Eight gay men spend Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day in a remote house near NYC. Film follows their friendships and relationships. Previous posters have complained about the lack of character development but remember...the original play ran 3 1/2 hours! They had to cut out over an hour's worth of material to get a two hour film and the cutting does hurt. Still I like the film. The entire cast is good...even Jason Alexander. The setting is beautiful and the script is very good...but I saw the play so I was constantly remembering things they cut out. Ramon's (Randy Becker) part especially was chopped down. Still, the film shows a bunch of gay men dealing with AIDS, sex, love etc truthfully and with great humor. The best performances come from Alexander, Justin Kirk, John Glover and Randy Becker. Also the film has plenty of casual male nudity (especially Becker who is handsome and has a very nice body). Worth seeing...especially if you never saw the play.
53 Reviews
think of it as a follow-up to "The Boys in the Band"
lee_eisenberg20 March 2022
Mart Crowley's 1968 play "The Boys in the Band" focuses on a group of gay friends getting together in a New York apartment. It addressed the internalized homophobia of the preceding decades. Therefore, one might think of Terrence McNally's "Love! Valour! Compassion" as a follow-up. This one depicts eight gay men getting together at a country estate. The year is not identified, but AIDS gets mentioned, so it's probably mid-'80s at the earliest.
Joe Mantello's* big-screen adaptation of the play is a fine piece of work. I should admit that I've never seen a stage production, but it's clear that a lot of passion went into this movie. The characters muse on the issues affecting their lives, as well as the popular culture from which they've taken inspiration (with one man positing that the US produced as many gays in 250 years as England did in 2,000).
All in all, the movie has its flaws, but the assets outweigh those. I recommend it.
So is Glenda Jackson really the British version of machismo?
*Joe Mantello more recently directed a Netflix adaptation of "The Boys in the Band" starring Jim Parsons and Zachary Quinto. He also appeared on the Netflix miniseries "Hollywood" as a 1940s executive.
Joe Mantello's* big-screen adaptation of the play is a fine piece of work. I should admit that I've never seen a stage production, but it's clear that a lot of passion went into this movie. The characters muse on the issues affecting their lives, as well as the popular culture from which they've taken inspiration (with one man positing that the US produced as many gays in 250 years as England did in 2,000).
All in all, the movie has its flaws, but the assets outweigh those. I recommend it.
So is Glenda Jackson really the British version of machismo?
*Joe Mantello more recently directed a Netflix adaptation of "The Boys in the Band" starring Jim Parsons and Zachary Quinto. He also appeared on the Netflix miniseries "Hollywood" as a 1940s executive.
A summer in the country
jotix10012 November 2005
It's amazing the fate the great play by Terrence McNally suffered on its way to the movies. The fact that it's basically the same team that produced this moving theater piece at New York's Manhattan Theater Club and later transferred to Broadway with basically the same cast, and with the same director, Joe Mantello, doesn't give the film viewer any idea of what "Love, Valor, Compassion" was so effective on the theater in comparison what one watches this version on the screen.
First, and foremost, the replacement of Nathan Lane, the originator of the role of Buzz was the first mistake. In fact, Jason Alexander, a good actor otherwise, throws away the balance of the film as he portrays Buzz. Mr. Alexander is out of his element in the movie. He seems to be acting in a different film, rather on this one.
The rest of the brilliant cast is repeating the roles they originated on the play.
"Love, Valor, Compassion" deals with a lot of serious topics in a matter of fact way. AIDS is at the center of the story as this group is affected deeply in one way, or another, by the plague that is killing most of these men gathered at a summer house. There is also a subtext in the movie about relationships, friendship, and loyalty.
John Glover playing the twin brothers, John, and James, gives one of his best performances in this picture. Mr. Glover is an actor who has a long background in both theater and films and he is a welcome addition to anything he decides to grace with his presence.
Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey, are Perry and Arthur, a gay couple that has managed to stay together fourteen years, a record for this type of life where relationships tend not to last at all. Stephen Bogardus and Justin Kirk, are Gregory and Bobby, the host of the house and his sweet blind lover. Randy Becker plays Ramon, who appears to be a hustler and has been brought as a guest and ends up betraying his companion and the host.
Finally, the fact the film doesn't work rests with the direction of Joe Mantello, an excellent theater director for casting the wrong man in a key part in the movie and perhaps his unfamiliarity working in films.
First, and foremost, the replacement of Nathan Lane, the originator of the role of Buzz was the first mistake. In fact, Jason Alexander, a good actor otherwise, throws away the balance of the film as he portrays Buzz. Mr. Alexander is out of his element in the movie. He seems to be acting in a different film, rather on this one.
The rest of the brilliant cast is repeating the roles they originated on the play.
"Love, Valor, Compassion" deals with a lot of serious topics in a matter of fact way. AIDS is at the center of the story as this group is affected deeply in one way, or another, by the plague that is killing most of these men gathered at a summer house. There is also a subtext in the movie about relationships, friendship, and loyalty.
John Glover playing the twin brothers, John, and James, gives one of his best performances in this picture. Mr. Glover is an actor who has a long background in both theater and films and he is a welcome addition to anything he decides to grace with his presence.
Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey, are Perry and Arthur, a gay couple that has managed to stay together fourteen years, a record for this type of life where relationships tend not to last at all. Stephen Bogardus and Justin Kirk, are Gregory and Bobby, the host of the house and his sweet blind lover. Randy Becker plays Ramon, who appears to be a hustler and has been brought as a guest and ends up betraying his companion and the host.
Finally, the fact the film doesn't work rests with the direction of Joe Mantello, an excellent theater director for casting the wrong man in a key part in the movie and perhaps his unfamiliarity working in films.
Sweet and Sad and Excellent
drednm11 February 2008
Adapted from a hit play by Terence McNally and utilizing most of the original stage cast, this film cannot hide its theatrical roots... nor should it.
This is a sweet and sad story set against a perfect summer at a perfect country estate in upstate New York (?) that shows the lives of 8 gay men as they come to terms with AIDS, death, love, compassion, and the thin bonds of friendship that hold them together.
Their summer idyll is a microcosm that, apart from the real world we never see, touches us all because it is their humanity that dominates this story. That one is a dancer, a lawyer, a choreographer, etc. is unimportant. They are 8 gay men whose lives are intertwined in love, valour, and compassion.
Jason Alexander is very good in the Nathan Lane role, the portly man dying of AIDS who, late in life finds love. John Glover is brilliant (repeating his Tony-winning role) as twins: one a nasty hateful man; the other a sweet man whose death from AIDS is imminent. Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey are solid as the yuppie long-term couple. Stephen Bogardus is warm as the stuttering host, Justin Kirk is surprisingly good as the blind man, and Randy Becker is good as the Latino hunk whose causes so much trouble.
The film is full of stereotypes and warm humor and terrific moments of truth. This is not a revolutionary film that tries to change the world, but it is a wise and bittersweet look at the lives of gay men in the time of AIDS, men whose lives are shattered (and ended) by a cruel and heartless disease.
There's nothing earth-shattering here, no insights that make the lives of gay men clear and understandable to non-gays. But it is a work of great honesty and simplicity in showing 8 gay men as.... human beings.
The scene, when the men go skinnydipping under a summer moon is beautiful in its complete innocence. No viewer can fail to understand their childlike glee in such a simple pleasure.
This film is a must see just because it is not a strident, political rant against the horrors of AIDS. The characters, especially those played by Glover and Alexander, accept their fates with great dignity, humor, and valour. This film is a great tribute to all our victims of AIDS, and a silent condemnation to the society and politics that let it happen.
This is a sweet and sad story set against a perfect summer at a perfect country estate in upstate New York (?) that shows the lives of 8 gay men as they come to terms with AIDS, death, love, compassion, and the thin bonds of friendship that hold them together.
Their summer idyll is a microcosm that, apart from the real world we never see, touches us all because it is their humanity that dominates this story. That one is a dancer, a lawyer, a choreographer, etc. is unimportant. They are 8 gay men whose lives are intertwined in love, valour, and compassion.
Jason Alexander is very good in the Nathan Lane role, the portly man dying of AIDS who, late in life finds love. John Glover is brilliant (repeating his Tony-winning role) as twins: one a nasty hateful man; the other a sweet man whose death from AIDS is imminent. Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey are solid as the yuppie long-term couple. Stephen Bogardus is warm as the stuttering host, Justin Kirk is surprisingly good as the blind man, and Randy Becker is good as the Latino hunk whose causes so much trouble.
The film is full of stereotypes and warm humor and terrific moments of truth. This is not a revolutionary film that tries to change the world, but it is a wise and bittersweet look at the lives of gay men in the time of AIDS, men whose lives are shattered (and ended) by a cruel and heartless disease.
There's nothing earth-shattering here, no insights that make the lives of gay men clear and understandable to non-gays. But it is a work of great honesty and simplicity in showing 8 gay men as.... human beings.
The scene, when the men go skinnydipping under a summer moon is beautiful in its complete innocence. No viewer can fail to understand their childlike glee in such a simple pleasure.
This film is a must see just because it is not a strident, political rant against the horrors of AIDS. The characters, especially those played by Glover and Alexander, accept their fates with great dignity, humor, and valour. This film is a great tribute to all our victims of AIDS, and a silent condemnation to the society and politics that let it happen.
The Gay 'Stand by Me'
Dante86 March 2000
I have to wholehearted disagree that this film is disappointing. I found the characters interesting and deep. Yes - the gay men approach stereotypical roles in some instances, but they are developed over the course of the summer in a manner that mimics the boys in "Stand by Me". We see the changes in the relationships between nearly every pairing of the eight men. Some are in relationships; some were. Some hate each other; but they nearly all care about one another. This is the kind of movie that makes you reflect on your own human interactions. You don't have to be HIV+, a choreographer, a yuppie, a broadway queen, or even gay to see yourself in these characters. This is a fine exhibition of love, lust, friendship, and life.
Terrence McNally brings his play to the silver screen
dwr24617 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This was a wonderful character study - beautifully filmed, well acted, and nicely put together. Yet for all of that, in the end it lacked the depth - and more importantly, the tension - to pull off the story in a compelling way.
The story, or perhaps more accurately, the situation is a group of eight gay men who gather on several occasions throughout the summer at the palatial of home of Gregory Mitchell (Stephen Bogardus) and his blind, and rather cloying, lover, Bobby Brahms (Justin Kirk), who live just outside of New York City. The guests include the hot-tempered, and occasionally politically incorrect, Perry Sellars (Stephen Spinella), and his long suffering lover, Arthur Pape (John Benjamin Hickey), who is occasionally embarrassed by Perry's outbursts; their campy friend Buzz Hauser (Jason Alexander), whose flamboyance hides his fears over his HIV positive status; the lugubrious John Jeckyll (John Glover), a man whose unexplained anger rules his every move; and John's companion for the first weekend Ramon Fornos (Randy Becker), a man who decides that he will have any man he wants regardless of the cost. Ramon's first conquest is Bobby which leads to tensions between Ramon, Bobby, and Gregory later in the summer. To further complicate matters, John's twin, James (again, John Glover), arrives from England midway through the summer. James, who is in somewhat more advanced stages of AIDS than Buzz, is as sweet as John is sour, which means that he fits in much better than his brother, much to John's chagrin. In addition, Buzz falls for James, which further complicates the already complicated dynamics of this group. As the summer progresses, each individual deals with his internal conflicts as well as his conflicts with the others, and at the end of the summer, they will resume their lives in the city.
It's more a character study than a story, so it comes to a somewhat inconclusive ending, but along the way you do learn to care about all of the characters. Or at least you're supposed to. I never really cottoned to Ramon, and never developed much sympathy for John. Still, this movie does a good job of portraying this group as men who happen to be gay, rather than gay men. And there is a world of difference.
The ensemble acting is excellent. All the performances are uniformly good. Alexander plays Buzz's flamboyance with surprising skill and tenderness. And Glover is masterful in giving the contrast between the two twins he plays. The rest of the cast does a fine job.
The cinematography is gorgeous. The house and grounds are appealing, and you can almost feel the warmth of the summer as you watch.
It's a very cerebral film, and for those who want more action and more story, it may seem a little dull. But it does present an excellent character study of many aspects of gay life, and as such, it is a rewarding experience.
The story, or perhaps more accurately, the situation is a group of eight gay men who gather on several occasions throughout the summer at the palatial of home of Gregory Mitchell (Stephen Bogardus) and his blind, and rather cloying, lover, Bobby Brahms (Justin Kirk), who live just outside of New York City. The guests include the hot-tempered, and occasionally politically incorrect, Perry Sellars (Stephen Spinella), and his long suffering lover, Arthur Pape (John Benjamin Hickey), who is occasionally embarrassed by Perry's outbursts; their campy friend Buzz Hauser (Jason Alexander), whose flamboyance hides his fears over his HIV positive status; the lugubrious John Jeckyll (John Glover), a man whose unexplained anger rules his every move; and John's companion for the first weekend Ramon Fornos (Randy Becker), a man who decides that he will have any man he wants regardless of the cost. Ramon's first conquest is Bobby which leads to tensions between Ramon, Bobby, and Gregory later in the summer. To further complicate matters, John's twin, James (again, John Glover), arrives from England midway through the summer. James, who is in somewhat more advanced stages of AIDS than Buzz, is as sweet as John is sour, which means that he fits in much better than his brother, much to John's chagrin. In addition, Buzz falls for James, which further complicates the already complicated dynamics of this group. As the summer progresses, each individual deals with his internal conflicts as well as his conflicts with the others, and at the end of the summer, they will resume their lives in the city.
It's more a character study than a story, so it comes to a somewhat inconclusive ending, but along the way you do learn to care about all of the characters. Or at least you're supposed to. I never really cottoned to Ramon, and never developed much sympathy for John. Still, this movie does a good job of portraying this group as men who happen to be gay, rather than gay men. And there is a world of difference.
The ensemble acting is excellent. All the performances are uniformly good. Alexander plays Buzz's flamboyance with surprising skill and tenderness. And Glover is masterful in giving the contrast between the two twins he plays. The rest of the cast does a fine job.
The cinematography is gorgeous. The house and grounds are appealing, and you can almost feel the warmth of the summer as you watch.
It's a very cerebral film, and for those who want more action and more story, it may seem a little dull. But it does present an excellent character study of many aspects of gay life, and as such, it is a rewarding experience.
Beautiful
sherlock_204028 July 2004
A very powerful and moving story, particular the relationship between Buzz and James; both dying of AIDS and both in love.
Very well acted and incredibly moving, especially when happy-go-lucky musical loving Buzz begins to break and confesses how he really sees things.
It may not be real life, but you could believe that these characters exist. The script is good, as are most scripts based on plays AND adapted by the original writer. I would be very inspired to actually see this performed.
"I am sick and tired of straight people, there are just too many of them. I was in a bank the other day, they were everywhere writing cheques, two of them were applying for a morgage, it was disgusting."
Very well acted and incredibly moving, especially when happy-go-lucky musical loving Buzz begins to break and confesses how he really sees things.
It may not be real life, but you could believe that these characters exist. The script is good, as are most scripts based on plays AND adapted by the original writer. I would be very inspired to actually see this performed.
"I am sick and tired of straight people, there are just too many of them. I was in a bank the other day, they were everywhere writing cheques, two of them were applying for a morgage, it was disgusting."
Fine ensemble cast sparks dynamic comedy-drama
Libretio10 January 2005
LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION!
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Dolby Digital
This perceptive drama - written by Terrence McNally, adapted from his award-winning Broadway play - starts out as a warm-hearted examination of the lives and loves of eight middle-class gay men during three eventful weekends at the isolated country home of ageing dancer Stephen Bogardus and his blind, youthful boyfriend Justin Kirk (ANGELS IN America). As it progresses, however, McNally's snappy screenplay begins to expose the faults in his principal characters, as well as their virtues, leading inevitably to fireworks and revelations. Set in a beautiful lakeside house somewhere in upstate New York (filmed in Quebec, though you wouldn't know it), director Joe Mantello - also responsible for the original Broadway production - and cinematographer Alik Sakharov take full advantage of the area's natural beauty, moulding a defiantly cinematic template from the material's inherent staginess.
All but one of the fine ensemble cast was culled from the stage version, including Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey as a staid yuppie couple, and Randy Becker (LIE DOWN WITH DOGS) as the handsome young stud whose overt sex appeal creates emotional tension in a household dominated by middle-aged men. However, the film is virtually stolen by "Seinfeld"s Jason Alexander (in a role essayed by Nathan Lane on-stage) as the archetypal Broadway-loving queen who lives in fear of his HIV status and masks his anxiety with outrageous humor, and John Glover in dual roles as English twins, one of them noble and humane (and dying of an AIDS-related illness), the other a mean-tempered bitch of the highest order. McNally's script finds something deeper than mere stereotype in these disparate characters, and he examines the many ways in which they love each other, despite their differences. The full-frontal nudity which characterized the original stageplay (causing a minor stir at the time) has been toned down for the film, but not completely erased, and Becker in particular seems entirely at ease during his frequent nude scenes.
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Dolby Digital
This perceptive drama - written by Terrence McNally, adapted from his award-winning Broadway play - starts out as a warm-hearted examination of the lives and loves of eight middle-class gay men during three eventful weekends at the isolated country home of ageing dancer Stephen Bogardus and his blind, youthful boyfriend Justin Kirk (ANGELS IN America). As it progresses, however, McNally's snappy screenplay begins to expose the faults in his principal characters, as well as their virtues, leading inevitably to fireworks and revelations. Set in a beautiful lakeside house somewhere in upstate New York (filmed in Quebec, though you wouldn't know it), director Joe Mantello - also responsible for the original Broadway production - and cinematographer Alik Sakharov take full advantage of the area's natural beauty, moulding a defiantly cinematic template from the material's inherent staginess.
All but one of the fine ensemble cast was culled from the stage version, including Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey as a staid yuppie couple, and Randy Becker (LIE DOWN WITH DOGS) as the handsome young stud whose overt sex appeal creates emotional tension in a household dominated by middle-aged men. However, the film is virtually stolen by "Seinfeld"s Jason Alexander (in a role essayed by Nathan Lane on-stage) as the archetypal Broadway-loving queen who lives in fear of his HIV status and masks his anxiety with outrageous humor, and John Glover in dual roles as English twins, one of them noble and humane (and dying of an AIDS-related illness), the other a mean-tempered bitch of the highest order. McNally's script finds something deeper than mere stereotype in these disparate characters, and he examines the many ways in which they love each other, despite their differences. The full-frontal nudity which characterized the original stageplay (causing a minor stir at the time) has been toned down for the film, but not completely erased, and Becker in particular seems entirely at ease during his frequent nude scenes.
Wonderful
pyle01028 March 2004
Often it is very tricky to adapt a play, especially one of a rather long length, to the screen and keep the story and characters intact. Though I have not had the pleasure of seeing a theatrical production of this film, I do own the play and have read it numerous times. Although the film did suffer a tiny bit from some things being edited out, characters speaking directly to the audience, further character insight etc., it is still a wonderful film, full of superb acting and characters that you fall in love with.
The characters are brought to life with superb accuracy, due to the fact that all the actors, except Nathan Lane, reprise their roles that they held on the stage for about all of two years. And it shows that they have bonded as artists with both each other and their characters.
As with almost all films there were performances that personally stood out to me. John Glover shows the audience why he won the Tony Award for his performance. Playing twin brothers, 'John the Foul and James the Fair' showing the defination of range. The other actor that really stood out was the always brilliant Justin Kirk, playing the young, blind Bobby Brahms, showing why he won the OBIE Award for his spectacular performance. The cast also includes Stephen Spinella, two time Tony award winner for Tony Kushner's masterpiece "Angels in America", Jason Alexander, and many other actors that deserve much more recognition and fame than they currently have.
This is a beautiful film with precious characters that you will love.
The characters are brought to life with superb accuracy, due to the fact that all the actors, except Nathan Lane, reprise their roles that they held on the stage for about all of two years. And it shows that they have bonded as artists with both each other and their characters.
As with almost all films there were performances that personally stood out to me. John Glover shows the audience why he won the Tony Award for his performance. Playing twin brothers, 'John the Foul and James the Fair' showing the defination of range. The other actor that really stood out was the always brilliant Justin Kirk, playing the young, blind Bobby Brahms, showing why he won the OBIE Award for his spectacular performance. The cast also includes Stephen Spinella, two time Tony award winner for Tony Kushner's masterpiece "Angels in America", Jason Alexander, and many other actors that deserve much more recognition and fame than they currently have.
This is a beautiful film with precious characters that you will love.
Well done....
Jimmy-12816 November 1999
A surprisingly effective adaptation from the stage play. The performances range from adequate to magnificent (John Glover, in the dual role of James and John Jeckyll, definitely inhabits the high end of that spectrum). The confrontation between the Jeckyll brothers, which works well enough on stage, is much more effective here.
One sour note: I could have lived without seeing Jason Alexander's bare butt, and I could have lived without seeing him in this film. If Nathan Lane wasn't available or didn't want to do it, couldn't they have gotten Mario Cantone, who replaced Lane on stage?
One sour note: I could have lived without seeing Jason Alexander's bare butt, and I could have lived without seeing him in this film. If Nathan Lane wasn't available or didn't want to do it, couldn't they have gotten Mario Cantone, who replaced Lane on stage?
Love? Valor? Self Pity!!!
hughman553 January 2010
This is perhaps the most inappropriately named movie ever! There is no "Love", there is no "Valor", and there is no "Compasion". Let's try this instead: "Self Centered!, Shallow!, Headonistic!" I saw this film when it "came out" in 1997 and as the credits rolled in the theater I wanted to crawl into a hole and pull the hole in after me. Last night I caught parts of it again on cable and immediately started having PTSD symptoms. What a giant pant load. As a gay male, and ballet dancer myself, I cringe to think that people out there might see this vapid movie and think that my life in any way resembles it or any of it's pathetic inhabitants. Sorry to take this personally...
This is not a movie about people, gay or otherwise, and their struggles or triumphs. It's about gay cartoon characters. And not very nice ones. Every distasteful stereotype is there. And most of the characters are several all at once. What do they have in common? They are all shallow, self centered, bitchy, immature, and totally lacking in impulse control, which explains the last thing they all have in common, they are all dying of AIDS.
And so we have one of two problems here. Either gays are now making movies that perpetuate commonly held negative stereotypes about themselves, in which we have a movie and gay problem. Or, these aren't stereotypes and we gays are really like the way this movie portrays us, in which we have only a gay problem. Either way this movie is just one big problem from start to finish because it's loaded with bad movie making and bad gay characters.
When "The Boys in the Band" opened in the 1960's the gay community, of which Terrence McNally had to have been a part of at the time, was outraged at it's negative portrayal of gay men as stereotypically sad, self loathing, and bitchy. Whatever Mr. McNally's perspective was back then he clearly thinks that stereotypically sad, self loathing, and bitchy was the way to go thirty years later in 1997, and that AIDS would somehow ameliorate the subjects' distastefulness. Not even close.
More importantly, all the personal and sociological offenses aside, this is just a really bad, unenjoyable, movie. The house and landscape are beautiful but there is no one to like or care for anywhere to be found. Like too many "gay films" it trades on shallowness, bitchiness, nudity,and the promise of easy sex. Those can be elements of a film, but they can't BE the film.
Follow this if you will. One of the many "subplotlines" threaded throughout this movie: the cute blind guy screws around on his partner, in their own home, with one of their guests, then gets a phone call that his sister had died and launches into an overacted banshee like scream that makes you think he might also be mentally disabled. Then while his lover is comforting him due to the loss of his sister, the cute blind guy thinks it's the perfect time to "be honest" and tell his lover that he has been schtupping the house guest. And this is fairly routine for this script and this group of characters. And this is not treated like a plot development. It's just one of many random moments, clichés, and stereotypes thrown into this shepherds pie of undeveloped stories and characters. Uhgg...
And as for the brain trust behind all this, if this is what passes for talented playwriting and movie making by the gay establishment, God help us all.
This is not a movie about people, gay or otherwise, and their struggles or triumphs. It's about gay cartoon characters. And not very nice ones. Every distasteful stereotype is there. And most of the characters are several all at once. What do they have in common? They are all shallow, self centered, bitchy, immature, and totally lacking in impulse control, which explains the last thing they all have in common, they are all dying of AIDS.
And so we have one of two problems here. Either gays are now making movies that perpetuate commonly held negative stereotypes about themselves, in which we have a movie and gay problem. Or, these aren't stereotypes and we gays are really like the way this movie portrays us, in which we have only a gay problem. Either way this movie is just one big problem from start to finish because it's loaded with bad movie making and bad gay characters.
When "The Boys in the Band" opened in the 1960's the gay community, of which Terrence McNally had to have been a part of at the time, was outraged at it's negative portrayal of gay men as stereotypically sad, self loathing, and bitchy. Whatever Mr. McNally's perspective was back then he clearly thinks that stereotypically sad, self loathing, and bitchy was the way to go thirty years later in 1997, and that AIDS would somehow ameliorate the subjects' distastefulness. Not even close.
More importantly, all the personal and sociological offenses aside, this is just a really bad, unenjoyable, movie. The house and landscape are beautiful but there is no one to like or care for anywhere to be found. Like too many "gay films" it trades on shallowness, bitchiness, nudity,and the promise of easy sex. Those can be elements of a film, but they can't BE the film.
Follow this if you will. One of the many "subplotlines" threaded throughout this movie: the cute blind guy screws around on his partner, in their own home, with one of their guests, then gets a phone call that his sister had died and launches into an overacted banshee like scream that makes you think he might also be mentally disabled. Then while his lover is comforting him due to the loss of his sister, the cute blind guy thinks it's the perfect time to "be honest" and tell his lover that he has been schtupping the house guest. And this is fairly routine for this script and this group of characters. And this is not treated like a plot development. It's just one of many random moments, clichés, and stereotypes thrown into this shepherds pie of undeveloped stories and characters. Uhgg...
And as for the brain trust behind all this, if this is what passes for talented playwriting and movie making by the gay establishment, God help us all.
What's the gay man's equivalent of a "chick flick"?
wayjack11 June 2006
Love, Valour, Compassion is a tear-jerker. No question about it, you'll get teary-eyed more than once before the credits roll. And it's worth it. This was originally a play and the film makes that fact apparent. Dialog is occasionally overly wordy and a bit contrived and most scenes play out in one place and from one angle. None of that hurts the movie but it's more noticeable than many other play-to-silver-screen adaptations. Jason Alexander pulls off a character I'd never have expected from him. Funny, sympathetic, and downright lovable. He also has one of the best lines of the movie. When asked what room he's staying in he responds: ". . .the Patty Hearst memorial closet. . ." The film is packed with philosophical conversations about life, love, compassion and many subjects that don't get discussed enough in real life or on film. It also has its' share of full frontal male nudity. Refreshing given the fact that directors historically seem more willing to strip females naked but keep the fellas covered in bed sheets. This is the kind of movie that will get its' viewers talking after they've turned off the TV and wiped their eyes.
Odd!
tyzik6 January 2003
This movie was aired buy channel 4 last night and I just happened to tune in and starrted watchin it, And then I couldn't stop. I don't know if it was because I thought it was good....or it was bad, some parts of it I tohught was really pathetic and someparts was quite funny. But I liked it anyway.
Lazy gays of summer...
majikstl8 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Let's see, does this film miss any gay cliché? Hmmm ... The singing of show tunes? Check. And the references to Judy or Barbra or Liza or Madonna or Ethel Merman? Of course, check. The promiscuity? Check. The gratuitous nude scenes? Check...and check... and -- oooh!, full frontal nudity! -- that'd be a big check again. The use of the term "girlfriend" when referring to a gay man? Ditto for the phrase "bitch?" Check and double check. Plenty of mincing and prancing around? Yeah, right there. Did we overlook that a least one guy should be a for-hire boyfriend? Nope, gay equals prostitute, ya know. Excellent, it's all here. Plus, a bit of S&M role-playing, just to spice things up.
Oops! Almost forgot the totally unnecessary display of crossdressing. Oh good, here it is -- and in ballet tutus, to boot. Gotta make it clear that to be gay is to be nelly. Oh, they were out of politically correct minorities, but will a Hispanic do? If not, they've got a blind homosexual and can toss in a couple of brave and only slightly self-pitying AIDS victims.
LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION! is one of those films where you may be at a loss to figure just why it exists. Eight gay men gather during three summer holiday weekends (Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day) at the New England country home of one of them, a successful choreographer. They bicker and banter, and fight and flirt; they bare the bodies while skinny dipping and bare their souls while trading cleverly rehearsed quips -- but, so what? As sort of a gay BIG CHILL or a homosexual FOUR SEASONS, the film really doesn't give any of them a chance to reveal themselves either politically or personally. There are a few pious monologues about love and life that are so generic as to be meaningless. If the point is to show that gays are "just like everybody else," then why do all the characters seem so generically superficial and tiresomely stereotypical. If there is meant to be a message to the story, then why doesn't the film get to it?
There are some nice moments here and there as two characters share an honest or intimate moment, but too often the dialogue is arch and too theatrical to be real. Other times, the material shows its theatrical roots with an out-of-nowhere dramatic moment where you can just see a character moving to center stage to deliver his big, important monologue in the spotlight. By the time you get to the end, where each character, in voice-over, reveals the circumstances of their way-in-the-distance death -- while dancing around in tutus, no less -- you just want to scream at the filmmakers. Here's a scene that totally trivialized these characters, showing them to truly be nothing but prancing fairies, yet begs you to see into the depths of their souls and weep for the fragility of their lives. The result is totally annoying, if not absolutely insulting. If it were not for the fact that many involved in the film are openly gay, you could just swear the film was trying purposely to be smugly homophobic.
And you can't help but to groan at how needlessly self-important the material takes itself, even as it wallows in self-mockery. Too much of this is just pretentious, not the least of which is the three exclamation points in the title that just scream of announcing something of epic proportions; a false promise for a film with really very little to say.
Three words: Lousy! Vacuous! Condescending!
Oops! Almost forgot the totally unnecessary display of crossdressing. Oh good, here it is -- and in ballet tutus, to boot. Gotta make it clear that to be gay is to be nelly. Oh, they were out of politically correct minorities, but will a Hispanic do? If not, they've got a blind homosexual and can toss in a couple of brave and only slightly self-pitying AIDS victims.
LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION! is one of those films where you may be at a loss to figure just why it exists. Eight gay men gather during three summer holiday weekends (Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day) at the New England country home of one of them, a successful choreographer. They bicker and banter, and fight and flirt; they bare the bodies while skinny dipping and bare their souls while trading cleverly rehearsed quips -- but, so what? As sort of a gay BIG CHILL or a homosexual FOUR SEASONS, the film really doesn't give any of them a chance to reveal themselves either politically or personally. There are a few pious monologues about love and life that are so generic as to be meaningless. If the point is to show that gays are "just like everybody else," then why do all the characters seem so generically superficial and tiresomely stereotypical. If there is meant to be a message to the story, then why doesn't the film get to it?
There are some nice moments here and there as two characters share an honest or intimate moment, but too often the dialogue is arch and too theatrical to be real. Other times, the material shows its theatrical roots with an out-of-nowhere dramatic moment where you can just see a character moving to center stage to deliver his big, important monologue in the spotlight. By the time you get to the end, where each character, in voice-over, reveals the circumstances of their way-in-the-distance death -- while dancing around in tutus, no less -- you just want to scream at the filmmakers. Here's a scene that totally trivialized these characters, showing them to truly be nothing but prancing fairies, yet begs you to see into the depths of their souls and weep for the fragility of their lives. The result is totally annoying, if not absolutely insulting. If it were not for the fact that many involved in the film are openly gay, you could just swear the film was trying purposely to be smugly homophobic.
And you can't help but to groan at how needlessly self-important the material takes itself, even as it wallows in self-mockery. Too much of this is just pretentious, not the least of which is the three exclamation points in the title that just scream of announcing something of epic proportions; a false promise for a film with really very little to say.
Three words: Lousy! Vacuous! Condescending!
Flawed, but lovely...
rdedirektor23 June 2003
I had the good fortune to see the play in New York, with it's almost original cast; many of the actors who appear in the film were still in the roles on stage when I saw it. This leads to the film's only (in my opinion) flaw...it's not the play. The theatre creates an intimacy that is perfect for the issues and performances in this piece. However, we allow ourselves a detachment when seeing it as a film that really doesn't mix with the story. Here's the thing for those who have a problem with either the overt homosexual themes, or the stereotypical characters...imagine if half the cast were women and the other half were heterosexual men...would you feel different about the piece if Arthur and Perry were a hetero couple? If Ramon was a female dancer instead of a male? The thing is, the piece is not primarily about the fact that the men are gay, or about how gay they are. It's a love story, a story of friendship, and a story of loss. The fact that all of them are homosexual is simply a backdrop to everything else going on. Excellent performances by John Glover, Jason Alexander and Steven Bogardus. I see what everyone is saying about not being able to get Seinfeld out of their heads, but I didn't have that problem. The rest of the cast is only adequate, but no one lets the ensemble down.
There is a trend of making filmed versions of stage performances available to the public...this would be the perfect piece with which to do that. The movie is good, and I very much enjoyed it...it just doesn't have the vibrancy and immediacy of seeing these characters live.
There is a trend of making filmed versions of stage performances available to the public...this would be the perfect piece with which to do that. The movie is good, and I very much enjoyed it...it just doesn't have the vibrancy and immediacy of seeing these characters live.
Beautiful story about love and friendship!
edward_n19 December 1999
title says it all, plus friendship
moggy-429 June 2000
it's a story of 8 friends ,most or all of whom have AIDS in some stage, but it's a story of,indeed a hymn to, friendship and caring. my favorite lines are ,when one of the twins tells another character that he's never gone skinny-dipping before: "Well, you only live once." "Some people never live at all." Acting is superb; the actor who plays the twins is particularly brilliant.
Although somewhat theatrical due to its origin as a stage play, Love! Valour! Compassion! still successfully invokes its titular qualities on screen.
ecs0325 February 2001
This film engages its audience not only through its loaded theatrical dialogue, where every line delivered is a subtle new insight into the character speaking it, but also because of the poignantly-treated themes designated by the title: Love! Valour! Compassion! The intertwining relationships of eight gay men who retreat together to a summer house three times during the season illustrate their individual character quirks as well as their collective trials, such as the HIV virus that infects two of them.
Love between various pairs in the film emerges as both an animal, lustful act that may transpire in a dark and frenzied moment, and as a more tender and fundamentally human interaction that takes years to cultivate. Valour rears its intrepid head in the characters who deal most intimately with the virus, struggling to live gracefully even in the face of a painful and prolonged death. Compassion repairs each man's petty differences with another, and binds these eight weary travelers together as they quietly help each other through difficult times until the end of the film.
Performances in Love! Valour! Compassion! are generally well done, from John Glover's dual turn as the stiff, spiteful John and his dying and unconditionally loved twin brother James, to Jason Alexander's nuanced role as a flamboyant HIV sufferer doing his best to cope with the disease. The often heartbreaking script is tempered by the alternately caustic and self-effacing humor inherent in a meeting of several strong gay personalities for extended periods of time. Visually, some scenes appear stagey, especially within the darkened summer house, but otherwise the play seems to have made a thematically successful and emotionally effective translation to the screen.
Love between various pairs in the film emerges as both an animal, lustful act that may transpire in a dark and frenzied moment, and as a more tender and fundamentally human interaction that takes years to cultivate. Valour rears its intrepid head in the characters who deal most intimately with the virus, struggling to live gracefully even in the face of a painful and prolonged death. Compassion repairs each man's petty differences with another, and binds these eight weary travelers together as they quietly help each other through difficult times until the end of the film.
Performances in Love! Valour! Compassion! are generally well done, from John Glover's dual turn as the stiff, spiteful John and his dying and unconditionally loved twin brother James, to Jason Alexander's nuanced role as a flamboyant HIV sufferer doing his best to cope with the disease. The often heartbreaking script is tempered by the alternately caustic and self-effacing humor inherent in a meeting of several strong gay personalities for extended periods of time. Visually, some scenes appear stagey, especially within the darkened summer house, but otherwise the play seems to have made a thematically successful and emotionally effective translation to the screen.
Dull! Boring! Inept!
TheLurkingFox17 December 2008
I am rarely this severe. In fact, I usually am rather indulgent with movies dealing with gay themes, because there are so few of them. But this one takes the cake. I honestly haven't seen many films that bad in my life. Maybe The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was this bad.
Anyway, back to THIS story. Wait, sorry, there IS no story. No plot. This is just some days in the life of people we don't care about, we never learn to care about, talking about things we don't care about and doing things not even them care about. This film is like a pathetic mix between Longtime Companion (for the AIDS theme and the "one day in the life of" idea) and The Boys in the Band (because... You know. 8 gay men, talking). But it takes the worst of both of these fantastic films and makes a cliché-filled, boring, dull movie out of it.
And there you really realize that it takes, indeed, a lot of talent to write (whether in a screenplay or staged play) about characters that the audience doesn't know and make them interesting without a plot. After all, in TBITB or in Longtime Companion, there isn't much plot either, but the characters are interesting in and for themselves. You want to know more about them, you are moved by them and by what happens to them. TBITB is about ONE night in the life of some people, and still by the end of the movie I felt like I knew them. L!V!C! is about half a dozen days in the life of some people, and still in the end I don't know anything about them. I don't know what unites them - they're supposedly friends but they don't get along with each other -, I don't know what drives them - but I know they drive a Volvo -, and I don't even believe them. It isn't funny or witty - though it desperately tries to be - and it's not campy - even if one of them like musicals -. It's just cliché and and boring.
Anyway, I really feel like I've lost 2 hours of my life by watching this movie. Thank god I saw it for free!
Anyway, back to THIS story. Wait, sorry, there IS no story. No plot. This is just some days in the life of people we don't care about, we never learn to care about, talking about things we don't care about and doing things not even them care about. This film is like a pathetic mix between Longtime Companion (for the AIDS theme and the "one day in the life of" idea) and The Boys in the Band (because... You know. 8 gay men, talking). But it takes the worst of both of these fantastic films and makes a cliché-filled, boring, dull movie out of it.
And there you really realize that it takes, indeed, a lot of talent to write (whether in a screenplay or staged play) about characters that the audience doesn't know and make them interesting without a plot. After all, in TBITB or in Longtime Companion, there isn't much plot either, but the characters are interesting in and for themselves. You want to know more about them, you are moved by them and by what happens to them. TBITB is about ONE night in the life of some people, and still by the end of the movie I felt like I knew them. L!V!C! is about half a dozen days in the life of some people, and still in the end I don't know anything about them. I don't know what unites them - they're supposedly friends but they don't get along with each other -, I don't know what drives them - but I know they drive a Volvo -, and I don't even believe them. It isn't funny or witty - though it desperately tries to be - and it's not campy - even if one of them like musicals -. It's just cliché and and boring.
Anyway, I really feel like I've lost 2 hours of my life by watching this movie. Thank god I saw it for free!
A peek into the complicated and diverse lives of a group of gay men.
morgausoriginalis8 October 2003
Having no idea what to expect, I found myself entranced by this film's omni-faceted approach to dramatizing the lives of a group of gay men. It seemed to cover all the terrain rather than any one aspect. It's not a movie about homosexuality so much as humanity, and there is a certain provocative ease the characters display with each other that comes from a mutual sense of vulnerability and the need to have someone to trust. Visually, the film is both careful and challenging. These men are all afraid of what they don't know, braced against the imminent, and yet essentially collected. I found myself identifying with each of them through strengths and shortcomings that were not easily detectable from the first. The relationship nuances hint at so many more layers than this short vacation together can define. I found myself feeling that I had had these same conversations in my life, that I was just as fearful, defiant, exuberant, resigned. The highlight of the film, to me, came in dual performances by John Glover, who handled his roles with a supple elegance that left a poignant vision in my mind of two brothers, light and dark, resolutely at odds and entangled at the same time. Overall, I found the watching enjoyable and liberating. It was pleasant to actually feel like a fly on the wall in a place no female could ever really find herself (hetero or otherwise). This film WILL put demands on you in areas of personal perspective. If you feel for these men, then you must understand them. Getting there might be hard for some people. For me, it was enriching and somehow intensely intimate.
Character development lacking.
crude30 June 2000
This film could have been interesting, but I challenge you to find a film with less-developed characters. Because of this flaw, it is very hard to stay with the movie, because we learn almost nothing of its inhabitants. Also, it is another stereotypical view of gays, which is a disappointment.
I LOVED IT!!
krysty_g4 July 2001
I would die to see the play. I didn't want to see it at first because I'm not a fan of Jason Alexander but I must admit he did surprise me, who knew he could act (although he was trying a little hard to BE Nathan Lane). I cried through most or it and I'm not much of a crier so BE WARNED! IT IS A CHICK FLICK! but a damned good one.
The Band Reunites
bkoganbing26 June 2018
Some thirty years after The Boys In The Band presented a view of gay male life that was before Stonewall, before AIDS, before Anita Bryant. A lot of history and
a lot of heartache individually and collectively happened in this time. So
Terrence McNally penned a work with another group of eight gay men and put
them at a vacation home on a lake in Dutchess County, New York. The three
holiday weekends they spend there reveal a lot about themselves.
Hosts of the event are John Benjamin Hickey and Stephen Sellars a same sex couple who've been together for 15 years. Like so many in those years they've seen way too many of their friends die and one of those friends invited is Jason Alexander who is HIV+ positive who comes by himself. Alexander is almost a stereotype of a gay man who loves his Broadway musicals.
John Glover plays a pair of brothers both from across the pond and one of them has the disease full blown now. One brother is an acid tongued thing with no kind words for anybody. The other has come from Great Britain seeking better treatment for the disease.
Mr. Acid tongue has brought dancer/hustler Randy Becker along for some personal enjoyment. But Becker likes what he sees in another guest the blind Justin Kirk brought to the weekends by his partner Stephen Bogardus.
It all makes for some interesting theater and a lot is revealed about one and all.
Love! Valour! Compassion! ran 248 performances on Broadway in 1995 and won a Tony Award for its author Terrence McNally. It's a lot like a Eugene O'Neill play, short on plot per se, but long and deep on the characterizations. McNally was quite the acute observer of the gay scene, I've seen all of these people one time or other in my life.
The film is also like the film adaption of the Eugene O'Neill play Long Day's Journey Into Night where the house itself and the Connecticut beach location almost becomes a character in itself in the film. Here the Quebec woods stand in for the Hudson River Valley country and they stand in well.
I don't think you could do much better than a film that's a combination of Boys In The Band and Long Day's Journey Into Night. That is in fact what Love! Valour! Compassion! is.
The only thing that puzzles me is how director Joe Mantello handled John Glover playing twins on stage.
Hosts of the event are John Benjamin Hickey and Stephen Sellars a same sex couple who've been together for 15 years. Like so many in those years they've seen way too many of their friends die and one of those friends invited is Jason Alexander who is HIV+ positive who comes by himself. Alexander is almost a stereotype of a gay man who loves his Broadway musicals.
John Glover plays a pair of brothers both from across the pond and one of them has the disease full blown now. One brother is an acid tongued thing with no kind words for anybody. The other has come from Great Britain seeking better treatment for the disease.
Mr. Acid tongue has brought dancer/hustler Randy Becker along for some personal enjoyment. But Becker likes what he sees in another guest the blind Justin Kirk brought to the weekends by his partner Stephen Bogardus.
It all makes for some interesting theater and a lot is revealed about one and all.
Love! Valour! Compassion! ran 248 performances on Broadway in 1995 and won a Tony Award for its author Terrence McNally. It's a lot like a Eugene O'Neill play, short on plot per se, but long and deep on the characterizations. McNally was quite the acute observer of the gay scene, I've seen all of these people one time or other in my life.
The film is also like the film adaption of the Eugene O'Neill play Long Day's Journey Into Night where the house itself and the Connecticut beach location almost becomes a character in itself in the film. Here the Quebec woods stand in for the Hudson River Valley country and they stand in well.
I don't think you could do much better than a film that's a combination of Boys In The Band and Long Day's Journey Into Night. That is in fact what Love! Valour! Compassion! is.
The only thing that puzzles me is how director Joe Mantello handled John Glover playing twins on stage.
A play to screen transformation
lambiepie-28 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am a huge fan of much of Terrance McNally's work and I remember back in 1994 when this play was staged at MTC in New York. It was a compassionate ensemble piece with a group of gay friends, vacationing throughout the summer at their choreographer friends' lovely lakeside home. What you catch onto quickly as well is this is not just about these friends getting together for fun times during the major summer holidays, but by the end of the summer, they are to do an AIDS-benefit performance of 'Swan Lake' that the choreographer was to stage.
Within this, you'll see the workings of the human opinion in this set of friends...or in one case, so-called friend. While the backdrop is about the staging and performance of these friends doing 'Swan Lake' for the AIDS benefit performance - tutus and all - you get to see the personalities of each about the subject. Buzz, opting to hide his HIV status while faced with one who could not.
The character development is good in the play, and much transfers to film - the stand out brilliance is of the English twins - played both by John Glover - portraying evil twin and lovable twin. Both who are gay, one in the final stages of AIDS who came to America for treatment and is the most endearing person you ever could meet, and the other one you just want to tie in a sack and throw into an ocean because he's so mean and callous. The character of 'Buzz' who wants to ignore his disease and pain behind singing and quoting Broadway Musicials and "being the life of the party" queen is a stellar performance as well.
What I found interesting was the competition level between two other characters in this work. There is the choreographer who is the host - he's older and he's staging the "Swan Lake" performance; and a young 'buck' (Ramon) who's a dancer as well thinks he's immortal and a bronze Adonis gift to the gay male, always providing house tension and competition - not just in dance, but with the choreographer's blind partner(Bobby).
As with many Terrance McNally's plays and screenplays, what'll grab you are the mind and personal feelings of the characters that's projected to the viewer and how they are adapting to the current events of the day. This film is no exception. For example, I find a wonderful exchange between the characters about a certain famous photograph that made me feel like a 'fly on the wall' as I listened - And not just that, it also touched heavily on how EVERYONE who knows about this famous photo was feeling at the time.
That's the beauty of this film - you can take out "homosexual men" and replace them with "heterosexual women", "heterosexual men", "homosexual women" or a mix of all....and there would be very little change in the actions. But this is about a group of homosexual friends, their fears, their loves, their anguish, their humanity which is why I think the title Love! Valour! Compassion! does say it all.
Within this, you'll see the workings of the human opinion in this set of friends...or in one case, so-called friend. While the backdrop is about the staging and performance of these friends doing 'Swan Lake' for the AIDS benefit performance - tutus and all - you get to see the personalities of each about the subject. Buzz, opting to hide his HIV status while faced with one who could not.
The character development is good in the play, and much transfers to film - the stand out brilliance is of the English twins - played both by John Glover - portraying evil twin and lovable twin. Both who are gay, one in the final stages of AIDS who came to America for treatment and is the most endearing person you ever could meet, and the other one you just want to tie in a sack and throw into an ocean because he's so mean and callous. The character of 'Buzz' who wants to ignore his disease and pain behind singing and quoting Broadway Musicials and "being the life of the party" queen is a stellar performance as well.
What I found interesting was the competition level between two other characters in this work. There is the choreographer who is the host - he's older and he's staging the "Swan Lake" performance; and a young 'buck' (Ramon) who's a dancer as well thinks he's immortal and a bronze Adonis gift to the gay male, always providing house tension and competition - not just in dance, but with the choreographer's blind partner(Bobby).
As with many Terrance McNally's plays and screenplays, what'll grab you are the mind and personal feelings of the characters that's projected to the viewer and how they are adapting to the current events of the day. This film is no exception. For example, I find a wonderful exchange between the characters about a certain famous photograph that made me feel like a 'fly on the wall' as I listened - And not just that, it also touched heavily on how EVERYONE who knows about this famous photo was feeling at the time.
That's the beauty of this film - you can take out "homosexual men" and replace them with "heterosexual women", "heterosexual men", "homosexual women" or a mix of all....and there would be very little change in the actions. But this is about a group of homosexual friends, their fears, their loves, their anguish, their humanity which is why I think the title Love! Valour! Compassion! does say it all.
Don't judge a movie by its source
gayspiritwarrior10 October 2009
The writer of the current featured review, jotix100, thinks this movie "doesn't work." I beg to differ. What Love! Valour! Compassion! was onstage doesn't matter to this movie. The movie isn't being judged as a play. Those of us who never saw the play onstage could not care less how good or bad it was there. This movie does work. It's everything good jotix100 mentions and what he finds deficient from the play has no bearing, unless what you like to do is compare two good things just to discover which is the weakest. Enjoy this movie for the witty dialogue, the genuine rapport between all the performers, the beautiful setting and the magnificent John Glover. Whatever isn't there on the screen is irrelevant.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
