Angels In America @ Berkley Rep- Page 3

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 5/17/18 at 2:55am

SFCowboy said: "ChairinMain said: "I see that there are two actors listed for the Angel on the website; is there a posted schedule for how the role is divided? I can't find it online."

I haven't been able to find this information either.Francesca Faridany andLisa Ramirez are both listed in the program. I don't remember even getting a slip of paper in the program. After Part 1 I noticed a sign at the box office stating thatFrancesca Faridany was the Angel. I forgot to check for Part 2.

I was curious why two Angels were cast. I'm guessing it's because of the physical demands of the role in this production? Is this typical for this play?

"

Did a little chatting with some house staff when I saw the show on Saturday (It's Terrific, BTW, Stephen Spinella's Roy is terrifying, and all the better for his grace notes of humanity).  Francisca Faridany was a late replacement, cast around the start of rehearsals, and was unable to commit to the full run. Ramirez, originally the understudy, took over for her this week. Not sure if Faridany is coming back or not. I though Faridany was terrific, but know Ramirez's work from a lot of good stuff she's done in the bay, and she'll be great.

[antonijan]

Posted: 5/17/18 at 3:51am

Anybody have discount code for Perestroika?

Updated On: 5/25/18 at 03:51 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 5/21/18 at 2:43am

A few thoughts after seeing both shows on Saturday...

- Seeing the "marathon" was a daunting prospect, and it was a long day. But I really liked seeing the play, or plays, that way. There's a chance to mull over Millennium Approaches over dinner, but also an opportunity to see the second half without waiting days, weeks, or months. If you can catch a marathon day, do it.

- I realized afterward that this was the first revival of a play I had seen. Watching Angels in America in 2018 is a different experience than it was when I saw it in 1994, one that exposes some weaknesses in the play (at least for me) but also reaffirms its overall greatness. Tony Kushner weaves a complex web and a string of fantastic individual scenes that are lacerating and funnier than I recall. Director Tony Taccone knows the material as well as almost anyone, I suspect, and he figured out a way to let it sparkle without getting in the way. The sets and lighting are quite effective and efficient.

- Randy Harrison does a fine job as Prior. He makes you feel the anguish but also the barbed humor and self-righteous anger. 

- Stephen Spinella started a little slowly as Roy Cohn in his opening scene, but he's great thereafter, a monster you can't stop watching. His scene with the doctor, in Millennium Approaches, was a brilliant piece of acting of a particularly sharp piece of Kushner's script. His clashes with Ethel Rosenberg - compellingly played by Carmen Roman - were also excellent. (The direction of her first entrance is particularly well-done.)

- Benjamin T. Ismail is a perfect Louis. He doesn't hit a false note during six-plus hours.

- Caldwell Tidicue, or Bob the Drag Queen, acquits himself admirably in his first stage role. He's great at Belize's scene-stealing lines and has great stage presence, and does a capable job with the longer speeches. I certainly wouldn't have guessed that he hadn't done this before. (The performance of Perestroika was only the ninth one.) 

- Roman is terrific as Hannah Pitt, who portrays a wide range of emotions, from distraught rage to grounded humanity, and plays well off Harrison's Prior. 

- SFCowboy, I see your point about Perestroika. The latter is the messier play, requiring more patience and indulgence from the audience, but it also includes some of Angels in America's most intense dramatic scenes as well as its funniest ones - which are so compelling (or hilarious, or both) because of all that has come before. 

[SFCowboy]

Posted: 5/24/18 at 6:54pm

At the risk of repeating what I've already said in previous posts …

I've now had the good fortune to see both parts of the Angels In America playing in New York, after seeing it at the Berkeley Rep twice. After the rave reviews of the New York production, maybe I was expecting too much, and I ended up rather disappointed. I mean, New York was great, but now I appreciate how Berkeley really nailed it with an amazingly riveting, mesmerizing, gorgeous, and flawlessly designed production.

I was in love with the sets and lighting design in Berkeley – how the mini-sets captured the essence of each scene perfectly, and how they glided on and off (or up and down) so effortlessly. In New York I thought the mini-sets in Part 1 were bulky and ugly and rotated around needlessly and noisily. In Part 2 these gave way to different configurations of props moved on and off the stage by shadow-like creatures, or a large ugly boxy set that rose up from under the front part stage. There didn't seem to be much cohesion or purpose behind using the different set treatments. I *loved* the Berkeley representation of a run-down Heaven, with its smoldering piles of debris and old file boxes stacked, well, to the heavens. The New York Heaven was confined to the back part of the stage and looked very Broadway with all the lights.

The New York lighting throughout was stark and harsh. I realize that was a stylistic choice that many liked and even got a Tony nomination, but it didn't work for me. Berkeley had such exquisite lighting. And the projections! OMG the projections at Berkeley were amazing. I still get goosebumps thinking about the phenomenal entrance of the Angel (and her first exit in Part 2), or even the magical transition between Antarctica and Prospect Park. And I have a new appreciation for the music that accompanies the Berkeley production, again so perfect. In New York the music mostly just sounded loud and bombastic to me.

In nearly every case I preferred the character portrayals in Berkeley over New York. It's really no fault of his, but I can't watch Nathan Lane without seeing Nathan Lane. He did an excellent Roy Cohn, but Stephen Spinella – you really won me over with your performance in Berkeley. New York's Andrew Garfield as Prior also was terrific, but so was Berkeley's Randy Harrison. If I had to choose, I'd actually give a slight edge to Randy. Lots of folks are talking about how Andrew Garfield and Nathan Lane are giving Tony-worthy performances, and I agree. I guess my point is that if that is true, then so are Stephen Spinella and Randy Harrison.

The biggest difference in character portrayal is with Louis. I thought Benjamin Ismail in Berkeley perfectly captured this New York neurotic gay Jewish character to a tee. I felt like I understood Louis enough to see past his faults and accept him for who he is. I actually cared for him. In New York James McArdle was not so gay, not so Jewish, not so New York, and not so neurotic. His speaking style was to include a lot of starts and stops, pauses, and cutting off phrases like he was interrupting himself. I understand that he was conveying that his brain was getting tangled up, but I kept thinking he had messed up a line. (The person sitting next to me thought the same.) I never got that feeling in Berkeley. In New York it took me out of the play repeatedly.

And it goes on … I'll just say that in Berkeley, Hannah Pitt (Carmen Roman) – truly outstanding (along with her amazing Ethel Rosenberg)! Harper and Joe Pitt (Bethany Jillard and Danny Binstock) – terrific! Belize (Caldwell Tidicue, aka Bob The Drag Queen) – wonderful, especially when you consider he doesn't have a long theatrical résumé. Even the more minor characters had more definition and life to them. The Rabbi and the Bolshevik were most unconvincing in New York compared to Berkeley.

Of course the treatment of the Angel was radically different between the two productions: Berkeley with a more traditional angel in white, and New York with a ragged angel in black whose movements and wings were controlled by the shadow creatures. I loved both. But it’s the stage picture of the Berkeley angel's entrance that will live with me.

I wish I had seen the New York production first. For all the negative comments about it I posted here, it was truly grand, well-acted, and powerful. But in my mind, it doesn't hold a candle to the amazing Berkeley production. I'm feeling like it’s too bad the London's National Theater production made it to Broadway first. Berkeley's Angels would have been a worthy transfer, and I believe it would have been equally acclaimed. It's a shame more people aren't going to see this magnificent production.

I just bought tickets to see it a third time in Berkeley.

[JBC3]

Posted: 5/25/18 at 12:21am

The set design choices for the London/Broadway production are intentional and very specific. They echo and illuminate what is happening in the plays at an almost meta level. I found them to be great, particularly in Perestroika.

[SFCowboy]

Posted: 5/25/18 at 3:58pm

Thanks, JBC3. Yes, I understood this about the set design going in, and I really wanted to appreciate it, but it still just didn't work for me. I'm glad it did for you. I do think I'm in the minority here, based on the comments of others. Oh, well. I think maybe I got too attached to the Berkeley Rep production and can't let it go. I would *really* be curious to hear from anyone else who has caught both productions.

[JBC3]

Posted: 5/25/18 at 5:08pm

Yes, the London/Broadway concept and design will not appeal to everyone. Updated On: 5/29/18 at 05:08 PM

[JBC3]

Posted: 5/29/18 at 1:19am

Saw the Sunday matinee (5/27) and was ultimately a bit disappointed. A very weak first act set a flat tone that the production never fully erased.

The biggest misfire is Harper. Bethany Jillard started at such a screeching level of anger that she had nowhere to go. She was loud and borderline obnoxious. Her scenes with Joe were basically screaming matches, and they never came off as a believable couple.

Benjamin T. Ismail is indeed a great Louis, Caldwell Tidicue did well as Belize, as did Carmen Roman with Hannah.

I wondered if Spinella was a bit ill as he started so slowly as Cohn. His opening monologue was very one-note and got very few laughs in what generally is a failproof speech. But he improved throughout and brought some lovely new dimensions to the role, particularly in the bar scene/father talk with Joe.

Harrison did well with Prior's dramatic moments, but failed to land much of the humor, so the overall energy of the production suffered. His dream scene with Harper elicited only a few chuckles as both failed to mine the humor in that delicious moment, one that usually is a highlight.

B/B+ overall.