ANGELS IN AMERICA (2018) Previews — Page 5

lightguy06222 said: "loved part one. it felt like it ZOOMED by.



BUTTT I had major problems with how the director got the angel onstage in the final moment of the show......

Let me preface this by saying I have NEVER read or seen the play....

I was absolutely loving the show. completely invested.... we're nearing the end of the show. it seems like this is PROB the final scene..... There is Garfield on his bed, freaking out, with bright white light shining down on him, speaking up to the angel from the heavens. here we are, about to introduce the angel that he's staring up at. the lights seem to get brighter and brighter on Garfield... then BLACKOUT.

The audience immediately breaks into applause. And I think to myself, "This is the end of part one?!?! What a BRILLIANT ending....."

But no.... the lights come back on for 30 more seconds of scene so we can meet the angel..... they used the blackout to get the angel and puppeteers onstage.... it COMPLETELY took me out of the show.

I like the angel. I loved the wings. I liked the puppeteers. I was just completely surprised that the director/designer would use a BLACKOUT 30 seconds before the end of the show! When the ONLY blackouts ever seen in the previous 4 hours of theatre were at the end of the act.....

It took me out of it for that final moment... all I could think is "oh I guess its not over... no wait. it is over? I don't know. "

"

Agreed 100%

Not that this isn’t a goose-bump moment....because it is.  BUT...the blackout was awkward and confusing to the audience.  I thought “this is strange...thought I’d see the angel in Part 1, oh wait....there she is”!  How would others handle this?  Specifically, what did other productions do?

TotallyEffed said: "I feel like I’m only person who thinks the Angel should be flown in on wires. The puppeteering in this production, while interesting and at times beautiful, feels so clunky. I also wonder if it’s confusing for people who are unfamiliar with the play. I think she needs to fly, really fly."

Couldn’t disagree more. I’m so glad they chose to do something different with the Angel. The effect, for me and the folks I saw the show with, was absolutely stunning. I’m not sure what adding wires to the Angel does except try to create the illusion of genuine flight. But it’s so obviously fake anyway, why not try something different? Marianne Elliott created one of the most breathtaking stage moments I’ve ever seen with this effect, and it’s not even really an “effect.” Also, if the audience has trouble suspending their disbelief that she’s flying because she’s tethered to humans instead of airborne on wires, this is probably not the play for them.

I’m also curious as to how the audience was confused about the blackout right before this reveal? It’s not like the sound cuts out. And all signs point to “something is about to happen.” I found the build-up thrilling.

TotallyEffed said: "I feel like I’m only person who thinks the Angel should be flown in on wires. The puppeteering in this production, while interesting and at times beautiful, feels so clunky. I also wonder if it’s confusing for people who are unfamiliar with the play. I think she needs to fly, really fly."

Completely agree. And the end of Millennium is really not the moment to introduce a new, completely incongruous staging concept. The entrance was extremely awkward, graceless, and earthbound. 

I saw the first preview on Friday night (seeing Part 2 tomorrow) and the audience was dead silent during the blackout. No one started to clap.

At Sunday's performance the ending was quite thrilling. There were sound effects during the blackout and the reveal of the Angel was quite striking. I think one needs to have a little patience during early previews. I'm sure the denouement of the first play will tighten with time.

I'm more concerned about the repetition of the three turntables of unattractive rooms during the first two acts, but I suspect that the staging of the second part will justifying the transition from order to abstraction.

All in all, a worthy evening for anyone who truly loves theatre.

I posted about a couple I chatted with on the way home who sat back there. They said it was fine, but they had binoculars. I was in the 3rd row of the orch. I would 100% upgrade if you can."

So my mom and I are also going to be in the 3rd row on 4/12 & 4/13 (A 106 & 107). What did you think of that row? We bought the tickets so long ago that I'd forgotten that there were two rows in front of us (AA & BB) and had it in my head that we were in the very front. On the one hand, I'm glad we're not going to be right up against the stage, missing stuff and craning our necks, but on the other hand, based on the IG pic someone here posted, that wouldn't be the case even with seats in AA. It's not like we can switch them now, but I guess I just want FOMO reassurance about this row, haha.

Having seen the show last year in London (both parts front row for less than $20 thanks to the National Theatre young persons scheme), I'm wondering if...

This could be a really stupid question.  When one is looking for same day, Parts 1 and 2 and the price is say $99,  is that $99 per part or $99 total? When I press on a certain seat , it gives me one total of $99 without going to Part 2.  I did not confirm the first purchase so I'm not sure if it then charges another $99.  Looking for a quick answer to my question.  I am somehow psyching myself for a trip that i didn't plan on taking. Thanks in advance.