Look up! Prepare the way for ANGELS IN AMERICA (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

Well,

while the angel crashing through the roof part has been done in some settings well, the stage directions are such that a vast portion of the audience doesn't really get the jist of what's going on effectively until after the fact. This is just a matter of the way most stages are laid out and the need to pull off the scene transitions.

Part of stagecraft, I have always felt, is to effectively use the whole of the stage and allow the audience to feel as though maybe they are seeing something someone else doesn't see or see it differently. However, in most staging of Angels, the play is done in such a way that too much of the stage area is left inanimate for too long a period of time and it tends to feel "scrunched" up. Even plays like "Waiting for Godot" manage, through eye movements and gestures, to envelope a stage. When Angels really takes over the stage, it does so fantastically; but in other moments it feels unduly claustrophobic; whereas a tight stage can feel intimate, and there are moments in the staging of Angels where that is true, there are other moments where the tight staging simply seems like bad direction rather then plan. Some moments, like the flying boy, are done to great effect, but too mcuh of the play feels as though it needs to open up in order to better allow the audience to handle the dialog.

This is not a bag on the play, but rather, that the script leaves wide open most of the stage direction, and I think a lot of the stage direction tends to go in a direction I do not personally enjoy.

 

[PatrickL]

Chris, I'm confused by your comments about the stagecraft. Am I wrong here or are you basing some of your criticisms on one specific production of these plays? I've seen three productions myself, including the original New York ones, and some of what you're talking about has varied depending on who staged and directed it.

 

[Chris]

I've seen twice (once NY, once Chicago)and it was the same in both productions, so I'm not sure. Having read the play/stage directions, I think it's just the choice they made with it

 

[Michael Reuben]

Here's an interesting interview with Tony Kushner about turning the play into a film (among other things). Warning: The interview arguably contains a spoiler about the end, although Angels isn't the kind of story where knowing how it ends will undercut your enjoyment of the story (or, more accurately, stories).

M.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

More reading:

A great group interview from Newsweek International:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/990683.asp

Tom Shales review (some spoilers):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov28.html

Time Magazine preview:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...552117,00.html

Salt Lake Tribune review (plot summary/spoilers):
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12052...day/117191.asp

- Steve

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Very Steven Spielberg.

What did everyone think?

- Steve

 

[David Paymer]

Trippy, very trippy. And funny. And painful. I need time to process it though.

 

[todd stone]

TERRIBLE!

It tried to be WAY to artsy for my liking. I don't feel attached to any of the characters. None of the actors really did anything for me, except Pacino who was good as usual..



Sorry, THUMBS WAY DOWN!

 

[John Geelan]

Thumbs up from me!

Very moving and wonderfully acted film. Everyone was great in it. I can't believe that the rabbi was played by Meryl Streep...man can she act!

I never saw the plays and now I wish I had. HBO has outdone itself once again.

**and did everyone catch that little snip-it of the upcoming Sopranos season...Tony talking to Carmela in the kitchen...it was like Season 5 had just begun. Can't wait for March 2004.

 

[BrianShort]

I must say I really enjoyed it, and I am looking forward to the conclusion next week.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

I thought that it was uneven. There were some very powerful movements, especially those involving Pryor (Sp?). Others, such as the exchanges between the young Mormon lawyer and his wife, were unpersuasive. When he calls her his "best friend," it's a case of telling, not showing. Nothing that we have seen prior to that would suggest that fact. And, as regards his lack of interest in here, well, from what we've seen, she's a complete basket case! Even the "horniest" of males might have trouble feeling sexual attraction for someone with that many pathologies.

Pacino's Roy Cohn was fascinating, in a creepy sort of way. I haven't decided what to make of Pryor's lover who abandoned him: loathe him, pity him, etc.

Definitely looking forward to next week.

 

[Chris]

Somewhat uneven.. and some of the intimacy from the play is gone at the addition of better special effects. Not sure what to make of it.

Am very sure that I liked the "teaser trailer" of the new season of Sopranos at the beginning, with Tony & Carmella haggling over payments March 7 can't get here fast enough

 

[DeeF]

Well, it wasn't wonderful. The effects looked very cheap.

The best character, and consequently the best performance, is Roy Cohn, played by Al Pacino. The writing is alternately verbose and hilarious, and legitimately catches Cohn in an immortal, memorable light. Cohn scenes are the best writing in the play.

The scenes between Joe and Harper Pitt, in contrast to Cohn, are very poorly written, very authorial. Mary-Louise Parker is wrong for Harper: she's too old, and already a stoner, as opposed to a young, naive woman caught up in reality. Joe Pitt is given no distinction, no real intelligence at all. The actor is pretty enough, but that is all.

Meryl Streep is a terrific actress, and does what she can with her roles. Surprisingly, Emma Thompson is poor, here.

I'm really quite disappointed, though I will watch to the end. (I did see the play on Broadway, so my expectations were pretty high).

 

[Michael Reuben]

Mary-Louise Parker is wrong for Harper: she's too old, and already a stoner, as opposed to a young, naive woman caught up in reality.

Going by the birthdates at IMDb, MLP is only five years older than Marcia Gay Harden was when she played Harper on Broadway.

My wife didn't like MLP as Harper either, and she's a big MLP fan. I had a different reaction; I thought MLP brought a softness to Harper that was utterly missing from Harden's interpretation. But in either case, I think Harper is supposed to be pretty far gone when you first meet her. This is the endgame of a marriage that's been miserable for a long time, and Harper has to be in bad shape to be seeing the phantoms that start appearing to her quite early in the play.

I'm reserving judgment until I see part 2, but so far I've really enjoyed this adaptation, because it did what an adaptation should: It startled me and got me listening to the play again, seeing it (or at least parts of it) from a new perspective.

M.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Uneven, sprawling, touching, funny, artsy, strange, powerful, pretentious. It was a lot of things.

Never seen the plays, so only going by the show. Incredibly ambitious, it's like the White Album of mini-series: it contains so much that it isn't holding together as a whole (so far) but has a lot of great moments.

Who is that guy who plays the dying man? He is amazingly talented.

And disagree about Emma Thompson- her turn as the street bum was great. Funniest scene so far.

Interested to see what happens with the whole angel bit. It's coming off as hokey so far, but maybe it'll come together in the end.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Who is that guy who plays the dying man?

Justin Kirk. He was profiled in yesterday's (12/7/03) New York Times. Link here (free registration required):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/ar...on/07JACO.html

M.

 

[PatrickL]

so far I've really enjoyed this adaptation, because it did what an adaptation should: It startled me and got me listening to the play again, seeing it (or at least parts of it) from a new perspective.

Well said and same here.

 

[DeeF]

Going by the birthdates at IMDb, MLP is only five years older than Marcia Gay Harden was when she played Harper on Broadway.

About the ages:

Harper Pitt is supposed to be 22-25 years old, a young lawyer's wife. Marcia Gay Harden was 34 (born 1959) when she played the role 10 years ago, a stretch, but on stage more easily masked. Mary-Louise Parker is 39 (born 1964), and she looked way older than Joe, played by Patrick Wilson, which isn't surprising since he is just 30 (born 1973). Joe is supposed to be about 28, not long out of law school. Parker is 9 years older than Wilson.

The best Harper was probably Cynthia Nixon, who was 27 when she played the role (born 1966).

 

[Michael Reuben]

The best Harper was probably Cynthia Nixon, who was 27 when she played the role (born 1966).

Did she take over from Marcia Gay Harden? I remember there were some significant cast changes during the 1993-94 season, when parts 1 and 2 were both running on Broadway, but I can't remember anything beyond F. Murray Abraham replacing Ron Liebman as Roy Cohn.

M.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

But in either case, I think Harper is supposed to be pretty far gone when you first meet her. This is the endgame of a marriage that's been miserable for a long time, and Harper has to be in bad shape to be seeing the phantoms that start appearing to her quite early in the play.

I never saw the play, so I don't know about Kushner's intentions. All I know is what's on screen and Harper's patholgies just leap out at you. It's difficult, if not impossible, to sympathize with her. And then you're told that she always "stood out" or something to that effect, and you don't know if it's Joe's lies that has made her that way that way or whether she's simply a head case from the start.

Still, like I said, I'll be watching next week.