Angels In America

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 7:19am

Last night, they showed an add for the upcoming film of Angels in America just before Sex And The City -- it looks great.I can't wait to see it. Damn ads showing up six months prior! Anyway, I have seen both Part One: Millenium Approaches and part Two: Perestroika, but at different times by different theatre compnaies. I have a question about the Broadway production though. I see that it played at the Walter Kerr in a repertory format. Exactly how did that work as far as performance schedules, ticketing, etc??
I also see Perestroika won the Tony. Why couldn't they have been nominated together? Joint nominations have happened before. Updated On: 6/23/03 at 07:19 AM

[orion59]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 8:07am

It was a while ago when I saw the Broadway production of AIA but, as I recall, the scheduling, ticketing and everything else was the same as it would be for any other show at that theater. The major difference was the performance itself which ahd the feel of a rep production rather than a large Broadway production. That really is the only way this show should be done.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 8:16am

yeah, I mean, I know of companys that have done it where part one plays one week, part one plays the next and I have seen it where one plays one day, one plays the next. I was curious as to which way it was done and as to whether they offered a discount if you purchased tickets for both -- I have seen some do that and others not.


'Angels' remains as one of my favoite plays.

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 8:24am

What is AIA about and is it a musical?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 8:28am

straight play. It's a very complex piece. Do a search and find a synopsis. I'm not to good at writing them. It is a brilliantly written play that takes place in two three hour plays.

[Rypm25]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 9:37am

I am not sure about weekdays, but I know when my friends went to see it...they went on a saturday, and saw the first part at the matinee and the second part in the evening.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 9:49am

yeah, I do know that on matinee days in was mat- part one, eve- part two.

Posted: 6/23/03 at 11:23am

The reason it was not nominated together is quite simply that Part 1 opened a season earlier than Part 2. Ironically, after four hours of part one, the last line is "The work begins"!
And B'way audiences had to wait a very long time to see Part 2.
For those of you too young to remember this show, check out the script and read it. It is one of the best American plays of the 20th century. This is not an exaggeration. I can not wait for the HBO version. The cast is amazing.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 11:28am

I wish I would have had the opportunity to see it during it's Broadway run. It is so beautifully written and such a work of genius. I agree. It is among the best. I own both plays and have read them several times. Such a compelling story.

[luluhed]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 1:57pm

I also consider this to be one of the best plays (both of them) I've ever seen. I'm hoping the film isn't too far off the mark. It's rare when a film has the same impact as the show. Exception-Hedwig.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 2:01pm

from the commercial, there was one image that, to me, looked breathtaking. It was the angel hovering the air with her wings slowly fluttering and she was backlit by a glowing white light. It was gorgeous.

[broadway_fan]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 2:40pm

Part I and Part II did not open at the same time, so when Part I opened in 1993 it won the Tony Award for best play that year and Part II opened in 1994 and also won the Tony for best play.

[tpdc]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 3:32pm

Once both shows were open, the schedule was published. They did both parts on Wednesday and Saturday. The ads would have a small calendar at the bottom that would list the date and which part was being performed that night. I think the ABC ad (with the show listed as ANGELS IN AMERICA) changed daily to reflect what part was being performed. The brief commercial on HBO last night was quite interesting. It's a shame that the three leads were not listed though. Anyone thinking it's a Pacino/Streep film are going to be surprised. Not to mention those people who will be waiting for Thompson to show up!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 3:35pm

I noticed that too. Well, i think it's good that they are using the name actors to draw in viewers -- even though they should have nemed Patrick in the ad -- because this is a piece that is just so brialliant and everyone needs to see IMHO.

[actorgaedu]

Posted: 6/23/03 at 8:12pm

I saw the entire show Parts one and two on a Saturday in 1994, it was incredible! The Matinee was part one and them after only an hour and a half break part two was the evening show. I love this piece and yes it is one of the best plays of the 20th Century! I saw F. Murray Abraham and Dan Futterman (recently on Will and Grace) what a pair of actors. I am more than sure that this film cast will be extraordinary! I can't wait! Al Pacino as Roy Cohn, OMG!

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/24/03 at 5:14pm

I am one of the few that felt very mediocre about it. I agree that it had some brilliant moments, but you had to sit so long through crapola that the brilliant moments were lost. For example, the visitor center scenes in Part II were not interesting and slowed the show down.

Additionally, one of the things I hated was that the "angel" was so hyped. At the close of Part I when the angel descends, people tried to applaud. It was not an "applaud" moment and the poignancy of the moment was lost. I think it would have been much more effective if the back curtain had parted and the angel just walked onstage.

Overall I felt it could have used a major trimming.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/24/03 at 6:45pm

Did you only see Part One? The Angel is used a lot more in Part two. That is where most of the good Angel stuff is.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 6/25/03 at 1:19pm

I was lucky enough to see this show in NYC with the amazing Russian Tea Room package, which served an incredible dinner in between the two parts. I saw it with a very good friend and college mentor who has since passed away, and who taught the plays as literature. It was one of the hallmark experiences of my life, as an event. However, I can see some of the criticism of the plays' production in NYC as well---though very imaginatively opened up, they were a big production of some very small and intimate human scenes. Which might lead well to a filmed version. Particularly in the second half, I sometimes felt the production was overcoming the dramaturgy. Seeing other Kushner plays done smaller (particularly SLAVS and BRIGHT ROOM CALLED DAY) I can really appreciate his writing on a more intimate scale (plus I had been lucky enough to see ANGELS ONE previously in a National Theatre production at their smallest space in the complex, where the actors moved all the minimal scenery themselves, and the only "big" effect was the Angel's entrance). It was absolutely mesmerizing, but most plays I've seen the Brits do at the National (including BENT most memorably) were.

As for Kushner, I am hoping that the film version of ANGELS will move him forward in the public consciousness again. To me he is like Tennessee Williams in his developing of the American drama, and Williams also went through his "spectacle/carnivale" stage dramaturgically (CAMINO REAL and VEIUX CARRE). It just seems as if Kushner is somewhat inverting William's path, doing his huge plays first and smaller plays later (unlike Tennessee who started small and built up to huge casts and epic time frames). I hate it like fire that I missed HOMEBODY/KABUL. I can't wait to see what's "next" for Kushner, and hopefully this event will spark interest in him even more. I so admire how he also contributes not only money but also his time to mentor younger emerging playwrights in universities and colleges all over the country. To me, he is really an artist who is about giving back to his society.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/03 at 5:02pm

Actually Williams' career was backwards from the normal writer. He started off with several very successful productions and then later in his career began writing more experimental, less popular plays.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 6/25/03 at 6:09pm

I just was refering in a general way to his dramatic vision expanding as he became more celebrated and commercial. But you're right, the later plays were not as critically hailed for Williams. He fascinates me as a writer and as a character. Read the interview given after his death by his mother. It's amazing, you can find it in a book of theatre interviews called SHOPTALK. I just wish the movies and TV would begin to spread the work of Kushner like Williams enjoyed mid-career.