deserve. This film is by us, for us, and everybody else.
