A question about 'Angels in America'- Page 3

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 6:27pm

Ok EMcee you reeally need to read my posts before quoting them. In the last one, the whole second half was about how you don't know really what the intent was or what happens for sure.

Also keep in mind that I said it was possible, not that it was law. And because you don't know, it's POSSIBLE. It was just doing a virtual nod in agreement to the poster before me who said it's possible for Joe to be gone. Thats all

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 6:31pm

I read your post. It read that you think Joe probably went to Washington, and you did outright say that for Joe *not* to want to be associated with Washington politics was nonsensical. I wasn't arguing with your clause of possibility; I was reiterating it and using it to make my point, as you had yours. It's the sort of idea that can be used either way, isn't it?

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 6:43pm

I think ur taking the 2 posts I made and combining them. What I said doesn't make sense was that "nothing in the play supports Joe going back to his old ways". That was to insomiak's comment. NOt to the fact that Joe NOT going to washington was nonsensical. If you read my posts you would have read the part where I say that I didn't necessarily think Joe went to Washington. I also go on to say why I think the play DOES support Joe reverting to his ways. Playwrights also use antithesis to prove a point. Joe going back to his old ways is proving a point which says this guy's got nothing going for him because he went back, everyone else moves forward. Celebrate that.
I DO think this idea can be used to make either point. Just make sure you are clear on my intent and that you quote it properly. As for the reading of my posting, I think impressions are subjective just like plays.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 6:50pm

I was actually doing two things: I was responding to the post that started off with "that makes no sense," and just simply stating my overall opinion on the Joe issue.

And yes, Kushner COULD be using Joe as an antithesis. Do I think he is, personally? No. I don't think that one character in this play about hope would really be totally and completely lost to hopelessness, simply to prove a point. And if I take that reading of the play, I don't think it diminishes the message the play has; not seeing Joe as the antithetical character doesn't make me appreciate the hopeful tone any less.

But that's the beauty of the art, is it not?

Updated On: 10/21/05 at 06:50 PM