ANGELS IN AMERICA REVIVAL!!!

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:37am

With the recent success of the miniseries, and the emergence into American culture of the play, when can we expect our first revival?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:45am

Um..... well. ..... I'm not sure we'll be seeing it back on Broadway again, but I may be wrong. The original production (which I saw more times than I can count and was vastly superior to the film) lost $1.2 million by the end of its run (it later recouped that on the road). The sheer length of each of the two parts meant scads of overtime for all the union stagehands (who came to call the production "the cash machine") and made the play a losing financial enterprise.

Perhaps, one of the large not-for-profits (Roundabout? Lincoln Center? MTC?) will revive it for a limited engagement at some point. But, I can't imagine we'll see it again in a purely commercial setting in New York.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:47am

sadly true. Unless it has the most unbelievable cast and can sell $500 tickets.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:50am

It would be quite an undertaking to stage both parts...

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:53am

Quick question because the mini-series is airing on Canadian cable now, what's the order of the 3 parts so I know when to tune in to which?

[dancindramadude]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:57am

Actually there are only two parts: Millenium Approaches and Peristoika in that order. They are amazing and I would love to see a stage version done because there are so many theatrical devices that are lost in the movie.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 2:57am

First half is "Millenium Approaches" Chapters 1-3

Second half is "Perestroika" Chapters 4-6

Hope this helps!

It is an amazing, amazing production. And, as a side benefit,
it enabled me to discover the wonder that is Patrick Wilson. :o)

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 3:05am

Oh that's strange. Is it 2 3-hr parts? Because on Canadian TV I believe they're airing it in 3 2-hr parts but I may be off my rocker here.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 3:12am

No, they way they filmed it, you could air one chapter at a time--so, they prob found 3 2 hour nights to be better for them.

Updated On: 1/12/05 at 03:12 AM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 3:47am

did the guy that played patrick willson's part on stage get naked on stage too???

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 8:09am

Ah *smiles blissfully* the "beach scene"

In the play itself it's written as a very intense makeout scene on the beach between Joe and Louis and I think that if Joe doesn't get completely naked he's just about take off his last piece of clothing when Louis finally stops him.

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 9:27am

This all fascinates me, I had no idea about the financial difficulties. i was aware of its critical acclaim. but not that of the production. Where did it initially play? Just out of curiosity, what theatrical devices were lost in the transfer from stage to silver screen?

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 9:32am

While ANGELS IN AMERICA played on Broadway, it was always available at TKTS.

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 9:46am

Thats shocking Dolly, hard to imagine, but helll I guess we all know critics doent always earn cash., Which theater did it initially play at? i know it started at the Taper out in LA, but im talking BWAY theaters. How many of you out there saw it ? it was both parts, right?

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 10:13am

Actually, the "beach sccene" appeared in a different version in the Broadway production than it does in the published script.

The whole hand-job (can I say that?) aspect of it was not in it. The dialogue about 'idealogical leather bar' and Ronald Reagan on the Hollywood Squares took place in an earlier scene. Kushner actually published a version of Perestroika that reflected the original Broadway staging. He later did some rewrites and the script you get now has those changes.

[RadioTV2]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 10:40am

The originial "Angels in America" played at the Walter Kerr Theater.

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 10:57am

thanks radio, finally the ansnwer to that question. Anybody remember how the orch. seats are? I am interested in seeing GEM.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 11:35am

oh, well, back when Oklahoma! originally opened at the St. James the top ticket price was $4.80...

[magic8ball]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 11:45am

Okay- did anyone else, like, FREAK OUT when they read the title of this thread?

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 11:48am

I'm guilty, i knew it would grab people, so while the title isnt misleading, it isnt the most appropriate title.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 11:58am

LOL. Clever... even though I knew that it was too good to be true. Damn my optimism for overpowering my better judgement...

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 12:14pm

I know, i am disappointed too. The majority on this post believe a revival to be enar impossible, or very far away. ;( Thats sad , surprising.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/12/05 at 11:13pm

I still don't understand how -- if ANGELS was the theatrical event of the 90s and was a must-see for any theatregoer worth her salt -- it still closed on Broadway at a financial loss. LES MIZ was also over 3 hours long, but was a more expensive production with a larger cast. Was it the fact that both parts of ANGELS ran concurrently on Broadway that did the show in?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/13/05 at 3:11am

LES MIZ was virtually soldout for the first ten years of its run, which easily overcame the expensive running costs (overtime or other) -- it recouped in its first year and was one of the most profitable shows in theatre history.

ANGELS is/was a PLAY. No matter how acclaimed, how many Tonys Awards (both Millenium and Perestroika won Best Play Tonys in successive years), the Pulitzer, Op-Ed pieces etc....... tourists (and much of the local tri-state community) don't want to see 7 hours worth of fantastical, political plays about AIDS, Reaganism and social issues no matter how briliant they are, especially when no tv/movie stars are involved (Ron Leibman and later F. Murray Abraham were not "big box office"). Despite all of the awards and critical raves, the play(s) ran a year and a half without ever selling out and most weeks it either just broke even or lost money.

Frankly, it's a commentary not on the quality of the play(s), but on the quality of the audience (and if that offends anyone, I DON'T apologize for it). The other landmark American plays of the 20th century -- Salesman, Streetcar, Crucible, Long Days, Cat, Virginia Woolf -- were not only critically acclaimed, but also long-running hits at the box office, because when they premiered, there was still an audience for serious, thought-provoking theatre.

Not anymore ..... well, at least not on Broadway and not for new nonmusical work, unless a celebrity name is above the title. It's simply not enough anymore to be the greatest play of this generation -- you have to have a NAME -- preferably a sitcom star or a rap mogul -- in the lead if you want to stand a chance at ever turning a profit