Another of my favorite things, this movie, "Two for the SeaSaw"
Directed by Robert Wise (“Audrey Rose,” “The Andromeda Strain,” “The Sound of Music,” “West Side Story,” “Citizen Kane—as editor”), this is not what I would have guessed that the man would have gravitated toward. “Two” is an almost film noir starring Shirley MacLaine and Robert Mitchum—a paring that I still have trouble with. MacLaine I can see. But I would have picked half a dozen others for the role of Jerry Ryan, the soon-to-be-divorced lawyer from Nebraska, slumming around Greenwich Village. Somehow MacLaine and Mitchum make chemistry and the rest his not only movie history, but a damn fine movie.
The play and movie could not be more appropriately named. This movie is going to drive you nuts when you see it if you’re looking for a stock formula or obvious plot. The reason is that this couple go back and forth so many times on every issue in the book that they’re truly sea-sawing for the entire play. And the ending is a not-so-wrapped-up one. I can see where this may have worked better as a stage play and probably had more popularity with New Yorkers when it came out, rather than the somewhat downer of a movie it can be viewed as. That’s how others might see it, but not me. I love the oddness of it and the stark black-and-white film. I love the New York apartments and the seediness that is shown—how New York used to be.
While there are things that irritate me about this movie, it still remains one of favorites. The irritating things are the split screen, showing both apartments of Ryan and Mosca (Shirley McClaine.) There’s an inordinate amount of phone conversations going on in this movie. But the reason I gravitate toward this William Gibson play (he also wrote “The Miracle Worker”) is because it is so far from the norm, so far from what you’d expect, and so human. It really is “reality” without the boredom. I supposed you could say that fear of commitment is the main theme and perhaps that is one more reason I liked it. It’s probably the only movie I know of that handles this idea this well, and in this framework that takes us through the film. It’s basically an enormous character study of two people.
Robert Wise is a fantastic director and this is totally unlike anything else he did. He died in 2005 of heart failure, but before that won 4 Oscars and another 28 wins and 18 nominations from the committee. He got a lot of attention from Orson Welles when he became editor of “Citizen Kane” and quickly moved up the ladder. Few know that he was a fan of commercial Indian cinema (yeah, it shocked me too), and that when he died in ’05 he was the last surviving member of the cast and crew that worked on “Kane.” Another great movie he directed was “The Sand Pebbles (1966).” A great man who directed this great movie.
by Sam Friedman
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Somebody give Mr. Balaban some money
Bernard and Doris (2007)
Directed by: Bob Balaban
Writing credits: Hugh Costello
I must be on some kind of Bob Balaban kick lately. Either that or he’s making one heck of a comeback. But comeback isn’t really the right word since he never really went anywhere. A lot of people are not going to be familiar with him since he’s one of those in the background types and is now directing and has some minor roles. He’s not known to many as a big star, but what he does is quality work. He also takes chances and I hope someone in Hollywood recognizes his contributions and gives him a lot of money to do anything he wants—the guy is one major talent who, in my opinion, has never been recognized.
“Bernard & Doris” is the story of heiress Doris Duke and her gay butler, Bernard Lafferty. Laffery is played excellently by Ralph Finnes and Duke by Susan Sarandon. Major fan page to come for her later.
Duke lived from 1912 to 1993 and was the tobacco heiress to a vast fortune. While she put her money to great charity uses, she also drank a lot and caroused with any and everyone. This movie only scrapes the surface of her, and I’ve looked for books on her life and found only a pittance of what there should be. That Balaban has brought her to our attention again is great. Duke is mercurial as can be, and we’re given glimpses of her great generosity followed almost immediately by her bi-polar-like negativity and cruelty. One moment she’s giving Lafferty an expensive kimono, the next she’s chewing him out because her orchids have not been attended properly. If you want to see a co-dependent relationship at work, watch this movie.
Both Duke and Lafferty have their own substance abuse problems and Bernard, who has been on the wagon for a while, falls off when he sees her wine cellar. What I liked most about this film was the even treatment and realness of the characters. No one is any “one” thing. Both Duke and Lafferty are shown to be highly competent, independent, generous people, who can also be naïve, bitter, resentful, hateful, and cruel. What is most fascinating is watching the transitions and how well Balaban handles the pacing of the film.
I read somewhere that this film had an obscenely low budget and that Balaban was scraping by to get what he wanted. This is the reason for my comment earlier about someone giving him money. The guy’s a genius and has an eye for detail yet to be unmatched. What you won’t realize until I point this out, is that almost all the action takes place on Duke’s one estate, and that virtually the entire film is carried by Sarandon and Fiennes. There are momentary flashes of lovers, butlers, etc., but really this could have easily been a Broadway play and worked.
Cast:
Susan Sarandon—Doris Duke
Ralph Fiennes—Bernard Lafferty
. . . and others.
Directed by: Bob Balaban
Writing credits: Hugh Costello
I must be on some kind of Bob Balaban kick lately. Either that or he’s making one heck of a comeback. But comeback isn’t really the right word since he never really went anywhere. A lot of people are not going to be familiar with him since he’s one of those in the background types and is now directing and has some minor roles. He’s not known to many as a big star, but what he does is quality work. He also takes chances and I hope someone in Hollywood recognizes his contributions and gives him a lot of money to do anything he wants—the guy is one major talent who, in my opinion, has never been recognized.
“Bernard & Doris” is the story of heiress Doris Duke and her gay butler, Bernard Lafferty. Laffery is played excellently by Ralph Finnes and Duke by Susan Sarandon. Major fan page to come for her later.
Duke lived from 1912 to 1993 and was the tobacco heiress to a vast fortune. While she put her money to great charity uses, she also drank a lot and caroused with any and everyone. This movie only scrapes the surface of her, and I’ve looked for books on her life and found only a pittance of what there should be. That Balaban has brought her to our attention again is great. Duke is mercurial as can be, and we’re given glimpses of her great generosity followed almost immediately by her bi-polar-like negativity and cruelty. One moment she’s giving Lafferty an expensive kimono, the next she’s chewing him out because her orchids have not been attended properly. If you want to see a co-dependent relationship at work, watch this movie.
Both Duke and Lafferty have their own substance abuse problems and Bernard, who has been on the wagon for a while, falls off when he sees her wine cellar. What I liked most about this film was the even treatment and realness of the characters. No one is any “one” thing. Both Duke and Lafferty are shown to be highly competent, independent, generous people, who can also be naïve, bitter, resentful, hateful, and cruel. What is most fascinating is watching the transitions and how well Balaban handles the pacing of the film.
I read somewhere that this film had an obscenely low budget and that Balaban was scraping by to get what he wanted. This is the reason for my comment earlier about someone giving him money. The guy’s a genius and has an eye for detail yet to be unmatched. What you won’t realize until I point this out, is that almost all the action takes place on Duke’s one estate, and that virtually the entire film is carried by Sarandon and Fiennes. There are momentary flashes of lovers, butlers, etc., but really this could have easily been a Broadway play and worked.
Cast:
Susan Sarandon—Doris Duke
Ralph Fiennes—Bernard Lafferty
. . . and others.
Somebody give Mr. Balaban some money
Bernard and Doris (2007)
Directed by: Bob Balaban
Writing credits: Hugh Costello
I must be on some kind of Bob Balaban kick lately. Either that or he’s making one heck of a comeback. But comeback isn’t really the right word since he never really went anywhere. A lot of people are not going to be familiar with him since he’s one of those in the background types and is now directing and has some minor roles. He’s not known to many as a big star, but what he does is quality work. He also takes chances and I hope someone in Hollywood recognizes his contributions and gives him a lot of money to do anything he wants—the guy is one major talent who, in my opinion, has never been recognized.
“Bernard & Doris” is the story of heiress Doris Duke and her gay butler, Bernard Lafferty. Laffery is played excellently by Ralph Finnes and Duke by Susan Sarandon. Major fan page to come for her later.
Duke lived from 1912 to 1993 and was the tobacco heiress to a vast fortune. While she put her money to great charity uses, she also drank a lot and caroused with any and everyone. This movie only scrapes the surface of her, and I’ve looked for books on her life and found only a pittance of what there should be. That Balaban has brought her to our attention again is great. Duke is mercurial as can be, and we’re given glimpses of her great generosity followed almost immediately by her bi-polar-like negativity and cruelty. One moment she’s giving Lafferty an expensive kimono, the next she’s chewing him out because her orchids have not been attended properly. If you want to see a co-dependent relationship at work, watch this movie.
Both Duke and Lafferty have their own substance abuse problems and Bernard, who has been on the wagon for a while, falls off when he sees her wine cellar. What I liked most about this film was the even treatment and realness of the characters. No one is any “one” thing. Both Duke and Lafferty are shown to be highly competent, independent, generous people, who can also be naïve, bitter, resentful, hateful, and cruel. What is most fascinating is watching the transitions and how well Balaban handles the pacing of the film.
I read somewhere that this film had an obscenely low budget and that Balaban was scraping by to get what he wanted. This is the reason for my comment earlier about someone giving him money. The guy’s a genius and has an eye for detail yet to be unmatched. What you won’t realize until I point this out, is that almost all the action takes place on Duke’s one estate, and that virtually the entire film is carried by Sarandon and Fiennes. There are momentary flashes of lovers, butlers, etc., but really this could have easily been a Broadway play and worked.
Cast:
Susan Sarandon—Doris Duke
Ralph Fiennes—Bernard Lafferty
. . . and others.
Directed by: Bob Balaban
Writing credits: Hugh Costello
I must be on some kind of Bob Balaban kick lately. Either that or he’s making one heck of a comeback. But comeback isn’t really the right word since he never really went anywhere. A lot of people are not going to be familiar with him since he’s one of those in the background types and is now directing and has some minor roles. He’s not known to many as a big star, but what he does is quality work. He also takes chances and I hope someone in Hollywood recognizes his contributions and gives him a lot of money to do anything he wants—the guy is one major talent who, in my opinion, has never been recognized.
“Bernard & Doris” is the story of heiress Doris Duke and her gay butler, Bernard Lafferty. Laffery is played excellently by Ralph Finnes and Duke by Susan Sarandon. Major fan page to come for her later.
Duke lived from 1912 to 1993 and was the tobacco heiress to a vast fortune. While she put her money to great charity uses, she also drank a lot and caroused with any and everyone. This movie only scrapes the surface of her, and I’ve looked for books on her life and found only a pittance of what there should be. That Balaban has brought her to our attention again is great. Duke is mercurial as can be, and we’re given glimpses of her great generosity followed almost immediately by her bi-polar-like negativity and cruelty. One moment she’s giving Lafferty an expensive kimono, the next she’s chewing him out because her orchids have not been attended properly. If you want to see a co-dependent relationship at work, watch this movie.
Both Duke and Lafferty have their own substance abuse problems and Bernard, who has been on the wagon for a while, falls off when he sees her wine cellar. What I liked most about this film was the even treatment and realness of the characters. No one is any “one” thing. Both Duke and Lafferty are shown to be highly competent, independent, generous people, who can also be naïve, bitter, resentful, hateful, and cruel. What is most fascinating is watching the transitions and how well Balaban handles the pacing of the film.
I read somewhere that this film had an obscenely low budget and that Balaban was scraping by to get what he wanted. This is the reason for my comment earlier about someone giving him money. The guy’s a genius and has an eye for detail yet to be unmatched. What you won’t realize until I point this out, is that almost all the action takes place on Duke’s one estate, and that virtually the entire film is carried by Sarandon and Fiennes. There are momentary flashes of lovers, butlers, etc., but really this could have easily been a Broadway play and worked.
Cast:
Susan Sarandon—Doris Duke
Ralph Fiennes—Bernard Lafferty
. . . and others.
Sam here again
Sam Friedman's movies
Gosford Park (2001)
Directed by: Robert Altman
Writing credits: Robert Altman and Bob Balaban
Movies are my thing as you guys know. This one is like a cross between a Merchant/Ivory production and one of those old “whodunit” films from the thirties. It’s set in the thirties and the whole feel of the movie is one of lush, pre-WWII England—the England for the very rich who weren’t affected by the Great Depression.
We’re introduced to all the characters in the most marvelous ways, and told pretty much everything we think we need to know about them in direct and indirect ways. For example, the characters of Constance Trentham (Maggie Smith) and Mary Maceachran (Kelly MacDonald), who plays Lady Trentham’s lady’s maid, are introduced pretty much at the first. During a pouring rainstorm in not-so-warm England, Mary is expected to stand in the rain, having gotten out the car to help Lady Trentham get the top off of a thermos. Trentham has no regard for anyone but herself, and with one sentence the script tells us all we need to know. While Mary stands in the rain, already soaking wet, Lady Trentham chastises her for leaving the car door open lest she catch her death of cold (hers, not Mary’s). As usual Maggie Smith is great, though she’s a meannie in this film and full of bitterness and cynicism.
What is most amazing about this movie is that it wasn’t better received. The cast is mind-boggling: Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Tom Hollander, Jeremy Northam, Bob Balaban, James Wilby, Stephen Fry, and Clive Owen to name only a few. Emily Watson has a minor role (if anyone really does in this movie) as a maid! Most will better remember her for the movie “Hilary & Jackie.”
The plot of the movie is a plot-within-a-plot. Bob Balaban, playing Morris Weissman (a tasteless, gaudy American), is doing some research on England for his next picture and has procured an invitation to an English manor house for shooting. While he doesn’t shoot, he’s along to observe. During all this, a murder is committed. It just so happens that the type of film he’s working on is a murder mystery, set in an English country home, just like the one he’s in. As usual, we given a great number of characters to choose from in this genre—to be able to try and figure out who did the actual murder.
This movie is full of so many twists and innuendoes that you’ll have to watch it three or four times to get them all. Most will only want to watch it once, but even so, it’s a fine film. Directed by Robert Altman and based on an idea by Robert Altman and Bob Balaban, the movie probably looks and sounds too inaccessible for the American public whose tastes run more toward the bang-bang, shoot-um-up type of movies. I love this film and I want everyone to know about it.
Gosford Park (2001)
Directed by: Robert Altman
Writing credits: Robert Altman and Bob Balaban
Movies are my thing as you guys know. This one is like a cross between a Merchant/Ivory production and one of those old “whodunit” films from the thirties. It’s set in the thirties and the whole feel of the movie is one of lush, pre-WWII England—the England for the very rich who weren’t affected by the Great Depression.
We’re introduced to all the characters in the most marvelous ways, and told pretty much everything we think we need to know about them in direct and indirect ways. For example, the characters of Constance Trentham (Maggie Smith) and Mary Maceachran (Kelly MacDonald), who plays Lady Trentham’s lady’s maid, are introduced pretty much at the first. During a pouring rainstorm in not-so-warm England, Mary is expected to stand in the rain, having gotten out the car to help Lady Trentham get the top off of a thermos. Trentham has no regard for anyone but herself, and with one sentence the script tells us all we need to know. While Mary stands in the rain, already soaking wet, Lady Trentham chastises her for leaving the car door open lest she catch her death of cold (hers, not Mary’s). As usual Maggie Smith is great, though she’s a meannie in this film and full of bitterness and cynicism.
What is most amazing about this movie is that it wasn’t better received. The cast is mind-boggling: Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Tom Hollander, Jeremy Northam, Bob Balaban, James Wilby, Stephen Fry, and Clive Owen to name only a few. Emily Watson has a minor role (if anyone really does in this movie) as a maid! Most will better remember her for the movie “Hilary & Jackie.”
The plot of the movie is a plot-within-a-plot. Bob Balaban, playing Morris Weissman (a tasteless, gaudy American), is doing some research on England for his next picture and has procured an invitation to an English manor house for shooting. While he doesn’t shoot, he’s along to observe. During all this, a murder is committed. It just so happens that the type of film he’s working on is a murder mystery, set in an English country home, just like the one he’s in. As usual, we given a great number of characters to choose from in this genre—to be able to try and figure out who did the actual murder.
This movie is full of so many twists and innuendoes that you’ll have to watch it three or four times to get them all. Most will only want to watch it once, but even so, it’s a fine film. Directed by Robert Altman and based on an idea by Robert Altman and Bob Balaban, the movie probably looks and sounds too inaccessible for the American public whose tastes run more toward the bang-bang, shoot-um-up type of movies. I love this film and I want everyone to know about it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
One of my Favorite Restaurants
Restaurant Review:
Fleur de Lys
777 Sutter Street
San Francisco, CA
Possibly one of the best restaurants in the world, Fleur de Lys is also one of the most expensive. You might think the reason is for the cost of the lush décor, but after eating there you’ll know differently. This is probably the most romantic restaurant in the world and the atmosphere is stunning. Large oil paintings and heavy drapes contribute to an almost Turn-of-the Century aspect, but the food is totally original and new.
The chef at the time of this writing is Hubert Keller. His background is in classical French foods but he delivers them with a twist. My favorite dish from this restaurant is the Japanese Eggplant which is then stuffed with Sardinian couscous. Second in line would be Grimand Duck breast with cardamom, and a mustard glaze.
The menu at Fleur de Lys changes daily. The service is so good as to be obscene—you’ll be treated like royalty, and at these prices, you should. This is probably the only restaurant in San Francisco that can come close to Emerils’, and that ones in New Orleans.
By Gil Weston
Fleur de Lys
777 Sutter Street
San Francisco, CA
Possibly one of the best restaurants in the world, Fleur de Lys is also one of the most expensive. You might think the reason is for the cost of the lush décor, but after eating there you’ll know differently. This is probably the most romantic restaurant in the world and the atmosphere is stunning. Large oil paintings and heavy drapes contribute to an almost Turn-of-the Century aspect, but the food is totally original and new.
The chef at the time of this writing is Hubert Keller. His background is in classical French foods but he delivers them with a twist. My favorite dish from this restaurant is the Japanese Eggplant which is then stuffed with Sardinian couscous. Second in line would be Grimand Duck breast with cardamom, and a mustard glaze.
The menu at Fleur de Lys changes daily. The service is so good as to be obscene—you’ll be treated like royalty, and at these prices, you should. This is probably the only restaurant in San Francisco that can come close to Emerils’, and that ones in New Orleans.
By Gil Weston
My Favorite Musician of All Time
A Tribute to Freddie Mercury by BoaMan
Most people don’t know that Freddie Mercury’s real name was Farrokh Bulsara. He was Parsi (Indian) and kept this and his HIV status a secret for many years. Some have criticized him for this, but when you consider the stigma attached to AIDS at that time and his career choices, it seems logical. I don’t think any less of him for keeping his status and nationality a secret because his life is his own.
Mercury is chiefly remembered as a British musician mainly because he moved to that country at age seventeen when his country fled the Zanzibar Revolution. What strikes me the most about his music is that it is so original and free in form. He probably got these influences from his varied background of Indian and European music, though finding traces of Eastern influence in his works are rare.
Here are some facts about Freddie Mercury:
Born: 9/5/1946
Died: 11/24/91
Lead singer of the rock band “Queen.”
Died of Bronchopneumonia and AIDS
Attended St. Peter’s School for boys in Bombay.
Was excellent at cricket, table tennis, and hockey!
Worked briefly at Heathrow airport (perhaps there’s hope for the rest of us!)
Played in bands named “Ibex,” “Sour Milk Sea,” and “Smile” before becoming part of “Queen”
Once made an album with opera singer Montserrat Caballe!
Mercury’s ashes are scattered on the shores of Lake Geneva, Switzerland.
List of his greatest music:
Bohemian Rhapsody
Killer Queen
Love of My Life
Somebody to Love
Don’t Stop Me Now
Death on Two Legs
Crazy Little Thing Called Love
We Are The Champions
Influences on his music:
The Who
The Jackson 5
The Beatles
John Lennon
Pink Floyd
Led Zepplin
Elvis Presley
Liza Minnelli
Himi Hendrix
Mercury’s music was at times complex, at time simple. He was capable of great vocal range in some songs while also creating intimate and subdued effects in others. Without a doubt, “Queen” was and remains one of the most original bands on the face of the earth. As a live performer, Mercury had no equal. He was high energy and flamboyant. He gave an estimated 700 concerts in his lifetime. “The Spectator” magazine described him as “a performer out to tease, shock, and ultimately charm his audience with various extravagant versions of himself.” That pretty much sums it up.
Most people don’t know that Freddie Mercury’s real name was Farrokh Bulsara. He was Parsi (Indian) and kept this and his HIV status a secret for many years. Some have criticized him for this, but when you consider the stigma attached to AIDS at that time and his career choices, it seems logical. I don’t think any less of him for keeping his status and nationality a secret because his life is his own.
Mercury is chiefly remembered as a British musician mainly because he moved to that country at age seventeen when his country fled the Zanzibar Revolution. What strikes me the most about his music is that it is so original and free in form. He probably got these influences from his varied background of Indian and European music, though finding traces of Eastern influence in his works are rare.
Here are some facts about Freddie Mercury:
Born: 9/5/1946
Died: 11/24/91
Lead singer of the rock band “Queen.”
Died of Bronchopneumonia and AIDS
Attended St. Peter’s School for boys in Bombay.
Was excellent at cricket, table tennis, and hockey!
Worked briefly at Heathrow airport (perhaps there’s hope for the rest of us!)
Played in bands named “Ibex,” “Sour Milk Sea,” and “Smile” before becoming part of “Queen”
Once made an album with opera singer Montserrat Caballe!
Mercury’s ashes are scattered on the shores of Lake Geneva, Switzerland.
List of his greatest music:
Bohemian Rhapsody
Killer Queen
Love of My Life
Somebody to Love
Don’t Stop Me Now
Death on Two Legs
Crazy Little Thing Called Love
We Are The Champions
Influences on his music:
The Who
The Jackson 5
The Beatles
John Lennon
Pink Floyd
Led Zepplin
Elvis Presley
Liza Minnelli
Himi Hendrix
Mercury’s music was at times complex, at time simple. He was capable of great vocal range in some songs while also creating intimate and subdued effects in others. Without a doubt, “Queen” was and remains one of the most original bands on the face of the earth. As a live performer, Mercury had no equal. He was high energy and flamboyant. He gave an estimated 700 concerts in his lifetime. “The Spectator” magazine described him as “a performer out to tease, shock, and ultimately charm his audience with various extravagant versions of himself.” That pretty much sums it up.
Bob S. here
Sad News
by Bob S.
In total agreement with Friedman on the movie, “Boys in the Band,” but feel a pressing urge to get this off my chest.
So sad to hear about Senator Edward Kennedy for so many reasons. Not only was he always willing to fight, but he really cared about what he was fighting for. While he’s not gone, the prognosis is not good. We can only hope that Senator Kennedy will be able to hold on for a while longer. Does anyone else find it ironic that only two weeks ago he called for a war on cancer? He had planned to introduce a bill for more cancer research. The good news is that the Democratic party is not is bad shape. Our biggest problem is that we’ve got two really good candidates and can’t seem to pick one. We should all be glad that he’s been with us this far and hopefully will be around longer.
by Bob S.
In total agreement with Friedman on the movie, “Boys in the Band,” but feel a pressing urge to get this off my chest.
So sad to hear about Senator Edward Kennedy for so many reasons. Not only was he always willing to fight, but he really cared about what he was fighting for. While he’s not gone, the prognosis is not good. We can only hope that Senator Kennedy will be able to hold on for a while longer. Does anyone else find it ironic that only two weeks ago he called for a war on cancer? He had planned to introduce a bill for more cancer research. The good news is that the Democratic party is not is bad shape. Our biggest problem is that we’ve got two really good candidates and can’t seem to pick one. We should all be glad that he’s been with us this far and hopefully will be around longer.
Thoughts by Sam Friedman
A Few of My Favorite Things
Movie: The Boys in the Band
Play and screenplay by Mart Crowley
Directed by William Friedkin
Starring: Kenneth Nelson, Peter White, Leonard Frey, Frederick Combs, Laurence Luckinbill, Keith Prentice, Robert La Tourneaux, and Reuben Greene.
Our Group recently viewed this movie again after many years of absence. It’s truly amazing how well this film holds up after all these years. Here’s my take on the film which is ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS . . .
The original play by Mart Crowley, came out in 1968, a year before Stonewall, and the movie came out in 1970, the year after that landmark which changed gay rights forever. While I never saw the original play, I’ve heard it said that the movie is extremely faithful to the original script. And most of the original actors in the play made the transition over to film. Sadly, many are dead now. However, Cliff Gorman, who plays the most screaming queen ever to inhabit a movie, is still alive and believe it or not, straight. His performance is a gem.
Criticisms abound for this movie, most of which deal with the fact that it perpetuates gay stereotypes. Well, it does and it doesn’t. If you’re honest with yourself, you will see a bit of stereotyping in just about anything. Sure, some of the characters are promiscuous, some are bitchy, some are closeted, etc., but who really wants to see a movie about well-adjusted people of any ilk, be they gay, straight, whatever. And most people are missing the point of Crowley’s work. He was trying to paint a wide swath of the many different types of gay men there are. This is something that no one else seems to have gotten right even after thirty years. So in a sense, the movie was not only ahead of its time in 1968, it’s still ahead of its time.
Had Crowley wanted to stereotype, he would have picked only Emory, the screaming queen, which was, and unfortunately still is, a large and accepted stereotype. Instead, Crowley gives us a wide range, saying, “Look, here are people from every walk of life: married, closeted, screaming, promiscuous, faithful, honest, nasty, and everything in between.” (my words, not his literally). Crowley then has them play off of each other with a brilliance that has yet to be matched, even today. Now we have “Will & Grace,” and we love them. And we’re happy that Will is portrayed as the grounded-in-reality, hard-working, straight-acting one. Great. But whom do we enjoy watching? Jack. And Karen. The two over the top characters who the sitcom isn’t supposed to really be about. It’s as if Fred and Ethel had usurped Ricky and Lucy.
My point is this: no one wants to read, see, or explore normality, whatever that really is. Crowley’s play is what it is supposed to be: a drama; and the essence of drama is conflict. Crowley not has the characters conflict with each other, but he has each of them endure their own inner turmoil, and has the guts to show it to us.
Kenneth Nelson, who plays Michael, the bitter, bitchy homosexual who is hosting the birthday party, is a mass of confusion. He’s southern, living in New York, obsessed with doing things “just so” yet a horrible host, jealous, loving, self-loathing, cynical, and even funny at times. And he’s just one character. His layers play off of the other characters, each of whom has their own cross to bear, so to speak.
Hank, played by Laurence Luckinbill, is the married man who has left his wife and two children for Larry. Hank can “pass” for straight and doesn’t feel the need to tell the entire world what his sexual preference is. He’s coupled with Larry, the promiscuous one, who wants a relationship but still wants to dabble on the side with anyone who comes along. Larry experiences guilt over this, yet can’t help himself or his sexual appetite. Hank basically wants a family, a home, stability, just with a man, not a woman. The complexity of this relationship alone is enough for a play. Now add the others and you’ve got a diso-ball-faceted group that brings up emotions too raw for most of us.
These are just some examples of the brilliance in Crowley’s characters. Seriously, this is probably one of the best plays written for the theater, not just a “gay” play. And while the play does date itself with music and styles of clothes, they aren’t that different—this could be the early sixties, the seventies, or even the eighties in some cities with the exception of the flare of a few of the pants and some hair styles. I can’t stress this enough: if you see one movie for its character development and relationship flaws, make it this one. And cut through the idea of negative gay stereotyping and see what Crowley is trying to say about the duality and complexity of human relationships—even more so with gay men.
Movie: The Boys in the Band
Play and screenplay by Mart Crowley
Directed by William Friedkin
Starring: Kenneth Nelson, Peter White, Leonard Frey, Frederick Combs, Laurence Luckinbill, Keith Prentice, Robert La Tourneaux, and Reuben Greene.
Our Group recently viewed this movie again after many years of absence. It’s truly amazing how well this film holds up after all these years. Here’s my take on the film which is ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS . . .
The original play by Mart Crowley, came out in 1968, a year before Stonewall, and the movie came out in 1970, the year after that landmark which changed gay rights forever. While I never saw the original play, I’ve heard it said that the movie is extremely faithful to the original script. And most of the original actors in the play made the transition over to film. Sadly, many are dead now. However, Cliff Gorman, who plays the most screaming queen ever to inhabit a movie, is still alive and believe it or not, straight. His performance is a gem.
Criticisms abound for this movie, most of which deal with the fact that it perpetuates gay stereotypes. Well, it does and it doesn’t. If you’re honest with yourself, you will see a bit of stereotyping in just about anything. Sure, some of the characters are promiscuous, some are bitchy, some are closeted, etc., but who really wants to see a movie about well-adjusted people of any ilk, be they gay, straight, whatever. And most people are missing the point of Crowley’s work. He was trying to paint a wide swath of the many different types of gay men there are. This is something that no one else seems to have gotten right even after thirty years. So in a sense, the movie was not only ahead of its time in 1968, it’s still ahead of its time.
Had Crowley wanted to stereotype, he would have picked only Emory, the screaming queen, which was, and unfortunately still is, a large and accepted stereotype. Instead, Crowley gives us a wide range, saying, “Look, here are people from every walk of life: married, closeted, screaming, promiscuous, faithful, honest, nasty, and everything in between.” (my words, not his literally). Crowley then has them play off of each other with a brilliance that has yet to be matched, even today. Now we have “Will & Grace,” and we love them. And we’re happy that Will is portrayed as the grounded-in-reality, hard-working, straight-acting one. Great. But whom do we enjoy watching? Jack. And Karen. The two over the top characters who the sitcom isn’t supposed to really be about. It’s as if Fred and Ethel had usurped Ricky and Lucy.
My point is this: no one wants to read, see, or explore normality, whatever that really is. Crowley’s play is what it is supposed to be: a drama; and the essence of drama is conflict. Crowley not has the characters conflict with each other, but he has each of them endure their own inner turmoil, and has the guts to show it to us.
Kenneth Nelson, who plays Michael, the bitter, bitchy homosexual who is hosting the birthday party, is a mass of confusion. He’s southern, living in New York, obsessed with doing things “just so” yet a horrible host, jealous, loving, self-loathing, cynical, and even funny at times. And he’s just one character. His layers play off of the other characters, each of whom has their own cross to bear, so to speak.
Hank, played by Laurence Luckinbill, is the married man who has left his wife and two children for Larry. Hank can “pass” for straight and doesn’t feel the need to tell the entire world what his sexual preference is. He’s coupled with Larry, the promiscuous one, who wants a relationship but still wants to dabble on the side with anyone who comes along. Larry experiences guilt over this, yet can’t help himself or his sexual appetite. Hank basically wants a family, a home, stability, just with a man, not a woman. The complexity of this relationship alone is enough for a play. Now add the others and you’ve got a diso-ball-faceted group that brings up emotions too raw for most of us.
These are just some examples of the brilliance in Crowley’s characters. Seriously, this is probably one of the best plays written for the theater, not just a “gay” play. And while the play does date itself with music and styles of clothes, they aren’t that different—this could be the early sixties, the seventies, or even the eighties in some cities with the exception of the flare of a few of the pants and some hair styles. I can’t stress this enough: if you see one movie for its character development and relationship flaws, make it this one. And cut through the idea of negative gay stereotyping and see what Crowley is trying to say about the duality and complexity of human relationships—even more so with gay men.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A Different Title?
We started out with the title "A Few of My Favorite Things" only to realize that it probably should have been "A Few of OUR Favorite Things." But since we're only going to contribute one at a time, we'll leave it.
A Few of My Favorite Things
Hey everyone,
We're a small group that has decided to start a blog listing a few of our favorite things, some from past, some from present, some from the future. We're a diverse group, so you never know what will pop up! Join us for some fun or add your comments. We'd love to hear from those of you have similar interests!
We're a small group that has decided to start a blog listing a few of our favorite things, some from past, some from present, some from the future. We're a diverse group, so you never know what will pop up! Join us for some fun or add your comments. We'd love to hear from those of you have similar interests!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
