<i>What I would LOVE to see is this film adapted to today's gay scene with as much of the original dialogue kept in as possible, but give it a far more optimistic tone - outside some of the self-hating remarks - quite a lot of the dialogue could remian intact. </i>
Chris, that could never work and retain this show. What makes "Boys" is its "topical" (now outdated) references. I've been in a stage production of this show (I played Hank, and ironically only two of the nine of us actors were gay, plus the director) and we talked a LOT about the script and its significance at the time.
If you want to see a modern show that is very close to "Boys", try to find a production of David Dillon's "Party" (http://www.geocities.com/newlinetheatre/party.html)--it has the same repartee, the same "comedy with a serious undertone" mood, and was OBVIOUSLY heavily based on BitB (the lead character is like a cross between Michael and Emory, which unfortunately means he gets ALL the good lines), but is ultimately much more affirming, not depressing.
And, as a bonus, all the actors are nude by the end!!! ;-)
reply
share
CSull2005
18 years ago
Sorry, but I disagree. I do not beleive that the topical references are what makes this film at all and those would be the most easy to update.
- Fire Island is stil; Fire Island. So it make have been Cherry Grove then and the Pines now, but the excat locations weren't mentioned in the play/film.
- The "Club Baths" could just as easily be "Steamworks" or a dozen other popular bath houses still in existence.
- The camp sensibility is less prevalent these days but it DOES still exist.
- The opening scene in "Julius' " could still be filmed in "Julius' "/
I cannot think of a single "topical" reference that could not be updated.
The only major difference here is that AIDS wasn't around back then but it isn't as if other STD's were not. It would not have to be included in an update anyway.
For me, the characterizations are what make it what it is and everyone of those characters has a modern equivalent. Precious little has changed in that regard. Even a supposed "straight man" crashing his gay friends party in NYC and being so taken aback as to hit one of the guests is not beyond plausability. There are still self-hating gay men are very homophobic straight men, right in NYC.
I understand that it would be a different feeling film but to say it could not work - I don't think that's true.
reply
share
Trampyre
18 years ago
I think you're right, CS... watching BOYS today is JUST a relevent now... But at the same time, I've seen Mart Crowley's sequel to his play, THE MEN FROM THE BOYS, which utilizes a lot of the characters. I'm sorry, but for me the play just didn't work. Yes, it was great to revisit old friends... but I think the play somehow lost most of both the comedy and the drama from his first work. I think there's NO way to "revamp" THE BOYS IN THE BAND- this is mainly due to ALL the history that's occurred from the original's timeset and now. Glam rock(with its bisexual scene, including things like ROCKY HORROR) for one thing... but of course A.I.D.S. and Gay Activists would be another(remember- when the play had been written, STONEWALL hadn't even happened yet...). We've come a LONG way, Baby- and Crowley's first classic play NEEDS to stay firmly planted in the late '60's, to preserve its integrity!
reply
share
KMPINTJ
18 years ago
Again, find a copy of David Dillon's "Party", which is quite close to a "modern" BITB. It has the same "atmosphere" and self-revelations, but is much more upbeat, especially at the end.
What makes BITB the most dated is the self-hatred. Yes, of course gay people still experience this when first coming to terms, but not in the "universal" way it is portrayed as a "given" in BITB. It would actually be even MORE depressing to find a group of 9--well, 8--sad queens sitting around like this set today; at least for 1968/1970 they have the "excuse" of being pre-Stonewall and pre-"Pride".
I've been in this play (in the 2000s) and in the process, memorized (and analyzed) every line in it, and I still say it couldn't work "today" without significant changes to the point that is wasn't the same show. Why are you so determined to do so, when its "datedness" is actually one of the things that makes it so valuable as a cultural icon?
reply
share
CSull2005
18 years ago
I guess that depends on how you define "self-hatred". I think these "boys" were quite brave in many ways, especially for their time. IN fact, the only person who seems especially viscious is Michael.
There isn't single person in this work that I could find an excat parallel to today. The drunk and biting catholic, the witty Jewish gay guy, the lone black gay male in a group of white gay men who allows some racial jabbing as a "type of humor" so as to "fit in" and prove to everyone and I imagine himself that he is above being bothered by it, the gay couple dealing with monogamy issues.
I don't find this to be self-hatred. They have a somewhat sarcastic, camp sensibility which is largely a copeing mechanism of sorts but certainly everyone of these characters exist today and the dialogue need only be tweeked to fit in today. Yesterday they were doing pot, today X or Tina... yesterday was the "Club Baths" today it is "Steamworks" - the same "catholic guilt" issues pervade today and the list goes on. I believe art evolves and I don't believe this work needs to be permanently stuck in its time period to be relevant. That smacks of political correctness. Things are much better in many ways today than they were back then but they most certainly have a long way to go... IMHO.
CS
reply
share