"Angels in America" revival?

[FOAnatic]

With the incredible HBO movie adaptation of "Angels in America," and the current political climate, I think a Broadway revival of "Angels in America" would be great. Or even just an all star staged reading of it. I don't know how well it would do in box office terms. I don't think it would bring tourists flocking in to see it from all over the country. But, I could see it doing will with the right cast and creative team.

Any thoughts?

[melissa errico fan]

I think it might be too soon. I would say give it 5-10 years.

[luvtheEmcee]

I don't know that it would ever hold up to the original, from what I've heard, but I do know I'd kill to see it on stage.

[Type_A_Tiff]

*creams at the prospect*

The DVDs should be arriving in my mail any day now!

[MargoChanning]

I doubt we'll ever see the play again in an open-ended run on commercial Broadway. The original production lost $1.1 million due in part to overtime costs from the plays' lengths. Union rules make it almost impossible for the show to turn a profit on Broadway.

Local colleges and off-off-Broadway groups have done it several times in the last 10 years though. Perhaps, some acclaimed production from England or somewhere might play a week or two at BAM or as part of the Lincoln Center Festival or something. And I suppose Kushner would always be up for a one night only all-star fundraiser for some liberal charity at some point in the future.

[luvtheEmcee]

Damn my age.

[robbiej]

An absolutely astonishing evening of theatre that the movie, nor any revival could possibly touch any time soon.

[MargoChanning]

Perhaps the highlight of my 30+ years of theatregoing, I saw Millenium five or six times and Perestroika, three or four (I lost count). The most extraordinary production -- writing, acting, direction -- that I've ever seen. And as Robbie said, neither the film nor, I don't believe, any revival could touch the original.

[nmartin]

I'm not trying to pooh-pooh the idea of a revival, but I was thinking about this show today because I saw Kathleen Chalfant on a Law and Order rerun. I hold the memory of that show too dear to ever want to see a revival of it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Might the Lincoln Center library have a video of the original?

[Type_A_Tiff]

Most likely, I'd imagine.

[robbiej]

Spinella would be impossible to top. The role was literally written for him and he was sheer perfection.

Both Chalfant and the egregiously overlooked Ellen McLoughlin (sp?) were with the show since its inception as well. No one could know those roles better (not even Streep and Thompson).

It was truly magnificent and honestly life-altering.

If you saw Wright's revelatory performance in the stage version and his very good performance in the film, you'd understand where the film...not went wrong...let's say where the film didn't capture the true essence of the piece.

[MTVMANN]

I don't think it would draw enough audience member


For those who saw the original, What made it so good?????? Do you think that it was just so special to you that in your minds nothing can top it??????

[MargoChanning]

Wolfe's production had an electricity and dynamism and immediacy that were missing from the film. Also, Wolfe understood the inherent humor within the piece which Kushner used as a sort of pressure valve to relieve the incredible dramatic tension that periocally builds up over the course of the play. While the many political and dramtic themes dealt with are certainly very serious, Kushner was also greatly influence by gay camp humor and Ludlam's Theatre of the Ridiculous and employs that influence throughout the play. Wolfe (and actors Spinella and Wright) thoroughly understood and embraced that gay sensibility in the original production, while Nichols and Justin Kirk were clearly clueless or simply uncomfortable with it and as a result much of the humor in the film falls flat.

Nichols made the mistake of treating the material too reverentially and somberly with too many scenes slogging on at a snail's pace as if this were an O'Neill tragedy -- scenes crackled with pace and energy on stage. Without the humor, certain scenes play too melodramatically, almost soap opera-esque which undercuts the heightened stylization of Kushner's writing and make it seem almost pedestrian (especially the Joe-Harper scenes).

Nichols also seemed to want to shy away from the overtly (left-wing) political aspects of the play, editing scenes to de-emphasize the long dialogue sections (he destroyed the two Louis-Belize scenes). He (and his cinematographer) also got too swept up in fancy camera tricks and visual references (the ode the Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" in the Threshold of Revelation scene -- which was hysterical, magical and gasp-inducing on stage, but just DEPRESSING on film) when he SHOULD have been directing his actors and paying attention to the fact that Kirk, especially, had absolutely NO IDEA what he was doing -- Kirk didn't know who Prior was or how he should be played and that failure undermines the entire film (it's telling that Spinella won two consecutive Tonys for the role and dominated the stage production, but the weak performance by Kirk -- along with Nichols' direction which seemed to emphasize Joe's story over Prior's -- renders Prior into the background as just another supporting player, turning it into a different play altogether). Just a mess.

Look, I'm glad the film was made because such a masterpiece deserved to be preserved, but other than Pacino's performance which was superb (and superior to Ron Leibman, F. Murray Abraham and David Margulies, each of whom I saw on stage) and perhaps Parker as well (though I still prefer Marcia Gay Harden), I find the film inferior in every way to the stage production.

[Alix]

Oh that would be so wonderful. I would kill to see Angels on stage.

[Rentaholic2]

Margo, being someone who has seen the stage versions, I would love to hear all about it from you. I recently watched the film and was very intrigued...I am just dying to know how a lot of that played out on stage, the effects used, omissions, and overall themes of the work. If you or any one else would enjoy recalling this experience in as much detail as you want, I would certainly be obliged and happy. You can PM me if you'd like, but no worries if you'd rather not!

[nmartin]

Mtvman, Despite Margo's comments, there is no way to explain adaquately the affect that Angels in America had on its audiences. I can only say this: I saw Millenium Approaches on a trip to New York when I was living in Memphis. When Perestroika opended, I flew back to New York from Memphis for no other reason than to see it. Even though that was very expensive to do,I feel that I owe everyone involved with that production.

[MargoChanning]

Do a search and you'll find SEVERAL earlier threads discussing the play and film at length:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=845217

http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=776180

[mabel]

Re: not being able to recoup...Didn't Long Day's Journey recoup rather quickly? With top ticket prices at $100 and $200+ premium tix, wouldn't ya think an all star cast w/ crazy buzz coming off the HBO series would allow it to recoup even w/ the 3+ hour extra "fees"?!?

[MTVMANN]

Thank you!!!!!! Interesting to note, that in the film Prior was made to be a supporting player, and then all of a sudden he takes over as the lead. Your right about giving Joe the attention because I thought it was all about him......until I read the play!!!!!!

[FindingNamo]

I saw both parts twice each on Broadway and I'm with Margo on the "highlight" of my theater going experience thing, too.

But really, there would be no point to a Broadway revival now. It had its Broadway run. AiA would be better served at this time by really top-flight regional productions.

I was particularly lucky to catch Oskar Eustis's production at Trinity Rep in Providence a few years back. Really FANtastic production with significant stylistic differences from the Wolfe version.

I also walked out on a really crappy community theater production after act one.

However, I saw a fantastic community theater production of the "outakes" from Angels, "Slavs!" So you never know.

But Broadway again? It would be redundant.

[heaja123]

i havent seen the stage version, i've only seen the movie and read the play about 5 times.. i thought the acting in the movie was fantastic, and i thought kirk did a fabulous job along with the rest of the amazing cast.

[insomniak]

I don't have anything to compare him to, but I liked Justin Kirk in the miniseries. Perhaps if I'd already had an idea of what the character should be played like, I might not have liked it so much. I would have preferred a bit less whining on his part, though. *shrug*

Patrick Wilson was horrible, I thought. He has no expression whatsoever and I really didn't like Mary Louise Parker either. She sounded as though she was reading off of a cue card. I didn't buy her at all.

*realizes that this isn't about the movie*

Does anyone think that they would try to bring back some of the movie's cast for a hypothetical revival? Do you think their performances more, less or about the same effect on stage?

[MargoChanning]

I saw "Slavs!" at New York Theatre Workshop around 1994 and thought it was wonderful. A tight, incredibly dense 80 minute political and social rumination that sort of ties into the Oldest Living Bolshevik's opening speech from Perestroika (he's a character in Slavs!). A very underrated work by Kushner.

[Tirso de Molina]

I saw the two parts on a Saturday, matinee and evening. With no exaggeration whatsoever, I can say it was one of the most exhilarating days of my life.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Margo- what did you think about Streeps performace in the movie?