A question about 'Angels in America'

Has Tony Kushner ever explained why Joe Pitt's story line was never resolved? We basically had resolutions/closure to all the other major characters yet Joe was last seen at the point where Harper left him (or in the mini-series the tacked on subway scene with Hannah that did nothing).

I guess since the character was the one I did identify with (What can I say, I'm a gay Mormon) it left me a little cold at the end of the play not to know what happened to Joe (which is kind of sad because otherwise I thoroughly enjoyed the entire experience).

One of my friends mentioned Tony Kushner never liked Joe which suprised me because Joe (for me at least) came across as the most human of all the characters. Everything isn't perfect and yes we all do things we are not proud of and that are not 'right'.

I don't know if Kushner on himself has ever commented, but I do remember reading in the book 'Approaching the Millenium: Essays on Angels in America' that it seems Joe is excluded from the little group at the end (and therefore from resolution of his story) because he did not redeem or alter himself by the end of the play. The theory (I can look it up properly if you want) was that everyone else has learned, or altered their state of mind by the end buy Joe is still stuck hence his story is left in limbo whereas Harper gets to be free, Mrs Pitt gets a new life in NY etc etc. I think the kind of change or 'redemption' Kushner wanted us to want for Joe was to accept who he was at the very least, and in a more idealistic sense perhaps change his job/political views. However the fact that one character remains in limbo, mostly unchanged seems (to me) Kushner's reminder that not everything is resolved in life.

Hope that helps

---

I've never read anything on him, either, but I too assumed that his being left out of the overall resolution was intentional. He's totally lost at sea. I don't know that I think it's just because he was conflicted sexually, but he was in a lot more ways than that -- he had no idea who he was, other than a cookie-cutter version of who he was "supposed," to be, and he couldn't yet wrestle with that.

---

This is actually something that really infuriated me the first time I saw the play. Joe is so emotionally naked (especially as portrayed by the actor I saw) that many people who have struggled with their sexuality identify completely with him. To have him thrust aside and dismissed at the end seems a cruelty on the part of the playwright. I got the feeling that Kushner hated this character he had created more than the circumstances really warranted. After all, Roy Cohn, seen as the embodiment of evil in the play, receives an absolution of sorts, but poor, frightened, confused Joe must be punished. I don't get it.

---

A dissertation?

Wow. I'd love to read it when you eventually publish it!

(Sorry for reading a bit to fast and not seeing you where just relaying the infomation and what you wrote wasn't actually your opinion).

Tony Kushner said that the scene in the play where Joe hesitantly comes out to his mother over the phone was something that happened to him. That scene and several others are so true to the anguish and fear several gay people felt growing up that the punishment heaped on Joe at the end seems all wrong. Maybe it was just an accident of casting or something, but in the small regional production I saw, the actor playing Joe was so painfully vulnerable that I felt more for him than any other character, and I left the theatre offended instead of exhilarated.

---

Thanks for that wonderful answer Roninjoey! If Joe was the 'villian that must be overcomed' I think Kushner totally went about the wrong way in making him the villian. At least for me he came off more palatable then Lewis. Frankly Lewis was just as big a 'jerk' if you will as Joe ever was.

If the reason was he was Mormon I am truly insulted because I am both happily gay AND Mormon. I don't have any conflict with it.

Hehe. If you write a letter you might just wanna make me write one!

Please PM me away! I am not sure how much help I can be, but I'd love to help in anyway!

Please PM me away! I am not sure how much help I can be, but I'd love to help in anyway!

Um...my 2 cents...
Joe isn't "out" at the end of the action of the play.
(b4 the final flash-forward scene at the fountain)

If Joe is still not out when the fountain scene takes place...why the hell would he want to hang out with 3 queers and his mom? People who aren't out don't usually like to walk around in public places with people who are OUT OUT OUT.

Also, whether Joe is out or isn't...um...his mom is hanging out with the 1st man to ever break his heart into a million pieces. Would he really want to hang out with Louis after Louis dumps him?
If Joe is still a Republican...he really can't hang out with these men. In the 80's (and much of the 90's, and still in many places today) you can not be a Republican and hang out with the queers. period.
you can be as gay as you want if you hide it in your closet next to Hoover's pumps and Roy Cohn's poppers, but once you're out...buh-bye.

Don't you also think that wrapping up every story in a neat little bow would be kind of trite? And what about Harper? She gets just as much of a resolution as Joe.
As do the angels.

And another reason Joe might not get to hang with the others at the fountain...If I was Louis...or Prior...or even Belize...I'm not sure I'd be able to hang out with a closeted gay republican without grinding my teeth down to the nubs or smacking him silly.

Without getting into whether being a gay republican is evil and stupid or smart and good...let's just say that I'd not relish the thought of spending an afternoon with someone who stands for so many of the things I despise. (it goes way beyond gay, baby...that's barely even the tip of the tip of the iceberg). And why would Joe want to hang out with people who do not like him?

Right or wrong...life is too short to spend it hanging out with people who make you want to spit nails. Unless you're being paid to.

As for resolution...what would you have TK write?
I like Joe's ending. it avoids the false moralizing of an ending that shows him miserable, and it avoids the false "happily ever after" also.
Our imaginings of Joe's life are much richer than any simple solutions.

and, finally...if TK had resolved Joe's story...the play would have been 8 hours long.

Joe was the most tragic character and he deserved everything he got, he was weak, and self absorbed...perhaps that is the mormon thing. I think Kushner intended to drop his story as he was tragic and an asshole...and a Morman. I think Harper Pitt was the true heroine and the most realistic character in the play.

---

I never said I was the average stereotypical Mormon, I am happily gay and Mormon and have no hang ups. Then again Mormons are as average and stereotypical as say Catholics and Muslims... (they ain't).

The so called 'stereotypical mormons' pretty much live in Utah or Idaho. Most LDS folks else where are pretty 'normal' and 'ordinary'.

Never seen "Latter day"s but I did read the book "Under The Banner Of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer....that was an eye opener.
I just have no sympathy for weak characters like Joe

---