Blog Games

Blog: Killing Connie Casserole: How Stonewall Vilified ‘The Boys in the Band’

Between 1968, when playwright Mart Crowley wrote his off-Broadway hit “The Boys and the Band” and 1970, when William Friedkin turned it right into a film, there have been the Stonewall riots.  For the well being and well-being of the film model, this was the worst factor that would have occurred.

In June of 1969, many years of abuse, routine arrests and fear-mongering by the police division of New York Metropolis towards the town’s inhabitants of homosexual males lastly got here to a head in entrance of a trashy, mob-owned homosexual bar referred to as The Stonewall Inn.  The outcome was a victory for the homosexual male inhabitants, not simply of New York however, in truth, the whole nation.  Historical past would recall that this singular occasion would empower the motion towards a bigger wrestle for equality (although the accuracy of that’s in dispute).  All of the sudden gays who had hidden within the closet and have been routinely harassed by police discovered a brand new sense of themselves, a brand new and highly effective spirit that might propel them ahead.

By the point of Stonewall, Crowley’s play was nonetheless operating efficiently off-Broadway, however one thing got here out of the Stonewall riots that shifted perspective and damned the movie model earlier than it reached the general public.  The wrestle for homosexual rights gave gays and lesbians a way of self-worth, of private delight and the braveness to hitch the motion for his or her primary human dignity.  On this new wave of social perspective, The Boys within the Band appeared to be a factor of the previous.  The story, about 9 males – eight homosexual and one straight – attending a birthday celebration the place they wrestle with various levels of sexual id and self-loathing, was seen by many post-Stonewall activists as a relic, a monument to attitudes that have been now a factor of the previous.  Many took to calling it the homosexual male model of a minstrel present.

Upon its launch it acquired a knee-jerk accusation of getting been stamped as dated which led to its business failure on the field workplace and its disappearance into the dustbins of historical past.  Even in the present day the mere point out of The Boys within the Band (the movie) is met with a sort of nervousness.  Both you’re with it or, in lots of instances, wholly towards it.

Watching the movie once more lately, I sort of get it.  I feel I barely perceive why the homosexual group tends to reject it.  The Boys within the Band shouldn’t be a enjoyable expertise.  It’s indignant, it’s bitter, it has a nonet of characters who typically are likely to wallow in self-loathing and self-deprecating humor.  Its a few party that begins off pleasant sufficient however the deteriorates right into a recreation a merciless truth-telling that has you questioning if these individuals will ever need to speak to one another once more.  As a lot as I appreciated the movie, I’ll freely admit it’s not one thing that I’m able to spend one other night with.

But, on no account, do I imply to say that the movie is dangerous.  I simply imply that like Revolutionary Street or Moonlight it’s undeniably a strong movie however it isn’t a type of movies that you simply need to chill with on a lazy night at house. 

The Boys within the Band tells a type of tales during which the setting and the event are an excuse to lock a number of individuals I a room collectively, liquor them up after which interact them in a bitter struggle of truth-telling.  Informed in two acts the entire thing all takes place within the New York Metropolis condo of Michael (Kenneth Nelson) who’s getting ready a birthday celebration for his longtime pal Harold (Leonard Frey).  As Act I opens we meet Michael, who’s a bit of labor.  He’s a staggering alcoholic full of self-loathing and bitterness who’s Catholic and homosexual and needs desperately that he wasn’t both one.  He tells his good friend Donald (Frederick Combs) that he hasn’t has been sober for 5 weeks, however over the course of the night, that streak will finish.

Into the festivities come different visitors.  There’s a feuding couple Hank (Laurence Luckinbill) and his associate Larry (Keith Prentice) whose quarrel escalates when it’s found that Larry and Donald know one another from the baths.  Additionally, there’s Emory (Cliff Gorman), a flamboyant uber-queen whose expertise at catering have earn him the self-entitled nickname of Connie Casserole.  Additionally there’s Bernard (Reuben Inexperienced), the one black man on the celebration, and a hunky cowboy prostitute (Robert Le Tourneaux) that Emory has employed as a present for the visitor of honor.

The get together is crashed, in lots of respects, by the arrival of Michael’s former school roommate Alan (Peter White) who’s straight however solely suspected that Michael was homosexual.  Why did he name out of the blue, and why was he in tears?  Why is he out of the blue contacting Michael after so a few years?  It’s left as much as you to determine nevertheless it undoubtedly has a massively dramatic impact on the progress of the celebration.  Michael was relived that Alan agreed to name him the subsequent day however was buffaloed when he dropped in that night time.

The festivities start nice sufficient, however Alan’s presence makes issues, to say the least, a bit risky.  By the point Harold exhibits up, the drama over Alan has resulted in him bodily assaulting Emory and Michael already midway drunk and the get together has descended into chaos. 

Harold’s entrance is sort of fantastic.  Director Friedkin frames him darkened within the doorway with the sounds of chaos happening contained in the house, sporting a tailor-made go well with, cigarette in hand, purse clutched underneath one arm.  He’s amused by what’s going on however removed from stunned.  Michael berates him for not solely being late but in addition stoned as properly.  Harold is armed and prepared:

“What I’m, Michael, is a 32-year-old ugly, pock-marked Jew fairy, and if it takes me a short while to tug myself collectively, and if I smoke a bit of grass earlier than I rise up the nerve to point out my face to the world, its no one’s god-damned enterprise however my very own.  And the way are you this night?”

Act II is a downward slide into self-loathing Hell.  A collection of occasions of dancing to Motown on the terrace and noshing on Emory’s lasagna (which appears actually good) deteriorates as Michael’s points and consuming escalate.  Alan refuses to go away and Harold sits wearily on the sidelines unfazed by any bit of private or emotional acid that Michael is able to dispense.  He’s seen all of it earlier than, and is aware of instinctively that that is all par for the course.

A rainstorm pulls everybody in from the terrace and closes them in Michael’s front room the place Michael begins a merciless phone recreation of getting everybody take turns calling somebody they’ve been in love with.  The expectation is that the self-hatred will finish as soon as somebody confesses to who and what they are surely.  What comes of those pressured confessions appears merciless however by some means it humanizes the characters, particularly Emory whose out-and-about shell withers when he’s pressured to name a physician who as soon as humiliated him.

Lastly, it’s Michael who has the breakdown.  Pushed towards the wall of his personal insecurity, he’s splashed with actuality from Harold: “You’re a tragic and pathetic man.  You’re a gay and also you don’t need to be, however there’s nothing you are able to do to vary it.  Not all of the prayers to your god, not all of the evaluation you should purchase in all of the years you’ve received left to stay.  You could at some point be capable of know a heterosexual life if you would like it desperately sufficient.  In the event you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate.  However you’ll all the time be gay as properly.  All the time, Michael.  All the time.  Till the day you die.”

Harsh?  Sure.  Fact?  Probably.  What does that say a few tradition of homosexual males who, on the time have been advised that they have been criminals and mentally sick?  What does it say concerning the misinformation that being homosexual is a selection?  Harold makes it very clear that it isn’t, that Michael’s actuality is inescapable regardless of how exhausting he tries to wriggle out of it.  This was an inner wrestle for homosexual males on the time (and even now) at being born right into a pores and skin that a lot of society needs to eradicate.

By the start of the 1970, the social stains that had repressed gays and lesbians have been nonetheless alive and nicely.  The portrayal of gays within the films was often chaired in a deep melodramatic state of affairs that nearly all the time led to dying, probably the most egregious being All of a sudden Final Summer time during which the homosexual man in query, Sebastian Venable, was eaten by cannibals.  This was not remoted.

The Boys within the Band was uncommon in that it handled homosexual males who not solely survived the movie however have been additionally portrayed as dwelling, respiration human beings with lives, emotions, histories, joys, unhappiness, dimensions, senses, affections, passions.  They have been a product of a time that regarded them as mentally unstable, dregs of society that the inritauit cum publice regarded as a unclean gutter way of life.

Tv wasn’t a lot better.  The identical yr that Crowley wrote the play, CBS aired a particular report referred to as “The Homosexuals” during which Mike Wallace reported on the social stigma of gays in American society the included medical specialists who blatantly and brazenly referred to as it a psychological illness.  Gays on tv have been often seen as criminals as in a 1971 episode of the Burt Reynolds collection “Dan August” that includes a person who kills his girlfriend when she discovers that he’s homosexual.

Crowley’s play, against this, was an act of rebel, a daring perception into the lives of males that few in straight society would dare to think about something however irregular.  His story rebelled just by displaying them as delicate individuals who had been forcefully and psychologically inspired to stay within the closet.  The films noticed gays as doomed, and tv noticed them as criminals and killers.

However by 1970, the crucible for a lot of who had been inspired by the Stonewall Riots has begun to show.  For a lot of, The Boys within the Band was a factor of the previous, a relic as outdated as blackface.  In the present day it nonetheless wallows in controversy between those that discover it insightful and people who discover it insipid.  For these causes, the movie didn’t do properly and would solely discover a measure of respect as occasions went on and homosexual males turned increasingly more seen.  The aftermath of Stonewall might have made it look like a factor of the previous however these wanting deep into the movie’s coronary heart can see that it isn’t irrelevant.

However nonetheless the stigma sticks.  That is an indignant movie.  It’s a bitter movie.  It’s typically arduous to observe.  However I don’t assume that it’s ever false or insulting.  Crowley is making an attempt to realize an perception, regardless that some may assume that the devices are too blunt.

Personally, I feel the tone and temper and brutal honesty of The Boys within the Band are what maintain it such a troublesome story to work by means of.  Once more, this isn’t a enjoyable story.  It’s an perception right into a tradition of males who’s very being had been criminalized, lobotomized and medicalized.  How might anybody reside in that social and cultural police state and never really feel some sense of psychological torment?  It is very important peer by means of the historic window and see how far the tradition has progressed and the way far it nonetheless has to go.

Those that demonized and vilified the movie for being an Uncle Tom-ism of homosexual males are actually lacking one thing necessary.  The Boys within the Band is bitter nevertheless it’s not outdoors of the truth of how homosexual males felt about themselves in actual life, regardless of Stonewall.  How far down did the psychological torment of being ousted and institutionalized by a society that hated them actually go?  Do these attitudes nonetheless exist regardless of the present progress?  And even when the movie is an outline of attitudes of the previous, why bury it?  Why not see it as a window on the previous?  Why not see it as a historic reminder of attitudes which will appear passé however aren’t totally outdoors of the realm of actuality?  Sure, the movie is almost 50 years previous however what does it nonetheless should say?

Concerning the Writer: Jerry Roberts

Jerry Roberts is a movie critic and operator of two web sites, Armchair Cinema and Armchair Oscars.


About the author