"Angels in America" revival?- Page 2

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 1:29am

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

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 2:18am

Streep was very VERY good of course, as always. I'm a HUGE fan of hers and normally would not imagine that anyone could be better than her in any role where was well-cast for, but....

Kathleen Chalfant was pretty much definitive as Hannah and Henry and the Rabbi and the Bolshevik, but especially Hannah.

It was fun seeing Meryl as the rabbi, but she overplayed it -- not sure she could have done it any other way, though. It was a cute gimmick. It worked fine on stage, but was distracting on screen. Not her fault.

As Hannah, though, Chalfant was SO HARD and cold and seemingly unfeeling at the beginning (Streep unfortunately didn't have the Utah scene with Sister Ella Chapter, which Nichols cut for the film) that her care for Harper and her matter-of-fact acceptance for her son's sexual orientation was a constant surprise ..... yet it had an complete internal logic to it. Chalfant's Hannah was TRULY a woman of the prairie (as the play alludes to), rigid and unsentimental, seemingly totally lacking in warmth and sympathy and yet .... she did the right thing and cared for those in need. ALWAYS. She was a TRUE Christian whose faith was deeply felt, but despite her hardened exterior, she wasn't, as Prior says, true to her "demographic profile" in terms of prejudice and hatred. Hers was a god of love -- of EVERYONE -- simple as that, and she had little patience for either the ultraconservative moralists in the Mormon Church back in Utah (Chapter calls her the "only unfriendly Morman I ever met") or of those who won't accept their responsibilities to their fellow man she meets in New York (including her own son).

Chalfant's Hannah was multi-dimensional in ways that Streep's wasn't (you ALWAYS saw the sympathetic, even friendly underlying heart with Streep, where with Chalfant you weren't always sure until the she began to take care of Prior and then you saw the nuance of the performance). Perhaps Streep couldn't have been a full and complete Hannah given the textual cuts. For whatever the reason though, Chalfant's Hannah had a much more complete character arc and journey than Streep's who frankly wasn't all that different in the last scenes (I'm not talking about the epilogue) from her first ones.

For whatever reason, probably because of her earlier rigid, unfeeling demeanor, there was something so heartbreaking -- even devastating -- watching those scenes with Chalfant in the hospital with Spinella. For Chalfant, whom you were convinced up till that moment HATES gay people, to say to Prior

"An angel is just a belief, with wings and arms that can carry you. It's naught to be afraid of. If it lets you down, reject it. Seek for something new"

caused everyone within two rows of me to break down in tears -- actual sobs. In the film, Streep was already momma at that point (which may be Nichols' fault) so while she did the scene beautifully, Wolfe had Chalfant SO restrained that her reaching out at that moment was a revelation. You SAW the heart and care and love behind the rigid exterior and it was beyond stunning. Streep was terrific, but Chalfant WAS Hannah Pitt.

I DO however, give Streep points for her Ethel Rosenberg. Chalfant was wonderful there too, but (thanks to film and close-ups) Streep more fully conveyed the bitter and cynically witty Ethel. Streep really milked that role for all it was worth.

Updated On: 6/8/05 at 02:18 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 5:36am

And as for Kirk's Prior --

Kirk simply would/could never be a good Prior IMO (but maybe he could play a decent Joe in some production; he was fine as the gay blind one in "Love! Valour!").

If you read and/or see interviews with Kushner about what/who inspired the character, so much of Prior came out of the gay guerilla activist movements of the 80s -- mainly ACT-UP, which he was a part of, but also Queer Nation, later.

Back when AIDS was spreading through the gay community like wildfire in the early 80s and the government (Reagan and the Federal government, as well as Koch and the local government) was ignoring the crisis while thousands were dying, these organizations sprung up seemingly overnight and took to the streets.

While the founders of ACT-UP were, in some cases, members of the so-called "gay elite" (eg, Larry Kramer, also founder of GMHC), most of the members (those putting their lives and bodies on the line in major controversial demonstrations) were not career activists, but instead, everyday gay people -- the non-"elite," middle-to-lower income, formerly firmly apolitical folks who were ANGRY that they and/or their friends were dying at an alarming rate and none of the powers-that-be seemed to care or were treating the emergency without the urgency that it demanded. Most had never participated in any form of political activism before and -- understand I was part of this movement, knew its members and don't say this pejoratively -- had spent most of their time, before AIDS took over their lives, worrying about what clubs were opening, what sales were happening and the latest gossip from the bathhouses.

Most were not the gay doctors/lawyers/stockbroker-types, they were cater-waiters (which was Prior's occupation in an earlier draft of the play), nurses, florists, teachers, drag queens -- those, for the most part, who were the most desperate and the most powerless (historically, revolutions are not led by the upper classes, but by either students and/or those who have the least to lose and who don't have any stake in the success of the power base).

AIDS lit a fire under the gay masses in the 80s and suddenly these people -- mostly 20-, 30- and 40-something, formerly superficial, carefree, party-goers -- were turned into an army of in-your-face, stop-at-nothing, strident and strong-willed activists. The character of Prior Walter, as Kushner created him, embodies that movement.

Spinella's Prior captured a certain brand of openly gay, unapologetically effeminate, but incredibly passionate and strong-willed gay man who was at the forefront of the ACT-UP movement (I knew MANY of them myself). Speaking in terms of cultural and literary criticism, he was the kind of gay male character that was often (always?) dismissed as comic relief in previous dramatic works on stage, television or screen as comic relief, as well as neutered sexually (unless depicted as a pervert) and emotionally, who's biggest concern was the next sale at Barney's or who might win the next drag queen competition. With "Angels in America," in a sheer literary sense, Kushner reclaims this formerly stereotypical character as one one worthy of serious critical analysis (I await the "Kushnerian" study comparing and contrasting his use and elevation of Prior Walter in "Angels in America," with the similarly reclaimed stereotypical protagonist, the black maid, Caroline Thibodeaux, from his sublime libretto from the musical, written with composer Jeanine Tesori, "Caroline, or Change").

However, in "Angels in America" Prior Walter is a fully-dimensional character in a long-term committed relationship, who sees AIDS upend his world, causes his lover to leave him, makes him terrified and makes him angry and lonely, but ultimately, in the face of everything, causes him to find himself emboldened to try and change the world around him. He's determined to fight for his life and for others like him and courageously spread a message of hope. Prior and his compatriots' know that their lives have meaning, that no matter what the government or anyone else says or how they try to stop them, that they will not be swept under the rug, that "they won't die secret deaths more," and they will live on in spite of their enemies and this virus and survive and coninue to thrive for tomorrow.

On the most simple and external level, as Kushner wrote him and Spinella played him, Prior is a "Sissy," for want of a better term -- ostensibly an effeminate gay man that could be disregarded and not taken seriously. However, in the world that Kushner creates in the play (as well as within the activist movement in the 80s), that derogatory stereotype does not have that meaning. Rather than "sissy" or effeminate" automatically connotating that someone is weak or scared or impotent or lacking in any power, in the reality of New York in the 80s, as well as in Kushner's "Angels in America," Prior (and those like him) are seen and depicted as a "hero" -- in the most classical sense of the term. They have a prophecy and a vision for a world that desperately needs one, as well as having a courage and sense of determination so fierce that it allows them (even their sometimes somewhat weakened state) to be willing to take on the police, the politicians, the powerbrokers, the naysaying homphobes in the streets (and in the case of Prior) the ineffectual angels and even, an absent God (whom Prior discovers has abandoned the world) up in heaven, if that's what it takes to achieve "more life" and lead to receiving some form of blessing and an ultimate sense of salvation.

Now, looking back at the film, Kirk seemed not to understand one iota of any of that history. Kirk played Prior as ..... um ........ I don't know, as a very straight guy trying to come off as just an annoying, whiny, spoiled queen? I never even GOT any semblance of whatever Kirk's interpretation was (and, yes, I've seen other successful ways to play Prior than Spinella's interpretation -- Kirk's wasn't one of them). There was no real internal logic to Kirk's Prior -- I STILL have no idea what he thought he was doing. That this -- the single most coveted role of every actor 20 to 45 of this generation -- went to someone so miscast and who even after that was still so unprepared and under-researched is a bit disturbing (among other things, the Threshold of Revelations scene was an utter embarassment that left me and several friends of mine shocked in anger -- honestly, is there ANYONE who would believe from that performance that Kirk's Prior was a former drag queen????).

Beyond that, and more importantly though, Kirk and Nichols undercut the allegory of the heaven scenes and the overall sense of redemption one SHOULD feel by the end of of Perestroika. It was missing for me in the film -- yet, I can STILL feel Spinella's blessing at the end as Prior from the stage production a decade later.

Perhaps, that's simply a case of the magic of the theatre ........



P.S.

It occurs to me that perhaps the fact that Nichols and his entire cast were straight, while Wolfe and half of the original stage cast was openly gay has some bearing on the issues I've raised. Not entirely sure about that (I have my ideas). But, I would hope that the next time a play subtitled "A Gay Fantsaia on National Themes" is filmed that PERHAPS somebody unafraid of the big bad "GAY" issue makes an effort to inform the director and the actors portraying the gay characters when and where they are screwing up a masterpiece.

Updated On: 6/8/05 at 05:36 AM

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 10:47am

What is also compelling about the role of Prior is the subversiveness (sp?) of it all. The idea that one actor plays both the effeminate, sickly priss and the leather-wearing, butch top that f*cks Louis in the park challenges people's perceptions on what a top or bottom (or what being gay) is. It's then turned upon its head again when it's revealed that the butch top is living with his parents. It's not simply a matter or economics to have cast members playing more than one role.

Then, of course, there's the obvious subversion of having a flaming homosexual being the chosen prophet. The scene in heaven, so compelling on stage, was completely airless in the movie. Can anyone remind me if the 'when flies lay eggs in the eyes of their children' speech was cut? It was, in the end, the key to the entire play...and I remember it making no impact in the film whatsoever, perhaps because it wasn't even there.

Margo, your assertion that Kushner has reclaimed the sissy and the mammy roles is dead on. When you watch Sean Hayes on W&G, you can't get past the fact that, no matter how funny he might be, it's still a minstrel show. By making Prior the hero and by allowing Caroline to utter one of the most reprehensible lines of dialogue known in theatre (to a child, no less), Kushner destroys the audiences perceptions of what it means to be flaming and what it means to be a mammy. It makes the audience, particularly the PC liberals who have always considered themselves open-minded while holding tightly to their rigid ideas of who and what people are in the world, incredibly uncomfortable...and it opens the door for change.

[nmartin]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 10:55am

Some of these posts are longer than the play.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 11:08am

Only five days here and already a size queen.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 11:10am

Weathervane Playhouse (see link below) is putting on Part I (once again) AND Part II next season in the new Dietz Theatre, a very intimate black box. The only negative thing is they are not anywhere near each other...I think Part I is this November and Part II is in April or something.

Updated On: 6/8/05 at 11:10 AM

[nmartin]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 11:13am

Findingnamo, you have no idea how close to the truth you are. You know too much to live.

Is that a shotgun in your hands or are you just happy to see me? Updated On: 6/8/05 at 11:13 AM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 6/8/05 at 12:13pm

A big, BIG thank you to Margo for taking the time to write these insightful and educational posts. I certainly feel like I understand the play more now than when I watched the film version.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 3:31pm

It's interesting to read this thread after another major NY production was staged.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 3:35pm

Two things:

I miss my old avatar. And I miss Margo Channing.

[It's a fine life!]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 6:06pm

where did Margot go?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 6:09pm

Are you familiar with Margo? Did she post this morning?

ETA, I would definitely start an argument with my old self in this thread.

Updated On: 8/31/12 at 06:09 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 6:22pm

I also miss Margo (

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 6:27pm

It IS sort of an interesting subversion. The sissy gay stereotype is still represented, but is almost never the protagonist character. If there is a sissy gay main character, they are more often either a sidekick, or balanced by a more "straight gay" partner or foil. Think Cameron on Modern Family, the iconic "nancy" trope balanced out by the somewhat more masculine, or at least less flamboyant Mitchell.

And yet, Angels In America gives us a play in which the sissy, the "nancy" is the main character, and may or not be a harbinger of prophetic visions.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 6:31pm

The thing with Cameron is, he plays football and in no way resembles Franklin Pangborn.

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 8:38pm

Well, he's not the one hundred percent twink stereotype- they've done some good work deconstructing that- but it's interesting that people still expect a "tomboy and girly girl" dynamic. Or, to use the common phrase, "which one is the guy?"

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 8:56pm

Yeah, I think the Modern Family guys have equal moments of nelly.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 9:47pm

"Well, he's not the one hundred percent twink stereotype- they've done some good work deconstructing that- but it's interesting that people still expect a "tomboy and girly girl" dynamic. Or, to use the common phrase, "which one is the guy?""

Go look at the New Normal Pilot thread--Ryan Murphy seems obsessed with this cliche. And he's the one making The Normal Heart, movie.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 11:25pm

Ryan Murphy is one of the worse successful writers working in Hollywood today though, but I agree with you, Eric, he's absolutely awful when it comes to exploiting stereotypes.
Margo's posts were so enlightening, I love reading all these posts on ANGELS. I so wish I had seen that original production!

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/31/12 at 11:38pm

This is true- every gay pairing, male or female, in ANY Ryan Murphy work I've seen so far, has a very clear, not-at-all-subtle, husband/wife delineation. Phyllis pointed out well that though Cameron is more flamboyant and Mitchell more subdued on Modern Family, neither one of them is entirely unstereotypical- Mitchell has the fussy, nervous fastidiousness of the Franklin Pangborn-cum-C3PO gay type, while the much more openly effete Cameron is a "man's man" in both senses of the word, given his longstanding love of football, farming and other more masculine traits that don't fit into Mitchell's prissy world.

Then we get Kurt/Blaine, Brittany/Santana, Zachary Quinto/Not Zachary Quinto, and the New Normal.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/1/12 at 12:17am

Too be fair, Ryan Murphy is the complete opposite of subtle in absolutely everything he does, so I guess this shouldn't be a big shock in how he shows gay relationships, but the pattern is there (and it's beyond camp--ie Zachary Quinto shouting at, as you so well put it, Not Zachary Quinto about not picking up the right type of apple while he was busy at the gym. Oy).

Modern Family tries, or at least seems to try (I'm only a somewhat fan) to pick stereotypes and then have some of the humour be by inverting them (although they do have the classic sitcom smart wife/absolutely idiotic husband couple). And of course I do know couples where one guy is more "the man" and the other more "the woman", but not remotely to the extent it is depicted nearly everywhere in the media. But umm, none of this aspect felt like it applied, or bothered me anyway, in Angels.

(Oh, I miss Margo too, and wish I could have seen that original Angels in America. Or the even earlier Royal National Theatre production, which I believe had Daniel Craig as Joe, for that matter...)

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 8:37am

Y'all...

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Rialto-Chatter-Nathan-Lane-to-Star-in-Broadway-Revival-of-ANGELS-IN-AMERICA-20170112

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 8:39am

It's not exactly news that a high profile production of Angels may transfer to Broadway. It's an American play.

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 8:42am

Hopefully that wouldn't delay a US airing of the NT Live version to theaters, one would hope...

Surely, Andrew Garfield is also a draw for this, too?! And Russell Tovey... whereas Lane was (for me) the sole reason to see The Front Page.