Boys in the Band set so ugly it must be seen to be believed

omg, looks like the same shitty colors of Children of a Lesser God

Face it, OP. You're the owner of that paltry Instagram account and you want followers. Husbear Nation!

Oh FFS!

Op, your captions cheered me up on this sadass monday.

Inspiration?

Pros & Cons

Burn baby Burn,

That set leads me to believe that they do not understand the play at all.

It reminds me a bit of Halston's Townhouse from the 70's.

What R8 said. Why does this set look like a frequent flyer lounge at JFK?

If a person is wealthy enough to afford any apartment that set might suggest, they could buy themselves out of most of the problems the men in that play confront.

The play is set in NYC. Think small. Think cramped. Think old features. For this play, a suggestion of claustrophobia would be helpful. Pity the poor actors who have to generate some tension on that expansive set.

Epic Fail.

Is that set supposed to look like a 60s apartment?

👏🏽Love. 👏🏽You. 👏🏽Bitches.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the characters in this play supposed to be middle class or just scraping by? That's a wealthy person's apartment by Manhattan standards. Even 1960s Manhattan standards.

I can't see how anyone could be a self-loathing piece of shit if they had an apartment like that in the city.

How many of them are going to do a face-plant trying to navigate down that open staircase?

They'd better keep Rannells off the booze before curtain.

The Boys in The Ant Farm

[quote]That set leads me to believe that they do not understand the play at all.

It's a Ryan Murphy production so you're probably right.

They should get Bomer to put on his TransBomer drag and do a tour of the house Brendad Ickson-style.

Does one of them crack a smile?

[quote]That set leads me to believe that they do not understand the play at all.

The typical gay man's apartment in the 1960s was in a railroad flat.

It usually had at least one exposed brick wall. And walls sometimes painted in a dark color, like dark green or dark brown.

A Tiffany lamp was de rigueur. A Roseville vase.

Bamboo roll-up blinds on the windows. Lincoln Center or Museum of Modern art posters.

Old velvet sofa. And other found antiques.

It was usually quirky, eccentric.

Is this a depressing movie/play? I don't want to expose myself to negative fictional shit that serves no social purpose at this point.

Don't fret, R20. Nothing that Mart Crowley has to say is going to stick. With you.

Who's Mart Crowley, R21?

Yeah, I'm all about the environment... this shit doesn't need to drag me down.

R22 Culture much?

That's a tough play; truly nasty characters - I include it in things I only need to see once, like THE DEEP HUNTER.

Michael is not scraping by. He makes a tidy living (doing something) and lives way beyond his means as well. Much of his stuff is not "paid for," as we learn in the play. I'm not defending this set, but he would not live in a railroad flat. See the movie. He has a duplex and a terrace (which I believe was the apartment of Tammy Grimes).

Reflecting on all the the real life horror and death that gay men had to endure in the 1980s, The Boys In The Band just seems kinda silly today. I remember seeing this film on TV and thinking who are these men, the men represented here were outdated even in 1970. I thought the film was very well acted, but such a complete downer.

R22 = stupidest stupid who ever stupided.

I’m pretty sure theatrical set designs aren’t required to hew to documentary-like realness, so you can probably release the grip on your pearls, Marys.

There are more pressing issues art can address at this point. This shit is old ... a bunch of white guys and a token black guy queening it up and being tragic... WTF. It's 2018 and we live in NYC and LA.

That set looks NOTHING like what a gay man's apartment in 1960's New York City would have looked like. r19 is spot on, though. Where IS the old velvet sofa and bookcases chock full of art books? The Tiffany lamp? The muted colors? Oranges and browns and deep blues? Exposed brick? Bamboo shades? Poster art? Track lighting with ginormous cans?

So much self loathing and bitterness on this thread. No surprise.

So it's guys in the 70s living in ugly apartments crying and being bitchy. WTF.

Uncomprehending "WTF?" children are so tiresome.

That’s a porno, right R24??

E33, WTF is what the fuck. Duh.

Barbie's Scream House

"This shit is old ..." Yeah, R29. Why stage plays about old times? That Shakespeare guy; so the kids eloped and died! Who cares? That AIDS thing with the Kushner guy. Why do a play about the '80s? Really. Everything should be, like, now, ya know?

R37, we need art about today's important stuff.

Many of the posts here prove just WHY The Boys In the Band is still relevant. The irony is blistering.

It's not even cathartic for something that has crying in it. It just leaves you feeling depressed about your own prospects. Who needs that? Our minds already tell us that shit.

Yes, every work of art should be HAPPY!

Boy Broadway sucks this year.

R42 in the case of "Boys..." I'm sure!

R41, art should prompt change. How does this prompt change, other than making guys despair at their own prospects?

r44, The Boys In the Band can be a catalyst for self-analysis. The comment "Despair at their own prospects" indicates that you don't understand that YOU are in CONTROL of your life and your "prospects" and how you respond to circumstances. This is not 1968. You do not have to BE those characters. But your post indicates that you already perceive yourself as a victim, which means you REALLY need to see the play. You don't know what you don't know.

I didn't realize that the show has such a tight budget that it has to share the set with the Graham Norton Show.

It looks like the house where Matt Bomer's life size Ken Doll in Magic Mike would live.

I think it looks amazing. I'm sure the colors change and become darker as the play progresses. You basic bitches just don't understand stage craft.

It's Frasier's apartment.

"we need art about today's important stuff."

I want this on a T-shirt

Good one R46

I much more prefer the Provincetown version, "I Should Have Known You'd Know Where to Find the Boys In The Band"

I'm waiting for someone to do a mash-up: The Boys in the Band's Visit.

Set it in Fort Lauderdale and call it "Where the Boys in the Band Are"

I have to say the current Angels in America set, what there is of it is incredibly ugly.

It's as if The Ladies Man was set at the Cosmopolitan hotel in Vegas.

Chanel did it better.

[quote]I’m pretty sure theatrical set designs aren’t required to hew to documentary-like realness, so you can probably release the grip on your pearls, Marys.

Alexander Hamilton’s life didn’t play out on a bunch of scaffolding either.

Nobody has mentioned the mirrored back walls which seem to reflect the audience. I wonder if this is supposed to be some crack-pot indication that we are all reflected in the play?

I wonder if the actors will wear period clothing or modern clothing that references the 1960s. This seems like another instance of removing period detail because it confuses young people.

Everything confuses young people.

But they spend their money profligately, so we acquiesce.

The "art" question is, "Is the play a period piece that is still relevant" (hence a period appropriate set would be good) OR is it a play with universal truths about self-loathing and self-hate and coping skills for marginalized homosexuals " (in which case, the "scaffolding" or black-box type of set would be good.)

I want to see this play but it's probably too expensive for me. I love the film by William Friedkin - this cast is interesting but probably not as good as the original back in the 60s who had probably lived the script.

R48 Yes. Current theatre sets are minimal as anything. And bleak.

It's one of the reasons that (non-musical) theatre (outside NY and Europe) is about to die.

I want to see the Ivo Van Hove BOYS. Probably done in the nude on an empty stage.

R63, hmm. the problem with your argument is that it is actually a very European thing to do: minimal set, modern dress.

I'm probably one of the few people who are reading this post saw the original production of Boys in the Band in 1970. (I was 16 at the time - you do the math.) As I remember, and from what I could find via Google, the original set was rather plain, perhaps cluttered, and compact. The picture that OP provided is colorful and big. I hope the play's characters in this production don't get lost in the set. If it were me, I would have recommended a set that revolves where characters can walk from one room to the next as the play progresses. The set isn't ugly, just not right for this play.

I like the apartment in the movie. It’s so New York.

R65 it's not an argument, it's just a sad fact of life that (non-musical) theatre is for city-dwellers with spare cash.

Everyone else is using new technology.

It’s Broadway, darlings! The tourists want to see things larger than life.

STARLIGHT EXPRESS! STARLIGHT EXPRESS!

Thank you and fuck you.

Anybody know how the first night went? Any reviews?

That stairway makes it look like a very, very, gay production of Man of La Mancha.

What kind of lighting is that? Is it similar to something from Miami Vice?

Exactly. It is set in the 70's. It should all be track lighting.

Looks like a deconstructed Peppermill Fireside Lounge. Vintage '70s icon that lives on in Vegas.

r75 The original production debuted in 1968 --- why would it have been set in the future? Or did they move the timeline forward for the revival?

Putting it in the 70s would make it post-Stonewall, which would have be ridiculous. And why for god's sake criticize an entire production based on a photo of a set?

hmm. didn't you have to click on "join the bitchfest" to get here?

What if someone falls?

" And why for god's sake criticize an entire production based on a photo of a set? "

Because it strongly suggests that the producer and director and designer do not understand the play. If they don't have this decision right, what else is going to fall short of the mark?

Uh, maybe nothing. Is it too much to ask that you actually see the play before judging it? Guess it is.

I bet R82, etc. works for the production and is trying to do damage control.

If, not, yes honey, with the prices of Broadway tickets nowadays, I will decide how I spend my money based on the set.

The script describes the set as a "smartly appointed duplex in the East Fifties". To be fair, that does not describe the Greenwich Village type apartment one usually sees as the set for the play. I don't think the majority of people would say that the original set was a "smartly appointed" apartment. It was more of an artsy attempt to disguise older housing stock.

Can we use this set when we come to Broadway?

[quote]That set looks NOTHING like what a gay man's apartment in 1960's New York City would have looked like. [R19] is spot on, though. Where IS the old velvet sofa and bookcases chock full of art books? The Tiffany lamp? The muted colors? Oranges and browns and deep blues? Exposed brick? Bamboo shades? Poster art? Track lighting with ginormous cans?

One word:

[bold]AZUMA[/bold]

I looks to me like the set designer's inspiration is David Hicks. Hicks was doing that exact look in 1968 (bright reds, plexiglass, modular furniture, mirrors) but it was very avant-garde and would have been rare to see in NYC at the time.

Not at all. David Hicks was all about patterns in 1968.

I was a little kiddie of 60s London and we had a lot of David Hicks in our house.

Love the color. But it should be in the shape of a compact.

trouble is, they get someone who was born in circa 1992 to do these things - OP's photo is so super tacky and off.

it's like 70s set movies and TV shows... they're like cartoon versions of the era.

The Set Designer David Zinn also designed SpongBob Square Pants if that answers any questions...........

It looks Hollywood Squaresish.

Don't remind me, R91

This thread is DL at its best.

Congratulations, cunts!

No, you're wrong. He did patterns... but he also did exactly as I've described:

David Hicks 1968

Oh, I'd love to live there!

( R94 is in reply to R87 )

Does a pair of sunglasses come with every PLAYBILL?

It has the same color scheme as most of the cinematography of "Showgirls"

[quote]That set looks NOTHING like what a gay man's apartment in 1960's

And that cast is way better looking than the 60's too.

....

....

We, like, want to like, reference the purple drank for the kids, but only in a subtle way, you know?

"We want lots of mirrors, and lots of pink, pink, pink, everywhere! But no drapes! I want pertness!"

Robin de Jesus will make a fine Emory.

A positive comment - and a true one, too - for all of you posting here who are connected to the production.

Where is the front door where I come in?

Here's the alley, where all the real action goes down.

Ugly stage setting for an ugly stage piece.

Which one is playing the pock-marked Jew fairy? My money is on Quinto, as he's the biggest cunt in the cast.

[quote]we need art about today's important stuff

I didn't know Kanye posted here.

Scenic design by Juicy Fruit

I think you mean scenic design by Juicy Couture

I always assumed the play was set in the West Village so I'm shocked to see Mart Crowley's description upthread, noting Michael's apartment is on the upper East Side.

Does the film make much of the apartment's location? I can't remember but do recall lots of shots of each of the characters traveling through Manhattan to the party.

R114, East Fifties and Greenwich Village would both be a row house that had been divided into apartments. That would be pretty much the only way to have a duplex. Pre and post war apartments were not built as duplexes.

Some were. I live on UES in building built in 1957 with 63 units. one line of 5 apts. was built as duplexes.

[quote]Does the film make much of the apartment's location?

No, but if you know New York it's pretty clear that it's in the East 50s.

Saw the show tonight. I really liked it. I thought the cast was great. I've only seen the movie but the play was very funny. The characters are still, for the most part, unpleasant, but I did enjoy it. Matt Bomer is even more beautiful in person. He shows his ass a couple of times. well, I think he does. I was in the front row and when he goes upstairs he strips down to his briefs. Then he goes to the back of the bathroom to shower and takes them off. I could see his ass in the reflection on the glass, whether the rest of the audience can see it or not I don't know. Same thing happens a few moments later. he sits on the bed to put his underwear on. I could see the reflection. Still a great site.

So you see it on the ceiling?

basically, yes

So would those in the nosebleed seats see it directly or would it be obscured somehow?

I think they can see it. I'm not sure if it's obstructed by anything.

Oh and Charlie Carver is very sexy with his hair dyed blonde and his ass looks great in his tight jeans. I wish someone would give me him as a birthday present.

Thank you R118. Nice to hear from someone who was there.

Is there another thread on BITB.? I can’t find one.

Pretty sure the film was shot in an apartment in the West Village.

I wonder if the boys in the band will show the audience their feets.

Matt Bomer takes his shoes and socks off at the beginning of the play and then walks upstairs. At the end, he sits on the stairs and kicks his shoes off. He then stays barefoot for the curtain call.

r125 The thread below was the "official" one.

The film was shot in a studio. The outdoor scene on the terrace in the afternoon was shot on location on the terrace of Tammy Grimes's apartment which was on the East Side. The terrace was reconstructed in a studio for all the night time scenes at the party, including the rain.

Thanks R129. That thread seems to be inactive.

it was everywhere back then, even in the air

Well, make it active, then! My inactive Lost in Space thread went crazy yesterday because someone made a separate thread about viewers diddling themselves over that robot alien thing. New DLers post in old threads all the time when someone bumps them.

Well, we have this thread now, don’t we?

The THEEE-a-TAR exists for REINVENTION & the GRAND gesture. I salute the set designer! I hope they reposition the play to 1982, where everyone is living on the edge. It would give fresh reason for the forced hilarity and maudlin hysteria. And there’s no mention of income in the play, so it could include A Listers. There should be a Jerry Zipkin in it.

The socio-economic status of every character is made absolutely clear in the text of the play. Only an idiot could miss it.

I had no idea Kyle Dean Massey was a stand by for this.

Will this be filmed or is the only way to see it to go to and watch it in the theatre?

Turning!

Revolution complete!

At first i didn't know what to think but now i think i like it. I like tacky. I like trashy. I like porn. I like mattel. I like showgirls. It's a set after my own heart. Now i wish i could see this.

I think most empty theatre sets look weird in the harsh light.

We're supposed to just glance them in the half-lit background behind the actors.

How on earth do you propose to "just glance" at a set you're seeing for two hours? Even if what R142 posted was true, which it is not, it would be impossible to do.

R143 We're supposed to be concentrating on the drama and all the emotions which the actors create.

I just saw a short clip from the new staging of 'Pretty Woman'; the actors had beautiful costumes in front of a bare stage.

Playwright Mart Crowley will be profiled this morning on CBS Sunday Morning.

[quote]I had no idea Kyle Dean Massey was a stand by for this.

And not Taylor Frey?

[quote]Pretty sure the film was shot in an apartment in the West Village.

According to commentary by Friedkin on the 2008 DVD release, Michael's apartment was inspired by the real-life Upper East Side apartment of actress Tammy Grimes. (Grimes was a personal friend of Mart Crowley.) Most of the patio scenes were filmed at Grimes' home. The actual apartment interior would not allow for filming, given its size and other technical factors, so a replica of Grimes' apartment was built on the Chelsea Studios sound stage, and that is where the interior scenes were filmed.

nope,

Audiences are enthusiastic. BITB surpasses one million dollars in first week. Standing ovations nightly.

standing ovation? puhleez!

the fanny pack and sneakers hoi polli from bumfukistan would stand and applaud anything

Does anyone smile?

The play is brutal swinging between hilarity and raw pain in an uninterrupted 90 mins. The acting is impressive.. The play has been updated a bit from the original, but the slurs and conflicts remain. The set looks better up close than it does in the photos. The audience is mostly men, but there are many women there too. Most of the laughter and cheers came from the men. It is an intense and enjoyable experience.

I rather like it, and the lighting, groovy

its the intensity of the players and script that matter.

tickets going very fast

hope its extended into and thru the fall

gr8 production, even if some actors have to be replaced, be fun to see a whole buncha different actors tackling these complex queen roles.

I'm available!

R147 is correct. The film began filming in Tammy Grimes' East Fifties apartment and all the exterior terrace shots were made there as well as a handful of interior shots showing the cast moving between the interior and exterior. But the apartment was so small that Friedkin couldn't move his camera the way he wanted and her apartment, with movable walls, was recreated on a New York sound stage where most of the film was shot.

According to Wikipedia both the play and the film are set on the UES. Does anyone have an original script to confirm? I had thought the play was set in the Village and the film on the UES. It really doesn't make any difference if you were around back then. But the current set is really a fantasy set with no relation to reality.

The film was highly abridged. There is an audio recording made for commercial release (probably by Caedmon?) of the complete original stage version. It reveals the cuts made in the film. Does anyone know whether it is available anywhere now?

I saw the 25th anniversary production at The Theatre de Lys with with David Drake. It wasn't very good. (I will never call it the Lucille Lortel because my late partner had to interact with her when he was the costume designer at LOOM, with which she was briefly involved, and she was nasty beyond words to him.)

I really wish I could have seen the last revival, performed in an actual penthouse in Chelsea.

it was voted best new set of the year

asswipe

Once they’re done they can rent it to the upcoming short run of Outrageous: A Jem and the Holograms Live Musical

It works well for the context of the play, the conversation is so wild/complicated, the set was just rite, not intrusive.

I really loved the play, bomer is as usual stunning. parsons also a stand out. yay tug: good to see him again. I luv his energy.

No creative casting? No women? Lesbian transgendered Asians? Just a bunch of White guys sitting around talking?

R155, the 2-LP set was released on A&M Records. It was erroneously labeled as the original Broadway cast album.

Just checked the script. The play is indeed set in the East 50s.

Putting BOYS on the A&M label was pretty extraordinary in those days. That was the label of the Tijuana Brass, Sergio Mendes, and The Carpenters. Don't think they did anything else theatrical.

"It was erroneously labeled as the original Broadway cast album."

What was the error?

I totally want to go R151. It’s the gay event of the season.

Wow, what a shame. It's difficult to tell from the photos whether it's the actual set or the overbearing red and purple lighting that is the problem. I saw the 1996 revival at the Lucille Lortel theater (and loved it). Even the critics who didn't like the production had positive things to say about the ultra cool set by James Noone.

Boys in the Bland.

r163, because the original production was never on Broadway. It was off-Broadway, and this current one is its Broadway debut.

BITB still works on so many levels: emotional, intellectual, tragedy, humor, personal, social, historical, contemporaneous. Plus Matt Bomer’s naked ass! Gay men should make the effort to see his play.

Wait, Bomers naked in this play? Damn I wish I could go to New York to see this. Not just for Bomer, either.

Was Michael from the south in the original play and the movie? Or did they do a rewrite in order to accommodate Jim Parson’s ugly accent? If so, why not just have him suppress it for the 100 minutes he’s on stage? That’s laziness if he’s not willing to do an accent change. Is it his fucking trademark or something? I can’t stand him.

I'd always kind of assumed that Michael was a Southern Catholic of the Flannery O'Connor variety.

FWIU Bomer’s ass is only visible as a reflection and you have to be sitting at a certain angle to see it.

Better off downloading the Magic Mike extras if you want to see it well.

Visible as a reflection? How is that? Where is he on stage?

I saw the show this past Friday night. The performances definitely improve on some of the more creaky, dated elements of the play. But it's best, of course, to go into the show thinking of it as a time period piece revival and not anything that explicitly has to do with contemporary gay life (although, its themes of self-hatred, yearning for acceptance, and incisive gay bitchiness are timeless). Jim Parsons was the clear standout. I thought he absolutely nailed the central role of Michael. There were several moments where it was so obvious that he was acting on a different level from the rest of the cast. Was he not eligible for Tony consideration for this? The actors who play Bernard and Emory were both also excellent. Matt Bomer does a good job of being recessive window dressing (we saw him two days later at “Three Tall Women” and he really has this waxen, mannequin thing going on -- it honestly doesn't look like much is happening upstairs). Reminds me of the line from the show that goes something like, "Sure, he's beautiful but I could never fuck him because he can't speak intelligently about art). Not entirely sure what Andrew Rannells was doing in this, but if you've ever seen him as Elijah on GIRLS, you've seen his Boys in the Band performance. We all thought Charlie Carver was a huge miss. Did nothing with the role, had hideously dyed blond hair, and seemed to deliver every line as if it was going to bring the house down (but didn't). Le Tourneau in the film did so much more with the role. Kyle Dean Massey, as someone else suggested upthread, would've been excellent in the role and actually could've played 'Larry' as well. I think they should have just kept Carver's red hair.

Zachary Quinto acquits himself well in the role of Harold, but it doesn't seem like he's quite found the character just yet (the show is still in previews, I believe). I really have to give it to the set designer who creates an entire duplex apartment with living room, kitchen, with that kind of red carpeting and step-down living area (I can't think of what it's called when there's a step down into the living room, but you know, that 60's/70's look sort of like Don and Megan Draper's apartment in Mad Men). The set totally worked for me and I think the OP of this thread is a little nitpicky. The best seats are in the mezzanine level so you are on level with the second floor of the set (and have numerous opportunities to see Bomer's ass and prancing around in white underwear), but still get access to the main access down below.

I thought it went on a little long without an intermission but that might have just been because of the champagne I was guzzling. I think the show is best viewed while slightly tipsy which were all were at the beginning.

All in all, a great night of theater and a very enthusiastic audience. The cast seemed really excited. And judging from the first week box office, this is now a hit. I could see it being extended.

slick and stylish and soulless, like Ryan the sociopath.

[quote]Was he not eligible for Tony consideration for this?

The first preview was the day after Tony nominations were announced, so it's the first eligible show for this current season. Someone wrote in an earlier thread that Scott Rudin had it in Mantello's contract for "Three Tall Women" that he could only direct one play for the 2017-2018 Tony season, thus "BiTB" beginning right after the cut-off.

@R174. Fun review. Thanks. Is the phrase you're looking for 'split level' ?

Yes, that’s it, R177! Thank you.

R176, I hope them that his performance is not ignored next year. There was something really beautiful he did while wrapping Harold’s present in the beginning of the play that is mirrored in a later scene. I found it very touching and embued with meaning beyond what might have been on the page.

I saw the show last week. I have trouble seeing Parsons anything other than Sheldon Cooper. He needs to change up his act a bit. I did enjoy his Michael. Maybe he grew up in the same neighborhood as little Sheldon. I thought Zac Quinto has a great stage presence and was memorable. Bomer had a less showy yet complex role. He displayed anxiety in a very subtle way. I don't know where R174 gets his impression. Maybe because Bomer is unusually stunning? .I found Bomer the most sensitive in his portrayal. I also like Tuc Watkins a lot. Joe Mantello did a great job directing. I wish I could see it again. The set works very well. Bomer was very efficient handling his screaming fangirls. Parsons is very sweet too. Quinto seemed like he was ready to call it a night

isn't the play in previews still? the quality can change quite a lot till the actual premiere.

Yes, it is, r180.

r170, there are a few allusions in the play about Michael's coming from the South. In the most explicit, he tells Donald that "there wasn't a Shubert Theater in Hot Coffee, Mississippi" by way of explaining his being weaned on old movies. Perhaps they cut that from the current production. It also explains his overt racism toward Bernard, unless that's gone, too.

^^^ it’s not. The N bomb came towards the end.

I LOVED THE SHOW

ALL WERE GR8 CEPT FOR QUINTO, SEEMD A BIT TIRED WHEN WE SAW IT (EVEN STARS HAVE OFF NITES, BE FUN IF THEY ROTATED THE ROLES HUH....LOVE SEE BOMER AS HAROLD!!)

LOVED THE SET, WORKED REAL WELL WITH SCRIPT.

AGREED: PARSONS WAS UBER FAB AND HOPE HE GOT TONY NOM!!!

I THINK U WILL ENJOY THIS SHOW ALOT !!

best seat to see bomers ass?

Definitely upstairs. He is lying on a bed and his ass is reflected. He also walks around in briefs early in the show, taking them off as he heads up the stairs. : )

The description of when, how and whether you see Matt Bomer's ass seems to change from person to person and night to night.

Why is Matt Bomer's arse does not feature on the poster for this revival?

I don't suppose they will make a new version for TV with this starrier cast.

This old play is just too much of a downer and there are insufficient Negroes and Bad-Assery to please current TV audiences.

R174 Thanks for the review I will see the show on Saturday looking forward to it, we have seats in the mezzanine.

I can’t believe Bomer ended up getting reduced to his ass in a Boys from the Band revival. They would probably find some way to get his pants off if he did Seussical the Musical.

maybe they need the IT black boytoy to please the folks: Donald glover.

wheeee

R191 It's no worse than Lee Pace running around the stage totally naked in AIA. It's a Gay audience we always like a bit of sexual titillation.

the whole dam play should be done in the nude !

all that hot meat onstage

yea!

[quote]I want to see this play but it's probably too expensive for me. I love the film by William Friedkin - this cast is interesting but probably not as good as the original back in the 60s who had probably lived the script.

Standing Room $40. You don't have to sit in the front row to enjoy a show.

I have tickets to see this in 2 weeks! So glad I jumped on it when they went on sale.

We saw matt bomer's ass in the normal heart. How many times do you need to see it? It looked weird to me in normal heart. Did it change? I've seen him many times on the street in nyc and worked on white collar once. He's pretty skinny and plain looking to me.

R193 that nudity scene has always been in the script

Same here r197. Matt Bomer has never done a thing for me. He looks like a generic Ken doll. To each their own, I guess.

As R182, the text all but states explicitly that Michael is from the south.

But Michael escaped. He would work very hard to obliterate the southern accent and be as cosmopolitan as possible. Otherwise, why shop at Hermes? Parsons absolutely should have obliterated his southern accent for this role. No question.

Bomer has kind of a half crack so it looks weird when completely naked. It looked great in Magic Mike because the thong created the illusion of full crack.

There's more racism in the play than the use of the N word. Michael makes a cruel joke about why "nigras" have such big lips. Is that still in the play?

Half crack? Looks like a typical butt to me(albeit nicer than most).

Lots of people retain their Southern accents when they move north.

It still takes place in the 1960s, r202. And Michael is Southern white trash. It would be cultural inappropriation to write out his inborn racism.

" ...cultural inappropriation..."

MARY! That is either all wrong, or R205 coined a phrase that is spot on. And I can't tell which.

I see the half crack. His ass looks weird. It's a no from me.

R202, that line is still there. Michael’s inner racist really comes out when he starts drinking (when Harold arrives). They director dramatically emphasizes that crucial moment.

Matt Bomer’s ass is nice, but it’s not the reason to see the play. It is an important part of gay history & culture. The play is better than the movie and the update is welcome. The all star cast is terrific. Seeing it is an emotional experience.

[quote]We saw matt bomer's ass in the normal heart. How many times do you need to see it? It looked weird to me in normal heart. Did it change? I've seen him many times on the street in nyc and worked on white collar once. He's pretty skinny and plain looking to me.

That's nice, Dear.

Obviously no ones ass is a reason to see a play. But it's a nice additional bonus.

The music used in the production is perfect and period-based. Some songs, such as “The Look of Love,” are the same ones used in the Friedkin film. Jim Parsons has a fun moment with “I Say a Little Prayer for You” to himself before any of the guests have arrived.

R210 covering the half crack like 201 said. It looks great there in the thong.

The dancing is fun and gives a little relief to the drama.

So most people like nice, big, long cracks. Good to know.

Of course it depends on what is attached to them, R215.

Is Bomer the only one in the cast who is married?

Jim Parsons is a year married but partnered for 15 years

Sad to see Kyle Dean Massey reduced to being an understudy after 10 years on Broadway, I know he never created a role just replaced others but seems like a backward step.

Tuc never seems to have a boyfriend.

And Tuc is a single dad

The character of Michael is most certainly supposed to be Southern, just as Mart Crowley is Southern. Parsons was obviously selected for this part BECAUSE (partially - in addition to his acting abilities) he is Southern. His accent is fine.

Taking a million a week how much are Parsons and Bomer getting, 50 000? Presume Quinto slightly less and Rannels less still

How can such an old, depressing play rake in a million a week?

R224 because it remains relevant. Most of the posts on DataLounge today could be dialogue in the play.

Why are you presuming Quinto is getting less when he not only was in two hit TV series, but is also in a major film franchise? Boomer can’t lay claim to that.

No it’s not R222, it sucks and is distracting.

[quote]How can such an old, depressing play rake in a million a week?

R224, it's because fans of the actors (especially since there's some overlap between Bomer/Quinto/Parsons and Rannell's fanbases) are flying in from literally [bold]all over the world[/bold] just for the chance to see the play.

So you end up having someone who would see any Broadway play sitting next to someone who flew in from Indonesia/flew from London/drove across state lines for hours and hours just to see it and have a cast member sign their Playbill ....

.... who will also go see the show again later on in the week (because many of them see it TWICE) and planned their whole trip around it and that's how it's raking in a million a week.

Try searching for the play on Twitter and you'll see countless numbers of women who came into town just see the show.

I also have worked around bomer, his beauty and hotness is breath taking.

I sniffed the toilet where he took a shit.

good!

Lucky Bastard.

Is his husband rich? Dam he lucky to eat bomer's cuntlips every night. must be hung and know how too keep that hot boy happy.

the line froms behind me for leftovers.

imagine all the millionaire fags who want into bomers cunt.

Bomer's never done anything for me. He's too plasticky Ken doll-looking.

Trust me, if uve seen him in person, ur an instant bomer addict.

The man reeks nasty hot sex.

For all his perfect af face I agree R233 He definitely gives the vibe of a very chilled kinda sexually adventerous person. Sexually uninhibited for sure

The casting of all gay men in this is long overdue. Its not a novelty, its a neccesity.

Should be done in the nude yes !!!

that would be in the spirit of the gay lads in the band !!!!

viva la band!

imagine running into matt at the baths.

what u think he into? his lover looks hot n mean, but u never know...

to plunder his fine buttocks would be heaven. or watch him taking massive loads.

The all gay cast is definitely a plus. All the characters are believable and, believe it or not, the play doesn’t come across as hopelessly dated. It has been subtly tweaked a bit so maybe that’s why.. No one will be bored, that’s for sure. It is very entertaining and leaves behind a lot to think about. Highly recommend it.

Lol. I heard one. one fangurl say she saw the play 5 times! All in the 7 days she was in NYC and she showed up to meet the actors after every show. The majority of the audience is gay men, though, not fangurls.

[quote]The majority of the audience is gay men, though, not fangurls.

Gay men aren't "fangurls"?

Should have said fangirlls? Lol, I mean female ones. Many of the girls are just there to see the stars more than they are to see a play they never heard of.

lee pace would have been fun as Harold....

I agree about the play not feeling dated. Whatever tweaks they made definitely worked in the show’s favor.

Also, I love that Jim Parsons’ Michael is wearing the same purple Vicuña sweater as the Michael in the film. It’s a nice bit of continuity.

Who is Kyle Dean Massey the understudy for? They should toss out Charlie Carver and put in KDM as the Cowboy. CC is forgettable in the role.

Do we know that there are that many "tweaks"? I hear it runs an hour and 40 without an intermission, which could be very close to the original, which was probably 2 hours with an interval. I'd love to hear from someone who knows more than rumors.

I can tell you right off that the play runs longer than 1 hour and 40 minutes. It’s closer to about 1 hour and 55 minutes if not 2 hours. I would recommend not drinking anything before the play as there is also no intermission.

The play is definitely better than the movie!

I recently checked and I had no idea that BITB the movie garnered a Rotten Tomatoes score of 100!

R247 I'm confused. Is 100 Rotten Tomatoes good or bad?

It's the best rating, r248. Not many films get that.

The movie was better than this production of the play.

I saw the original when I was 18. all I remember is the stark b/w set, just kind of drawings, very minimal.

it was the rage, raw for its time

the new one is very good.

R247 R248 and R249 are all too stupid to live

r252 a 100 score on RT is the best rating.

It has a 100 score because it's only going off 15 reviews, none of which were written contemporaneously, you freaking dumbass.

All the reviews were written by Lucie Arnaz.

The reviews were from the last 10 years, hardly ancient.

For some reason, I found the movie mean and depressing, but the play had a more sympathetic tone and a lot of humor. The differences are subtle, but significant. The more intimate experience of live theater might account for some of it.

I won’t be happy unless there is an oral daisy chain between Andrew Ranells, Matt Bomer and Tuc Walkins with them nude, sucking and rimming each other. Can someone share if that happens?

the movie was fab, cept for the one who played the guy in whose apt it was held...he was mean and boring, if thts possible. the google eyed queen was fun, Harold was so good, pity that actor died 'young'....

r258, "oral daisy chain" includes "nude sucking and rimming" by definition." Well, sucking, at least.

A couple of them ‘died young’ but I was surprised that some lasted as long as they did. Obviously Luckinbill wasn’t going to be effected during the Dying Times, but it’s sad this straight dude is the one who gets to talk about the movie on TV features and interviews. One of them, forgot who, the guy who played Bernard, dropped out of sight and no one knew what happened to him for decades, some internet sleuth found him on the faculty at a school teaching acting. Bravo.

I've not seen the current Broadway production, but saw the fab production last year in London that eventually transferred to the West End.

When I saw the movie as a young teen in the 70s on a small local station, I was both exhilarated (wow, a movie about gays!) and repulsed (God, they're a bunch of catty bitches. I don't want to turn out like them!)

R257 is correct, I find the play has more humor than the movie. Part of this comes from the audience. When I saw it recently in London, it was in a 200-seat theatre that was 80% gay men over age 40. We knew these people on stage from our own lived experiences, and we knew their humor. We also knew their pain. Watching live theatre becomes a group activity, and we feed off the energy of our fellow audience members. Most of us here on DL saw the movie alone, or maybe with 1 other person. Completely different energy, and for me a sadder experience. There is a lot of humor in the script, and a good director can mine that and not make it a pity party.

Like good theatre (and other performing arts), BITB is both a depiction of its period (pre-Stonewall Manhattan) and speaks to our modern times. I don't think that BITB will have the enduring qualities of other plays that will be performed in near-perpetuity, but it deserves to be seen and experienced. Preferably live with an audience that is gay or gay-understanding.

[quote]Sad to see Kyle Dean Massey reduced to being an understudy after 10 years on Broadway, I know he never created a role just replaced others but seems like a backward step.

Well, he's a working actor in NY and it pays the rent. Beats a Bus & Truck in Pomona.

Anyone who saw it, hows the sound? I actually lost a couple of lines at "Three Tall Women" and thinking of trying the Listening Device they offer when I go in July.

But home décor WAS ugly in 1968. So it seems pretty accurate, as sets go.

R263, you definitely miss some lines here and there from the bouts of audience laughter. I saw it a week ago though and it might have just been because the cast wasn’t used to an audience yet.

Sometimes when an actor stand to the side of the stage, part of the audience can’t see him.

They cancelled tonight's show. Someone got injured. Wonder who.

Oh, thought that's why there were understudies

Maybe someone fell off the second level of the set.

I hope the Bomer ass is ok.

Jim Parsons fell down the stairs and hurt his ankle. People who were at the afternoon performance saw it happen. People talking about it on twitter.

Jim Parsons ankle.

What about the understudies??

Two understudies should be sufficient to understudy this smallish production

Yeah. Why not use an under study instead of cancelling? Shouldn't they be ready to go whenever?

Maybe because it’s still in preview?

Where's Ruby fucking Keeler when you need her?!

well...

Taylor Frey is at their country house. I guess KDM went with him. No understudy.

What are standby/understudies for? TV trash

wouldn't be surprised if parsons has in his contract that if he cant go on, no show.

Can someone secretly film the play and let us see it???

PRETTY PLEASE !!!

What a wuss! And it's not even a musical!

Alas, the other actors are bonding without jim.

I loved the show. Great acting all round. Want to go again. and sit on 8th row, aisle

I wanted to see it last night one of the actors had an accident yesterday and the show was cancelled. I was pissed. Aren't they supposed to have understudies to replace them if something like this happens?

R285, et al, understudies are not rehearsed until after the show opens. It is extremely rare to have an understudy be able to perform during previews.

My first thought when seeing this thread was that the stairs were a safety hazard. I will be interested to know if a handrail has been installed by the next performance.

Are previews usually half a month like this show? Thought they weren't as long. Also what's the difference between previews going on now and the general show run after the premiere?

I don't understand why shows have all these previews anyway. I get it if its a new play or musical or one with a lot of technical effects, but BITB is none of these.

R285 - I don't know if things have changed in modern theatre but in the 1950s the understudies prepared before the show opened. An example is when Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward did Picnic.

R289, where did you get the idea that they were given understudy rehearsals before opening? Given that Newman had small role in the play, that seems unlikely under Equity rules.

Clearly, a lot of you do not understand anything about acting. There is a huge difference between playing a scene in a rehearsal room and playing a scene before a live audience. Unlike film, the audience is part of the performance. It isn't just about timing for comedy. Any good actor knows that if they audience is coughing or otherwise restless during a scene, something is wrong with the scene. I think what confuses some, is that, in the past, most shows, even revivals, opened out of town. They did not need a lengthy preview period in NYC.

Years ago Miss Ingrid Bergman toured in The Constant Wife. She'd injured her ankle in L.A. and when she got to Denver she performed the entire thing seated on a sofa....or was it a divan?

Funny comment on Deadline

"Have you seen the ridiculous set for this show? It was inevitable that at least one cast member would injure themselves (if not all of them by the end of its run).

By the way, how can the injury be “minor” if it results in an entire performance being cancelled? It’s obviously more serious than they’re letting on. Or Parsons is being a huge diva."

R293, I suspect the show was cancelled because either the actors or Equity demanded that a handrail be put on the stairs.

Parsons plays Michael who is onstage for the entire play and who dominates the dialog. I have a feeling that if it was one of the other actors, they would have found a way to do it.

R291 The audience is definitely important to this play. There are lots of inside jokes that result in warm appreciative laughter.

But the players are not meant to know the audience is there. That's the contrivance of theatre. If you play to the audience you have broken the fourth wall.

It’s like a party full of Dataloungers. Lots of snarky wit.

I don’t think the stairs caused the injury, it was likely do to the “conversation pit” which is sunken beneath the rest of the set.

[quote]step-down living area (I can't think of what it's called when there's a step down into the living room

Sunken living room

The pit works well when Cowboy jumps out of the birthday cake.

I’m glad I saw it last weekend before Parsons’ injury.

Mary Martin did The Sound of Music with a broken arm. What's this wimp's excuse?

So true. Even a full body cast can simply be carried here and there.

Put his ass in a wheelchair. I don't give a fuck! The show WILL go on! 🎭

Was he able to finish the Saturday matinee or did it happen at the end of the show?

It happened during curtain call.

There was no time to put in the standby before the evening performance , so the Saturday night show had to be cancelled.

How on Earth did it happen at the curtain call?!

He was walking and slipped on a step. Actors are not brought out on a forklift for curtain call. (Not in this production at least.)

Bullshit. Standby should be ready. What the fuck are we paying you for?

There are no standbys/understudies during previews, R310. Besides, the show was already over as has been stated.

When Andy Karl was injured in previews of Groundhog Day they cancelled the performance and used the time to rehearse the understudy to go in the next day.

I'd love a Tix alert for when Kyle Dean performs. He's a cutie!

That was like fifty years ago. GET OVER IT. Stop living in the past man.

Twiggy is fat, Goldie isn't cute, blacks can be president and gays can marry.

Stop living in the past man

Learn to use commas, twonk.

Was there water involved, r308? If there was water involved.......

R316, I love you.

Hard to dance on a hurt ankle plus his character walks around the set a lot. He’s standing up the whole time.

Star opera mezzo Joyce DiDonato sang Rossini's "Barber of Seville" in a run of performances at Covent Garden while in a wheelchair with a broken leg.

[quote]it was likely do to the “conversation pit

Oh Dear! please due unto others as you would have others due unto you

Throw in a Mon Dieu!, r320...

She actually broke her leg during a performance and completed it on a cane, THEN finished the run in a wheelchair, R319.

It's not like she was playing Peggy Sawyer, r322.........

[quote]Hard to dance on a hurt ankle plus his character walks around the set a lot. He’s standing up the whole time.

Mart Crowley can write a bitchy line about The Man Who Came To Dinner, Nelly Parsons can do the show in a wheelchair. Problem solved!!

Would have been hilarious if they brought out his understudy just to take his bow.

According to the Internet Broadway Database Matt McGrath is the Understudy for Michael. And there are other understudies listed, for the person who keeps saying there are none.

Parsons is a lightweight

R326, of course they have engaged understudies. But it is unlikely that they have had any rehearsal at this date. That is why McGrath could not go on with only 3 hrs notice.

Trust me, if the producers can avoid cancelling a performance, they avoid it. The cancellation means that McGrath was not prepared to go on.

It is amazing to me that so many people here think that the producers would blithely cancel a performance and refund all that money.

Things have changed then. If you also look at the film of The Country Girl you see that Bing's understudy is backstage observing during the out-of-town tryouts. That is even a plot point because he tells Grace Kelly he doesn't want the understudy watching him.

R329 has not just seen The Country Girl; she thinks what she saw was a documentary.

Lauren Bacall wore a leg bandage for weeks while starring in Applause after injuring it during a dance number.

the real troupers find a way to get thru the performance!

I looove andy karl!

AND I ONLY LIVE IN THE PAST, now is ....forgotten.

shit, I bet matt bomer coulda done parsons role in a flash....

Christina Applegate seriously injured her foot during Sweet Charity, but continued the run wearing a special shoe.

yet she was still bad....

[quote]Lauren Bacall wore a leg bandage for weeks while starring in Applause after injuring it during a dance number.

Did one of the chorus boys drop her?

was she (bacall) as hated by her co workers as much as she was by friends and family??? BITCH GALORE

but she was a force of nature, and woman of the year goddammit

Agreed R328 - people are overthinking this. If they canceled it’s because they had no choice. It’s the lead role & the most challenging one so it’s not all that surprising they didn’t have someone fully prepared yet.

Stop making excuses

Will Parsons go on tonight? Will he do a scaled-down version using crutches and just say that Michael fell the night before Harold’s party while getting fucked by rough trade?

The set is GROOVY, Baby! Yeah!

Shirl wrote that when she did Steam Heat, the only prep she'd had was having watched Carol from the wings.

Has anyone on here actually seen the show?

Going on July 11, r343. Front row! (I'll report back!)

r343 have you even read this thread? Several posters saw it and reported on it.

Welcome to the thread, Helen Keller at R343.

"There's gotta be someone better than me!"

So I don't have to read this entire thread, is the show good or a trainwreck?

So Matt Bomer goes upstairs and takes a shower but he's off stage and you can see his reflection in a mirror? Why would he take a shower in someone eles's apartment?

R343, you’re extremely lazy.

R349, the shower is not off-stage. You see Bomer in the shower on stage and you can see him ass whole he’s washing. If you had any familiarity with the play, you’d know the answer to your other question. Michael (Jim Parsons) and Donald (Matt Bomer) are close friends and former lovers. There’s nothing weird about Donald grabbing a shower at Michael’s upstairs before the party begins downstairs.

*while, not whole

Ass whole, indeed!

Ass whole lol

I can't believe they wrote in a stage action just to give Bomer an opportunity to take off his pants.

Wait, yes I can.

Why couldn’t Jim Parsons have taken a shower onstage? Why?!?!?

Seriously? I've never seen the original play but in the movie there's a scene where the character he portrays gets naked and showers. The action wasn't created out of nowhere to get Bomer naked.

Exactly. Donald lives in the Hamptons and often spends Saturday nights at Michael's. Early on Michael gives Donald a "Douche Kit" of his very own—soap, deodorant, etc. I don't think we saw Donald's ass in the original play.

All this play talk makes the show sound absolutely horrible.

Jeez, Bomer has a nice ass but no ass deserves this amount of commentary.

R359 = Flyover queen who can’t afford tickets

So if I meet Bomer before my show and ask him nicely, do you think he might turn around?

Well, he does wander around stage in tighty whities before getting into the shower.....

r363 I guess if there was dong, someone would already have mentioned it.

You can see Bomer’s package through his white, snug underwear.

During a summer stock performance of APPLAUSE, Eleanor Parker badly injured her ankle when diving off a juke box during "But Alive!" Her heel got stuck on the thing. When she dived, her shoe, her foot and her ankle stayed firmly attached to the top of the juke box. She finished the dance being carried by two of the dancers. After a brief break during which she got her ankle taped securely, the show went on. She played every scene sitting down and the company improvised new blocking around her... but she played.

Miss Parsons... get your ass back on that stage!

The understudy is on tonight.

Are you posting from the show, R367?

[quote]you can see him ass whole he’s washing.

Oh Dear! do we see the whole hole he's washing?

Matt McGrath is Parson's understudy. McGrath is openly gay, extremely talented and has an impressive film, TV and theater background. Check out his linked IMDB credits at the WP page.

Have you ever seen Matt in a role where he goes mean and nasty the way Michael has to? I have not.

do you know how many ticket buyers are there for matt's ass??? face???? smile????

thousands! I'm sorry but the man is a work of art and god does not produce men like that often.

his face alone is worth a million quid !!!!

[quote]Have you ever seen Matt in a role where he goes mean and nasty the way Michael has to? I have not.

Have you never experienced a mean and nasty gay man? Thank your lucky stars, Matt's been around, unlike you. He'll be just fine.

Jim Parsons only of minor importance.

The important thing is that Matt Boner gets a Tony nomination next year. Supporting is fine first time.

Will this show still be remembered for next years nominations? That's a lot of time and other shows to premiere till then.

Danny Kaye broke his leg during Two by Two and continued the Broadway run with his leg in a cast and using a wheelchair.

How was Parsons’ understudy last night?

Parsons, Bomer, and De Jesus should be remembered at Tony nominations time next year.

Posters over at BWW said that McGrath was excellent despite twice having to call for his lines.

Playbill is reporting that Parsons sustained a foot fracture but could return as early as this week.

ROFL! The set is so horrible it broke Jim Parson's foot.

This thread is just as nasty, fascinating and scary as the broader theater thread #X one.

What is so nasty about it, R382? It seems quite tame to me.

The Theater calls out to broken people, R382.

They should replace him with Dan Fogler and his magic foot.

Nasty may have been incorrect. Bitchy.

Well since Matt McGrath has gone on for Jim Parsons that seems to blow someone's theory that there is no understudy rehearsal in previews. They wouldn't just let an actor wander out on stage without him having some sense of the show's blocking.

Oh, R387, they would MUCH rather do that than give back the money.

The actor has undoubtedly been getting all the support they can throw at him to get him out onto the stage.

Parsons is now being reported as being back as early as tomorrow (Wednesday). Glad the talented McGraff got to go on at least once.

R387, lets figure this out. They could not put an understudy on stage on Saturday night with only about 2 or 3 hours notice. But they were able to put him on two days later.

So if he had been rehearsed, they could have put him in on Saturday. But they did not. Yet they put him in Monday. How is it possible that he was not ready to go on Saturday, but was on Monday?

Maybe he was not rehearsed on Saturday, but was on Monday...that just seems impossible...maybe you are right....maybe he was fully rehearsed on Saturday but the producers needed to burn off some profits. Because what other explanation can there be for been unrehearsed on Saturday, but ready to go on Monday?

I still don’t get how Parsons is going to be able to dance around on a broken foot.

Someone on the theatre thread said that McGrath sat in on all the rehearsals from the beginning. Not sure if the other understudies did as well.

The understudy had to call for “line” during the performance so he obviously wasn’t ready to go Saturday and has been cramming since the accident happened.

I guess he didn't want to be holding the script.

lol @ cramming.

I had tickets for the cancelled performance just rebooked for July 21st. Hopefully no accidents or cancellations.

Parsons was back this evening, albeit wearing a protective boot and a walking stick. He and Joe Mentello spoke to the audience beforehand to let them know about his situation.

R397 -if you were there can you explain how Parsons danced the Heat Wave?

Wasn't there, just saw it on Instagram. I'm guessing he didn't dance

Do they ever film late stage rehearsals? I guess an understudy could watch one on repeat.

hope the show is filmed for pbs or sumthing.

very fun/poignant show.

I saw the first one decades ago, and this one. can many of u say that???

BOTH TERIFFIC

R401 When I was a baby gay I saw Hello Dolly with Carol Channing and recentry saw the revival with Bette Midler.

How much dong is in this play?

we are hoping they do a nude version for their super doper fans.

matt!!!

R390, with all due respect, this is how it works. The understudies never get a lot of rehearsal, but they are professionals. They know what to do on a stage. And "Boys in the Band" is not a musical. It's not "Peter Pan." No one in this show is dancing or flying.

The understudy has been there watching all through rehearsal. He's had the script and has been learning it since the day he got hired. Because they are in previews, this rehearsal had not yet gotten time on stage. So, they cancelled Saturday night and got him on stage, rehearsed at least by the stage manager, and possibly with Joe Mantello checking in, too. They got his costumes ready, which they might not yet have been. And by Monday, of course he was ready.

Summer stock theaters put together entire productions of Show Boat in a week. One actor, already engaged for the role, can certainly get sufficiently up to speed to go on in a straight play in 48 hours. It will be harrowing for the actor, but well within the grasp of an experienced professional.

[quote]How is it possible that he was not ready to go on Saturday, but was on Monday?

RU Cerius?

R405, yes, that is how it works. I used sarcasm, but you were explicit...which is probably what R387 needed.

r407 r390 Brevity is the soul of sarcasm.

The actors discuss the play.

"hope the show is filmed for pbs or sumthing."

That will be in the month of Never, r401.

Actually, I think PBS would be all over it if they’re given the chance.

The picture at R409 just confirms my feeling that everyone is too old. I am pretty sure the play states that the characters are in their 20s. The original cast was in their late 20s-eary 30s. This cast is pushing 50.

Maybe the play does (did not read it and I’m too young to have seen it) but the movie doesn’t do a good job conveying that, unless it’s the late ‘60s fashion casting that illusion.

"if they’re given the chance." r411, Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

When the play opened in 1968, Kenneth Nelson (Michael) was the oldest at 38 and Robert La Tourneaux (Cowboy) was the youngest at 26.

The cutting jaded humor seems more appropriate for men in their thirties than in their twenties.

Most of the original cast were in their thirties.

According to the play, the oldest character is 33... and that is Emory or all people.

The majority of this cast is in their forties. Tuc Watkins is 52. Even Cowboy is 30. Emory is actually one of the youngest at 34.

and that is Emory *of* all people.

Most everything on Broadway is filmed for the Lincoln center archives to be seen by some priveliged few.

^^^ someone told me you have to be actually have a part in an equity production to get at it.

The average age of the original cast was about 32,

In this production the average age is about 39 (couldn't find Hutchinson's)

not a huge difference given the 50 years social change, 40 is the new 30. and would we really want to see a cast of whiny millennials trying to do this?

R422, averages are a lousy way to judge. There is a 14 year difference between the oldest actor in the original and the oldest actor in this production. That is huge. Clearly, the author's intent was that these be younger men, not men in their 40s and 50s. Actually, yes, I would much rather see the play with Michael Urie and his contemporaries.

Michael Urie is 37. A third of the current cast is younger than that

[quote]The picture at [R409] just confirms my feeling that everyone is too old. I am pretty sure the play states that the characters are in their 20s. The original cast was in their late 20s-eary 30s. This cast is pushing 50.

They are actors, they'll act younger.

But will they look younger, r425?

Shouldn't the actor playing the cowboy whore be younger and attractive? I know Kyle Dean is older than Charlie but he's way more attractive and has stage experience

It's stage not screen so the actor's can be way older than the character.

Diffusion lens or CGI might be needed if filmed...

R424, It is a 9 character play, and one of the characters is supposed to be noticeably younger. If you want to fiddle with numbers, two out of eight are younger. Actually, Robin De Jesús could play Emory opposite Michael Urie and it would make a hell of a lot more sense. These are all supposed to be Harold's friends. It is kind of odd for a gay man in his early 40s to have friends ranging from 34-52. I know it can happen, but is is odd.

Hutchinson is in his mid-forties. He got a BA and then did The Hostage at the Globe in 1999.

[quote]It is kind of odd for a gay man in his early 40s to have friends ranging from 34-52.

only within the confines of a "ghetto" would it be "odd"

No, r430, it's not.

Remember that this is not a gang of guys who hang out together regularly. The guests "are all Harold's friends" Michael says early on. That would mean Hank, Larry, Bernard, Emory. Alan is an interloper, Cowboy a gift. So they don't all have to be of a uniform age.

[quote]only within the confines of a "ghetto" would it be "odd"

Which was what gay men in the late 1960s lived in. FYI, the East 50s was very much as much of a ghettos as the village. Second Ave in the 50s has numerous Gay bars.

[quote]That would mean Hank, Larry, Bernard, Emory.

That was my point. Emory in this production is 34, hank is 52. It could be argued that Hank is only there as Larry's partner, but then you have the 12 age difference between Hank and Larry. That is twice the age difference between the ages of the original actors, and four times the age difference specified in the script. It makes their conflict into something more than the author intended, and not really in a good way.

[quote]East 50s was very much as much of a ghettos as the village. Second Ave in the 50s has numerous Gay bars.

And they still do, where eldergays and gaylings have civil discourse, just as it has been for decades

Actors act different ages all the time. There are younger looking 40 year olds and older looking 25 year olds. A typical 30yo in 1970s is very different than todays. The story of BITB rings true for gays in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. What's with the ageism?

You wouldn't believe the cases of Wrinkies and Frownies they're going through!

[quote] What's with the ageism?

obviously you're new here and missed all the armie and timmy trolls

If Kyle Dean showed up at my birthday party as a rent boy in a cowboy outfit:

Not every Broadway play is recorded for the Lincoln Center Library. Their budget is small and they try to record the Broadway, off-Broadway, and off-off-Broadway productions most likely to become historically important. Some producers pay for the recording themselves and donate it to the library.

Anyone can see the videos at the library if they have a reason to research the production. If could be writing a paper for a class, producing the play, writing a biography, or almost anything. No one checks up on you so in practice anyone can go look at the videos.

R439, I’m studying male nudity onstage with a specialty in Equus.

would a scientific study of the representation of peni size qualify?. Do they have "Take Me Out" and "The Changing Room"?

The writer of this version of the play is the same as the writer of the original,play: Matt Crowley. Guess he was okay with the casting.

r442 Probably NOT OK with your getting his name wrong.

If only I were a gay man, they could've cast me and brought the average age WAY down.

The characters are NOT in their 20s with the exception of the Cowboy. In the original play they’re in their 30s, but there’s no character reason not to age them up a bit. You just can’t make them younger bc there’s dialogue about how they’re the “geriatric Rockettes” & how Michael is losing his hair.

35 back then was basically 50 now.

precisely

"I am pretty sure the play states that the characters are in their 20s."

Link? I can't find one. These men are jaded, established; two of them are or were long-married (to women). That's the point of Cowboy's youth: to be in distinct contrast to the Birthday Boy's age.

Hank is supposed to have a daughter old enough to be a good tennis player.

R442, it's Mart not Matt

would be a blast if they used a bunch young hotties, evan peters, jared leo (well not so young, but still), shawn mendes, etc

who would u cast??

or do one with all porn stars!!!

plz don't let chi chi la rue direct it::the bitch is toxic and C,R,A,Z,Y.

R445 & R448, scroll to page 4.

R442, Crowley hasn't done anything of note since Hart to Hart. He is probably thrilled to get a paycheck and would have OK'd a production performed by the Salzburg Marionettes.

By the time I was 25, I'd met the men who comprised my New York gay family, ten or twelve who'd've been invited to such a birthday party. The oldest was 31, the youngest, 19, though these were outliers, I guess we'd call then today. Most were within a year of my age, in one direction or the other.

Well, you know it’s a good play when the only thing that is criticized is the age of the actors! Anyway, all of those actors look considerably younger than they are.

What the hell is that post about, R454 ?

We were talking about the ages of sets of gay friends, r456.

one of my alltime fave plays/movies. awesome dialogue!

How is a show different during previews than after opening? Is it better to wait to see It?

What next for the Ryan Murphy players?

Is The gay baseball play take me out dated now? Joe Mantello directed it's west end and Broadway premiere production. Time for a revival. Matt Bomer and some other Murphy alumi?

[quote]What next for the Ryan Murphy players?

Do you really need to ask?

[quote]Matt Bomer is Zsa Zsa in LA CAGE!

Oh, dear.

I suggest the immortal 1933 classic "The Green Bay Tree." It was "The Boys in the Band" of its day.

R463 Olivier described 'The Green Bay Tree' as "a wonderful piece of work... brilliantly done and sensationally successful".

Brooks Atkinson wrote: "When the curtain rings down after a long, tense evening, you feel that the entire story has been brilliantly and forcefully told.... The theater has unleashed one of its thunderbolts."

Anyone know Arthur Laurents's play THE ENCLAVE. Someone just did a few performances here in the Village a couple of weeks ago. I was told Laurents thought Crowley stole stuff from the play for BITB.

R465, that would be interesting as BitB was first performed in 1968 and The Enclave in 1973.

What’s wrong with not acting your age?

hope matt does a big crime thriller ala Gone baby Gone....

Trash crime novel sensation Women in the Window with Amy Adams filming soon. 3 interesting roles Matt could play, husband, cop, scary but hunky neighbour.

How is Jim Parsons handling the show with the boot and cane? Has anyone here seen that?

To be fair to Jim, he and Todd lost their 14 year old dog on 8th may.

It's totally believable that Hank is a decade older than Larry. And the age difference could contribute to their dynamic. Hank has aged out of playing around, if that was ever his thing.

Should I see this or Angels in America with Nathan Lane?

R472, it is believable, but it changes the dynamic of the play. It isn't about a May/December romance. It is about gay men negotiating what a relationship means when there are damn few examples other than heterosexual couples. It is not like today where there are role models for every conceivable type of gay relationship. By making it a mature/immature conflict, the gay history is whitewashed.

10 years is hardly May/December. 20 years, maybe. 30 years, for sure. The tension between Hank and Larry is exemplified by their careers. One is a school teacher. The other a fashion photographer. Mart Crowley could hardly have made them more polar opposites. It's an interesting acting challenge for the actors, to find and build an attraction and relationship that would bridge all the many differences in the lives they have been leading.

R475, math isn't your strong suit. They are 13 years apart 52/39.

Ok are we talking about actors or characters? Why do some people have such a hard time understanding the concept of acting? The number of such people seems to be increasing. People getting dumber? Seriously beats me.

Fuck you, R476.

Read R472.

R478, you are still wrong ,as is R472. The actors are 13 years apart in age, not 3 years as in the script. Yes, it matters.

Second, plays do not exist as "challenges" for actors. Plays are not a sandbox for kiddies to play in. What is in the script matters.

You also need to deal with reality. Hank would have been born in 1916. He would have lived his early childhood in the relatively affluent 20s and his teens and early adulthood during The Depression. He most certainly would have fought in WWII. He would have had to deal with the return to civilian life and all of the life challenges and psychological challenges involved.

Larry would have been born in 1929. The Depression would have been his normal. He would have been too young for WWII and very likely have missed the Korean War altogether.

This would have been a very mismatched couple in 1968. Whether 10 or 13 years difference, it would have been a much greater gap than it is today simply due to one participating in history and the other, largely, being able to avoid it. There might be an interesting play to be written about those two characters, but to impose that onto BitB distorts the play.

R479 You’re overthinking this. The play is about what happens on stage. I found the couple quite convincing.

Only saw the original downtown show. It had a modest set, as those chancy things were at the time. All you really need is a living room. If you read the play and forget what you saw in the movie, the set doesn't have to be a duplex, Donald does not have to do the underwear thing. Director's choice, if Donald was played by Josn Gad or Jered Gertner instead of Matt Bomer you wouldn't see ass.

For people like R479: It's a good idea to not get to know the personal details of actors if you have a hard time separating actors from their characters. The age difference isn't something even worth mentioning unless you know the actors's real ages and make it a point to bring it into the equation. It's not like one looks like a teen.. They all look believably in the vicinity of 30s-40s. Good enough for most of us

"What is in the script matters." Irony alert , r479.

Boys, boys, it's just a show.

R481, the script specifies the duplex set. And you really do need to see the bedroom because action happens there that cannot take place in the living room where all the other characters are.

Sometimes the playwright really does know best.

I remember that original show, seemed like it was b/w stick drawings on the wall, very minimal. they musta had no budget. this one is vastly superior.

The set was a duplex with the walls being b&w photos of the walls. Like Michael was trying to live in a magazine.

A play is a collaboration among the actors, director and writer. Otherwise, it is just a screenplay.

R488 In this case, it's actually a stage play.

Original production...

I think Luckinbill (sp?) is the only original cast member still living. Most of the others died of you-know-what decades ago.

Hope to see a photo op with Luckinbill, maybe after or at the opening.

Set resembles Barbies Dream House

As decorated by Gay Ken, r494.

In addition Luckinbill, Ruben Greene (Bernard) and Peter White (Alan) are still living. I think all the others, except for Cliff Gorman (Emory) died of aids

How is gay history erased? Hank has a relationship model. He's come out of a heterosexual marriage. And he wants essentially the same dynamic with Larry. That's the crux of it, whether the characters are the same age, 5 years apart, q 10 years difference. Watkins being 10 years older only adds to the culture clash.

And as stated, a decade or so age difference - especially where the younger is knocking on 40 - is not a May/December relationship.

I saw both Kenneth Elliott directed revival at the Lortel (with the amazing David Greenspan) and the Transport Group environmental production in a Chelsea loft. Aside from the racist comments directed at 'Bernard' The Boys in the Band is an immensely entertaining play and very funny. Haven't seen the current Bway production, not sure I want to.

matts ass

nuff sed

Age gaps in gay relationships - unheard of!!

Andrew, Charlie and Matt do the AIDS walk. They look to be in makeup.

^ love the t-shirts.

I don't think any of these guys leave the house without full makeup. unfortunately it's often applied to thickly

On a more interesting note the cast was at an event at Nordstrom men's introduced by Vogue editor Dame Anna Wintour. Simon Halls for one would have appreciated that.

Andrew Rannells is such a 2 face. Sometimes he looks so cute and sometimes... ugh. Not. I feel like being next to Matt Bomer on stage every night has to be a blitzkrieg on the old self esteem. Meanwhile, Zach always strikes me as such a sour, pretentious puss.

Quinto has that effect on me too r505. He seems to be quite tedious to be around.

Did you guys see Rannells' Lincoln Center concert? I couldn't watch the whole thing. He's not terrible, but there's something amateurish about him.

And for a second rater like rannels to see the adulation Matt and Jim Parsons get at the stage door.

How Rannels career has thrived over other more talented and personable talent is a mystery

Matt Bomer's acting talent is so modest, the pretty doesn't make up for it.

Modest acting ability could be leveled at all this cast.

R507 agree. Rannells is seriously no talent. He’s one of the biggest turn off to me. His only blessing is that he is gay and people like Ryan Murphy takes care of him.

I was quite surprised to see Andrew R. getting his own Lincoln Center spotlight show and PBS special. I didn't think he was enough a "name" for that. He certainly isn't talented enough, but with friends like Ryan Murphy and Andy Cohen that's not a problem.

LOL @ the Rannells hater. He has two Tony noms and he has "no talent."

I thought Rannells was hilarious on “Girls.” He had the best lines.

Are he and Lens friends off-camera?

r512 it's not that he has NO talent, he's just marginally talented. He's very basic.

Rannells should do a show with Kristin Chenoweth, that would I could avoid them both, all at once.

They both have exceptional singing voices, but they both pour it on more thickly than did Mitzi Gaynor in "The I Don't Care Girl." Their performance style is more suited to twirly batons than to acting, something neither is very good at. They can play cute, all right. And they can HAMMER a punch line. But that is something else.

Their shortcomings quickly make them both grating, despite their genuine talent which they do have. If Kelli O'Hara is a complete package, Chenoweth and Rannells have some parts missing.

R514 You should know about basic.

Every time I see one of those solo concerts, I ask myself if I would buy a solo album if one was released. I always say no.

???r516?

Somebody ought to spike those drinks they’re guzzling throughout the play. Then the sparks would fly! 😁

thought rannell's Lincoln center show was brilliant. couldn't take my eyes/ears off it...surprising and brilliant song choices..

matts an awesome actor...the normal heart???? his beauty belys his talent.

the whole Boys cast is thoughtful and perfect.

kudos to the director and author of the play.

R174 and others who have seen it--how does this production handle Alan, the allegedly straight friend who's visiting from out of town? Is he played as screamingly gay (albeit a closet case), or sexually ambiguous, or repressed, or what? In the play it's unclear so the role could be performed in a variety of ways.

I'll probably post this in the general theater thread too, but is Parsons still using the cane? Reports on his first performance back last week were that he was using itvery much as a prop and made it work for the character. Any updates on his performance or physical condition?

why parsons getting bad reviews?

I thought they were all great. Good to see so many bright talented men shining in their craft.

Special play, special cast, special moment...

r522 Saw it last night, no cane but he was wearing a black boot. They put up signs letting the audience know and assured us he was not in pain, which I thought was funny.

r521 Alan is played just like in the film. He could go either way.

[quote]Saw it last night, no cane but he was wearing a black boot. They put up signs letting the audience know and assured us he was not in pain, which I thought was funny.

What did you see of a nekkid Bomer?

Can the Bomer obsessive just die in a grease fire already?

I could see a brief glimpse of his ass as he gets in the shower. When he sits on the bed to put his underwear on, I couldn't see a thing. But God is he beautiful.

Also at the end, Tuc Watkins and Andrew Rannells take their shirts off in the upstairs bedroom. It's not easy to see but Tuc has a great body. And Charlie Carver's ass looks amazing in his tight jeans. It all icing on the cake because it's a really great production. I want to see it again before it closes.

Carver is underrated, he is not only hot, but talented.

Tuc's body is buff as hell, he is a fun guy, his role on that soap was a blast, for yrs.....only watched it for him.

I also want to see this play again, theyr all so talented and on point...

obvious labour of love

r530 The Cowboy role is so underwritten but Carver makes the most of it. He's very funny. They're all so mean to him, you just want to hug him.

Cowboy is not underwritten. He has no bad dialogue.

He's just not very smart. But he' s smart enough to keep his yap shut in a room full of competitive queens. He's there all evening, just like everyone else, taking in the same shit everyone else does and reacting to it in his own way.

r532 Agree to disagree, but I think there is much more that could have been done with the character.

Is Michael Urie good in this?

He's not in it, r534.

He could be a replacement for Jim Parsons if they decide to extend.

Third week box office gross just over 1 million.

No significant drop from week 1, even though parsons was out for 1 performance.

Maybe the try extending the run after the stars leave.

Do you think they'll insist on casting only openly gay actors as the replacements?

They should at least have a couple gay actors in it if it extends, but otherwise actors shouldn't be excluded from it if they are straight.

Who is in the audience? Is it dominated by young female fans of Parsons, Quinto & Bomer (in which case exyending might not be good option) or rather regular theatre goers/ gay men less likely to be there just to droll over Bomer's ass?

It's all eldergays. One woman who attended said the women's restroom was empty.

Isn't Urie moving Torch Song Trilogy to Broadway?

R533 I agree with you - the character is really just a plot device to explain things to straight people in the 1968 audience. There is something poignant & tragic in the way the other characters treat him though.

talk of Justin beiber wanting to at long last get his big break on bway: he wants the role of the queen....

Michael Urie would be a better Michael than Jim Parsons.

Jim sounds like Leonard Frey doing Harold.

I think Parsons does a terrific job especially when Michael starts drinking and the party turns. I think he is really great at showing the pain behind his nastiness.

r538 I think they should cast all openly gay actors. I think it's such a positive element for this play. I know on this site you're suppose to be negative all the time but I do have to say, seeing the stage full of out actors of all different types made me very happy.

r540 I've seen it twice and the audience has been mixed. Lots of women both times but not the fangirl types you see. Lots of gays, of course but also straight couples. Former Yankee manager Joe Torre and his wife were there the last time I saw it.

^ Did u see it with Matt McGrath as Michael?

No I saw Jim both times.

Matty talks about being nekkid onstage.....

R550 is just click bait. Matt did no more nudity than usual.

Any DLer happen to attend the third preview when Matt forgot his towel?

I was there. You could see some penis.

Just kidding.

R547, The play runs how long? I have a matinee ticket, and right now a front-row same-evening ticket is still available. But I take a bus in.

Oh please, not another gay role for Urie. Loved him in INSPECTOR GENERAL and BUYER AND CELLAR, but he made me ill in TORCH SONG. Anyone see his Hamlet?

The play is an hour and a half. If you want to meet the actors, you have to wait 30-60 mins after the show.

[quote]The play runs how long? I have a matinee ticket, and right now a front-row same-evening ticket is still available. But I take a bus in.

I'm not 547 but we went a few days ago and it clocked in at about 2 hours.

I know 556/547 said an hour and a half.

The website says 110 minutes.

I'd say it's still between an hour 50 minutes and 2 hours. So block off 2 solid hours 554.

Also they are not kidding: you can NOT leave for any reason once it starts or they will not let you back in.

BYO diapers.

Thanks, r557! (You too, r558! Haha!)

Seems a small premium to pay after already paying a bundle for the ticket. You don't want to miss the heart-warming last half of the show.

Yes, it would be wise not to drink any fluids for several hours before you see this show.

R557, is right. The play is close to two hours long. I’m R174 who saw it the first Friday. I would recommend not drinking ANY liquids before seeing the show. You are not allowed back if you leave to use the restroom.

I hate directors who torture the audience with no breaks. It's the height of amateurism to me. This idea that you're breaking the intensity of the drama. Please. You would think there is a natural break time in the play. Maybe during the rain storm?

No intermission?

I love no intermission.

Ummm... there is no intermission in the movie. And no controversy about it, either. There is no intermission in most movies. Are y'all wetting your pants every time you go to the movies?

Perhaps the actual problem is something like exorbitant ticket prices and Broadway theaters that are now so crammed with seats that any sort of movement is a problem.

Shows make a big deal of saying they will not seat you, but they always do.

R177, Isn't sunken living room more accurate?

If you can't sit for two hours with out a break, don't go. Or get standing room where you won't bother anyone. If you have a bladder problem prepare and keep the liquids as minimal as possible and go before the show. Most people won't drop dead from dehydration without liquids for a few hours before. You're seeing a show, not running a marathon. You are not in your living room, ADAPT.

Nice review

You can rent one of these at the assisted listening devices booth.

Why hasn't anyone turned this into a musical yet?

R567, don't count on that everywhere. Try it at the Metropolitan Opera and you will be invited to view the performance of the balance of the act from one of several conveniently located TV lounges.

My friend told me the play is 7 hours - over 2 nights. That’s a pretty hefty commitment for a play...

He must have meant Angels in America

R575: Yep! He got the two confused ;)

[quote]If you can't sit for two hours with out a break, don't go.

I had no problem with this personally. I think the issue is that the audience does contain a lot of old people. It's not like a movie where you're encouraged to buy a big gulp before hand. (There were very few people buying drinks.)

They alerted everyone in line. They alerted everyone at the door. They alerted everyone before they seated them. They alerted everyone before they told you what section you were in: please go to the bathroom NOW.

Also you won't be seated if you're late which makes sense but they sent out a few emails about not doing this and then added it on the telecharge page in big red letters. So don't be late and don't leave once it starts. It seems like these are things you must tell old people because they will try it.

Does that theater have a bar? I love a nice drink (wine) to mellow out while watching a play.

FOLLIES had no intermission.

What happens if the actors REALLY have to take a sudden dump while performing? This has to happen sometimes.

not allowed bak in if take a shit break???

OUTRaGEOUS

r566, Are you serious? You don't know that one can leave a movie for the restroom and then---YES! ---can return to one's seat??

r569, If you recall, my original context for asking was NOT about my bladder, with which I have no known issues, but my BUS schedule.

But please, proceed.

I'm going in July and got an e-mail already stating the no latecomers or re-entry.

Some of us can go hours and hours without a bathroom break.

im old, bringin my plastic piss bucket to pee n shit it. fukkit

why all the bitching fellas? easy peasy, (pun intended)

r587 you just reminded me of Joan Rivers' joke: "Hi, I'm June Allyson. While I'm talking to you, I'm taking a dump."

WE SPOSED TO JUS DO BLOW RITE THERE IN OUR SEATS???

Bajour!

Big Bang Theory!

Vaaanjie

Harvey!

The Normal Heart!

New thread

hold your horses.

matt alone is worth the price of admission.

Right, R597. But for the price of admission, you don't get to be alone with Matt.

who bitches about the fucking set when u have all that good meat on stage....

primarily the God mr Bomer, and even a small peek at his ass is a gift from the Lord Jesus for gods sake.

we need more hot ass pix of him, entirely too few on the net....his face and behind make him one of the purdiest boys in the HISTORY OF HUMANS.

Young Sheldon!

Hidden Figures!