'Boys in the Band' Dweil
on Their Own Perversions
By EMERSON BATDORFF
It seems strange that the only thing homosexual males should talk about at a party should be their own homosexuality. But so it appears from "The Boys in the Band."
It might be that the author, Mart Crowley, who did the film as well as the stage play, merely uses the constant talk about homosexuality for shock value to get people into the theater.
After all, it would be little fun to go to a movie about homosexuals and find them discussing bowling or fishing or how to make shrimp creole.
Anyhow, people who are gung-ho for the new freedoms, as well as people who admire resplendent performances. should like the picture very much.
PEOPLE who are more repressed in their admiration for total liberality may be quite a bit more restrained in their admiration if, indeed, admiration be the word for their emotion.
"The Boys in the Band" is a hotbed of splendid acting. Almost every part is taken to perfection, the sole exception being one that is just too, too cutsey and camp. Or so it seems. A straight could get into a lot of trouble characterizing as cutsey something about which he knows nothing.
But it did seem odd to me
'Boys in the Band'
Directed by William Friedkin. Written and produced by Mart Crowley from his staye play. 120 minutes. Adults. Cinema Center Films. Donald Harold Emory Bernard Hank
Larry
Alon
Harold
Cowboy Michael
Frederick Combs Leonard Frey Cliff German Reuben Greene Lawrence Luckinbill Keith Prentice Peter White .Leonard Frey Robert La Tourneaux Kenneth Nelson
that homosexuals should be represented as being, almost without exception, as catty and mean.
Here they are so magnificently catty and mean that vituperation becomes a work of art to be wondered at open mouthed by the audience.
In the midst of so much excellence there exists one great problem. Its presence serves to make the fine performances mere individual tours de force rather than a gripping entity.
The plot involves a birthday party attended by a lot of homosexual males. A presumably straight friend of the host telephones him. weeps over the wire and then shows up for a drink. He stays for the party.
The audience is left to guess the reason for his remaining where the caperings cause him revulsion to the point of fighting.
WHEN the movie ends there still is no valid reason for him to have stayed. With no motivation, no one would stay in the presence of the repulsive guest of honor who is portrayed so bril-
liantly by Leonard Frey. He wears his dagger in his mouth.
Kenneth Nelson as the host also is superb, knowing just how far to carry maudlin hysterics. He reaches the point just short of the cliff edge and backs off time and time agin.
Another thing that seems strange to me is how the host can force a telephone game on his guests. His game demands that each guest call the person he loves on the phone and proclaim his love. A lot of guests didn't want to do it. But they did it anyhow. Why? Why didn't anyone throw one of the dirty words that was lying around loose and cut out? Because it would ruin the movie? Not a good enough reason.
There is a great deal of verbal fencing with bright. sharp, cruel remarks flashing through the air and either going home to the heart or being warded off.
The movie is the first 1 have seen in which the dirty words are said so matter of factly that they are scarcely noticed.