When it was announced a few years ago that Joe Mantello, an actor and director known for his electrifying stage productions, would be mounting a revival of Mart Crowley’s powerful play The Boys in the Band, the response was divisive – it’s a text that has carried great significance over the past half a century, being a work that occurred right on the precipice of the gay revolution, almost being anticipatory of many of the discussions that were going to be had in subsequent decades, and are still being had today. However, the question wasn’t if it was relevant – a text like this will always have some kind of significance, especially in the contemporary world, where identity is still a very important topic of wide-ranging discourse – but in how essential it is, with many perceiving it as something of a dated work, a play that gives an interesting glimpse into the trials and tribulations of a group of gay men at a time when their existence wasn’t illegal anymore, but still far from widely accepted. A series of conversations connected by a loose narrative structure situating a diverse group of characters against a particular socio-cultural context, The Boys in the Band was a revolutionary piece of theatre – and in its second screen version (almost directly transposed from the stage, with the exact same cast of the new production reprising their roles for the screen), it is now available to wider audiences, who can now be observers into one of the most harrowing explorations of the process of undergoing an identity crisis, and the enormous self-loathing and shame that comes with the following of not being accepted – and ultimately, the importance of realizing one’s own value, in spite of external forces that tell you otherwise. It’s not immune to the problems that tend to afflict the vast majority of stage-to-screen adaptations, but taken for what it is, The Boys in the Band is an important piece of literature that is just as resonant today as it was in 1968.

While this has been the subject of so many fascinating conversations of the ways in which art tends to go beyond entertaining and speak directly to audiences on both sides of the social divide, I personally tend towards looking at the play as an absolutely vital work of LGBT storytelling, a raw and unforgiving drama that supersedes insightful but overwrought discussions of identity politics, and instead cuts to the core of very human issues that aren’t found all that often in art, at least not at the time in which this text was produced. The production was acclaimed, and Mantello translated it to the screen – and as a result, any discussion of this film version of The Boys in the Band will entail a discussion of the text as a whole, since the director doesn’t change too much of the original, other than slightly opening up the world of the play to give it more cinematic context. Like many cross-medium adaptations, this film is almost in dialogue with not only its source material, but a range of other ideologies and theories, which all go into the construction of this as a work that may be slight at some points (especially in contrast with the wealth of other LGBT stories we’ve seen emerge over the past fifty years), but which still feels incredibly relevant and resonant, even by contemporary standards. The Boys in the Band is a text that attempts to say quite a bit – and while the main dividing factor has always been the merit of its varying messages, the poignancy with which Mantello and his cast bring to the piece is worth noting all on its own.

Whether or not The Boys in the Band is successful at imparting this message is open to interpretation, but Mantello exhibits a control of the material that manages to convey a deep understanding of what is being explored here, working with the material in a way that conveys a sense of deep familiarity with the story, and its multitude of themes. Promotion for this film made reference to the fact that both the director and the cast were approaching this from a play of knowledge – they had workshopped this material for months, performing it for audiences on stage, and in the process got to know the story and the characters in a way that not many films allow their actors to achieve. There’s a value in seeing a film that has allowed these characters to incubate, and as a result, The Boys in the Band is a remarkable piece of acting. The revival was quite notable for bringing together some of the most accomplished openly gay actors working today, which gave this film not only a sense of authenticity (especially in allowing actors who fit the profile to play roles that they can identify with to some degree – an issue that has become exceptionally prevalent in the contemporary era, and which many works are actively working to employ), but also allowed these actors to dig deeper into roles that they can bring some of their own individual insights to. There isn’t necessarily one standout in the cast – each one of these actors are giving spirited performances, and whether playing a more subdued role (such as the performances given by Matt Bomer, Tuc Watkins and Michael Benjamin Washington), or functioning as the comic relief (in the case of Robin de Jesús, Zachary Quinto or Charlie Carver), everyone has tremendous moments that feel genuine and lived-in, undoubtedly a by-product of being portrayed by actors who don’t only relate to these characters in some way, but intrinsically understand them after a long period of getting beneath their skin and developing them in their own way.

What often becomes clear when looking at a piece that tends towards more serious subject matter, is that art often has the responsibility to distilling life into a smaller format, while still presenting certain peculiar truths about it without losing any of the detail. The Boys in the Band is not necessarily a “message film” in the way that it takes the form of an artist preaching about certain issues in the hopes that audiences will find some meaning in it – rather, Crowley’s text is focused on a series of conversation, some of them hilarious, others heartbreaking, but which all share one common quality: their authenticity, and how they reflect life in a very direct and often brutally honest manner. The Boys in the Band may be seen as overly prosaic – after all, it’s a play that takes place in a middle-class New York City apartment over the course of a single night, and where every bit of dramatic material comes from the characters themselves – yet, it is so compelling in both what it says, and the manner in which it executes some very challenging conversations, it draws us in and makes us feel every emotion in a way that not only makes us feel like we’re there in the room with these characters, but as if we ourselves are recalling the same pain and trauma that many of these characters feel. Looking at The Boys in the Band as a bundle of ideological quandaries is different from how Crowley wrote about them in a coherent form, and in how Mantello stages them in a way that feels profoundly interesting and far from the overwrought commentary that would come from a more prosaic work that addresses the same issues. Using a combination of effervescent comedy and heartbreaking tragedy to tell the story, The Boys in the Band finds the balance between humour and despair in a very creative way – a joyful dance scene where these characters can abandon their inhibitions and bond as members of a marginalized community in a safe space is quickly brought to a halt and called “being silly”. The tone this story strikes is imperative, and while it increasingly becomes more bleak as it goes along (and we uncover many of the truths underpinning these characters), the combination of vitriolic wit and deep melancholy play a fundamental role in the success of the piece, and makes it perfectly compelling.

It’s important to note that, despite being very much aligned with issues preceding the gay liberation movement, The Boys in the Band is a film that addresses the concept of identity more than anything else – not only is this an ennead of gay men, these characters are representations of differences in race, gender performance and class structure, all of which are so carefully woven into the fabric of the film, each one of these individuals has a story to tell beside their struggles with homosexuality in a time where it was still perceived as something to feel shame towards, even if the thesis of this film – and the fact that everyone one of these characters is aware of – is that one’s identity is never something to feel ashamed about, but the realization of this is far more difficult to put into practice, especially when it’s so much easier to put on an act and allow the self-loathing to take control. We all perform an identity of some kind, even if we’re not aware of it – and as we see throughout The Boys in the Band, doing what is convenient is often the preferred approach for people struggling with coming to terms with their own identity – it’s easier to pretend than it is to change who one is, which is also much easier than addressing deviancies in what is considered “normal”. If anything, The Boys in the Band is a work that attempts to eviscerate the entire concept of heteronormativity by commenting on it from the inside – the bigotry and bias in this film comes not from the outside, but from within – the self-loathing that manifests into horrifying abuse is shown as not being the result of conservative values that genuinely believe these actions to be wrong, but rather the shame of realizing that it is far from a choice. Perhaps the story can be a bit clumsy at times to express this sentiment – certainly it can come across as a bit heavy-handed – but Crowley truly meant well with this piece, and through engaging with these issues from the psychological level, rather than through a wider cultural perspective, The Boys in the Band manages to be exceptionally compelling all on its own.

More than anything else, The Boys in the Band is a multifaceted portrayal of a group of individuals faced with their own existence, questioning their identity while simultaneously celebrating it. Many have remarked that Crowley’s work was revolutionary for its time, but has gradually become something of a relic, especially since so much of it depends on the temporal moment in which it was produced. However, the timeliness of this story is not to be underestimated at all, and while it may initially seem to be presenting quite a singular historical portrait of a particular time, it gradually grows to become encompassing of a broader set of ideas that is all too relevant to the modern day. Ultimately, The Boys in the Band is a very simple work – it may not have the heartbreaking sadness of other theatrical works held into the canon of great LGBT art, such as The Normal Heart and Angels in America, but it does have a sincerity that compensates for its straightforward narrative. It plumbs meaningful emotional depths, makes some bold statements through a blend of humour and hard-hitting sadness, and even manages to find the time to speak to the community outside of the one presented here. This is a film about identity, not only of coming to terms with it, but also realizing that it is something that everyone experiences differently. Homogeneity is even more outdated than the bigoted views this film is fighting against, and through a deft combination of sweetly sentimental storytelling, fantastic performances from a cast of actors who burrow deep into the souls of these characters, and a general compassion, it’s not difficult to see precisely why The Boys in the Band is such a resounding success. It’s not a major work, but its importance is notable, and is worth seeking out for that reason alone.