Angels In America Revival: Thoughts and Review

[standingovation79]

In 1993,  my 16 year old self was lucky enough to be on a family trip from Nebraska to  New York City just after Part 1 of Angels in America, Millennium Approaches opened on  Broadway. Being the president of my high school’s drama club, my parents were eager to introduce me to my first Broadway Theater experience. Now you might wonder how a teenage minor from the conservative midwest ended up at a show with such adult themes….well, most of it had to do with the fact that the internet wasn’t around for my parents to do any research. Walking past the old TKTS booth in a very different Times Square, flyer givers where passing out brochures. My Mom, being a good Catholic girl  thought the title, “Angels in America” was a beautiful one. One had a quote from a review, “The most important play of the decade”. My father was sold. I give my parents a lot of credit, because these were ideas that I’m sure terrified them and probably outed me at 16 (even though it would be almost ten years later before actually I came out), but they did not walk out….they let me stay and watch the entire performance. It may sound clique now, but it was a formative moment for me. It was the first time that i fully connected with gay culture, with politics, with a kind of humor I knew I was attracted to, but was tentative to embrace. It also taught me so much about drama and tension. To this day I think it’s a great example for writers to study

 

Subsequently, I’ve seen the two other notable productions at Signature Theatre and at London’s National Theater, and  of course, the film. And last night, I took in one of the first previews of the Broadway transfer of Millennium Approaches at the Neil Simon Theater. The best thing about this production in my opinion, is that it proves the writing still holds.  Is it a messy melodrama? Yes, but it always was, and thats in part what Kushner is saying. America is a messy, messy place in all its free glory.  And as George Wolf says, the end of the 20th Century was about us for the first time being in each other’s other. But I think the general consensus about the plays over the years has been that it’s now a dusty history play and people won’t have the sympathy for the characters they had at the height of the AIDS Crisis. Well I’m here to report that’s absolutely not true. The themes about the environment alone, the hole in the ozone, the melting of the polar ice caps, GLOW WITH RELEVANCY.

 

Marianne Elliott, the visionary director of the plays War Horse and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night, who I believe has changed theater going in the last decade by employing fast paced film techniques to her productions, is an inspired choice for this revival. If for no other reason, because Kushner’s choice of scene structure is overtly cinematic.  She lives up to her reputation here in that respect moving the action at a brisk pace between several small turn tables. As scenes happen the turn tables keep turning slowly. A brilliant interpretation of Prior’s line from Perestroika: The world only spins forward. But unfortunately for me, her script analyzation feels half baked, resulting in performances that are not as exacto knife precise as they were in George Wolf’s burned in my brain, not an intention out of place original character mapping. HE understood these characters implicitly…HE knew exactly who these people are and the motivation behind what they were saying. Im not sure Marianne always does. The biggest miss for me is, and let me preface it’s gotten better in the Broadway transfer, is the loss of the gay or camp humor. Kushner didn’t title it A GAY FANTASIA ON NATIONAL THEMES  for nothing.  He intentionally took the humor from the camp comedy of drag queens and queer lingo and it is severely lacking in this production (it was non existent in the London production).  It doesn’t work without LEVITY.  George Wolf knew that and because of it, that original company was at the same time searingly dramatic and sharply FUNNY. For those who are looking for that experience WAIT and see it later in the run, it’s starting to develop.

 

The minimal design by Ian MacNeil, lacks detail and misses opportunities for specificity, resulting in a cheap feel in Part 1, but comes to its full potential and poetic beauty in part two (minimal design at it’s best).  The eternal midnight feel of Paul Constable’s lighting gives the production just the right mood of fear and uncertainty for the characters and the time period, while accenting it with neon bar lights that give it touch of  street seediness and transcendent modernity.  Nicky Gillibrand smartly chooses clothing that doesn’t date it, he adds just the right touches of the 1980’s, realizing that the era was fraught with terrible fashion design. His costumes feel classy. The music by Adrian Sutton takes its cue from the majesty of the original production, but it feels overdone. Wolf’s production was realistic and grand. Elliot’s is etherial and mythic and needs music that reflected her style choices more directly.

 

This cast has a very hard act to follow. The original company is one of the finest ever assembled in modern theater history, and then of course the film showcases some of the best work in the careers of Hollywood icons (shout out to Al Pacino). I will never forget Ron Leibman’s ferocious and indestructible Roy Cohn, the wallowing gallows humor of Stephen Spinella, the hilarious guilt of Joe Mantello, the giddy delusion of Marcia Gay Harden, or the irresistible  and irreplaceable attitude of Jeffery Wright. That being said, Nathan Lane is believable as Cohn. He plays the comedy instead of letting it come from the truth, but he’s damn good at playing comedy so why not, right? He’s also a bit more tender than other Cohn’s I’ve seen. I hate to say it, but its tough to believe him in this role so it takes a the whole first act to really be on board with his take on this character.  Lee Pace is a much better casting choice for Joe Pitt than Russell Tovey, he just needs more time to develop the part.  James McArdle brings more of a naturalistic realism to Louis’ contradictions and guilt. He misses the comedy as a result but he is absolutely believable as a selfish conflicted ambivalent personalty type. Denise Gough is a revelation as Harper Pitt. Her performance is like watching a star in the making. Fresh off her TONY WORTHY performance in People Places and Things at St. Anne’s Wharehouse (a shame she’s not eligible for it). Her Harper is no pushover, she’s no weakling. She know’s exactly what is happening to her and why she does it and she is ready to go toe to toe with her husband in defense of it. She isn’t abusing pills to escape reality, she’s using them in search of answers, in search of the truth. It’s a marvelous new take on the role, bravo. Nathan Stewart-Jarrett fares better than most as Belize….he is not just a stereotype, but hard to imagine anyone better than Mr. Wright in the role. Nathan just isn’t Jeffery. Andrew Garfield unfortunately is  the weak spot here. He’s playing gay here instead of just being gay…if feels gay faceish, and the result is close to disrespectful. He is all melodrama here, one note of some kind of false image of homosexuality. He misses almost every ounce of humor in the writing…in his defense he’s starting to understand it in NY, but still a long way away from being a believable Prior (the director’s decisions come into play here too. He shouldn’t take all the blame)….He is a decent actor, I commend his commitment to coming back to the theater, but he is just not right for the role of Prior Walter…it shows.

 

The most inspired choice in the entire two play production though, is Marianne’s take on the angel. Played with conviction by Amanda Lawrence. Now I believe this choice will be polarizing to many, and that being said, I don’t love the actual staging off the angel, but this one is anything but i triumphant. She is burnt, her wings singed from trying to put out the fires that man has created at the end of the 20th century. In fact the scenes in Heaven have never been highlighted  to better effect. The Heaven in this production is dark, soot covered, ready to give up on earth. It doesn’t have enough power to save it. It needs more people like Prior for the great work to begin.  Unfortunately the staging feels so cheap and gimmicky that it clouds such a fantastic choice. The angel crash lands into priors bedroom but its only done with a weak unclear strobe light effect. The gloriously strong break through the ceiling form Wolf’s production is sorely missed here. When the lights come to, four or five fully burnt demon’s control the angels flight through puppeteering of the wings and her body. The movement itself is inspired in some ways, imagined by the great Steven Hoggett, but the device feels truly low quality, almost as if they just didn’t want to deal with the trouble shooting that comes with flying someone on stage. 

 

Overall I recommend this production. Good acting combined with a unique concept that proves the writing and truth of Mr. Tony Kushner still works, not just in ways sympathetic to the AIDS crisis but in ways that make us realize the World is at a defining turning point and it’s citizens need to wake up and protect it or else who will?

 

A brave and inspiring work of art.

[JBC3]

I am totally willing to be a thread cop here and say this belongs in the existing preview thread.

[blaxx]

I'm actually glad this wasn't put in the correct thread, because it's longer than the Bible and should be separated in chapters

[standingovation79]

Hi jbc3 and blaxx,

Thanks for writing. If you want to comment on the actual production as a theater lover, I’d love to here your thoughts. if you want to use negativity I’d appreciate it if you write it somewhere else. the chat board is for debate about the theater not hate.

:))

[BroadwayRox3588]

This person takes the time to write a well thought-out review of a show, and this is the response? No wonder some people are wary to post/start threads.

standingovation, thank you for your review!

[TotallyEffed]

Absolutely dead on, though I’m not quite as taken with Gough as everybody else seems to be.

[GeorgeandDot]

This is nice review even if I find your tiring comparison to the original cast unnecessary. I saw the original cast myself and while I agree that they were absolutely phenomenal, this is nearly just as good, IMO. The original production was a lifetime ago and so for many people this will be their first time seeing it on Broadway and I think it's a wonderful production. I saw it in London, so I'm really interested to see how this production has grown, but I thought Andrew Garfield, Nathan Lane, and Denise Gough gave absolutely remarkable performances and I loved Elliott's staging. I hope they put Garfield and Lane in separate categories at the Tonys because they're both so worthy.

[standingovation79]

Thanks for the thoughts, I may wax poetic about the original company too much however, we’ll have to agree to disagree about Garfield. I didn’t see character driven from the text at all in the London production, he’s getting there now in the broadway transfer but for me he’s rhere because he’s a movie Star....not a bad way to introduce it to younger theater artists, but more defy trained theater actors could have made this a home run...Garfield bats a double at best.

[greenifyme2]

Thanks for posting. I went by myself and have been itching to dig into people’s thoughts.

I disagree about Andrew Garfield. I went into this with “oh, he’s the Spider-Man guy” (of which I didn’t even like) and he had me eating out of the palm of his hand by the end of the first act last night. Just wow.

Gough felt the most ‘real’ to me. She was incredible. The snow was breathtaking.

Agreed, the sets in Part 1 felt very cheap. But I’m excited to see more of the Angel. She’s a little steam-punk in design?

[Skip23]

Loved Gough and McArdle.

 

HATED Garfield and Lane.  I agree - Garfield was playing homosexual.  All fluttery moves like a bad Blanche DuBois.  And Lane can't shake Lane.  Again - Jonathan Hadary was the best.

 

Haven't seen Pace.  Not seeing this live.  I saw the film.

 

 

 

[TotallyEffed]

Not only do the rotating sets look cheap and are extremely noisy, they are downright hideous. I would have preferred them to be minimalistic with a solid uniform color. The snow and neon are indeed beautiful.

The original production was so sleekly and smartly staged, and so brilliantly acted comparisons are inevitable.

[theaterguy11]

I cannot believe people like this play so much. I have always found it vapid, overly long, occasionally slanderous and downright mean spirited. It's shameful the way Kushner wrote the Roy Cohn character. 

Cohn passionately believed in his politics as passionately as Kushner believes in his. Kushner makes no attempt to write Roy as anything other than a cartoon villain who's actively trying to ruin the world. 

I will be skipping this. 

[TotallyEffed]

Did you vote for Trump?

Angels in America is a precious masterpiece.

[HogansHero]

"Cohn passionately believed in his politics"

Regardless of your voting historyr, you don't get to make stuff up. Roy Cohn was passionate about only one thing: Roy Cohn. 

[jimmycurry01]

standingovation79 said: "Thanks for the thoughts, I may wax poetic about the original company too much however, we’ll have to agree to disagree about Garfield. I didn’t see character driven from the text at all in the London production, he’s getting there now in the broadway transfer but for me he’s rhere because he’s a movie Star....not a bad way to introduce it to younger theater artists, but more defy trained theater actors could have made this a home run...Garfield bats a double at best."

Because he is a movie star? He was on stage long before he was a star on screen. He has had quite a career on stage. It always irks me a bit when people forget about the theatre background of actors who were lucky enough to also manage to break out into other mediums.

[poisonivy2]

theaterguy11 said: "I cannot believe people like this play so much. I have always found it vapid, overly long, occasionally slanderous and downright mean spirited. It's shameful the way Kushner wrote the Roy Cohn character.

Cohn passionately believed in his politics as passionately as Kushner believes in his. Kushner makes no attempt to write Roy as anything other than a cartoon villain who's actively trying to ruin the world.

I will be skipping this."

If you view Kushner's take on Roy Cohn as a "cartoon villain" you really havne't paid attention to the play.

[standingovation79]

Jimmy curry 01 thanks for writing. If you read my original post you may have seen that I did not forget he has performed on the stage before....I said I admired him for coming back and that he is good actor...I liked him in death of a salesman a few seasons back. However that doesn’t mean he’s right for everything, and for me, he just isn’t a Prior. And yes I do think he’s playing this role because he’s a celebrity. And no offense to anyone especially straight actors. I think a well trained openly gay actor would have been a better choice

[nycward]

theaterguy11 said: "I cannot believe people like this play so much. I have always found it vapid, overly long, occasionally slanderous and downright mean spirited. It's shameful the way Kushner wrote the Roy Cohn character.

Cohn passionately believed in his politics as passionately as Kushner believes in his. Kushner makes no attempt to write Roy as anything other than a cartoon villain who's actively trying to ruin the world.

I will be skipping this.

I suspect that you know very little about the legendary Roy Cohn other than parallel to the time line of the play he took one Donald J. Trump under his wing. Trump has spoken lovingly about this man. That shoulda been a clue to what we were all getting in the White House. The true Roy Cohn was a self loathing gay man who never avoided an opportunity to damage the reputations of any Gay man that he met. In the play he is dramatically portrayed with some over the top writing but the soul of that heinous man was realistically, and appropriately theatrical in portrayal. I just got home from this production and although the revolves are no where near as interesting as they could be, it is a powerful if over wrought and meandering evening. This truly first class cast really makes it work.

 

[RippedMan]

I've only seen part 2 in London, but, what I saw, I wouldn't say anything about the design is cheap? So curious to see how it transfers. 

[devonian.t]

I saw this production in London and was startled by its heavy-handed staging and overall lack of elegance.

Interesting review standingovation79; yes, of course, we shouldn't really compare this to the original, but when this gets so wrong what the original got so right, how can one not do so?

I'm afraid I'm really not taken by Gough's interpretation: I think she is present in the play to help demonstrate the damage done by Joe's refusal to face his true nature.  In this production he rarely seems to have an effect on her.

[theaterguy11]

I actually know quite a bit about the real Roy Cohn. I first saw Angels in America during the 03 HBO miniseries. The portrayal and the writing was so mean spirited and over the top that I looked into him to try and get a realistic view of him. I was left thinking that he was one of the greatest Americans of all time. A true believer that a small federal government was the best way for all Americans to prosper. I hope someday the Kushner estate is forced to pay damages to Cohn's ancestors. 

Our nation has not always been so divided. I think the divisions can be traced to the mid 90s when the left become monsters. Angels is an example of their descent into cruelty. 

 

[Alexander Lamar]

[adrnyc]

standingovation79 said: if you want to use negativity I’d appreciate it if you write it somewhere else. the chat board is for debate about the theater not hate.

:))"

Oh, SNAP!!  I would go so far as to give that reply 3 snaps in a Z formation. You win this message board for the day.

[Fosse76]

theaterguy11 said: "I actually know quite a bit about the real Roy Cohn. I first saw Angels in America during the 03 HBO miniseries. The portrayal and the writing was so mean spirited and over the top that I looked into him to try and get a realistic view of him. I was left thinking that he was one of the greatest Americans of all time. A true believer that a small federal government was the best way for all Americans to prosper.I hope someday the Kushner estate is forced to pay damages to Cohn's ancestors."

Lol. The statute of limitations prevents that.  But nice try. 

 "Our nation has not always been so divided. I think the divisions can be traced to the mid 90s when the right beforebecome monsters. Angels is an example of their descent into cruelty."

I fixed that for you.

 

[nycward]

theaterguy11 said: "I actually know quite a bit about the real Roy Cohn. I first saw Angels in America during the 03 HBO miniseries. The portrayal and the writing was so mean spirited and over the top that I looked into him to try and get a realistic view of him. I was left thinking that he was one of the greatest Americans of all time. A true believer that a small federal government was the best way for all Americans to prosper.I hope someday the Kushner estate is forced to pay damages to Cohn's ancestors.

Our nation has not always been so divided. I think the divisions can be traced to the mid 90s when the left become monsters. Angels is an example of their descent into cruelty.

 

Dude, it's okay to let Fox News and Breitbart to be your point of reference but please, Roy Cohn was chief counsel to Joe McCarthy for Gods sake and he personally tried to sue Martin Luther King for libel. This man was historically known as a hateful man on every metric. Just try to Wikapedia him for chrissakes!!!!! Just like our dear leader who has learned that lying can be an art form try to get a grip and do due diligence with your sense of respect for Mr. Cohn. You can't really be that blind to history. And a professed theatre guy yet with 10 of you that came before I assume???  :)

"