You know what we needed most of all, in the year 2010? A revival of The Boys in the Band. Thuper! It opens February 21! Let us turn the clock back to 1968, when Clive Barnes wrote in the Times: "As the conventional thing to say about Mart Crowley's 'The Boys in the Band' will be something to the effect that it makes Edward Albee's 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' seem like a vicarage tea party, let me at least take the opportunity of saying it first." Duly noted. And 1969, the headline: "'The Boys in the Band' Is Still a Sad Gay Romp." And 1970: "THE BOYS IN THE BAND" has just entered its third year at Theater Four on West 55th Street, and the damndest thing has happened to it. It has become a period piece." Other interesting Times pieces on the same subject: "More Homosexuals Aided To Become Heterosexual," February 28, 1971.
Monday, January 4, 2010
14
Maybe Rent will have the decency to disappear for awhile.
1968 or 2010, there is still no appropriate decade for a 'Prince Valiant' haircut.
*Please note: Access to the theatre is not wheelchair accessible, and can only be accessed via a small set of stairs.
After you see the revival of The Boys in the Band, you should re-read the chapter on male homosexuality from the original 1969 edition of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask). Nothing has changed, really.
Thanks. I never could understand the popularity of bowling.
(PS - this needs to be on tumblr so I can reblog it)
And then I was tempted to hit "close tab". Fucking tumbltards.
Don't get me wrong, though. I greatly appreciate this link!
"When homosexuals drink, things really happen"--the Rod Townsend Story.
"Two men may wear what superficially appears to be the same shirt; the homosexual's is just a little tighter, a little brighter, just a little more."
You can't make this shit up!
I'm sorry, but a world in which the likes of Zack P. is possible is not a world which needs a revival of this miserable play. Honestly, kids, if you are just itching, as a matter of historical inquiry, to understand what it was like to be a bitter, self-loathing closet queen, then rent the movie (if you can stand it). But really, you're better off not knowing, trust me.
I rewatched and reread BitB when I was prepping this. (In fact the first post of it was a direct knockoff of the film's opening, something you readers never caught, which disheartened me.) Anyway. It's the most miserable of stories. You know how in a multi-character piece you often can relate to one of the characters? (You're the Samantha, I'm the Carrie.) In BitB, it's just the same sad little bitchy voice enacted through assorted inflections.
Was it important for what it was and when? Absolutely. Does it have any reason to ever be acted out on any stage ever again? Absolutely not.
also goes for 'The Fantasticks'
"What I am Michael is a 32 year-old, ugly, pock marked Jew fairy, and if it takes me a little while to pull myself together, and if I smoke a little grass before I get up the nerve to show my face to the world, it's nobody's god damned business but my own."
See, nothing has changed!
any revival of boys in the band obvs only makes sense as a reality show on logo! turning!