Fright Night (1985) Propaganda for The Lost Boys Fans, or: Please Watch This Other Very Gay 80s Movie
If you are a fan of extremely homoerotic 80s cult classics The Lost Boys, it is possible you have already heard of Fright Night, since they're two of the most iconic vampire films of their decade. BUT! if you came to TLB through the musical or aren't super into film history, I figured it was worth shouting out. Because I find it fascinating.
Did I mention you can watch it for free.
What's Fright Night?
Fright Night is a 1985 film by first-time writer/director Tom Holland (not that one), who is probably best known for this and the first Chucky movie, Child's Play.
The plot centers on 17-year-old horror fanatic Charley Brewster, who happens to see people moving a coffin into the house next door one night. As it becomes clearer that his new neighbor Jerry Dandridge is, in fact, a vampire, Charley seeks out help from his horror expert bestie "Evil" Ed, girlfriend Amy, and local late night movie host and washed-up actor Peter Vincent (who has previously killed vampires...in movies).
The problem is that they all think Charley's delusional, which makes it easy for Jerry to focus on ruining the life of the teenager who briefly inconvenienced him. I'll tell you right now that Jerry is a significant percentage of why one should watch this movie. Nobody does petty bitch shit with as much aplomb as Jerry Dandridge.
IT'S ABOUT THE THEMES
I've banged on ad nauseum about how interesting I find the disjunction between Joel Schumacher's direction and TLB's base script vis a vis how it frames queerness (TLDR, the movie could easily be about rescuing the normative family unit of Michael, Star, and Laddie from the clutches of the scary queers, but Schumacher laces in so much sympathy for the boys and ironized suspicion of Americana that it complicates the text compellingly).
But Fright Night is just kind of....doing gay panic, even if I think it's probably mostly inadvertant (WAIT COME BACK, IT'S REALLY INTERESTING.) Jerry is a very well-groomed guy in a cable knit sweater moving in with his partner in antiquing amd "roommate," Billy (who is his familiar, and they are definitely fucking). The antiquing is not a joke. That is Jerry's actual cover. Possibly even a thing he really does for funsies, I don't know. The entire purpose of his 1000 years of unlife is to be a troll.
Jerry also has the standard air of vampiric sexual menace, which he mostly uses to terrorize teenagers. Yes, he gets chummy with Charley's mom, but it's more to prove a point to Charley that he can come and go as he pleases. Then he turns Charley's friend Ed (more on that in a moment) and goes after his girlfriend Amy (supposedly because she looks like a long-dead lover, which does not gel with his character up to that point at all tbh; this is a guy who lives and dies by the bit). This dude is 100% the queer menace invading the suburbs who must be slain.
Let Me Tell You About My Sad, Horrible, Annoying Son
....and so is Evil Ed. Goddamn, I am-and-ain't surprised that Ed Thompson isn't a Tumblr blorbo. He's a weird horror nerd who feels like his one and only friend has ditched him for a girl and only comes around when he wants something. He is queercoded as fuck--something that his actor, Stephen Geoffreys, purposefully brought to the role as a gay man--and the scene where Jerry corners him feels like it comes out of a different, more deftly made movie.
That shit is fucking SAD and TENDER and HEARTBREAKING. I have an immense soft spot for Ed that's never graduated to full-out blorbodom because unfortunately he is being directed into doing this deeply grating line delivery for a lot of the film (this is not just him, all the young actors are a bit adrift, ESPECIALLY Amy. Holland did not have the directorial expertise to bring out their best).
That does not change that I am still gutted when he dies (don't worry he gets better in that last-minute-stinger way), or that the emotional resonance of the turning scene sticks out wildly against a film that's otherwise a lot of FUN but not very feelsy (which is perhaps why it's so easy to revel in Jerry's fuckery; sure, he's awful, I cannot emphasize enough that he is pretty blatantly assaulting multiple teens in addition to the murders, but the world around him is largely made of cardboard people and so there's a feeling of weightlessness and camp to his smarm).
I must also give a shoutout to Peter Vincent, the weary B-actor who is like a beautiful old queen tired of your shit, played by gay icon Roddy McDowell in a role that's partially a nod to bi icon Vincent Price. There is a general VIBE, is what I'm saying, not unlike TLB but without a sure hand to guide its implications.
Also, while some of them aren't shown off to their best framing/lighting-wise, there are some really incredible special effects and concepts in here. Lots of very lumpy, asymmetrical vampires (though it's baffling they made the vampire teeth SO long the actors can't close their mouths around them).
(NBD just the horrific subtext of failing the next generation in the 80s nbd nbd)
I kind of love it. If nothing else, I need other people to experience a vampire so petty he decides to systematically destroy a teenager's life because said teenager (checks notes) requires Jerry to have exactly one conversation with the cops to shake them off. He's a nightmare. He's a vampire of all time. He's like if Max wanted to have fun (I like to think they knew and hated each other). The people have to know.
If nothing else, it really emphasizes how different two films can look with roughly similar budgets, based on the expertise and experience of a director.
....and then you can watch Fright Night Part 2, which against all odds is a really incredible sequel. How often do you open by gaslighting your protagonist into thinking he's remembering the whole first film wrong. Also there is Belle, an 80s-haired trans lady who kills people while on roller blades and then goes vampire bowling with the rest of the vampire posse. Peak filmmaking.
You Are A Killer - an examination of The Lost Boys
I have an internet connection and a hyperfixation I cannot be stopped.
As always and forever: shoutout to my partner @berd-alert for helping me by editing, offering concrit and being the world’s cutest rubber duck when the brainworms needed debugging. Love you -3-
Here we go.
The Lost Boys is a cultural phenomenon for a myriad of reasons, not least of which because it redefined the look and appeal of vampires in media for the next nigh-on forty years. The film is a cult classic with a fandom that’s still active to this day (hi!) and there’s plenty about it to take apart.
There’s a lot of ways to look at this movie and what it was trying to say. It’s billed as a ‘horror-comedy’, and it certainly delivers on that front, combining creepy, monstrous vampires with characters played by Corey Feldman of Goonies fame who brings a similar feel to the movie. It’s a fun summer flick, but it’s also a time capsule of mid to late 80s fashion, music, and culture. It’s commentary on ‘the youth’, on the changing values of the world. I remember my own first viewing of it thinking it might have been trying to tackle the issues of substance abuse in teenagers and bringing light to warning signs of addiction. ‘It’s 10 o'clock - do you know where your child is?’
For this essay, I’m going to be looking through a wider lens. Some of this is going to be my own personal interpretation of writing choices from changes to the script to directorial input. Other parts are conjectures of cultural osmosis of the time finding its way into the subtext of the film regardless of intention on behalf of the writers. Either way, as always, feel free to take this analysis with as large or small a grain of salt as you feel is necessary.
The thought that started this whole thing was just a little observation from good friend @misslavenderlady pointing out the poigniancy in this post about David and Michael’s final confrontation, and it certainly got me thinking.
While this conversation, from a Watsonian* point of view, is a confrontation between the protagonist and his foil about reason and rational versus carnal desires and id, from a Doyalist** perspective, it’s a much, much larger discussion about the social and political climate of youth in America at the time.
More specifically, the AIDs crisis and the rise of queer identity as a political force in the nation.
To begin, what is AIDs, and what does it mean in the context of The Lost Boys?
According to HIV.gov, AIDs stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome, the late stage of HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus. It is a virus that attacks the cells responsible for the body’s immune response, so while the virus itself does not kill, it destroys the body’s ability to protect itself against diseases and infections.
The effects of the virus were first recorded on June 5th, 1981, when the CDC published a weekly report wherein it described a case of five previously healthy gay men in Los Angeles suddenly developing a rare lung infection. By the time the report was released, two had already died. The article noted that it seemed like the mens’ immune systems weren’t working properly to help fight the infection.
By mid June, the first person was admitted into the Clinical Center of the National Institute of Health and died in its care. He is considered the first person with AIDs. By July, the disease was colloquially named by a San Francisco gay and lesbian newsletter as ‘Gay Men’s Pneumonia’, and a few days later the New York Times published an article detailing a rare and aggressive cancer among 41 homosexual men. The term ‘gay cancer’ entered the public lexicon.
In 1982, the acronym AIDs was coined by the CDC, and some advocacy groups started to form about how the disease might spread. While there were reported cases in people outside of the demographic, the idea that it’s a ‘gay man’s illness’ had already started to take hold in public perception. Representatives Phillip Burton and Ted Weiss introduced legislation for the government to give funding for research, but the proposal died in committee, never having made it to the floor of Congress. It would not be taken up again and agreed to until a whole year later.
In 1983, the outcry from and for activism for the burgeoning crisis amped up. Congress approved 12 million in funding for research, and at the Pasteur Institute in France, Dr. Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Dr. Luc Montagnier discovered the retrovirus potentially responsible. At the time, almost 2,000 diagnoses of AIDs had been confirmed, and more than 500 of them died. The first lawsuit against discrimination against someone with AIDs was filed, and the World Health Organization holds a meeting to oversee global impacts.
Over the next three years, 1984, 1985, and 1986, the AIDs epidemic went through many ups and downs, with many perspectives from many people. Misinformation was passed as much as facts. AIDs could not be passed through saliva or touch, only through blood or certain body fluids such as semen or breast milk, but fear of the virus and who carried it spread like a virus itself. Ryan White, an elementary schooler in Indiana, was denied entry into middle school when it was revealed he’d gotten HIV. The US military began testing for the virus and denied the ability to serve for those who tested positive. President Ronald Reagan spoke about AIDs for the first time, and received major criticism for not providing enough funding for research. In 1985, there were some 13,000 cases of AIDs reported in America. By 1986, that number will have doubled, with a near 50% mortality rate.
The public perception of the disease and those affected by it continued to worsen. People estranged from their families for their lifestyle choices, for being queer at all, were left destitute when they became ill. If they were forced to be outed at work, they were often fired from their jobs leaving them without healthcare, or without any place to go. There was stigma around receiving a test for it at all, in having one’s name recorded and put on a list that the government could access if they wished. Ile Haggins, a former director of the Good Samaritan Project, described it as “this thing just hit. It was like there was no hope on the forefront.”
Activists described the utter frustration with the government’s response to the epidemic. Much of the organization and fight against it was coming not from any federal response, but from people-lead grassroots organizations. Many politicians in fact had gone on record as condemning the illness as some form of divine punishment, or that those who became ill due to unclean needle sharing ‘deserved’ it for using intravenous drugs. Nurses in hospitals were reported as leaving patients’ food outside the door rather than being in a room with them. Although it would not be until nearly ten years later, gay artist John S. Boskovich created the artwork ‘Electric Fan (Feel it Motherfuckers)’ - a found-object sculpture made from a box fan that was the only item salvaged after the AIDs-related death of his partner Stephan Earabino, whose family had emptied the apartment they’d shared and refused Boskovich any other mementos.
So we come to 1987. In February, AIDs activist Cleve Jones created the first panel of what will become the AIDs Memorial Quilt to honor a friend who died of HIV related illness. The panel is 3 feet wide and six feet long, the dimensions of a typical grave. The ‘AIDs Coalition To Unleash Power’, or ‘ACT UP’ was formed by activist Larry Kramer in New York and began demonstrations. They pressured drug companies, pharmacies, religious institutions and political groups that stood in the way of better testing and help for those affected. Princess Diana became a fervent advocate for people with AIDs. In Florida, when a judge ordered a school to allow two siblings with hemophilia - a group highly susceptible to HIV through necessary blood transfusions - to attend, parents rioted and refused to allow their children to attend with them. The family’s house was set on fire and burned to the ground. October will be designated the official AIDs Awareness month, while at the same time hosting the first showing of the AIDs Quilt. The US Senate adopted the Helms Agreement, which requires any federally financed education about AIDs to stress abstinence and forbids anything perceived to promote homosexuality.
There was more to come, more won and lost battles in the ongoing war. But here we are - here they were. The summer of 1987.
When the forces of politics, science, and the public seem to be coming to a boiling point over an ongoing epidemic, The Lost Boys debuts on the silver screen on the last day of July. A quartet of vampires swoop in on an unsuspecting everyboy Michael Emerson and offer him a world of darkness, endless fatal fun, and blood.
While there remains some controversy around whether or not it was intended to be, The Lost Boys continues to find immortality in the queer community for its subtextual themes of anti-establishmentism, counterculture, and coming-of-age. Director Joel Schumacher was a gay man himself and played a huge part in shaping how the titular Lost Boys would be presented to the audience, including aging them up.
Joel’s vision of the Boys was very different than the first drafts of the script proposed, where they were much similar in age to the younger boys they were named after in the story of Peter Pan. The vampires in The Lost Boys were also a very different breed to what most other media had done with the mythical monster up until that point.
The typical portrayal of a vampire had been somewhat codified by Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ published nearly a full century before, depicting them as old, decrepit beings that can hide their crumbling forms with magic, but must feast on the living to sustain it. Usually unholy, they were like living ghosts of a past age, unable to move forward in a prison of undeath. There was a given ethereality to them, and while the idea of romance towards the darkness had been toyed with plenty of times before, the narratives upheld the idea that it was at best a tragedy, and at worst a corruption of the victim. The Lost Boys, by contrast, chose to take a far different angle with the relationship the audience was to have with these vampires - namely: the relationship. These vampires are sexy.
Moreover, these vampires are grounded in a way not portrayed before. Rather than being a phantom of the nobility of an era long dead, they’re punks. They ride motorcycles and dress in contemporary fashions and speak in slang and modern lingo. They smoke, do drugs, drink, listen to rock music, and as the tagline of the movie goes, make it indeed seem like ‘it’s fun to be a vampire’. The Boys could be anyone spotted in a typical mid-80s coastal Californian crowd during summer break, blending in rather than standing out. This new take on vampires was almost human. You recognized them.
The Lost Boys were very much reflections of the real world outside of their story. Maybe a little larger than life for the film, but they represented through clothing and language and actions the subcultures of the era. And along with that portrayal came the attitudes ascribed to them. In this case, the temptation of the illicit.
Vampirism in media, and the vampire itself, represent a number of themes that coalesce into a single form. Dracula, and even before then, works like The Vampyre by John William Polidori or Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, attribute certain characteristics to the vampire that, while not outright something to be sought, were still desirable in a subconscious way. Repression of anything relating to sexuality, even heterosexual, was a huge cultural norm at the time of the publishing of these pivotal works. The concept of a romance that lacked an overtly physical nature was the ideal. In a time when women were often institutionalized for ‘hysteria nervosa’ and figures like Freud were only beginning to lay the groundwork for psychoanalysis, the idea of people, especially women, wanting something as physical and carnal as sex was worse than indecent. It was obscene. A corruption of the pure and innocent with something dark, and while tempting, ultimately all-consuming and fatal.
The vampire is a representation of desires society has deemed illicit and incorrect, but when Dracula came into the scene, it immortalized with it another trait into vampire canon: the notion of the curse of the vampire having the ability to spread. With a draining bite, or giving a victim their own blood, the effects of vampirism consume the victim until they too are a monster and will spread it to others. In the story of Dracula, this is an allegory for the intense xenophobia/excotisization of the day and age. The Eastern ‘wild and uncivilised’ parts of Europe and Asia spreading to Western Europe, particularly England. The fear of the mixed race, the non-English, the foreign immigrant ‘infecting’ society like a plague carried by things that only look human. It should also be noted, that with this uptick in racism came a huge swell in cases of tuberculosis and influenza, the spread of which was poorly understood, and would leave the victims lingering on for weeks before death.
In The Lost Boys, this theme of vampirism spreading can be used as a metaphor for the spread of an actual virus that travels through the blood, among queer, young men, partaking in what was seen as taboo acts and perverse culture. It wasn’t just the virus now that had people up in arms, however.
Public perception of the queer community thanks to the visibility the virus had suddenly given them varied widely, but among those views was a definite weaponization against the culture itself. A once vibrant demographic that many considered the foundation of the arts was brought under fire from agendas against the freedom of the arts, gender experimentation, and sexual liberation. Among these accusations was the assertion that queer people were somehow enjoying the death, using it as some kind of kink or fetish. Glorifying the spread, and doing so intentionally as a form of cult activity. Even among the gay and queer community itself, those with HIV and AIDs were often pushed out of their social circles, talked about in hushed voices. “It became the punchline of the world’s worst joke,” said one man to Kansas City PBS in an interview reflecting on the time. “Where’s-? Oh, he went home and died, because he had AIDs.”
Even when early methods of helping slow and stabilize the infection started becoming available, a diagnosis was still seen as a death warrant. That while one was still present and here, they were already in some ways considered gone. A living death.
It’s very easy to see how such a perception of the queer community can worm its way into the portrayal of vampires in the media. The Boys represent the taboo desires - promiscuity among all genders with each other, experimentation with drugs, gleeful, impulsive violence with both their peers and with institutions like the police, a lack of respect for the older generations and the rules of society - but they also represent very well the cost of those things. How these desires are ultimately the downfall of society and those who participate in them. They’re illusions and trickery, a devil’s deal. The Lost Boys are villains because what they are meant to be offering - an outsider’s perspective on what the queer community was - is a black hole that only ends in suffering and death for an empty pleasure of the flesh. They are the main antagonists for this reason.
And yet, there is an even bigger villain that is not revealed until the very end, until after the Boys are dead and gone.
Max, the video store owner. A straight, white, businessman who is exonerated by all the events of the movie leading up to the final confrontation. He can’t be a vampire, the in-canon tests and subtext uphold - he’s dorky, he dresses like a square, he has increasingly bad luck with dating Lucy Emerson, and at multiple points in the movie, is presented as a target for the Boys to go after as the perfect hapless victim of their wanton destruction.
But in the end, he is as much of an antagonist as the other vampires, regardless of all these factors.
The dichotomy of who the ‘real’ villain of The Lost Boys is sets up a fascinating contrasting perspective, depending on who you are, or were, at the time of its release. The Boys are a very clear example of queer youth. A group of homeless teenagers, specifically teenaged boys, who seem to live as though they were dying tomorrow - because they might well be.
Max, on the other hand, is the parent who is exceedingly frustrated at their own children for not doing as he asks or following the strict rules laid out for them. Straight, white, middle class society seeing this social group and condemning everything they are, while being an even bigger monster themselves. Max created the problem and is part of the problem, but rather than attempt to fix it or keep it from perpetuating, he uses the Boys and the threat they pose to coerce a woman to be with him, holding her entire family hostage to ensure his success. He attempts to enforce the toxic mindset of the rigid nuclear family with highly defined roles and punishment for not following those roles onto a group that would arguably be harmed by trying to live up to such definitions beyond the fact that they don’t even want to. The Boys in the end are victims of a much larger ploy, where their lives are completely expendable in perpetuating power and control. Max, and the majority of the world that he thematically represents, doesn’t care if the Boys - the queer community - die. As long as he can use them to push forward his own agenda.
In the end, the movie presents the villains as a top-down Ponzi scheme, but as time has shown, it’s much harder for the audience by the end to see the Boys as ‘real’ villains, unlike Max. Over the course of the plot, Michael is offered the darkness of partaking in vampirism multiple times, and multiple times, he chooses to participate. He accepts the drag race across the beach, he accepts the food and the drink and drugs. He goes along with them to the bridge and hangs with them underneath it. Michael is drawn to their world, and even though he clearly has reservations, there’s something about them he keeps finding himself drawn to.
Star is often presented as the driving force of these choices, but most of the time, when the Boys are involved, Star is either in the background, or ignored. She’s threatened through implication of potential abuse if she doesn’t go with David before the race, but it’s not because he’s fighting for Star that Michael punches David. “It’s blood,” she says outright to Michael, who then scoffs, and drinks the wine. She is not present at all during the bridge scene, nor when the pack attacks the Surf Nazis, only in spirit as a motivation for Michael to follow them.
For the final confrontation, when Michael and David are facing off, Star is nowhere to be found, and she never gets brought up at all in their fight. This conflict is between David and Michael, and arguably has been since the beginning. When Michael has expressed concern over Star, there’s never any concrete discussion about why exactly she wants to leave other than that she doesn’t want to be a vampire and what that entails. What exactly David and the Boys are doing to her is never laid out. Star is very much treated as merely an inciting incident and a very flimsy reason for David and Michael to have interactions and be given that push by the narrative. She is the rope they’re pulling between them; both are holding on to her, but they’re looking at each other while they’re doing it. David’s interest, either because of Max or because of his own whims, is solidly in Michael.
Michael is very much an everyman in the movie. Similar to many romance novels’ use of a very bare-bones physical description and personality for their female lead so that readers can more easily slip into her place, Michael is every average audience member who would have been most of the demographic for the movie. He’s young and adventurous, he can make mistakes but he rights his wrongs in the end. He stands up for what is presented as good and correct in the world, and while dabbling in the dark when it draws him in, ultimately rejects it.
Supported with the history, the current events of the time, and the subtext littering the movie, Michael Emerson’s journey through vampirism could, and very much does in my opinion, represent the arc of a young queer man almost coming out of the closet, and choosing to go back in again. David by contrast represents the queer community offering him the experiences and the connection.
In another time, this plotline of someone offering a character a chance to explore their perceived darker side with a guiding hand may have been framed as a good thing. ‘Turning Red’ and ‘K-Pop Demon Hunters’ are a couple good examples of this sort of narrative, where the main character has a side of themselves they’re told to repress and hide, that the side will ‘take over them’, and cause destruction both to the person and to their larger community. In these stories, the main character doesn’t get rid of the alternate side, but instead accepts it and embraces it as a part of their whole self, ultimately living authentically in the light even if there are those who still hold reservations or concerns about it.
In 1987, during the height of an epidemic with no real cure or course of mitigating action in sight, with few resources being allocated for those infected and dying and an already persecuted and marginalized community being blamed for its existence at all, no such respite was given.
Even if the battle with Max is the final battle, Michael’s fight with David is the moral and emotional center of the story. Again, Star, the object of affection that Michael is supposedly fighting to save as much as himself, is nowhere to be found, as well as any other characters. It’s purely Michael and David having a literal power struggle over the continued path of Michael’s life. Michael calls out David, “Are you afraid to face me?” when David hides in the rafters. While this can be read as David playing more mind games, there’s also the read that like every other time they’d come into contact, David is allowing Michael to come to him instead. David is not punishing Michael or toying with him for the sake of it - he’s waiting for him. He wants Michael to want this as much as he does.
And then the three little lines of dialogue that started this entire essay, and upon which the entire movie hangs is thematic hat:
“We tried to make you immortal,” says David.
“You tried to make me a killer!” Michael responds.
David and the Boys offered Michael a world outside of what Michael knew. They offered him experiences he’d either never conceived of before, or only in his wildest, most repressed dreams. These things were terrifying and new, but thrilling in a way nothing else in his life was. Things he wanted - to be respected, to be part of something, to have people who understood him and loved him. Away from his annoying little brother and loving but misunderstanding mother, the memory of the divorce and horrible father, the move away from the only home he’s ever known. They offer to help ease that discomfort and accept that life can offer him much, much more if he just reaches out and takes it.
Michael responds to the outcome of all of this. The perceived cost. He may never see his family again, the home he’s come to know even after only a short while. How good can the good times really be when they’re so off the rails? He’s terrified of people seeing him as what the Boys are, the words they may use to describe him afterwards. How his brother backs away from him, how his mother looks at him like a stranger in her home. And in the end, what comes of it all? Death. Death of people, and glee at the death in an unhinged, hysterical celebration.
When David accuses him of being what he is, Michael Emerson is not a willing participant in biting people’s throats out, or tearing them limb from limb. He is not calling Michael a murderer.
But he is calling Michael what Michael fears to be. Not something that hunts, but something that creates a gruesome end anyway. Something that will always cause fear, no matter how much Michael tries to hide it, or assure people that it’s not what’s really inside. Michael can go back to being an everyman. He can live his life to the cookie cutter cleanliness that makes his mother smile, his brother comfortable, and enable him to walk in the sunshine of greater society. But it will always be at best, only half-true. At worst, a lie.
Michael is simply a queer man in the 1980s.
“You are a killer.”
-
*Watsonian - (per TV Tropes.org): “An in-universe or diegetic explanation for events within the logic of the narrative.”
**Doyalist - (per TV Tropes.org): “Out of universe or exegetic commentary considering the work as a created concept”, which focuses primarily on the author’s intentions rather than ‘eye level’ character explanations.
*** a joke - all the resources cited in writing this essay
-
Bilby o graphy*** or what ever it’s called (list of very good and very insightful resources and documentaries that you should totally look at, regardless of if you’re queer or not!)
Explore the HIV and AIDS timeline to learn about key moments and progress in the fight against HIV. Discover the history on HIV.gov.
highlights from ali talking about david on the survival jobs podcast bc im obsessed with his characterization:
ali had 4 months between hadestown and starting lost boys and spent a lot of time working on what makes david tick. has tons and tons of backstory that you see maybe “2% of” get represented on stage.
BUT told various bits to michael arden during rehearsal which may have influenced some line changes/line deliveries
ali won't go into the backstory too much bc he likes david being a mystery <//3
he watched like 25 vampire movies and tv shows, pulls little bits of iconic vampires physicality into david (true blood and twilight called out in particular lol- says he tries to emulate edward cullens "hunter stare")
re: david specifically. everything beautiful and special in human life is made so by the context of it having to end- so to vampires nothing is special and everything is boring
david was human “like 90 years ago”, has some major trauma from his human life that he thought turning into a vampire would fix, but 90 years later he's still running from it, convinced that by making others vampires he can fix them and is never looking inward
“There's a really hurt boy in there. He is the lost boy. There's something he's running from that he's making everyone else's problem. And I don't think he realizes what really needs is to let go.”
Thinkin a lot about how David's dialogue is written from the movie to the stage, because as far as I'm concerned Ali Louis Bourzgui has done for David what Mads Mikkelson did for Hannibal: created a distinct spin on the character that respects but also stands independently alongside the original. It's a very, very rare feat.
Definitely they have guiding similarities: David doesn't ask, he explains how things are gonna be and your options within that framework; he flips his intensity like a switch when he's decided something is his (Ali's interviews are very cool andI want to hear him talk about his process all day); he talks like everything he wants is already his, but he holds onto things like he's drowning.
But I think Kiefer plays David a lot more tightly buttoned up. He's effortless cool, owns the scene in that big coat. And his dialogue is very....pointy. he's not curt, but he needles. He alludes and doesn't explain. Lots of enticing hooks to provoke your attention. And because he's so casual about assuming things belong to him and he'll get what he wants, when he turns his approval on you it's like the sun, even the smallest thing. A little sparkle in his eye, like you're special for catching it. Like you could fix him (you cannot, but you COULD be one of his beautiful boys!). A couple of times of that, you'll do anything for him. And that's the kind of thing you can only do with the intimacy of a camera.
Can't do that shit on the stage. Which isn't to say Ali isn't performing subtleties (he's murdering the stage every goddamn night bringing Billy Idol and Jareth and juuuuuust a touch of Willem Dafoe in that rasp). But he has to go more overt with the layers.
So stage!David's dialogue is more....uh, daddy? For lack of a better word. He's heavy on the love-bombing, very overtly sympathetic in a way that's still very controlled---he is recognizing your struggle on the way to funneling you down one specific path he's decided you'll take. And he so believes you can do it. He would know, he picked you. So I would call his dialogue less needle and more velvet. Purrs it over you and smothers out any response that isn't the one he wanted. And does still bait the hook with just enough of himself to pull you in (because if it's under 14 layers of irony then it isn't actually hurting him!). Both Davids are also very casually touchy of Their Things but boy the stage version wants to be sure you don't miss it (and for this I salute them).
TLB Universe elements that I see often from fans that I have opinions about apparently
Between the like. 4-5 fics I’ve read (only one of which was multichaptered so far), some tumblr posts, and reviews of the show on Reddit… I guess I’ve already started having Thoughts ™ about the way certain viewers and fans treat as canon or as obvious! Someone make my brain shut up!
1) i’m aware that there might be background material I’m missing, as well as extraneous knowledge gained from 40 years of over analyzing the movie that I just don’t have, but the popular reading of Max as a controlling and abusive parent is very interesting—specially when it’s claimed as his parenting style towards David. I’m sure there’s different ways to be controlling, but, guys. The boys live on their own. They’re eating up policemen and hypnotizing randos in public. The only thing we ever see Max order David to do—and this is a completely subtle hindsight-bearing information btw—is to Not Eat the Emersons. He does 0 things over David eating his employee the very next scene. Some of these things are Musical only, so maybe I’m supposed to see it as a Musical-Max only thing and not apply it to Movie-Max. But there’s just nothing much or at all or ever to suggest that Max is a controlling parent towards David. David does literally whatever the fuck he wants 12/7 all night, and one of the things Max even says is that he has trouble getting him to chill. Are we seeing the same character?
*im aware that this is contradictory from what Max says about the proper way to raise children. But like. This is literally what I am looking at on screen. It is not the first nor last time a character is hypocritical, or perhaps a wishful thinker. Do as he says not as he does?
2) similarly, depictions of possessive or aggressive David. I think this is a holdover from popular “alpha-male” tropes. David is, unfortunately, very sexy, and very charming. His presence takes over the scene even when he isn’t talking. The guy’s hair is literally brighter than most of the set, and his leadership is unquestioned and respected unilaterally. We also have literal lines of songs that display that he is awfully greedy, glutinous—I Have to Have You says a lot about him. We don’t even see him ever have a conflict of leadership with someone that’s supposed to be his superior (Max), so this adds to his appealing nature as a “superior” man. But David is not any stereotypical “alpha-male” type of leader, his mode of ruling involves no petty sense of cruelty or intimidation. He is intimidating because his presence is intimidating, not his actions. And he exudes this presence because he is respected as someone capable, reliable, protective, and able to appear very aware and all-knowing. As for the possessive claims—he shares EVERYTHING. His jewelry, his instruments, his boyfriends. Like we can all see him playing dollhouse with Michael’s emergent bisexuality in the same breath he tells Star she can have him right?? We all saw that happen in the same versions of the show where he kisses her??? He has 0 problems sharing his shit, because he is too aware that he isn’t losing any of it.
(I reread this paragraph and I think it implies that David doesn’t see his family as his possessions, which is probably not correct given his very confident claim that Michael belongs to him. This could just be yet another example of David seeing Michael as special but honestly I think he does see anyone he’s marked for himself as his, and I guess in THAT sense he is “possessive”. But I also mean that he is not a jealous guy, nor covetous. He can yearn his bloody heart out like any pop singer, but it never once crosses his mind that he could lose his people.)
3) Alan is transmasc. Maybe his pronouns are they/them, or they/him, or fuck/if/he/knows, but i feel like for a culture that prides itself on being able to read between the lines and understand subtle cues (this is both towards fandom at large and at reviewers) it sure is having trouble catching a character that is more than a little uncomfortable with being seen as a girl. Jennifer Durka might be cis but Alan isn’t, yall. At LEAST use nonbinary pronouns when referring to the character it ain’t that hard??? And while we’re at it, don’t ever write Edgar thinking of them as a girl. Any other character is viable to go through their own little characterization arc in terms of what to think of Alan but Edgar is clear cut. (I like the detail of Max calling the brothers “The Frogs” as a microagressive transphobic comment. It’s one of the nifty little ways to hint at him being an asshole underneath all the dork before the reveal. It’s such a shame a lot of viewers didn’t catch that they DONT like leaving the brothers part out!!!!!!)
That’s it so far, the rest isn’t really over in-universe fan fic depictions. I still dislike anyone that thinks that Michael should be cut—I’ve said it before but let me repeat: they. Want you. To care. About the mom. she is a character here. Listen to her. She is important to showcase why David is wrong about Michael’s place in his family, why he did the right thing in going back home. Repeat after me: David was wrong, Michael’s family loves him, even if they weren’t perfect. Let these writers show you the ways in which it wasn’t perfect, and how Lucy and Sam’s attempts to fix it are why they prove they love him and deserve him. In this version of the story, their love and attention is not for granted!
Also, stop saying they should cut off the dad hallucinations while we’re at it. Jesus it’s like you people haven’t analyzed a book in high school! The father is literally how David’s teeth sink into Michael once he stops seducing him to eat him. Without the father you just have people shaking their head fondly at Michael and thinking he’s kind of an idiot with the self preservation of a towel rag for continuing to go back to the weirdo biker gang that tries to kill him and make him jump off a bridge. David could not be using this trauma to make Michael dance to his tune more clearly—he even shares his own story to dig it deep on why it’s imperative that Michael belong with to him. Even Michael is catching on that he’s repeating patterns here—he’s afraid he’s going to turn into his father, but equally scary is how David is recycling the role his father had, just with a different flavor. (I mean he literally and visually replaces his father on set both times he appears.) For a nice post that dwells into this a little more, I really enjoyed this redditor’s analysis of David’s use of the cycle of abuse.
While I’m on this train I think that, while there was undoubtedly a lot that they needed to tune and it seems like they ran out of time to properly do that, the overarching themes of masculinity and its effect on/as trauma paint a good picture of what should not be taken out under any circumstances if they want their themes intact, and I’m glad they stuck to that! These were: Star’s War (which straight up says that the world of men is causing her all this anguish—and she didn’t even know her dad!), Lucy’s songs (pretty much all of them tbh. She is all about being a single mother that’s had her free spirit and hope beaten out of her!), Michael’s Belong to Someone —> Reprise with David —> David/the father’s Belong To Me saga. This is THE traumatic masculinity storyline in a nutshell, and taking any of it out is borderline insane to suggest. I understand that maybe the positioning of “Belong to Someone” isn’t great, and that at the end of the day we all want more Ali Louis Bourszgui singing his heart out (I do think he should have sang more in Belong to Me. Ben Crawford you’re amazing and I love you but put David back on). But to ever say “these should be cut” is like asking Shakespeare to use less poisons in Romeo and Juliet. Lastly, Sam’s Superpower, a HUGELY popular contender for being cut in the second act. Listen it isn’t my favorite song either, and across all my rewatches it never sticks to my head. But. Like. sorry yall can’t handle whimsy in your gorey vampire musical? let the gay kid come out in the same song he decides he’s going to stop hiding in his room and is gonna go protect his brother for once. He is giving back to Michael, to protect him and save him by embracing all the ways he is not masculine but still useful. Is it a huge shift in tone from act 1? Maybe?? But is it a CRIME??? No!!! I do wish there was more humor in Act 1 and smidge more horror in Act 2 so the horror Comedy aspect was more clear cut, but to get rid of either aspect to stick to the other was out of the question! I need the Boys to eat people AND I need the Frog Brothers to make me laugh!!! Why must I CHOOSE???
okay I understand that Michael and David being incredibly attracted to each other isn't subtle in the slightest, and even in the original 1987 film they look like they're 5 seconds away from booking a trip to Pound Town, and it would just get even more blatant in the musical. but also How are you capable of picking up on that while also in the same review not understanding Alan is trans, going out of your way to misgender them even though they're never referred to with feminine terms once, and thinking that Edgar respecting them and correctly calling them his brother even when it confuses other characters (Who Are In A Musical That's Set In The 1980s And Are Not You The Viewer Watching In 2026) is just another frog brothers (yes brothers) quirk. this has been putting my brain through a washing machine cycle of confusing and ragebaiting me all morning. How does that work.
You're so real for this, dude. Don't say it's embarrassing, it's absolutely valid! It's so important for kids who are trans, nonbinary, genderfluid, or just not sure who they are yet to see musicals like this. They feel seen. They feel respected. It means so much to them, and we shouldn't let that be downplayed by reviewers who "don't get it".
I loved the energy Alan had, always making their identity heard and not questioned. He knew who he was, and he wasn't gonna let anyone take that away. They're the Frog BROTHERS, no matter what.
Max and David did have their bonding moments when Dave was growing into an older vamp. Such as Max taking him to see the first ever elevator in the 1800s.
David hated it immensly and cried dramatically to annoy Max.
David is fine with the concept of an elevator on an engineering level. It's a big metal bucket on a pulley that takes people up and down, even if he himself can't stand the feeling in his stomach when it moves.
David has a problem with escalators on a moral level.
Lucy and Max have a musical✨ original date where they walk around Santa Carla at night. They arrive at an empty playground and Lucy reminisces about her time in the 60s.
I am paraphrasing here
Lucy😏✌: "The 60s where the best. [Lucy lists of things she loved about the 60s]❤"
Max🧐: "Noooo, ugh the 60s [Max lists of things he hated about the 60s including...] hippies😠"
Lucy🤨: "I was a hippie!"
Max😅: "I meant to say: Hippies! Yay🤠."
Oh Max you silly hypocrit. He's so awkward through it all. I can't stay mad.
And then he and Lucy play on the carousell thing at the playground and sing a song together, "Wild".
Later Lucy and Max run into David and the gang who were just about to eat Michael. (In return the Lost Boys end up eating Max's employee. In the musical this is Pete, not Maria. That's what Max gets for interrupting his boys' feeding frenzy). After the date, Max walks Lucy and her boys home - thereby putting the Emerson family under his protection so they won't be eaten by his son(s).
Bonus: the frog brothers are amazing. Allan and Edgar have chaotic sibling energy that they bounce of one another.
