ANGELS IN AMETICA Reviews- Page 2

[JBC3]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 7:31am

I think this staging is fantastic and illuminates some of the relationship dynamics in new and interesting ways. And I love the way the angel is being done. Updated On: 3/26/18 at 07:31 AM

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 8:36am

I'm surprised at the praise for James McArdle. I thought he was by far the weakest link of the cast. He was totally unconvincing as a neurotic NY'er and his accent was so off.

[rjm516]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 9:47am

WOW these really are amazing. I guess I have to try to see it but 8 hours is a lot. 

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 9:48am

It's interesting to see which themes and characters resonate with critics. Some get lost describing the plot. Some zoom in on Prior's beautiful suffering. Other's on Cohn's timely politics.
Robert Hofler at The Wrap focuses on Cohn's relationship with Joe saying that they are a reminder of "why well-intentioned liberals generally end up losing."
Lots of mixed feelings about Harper and whether or not she and Joe "seem Mormon" enough.
Chris Jones of the Chicago Tribune focuses on the Angel, saying that this deliberately ugly interpretation robs this production of the original's hope and beauty.

First productions really color ones take on this particular play. The first Louis I saw was dangerously sexy. I felt he was Prior's Prince Charming who vanished when life provided a test. Prior's longing for him haunted the show. The current Louis was so aggressively charmless in the National Theatre broadcast that I didn't see why Prior hadn't left long ago.

Updated On: 3/26/18 at 09:48 AM

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 10:21am

MrsSallyAdams said: "It's interesting to see which themes and characters resonate with critics. Some get lost describing the plot. Some zoom in on Prior's beautiful suffering. Other's on Cohn's timelypolitics.
Robert Hofler at The Wrapfocuses on Cohn's relationship with Joe saying that they are a reminder of"why well-intentioned liberals generally end up losing."
Lots of mixed feelings about Harper and whether or not she and Joe "seemMormon" enough.
Chris Jones of the Chicago Tribune focuses on the Angel, saying that this deliberately ugly interpretation robs this production of the original's hope and beauty.

First productions really color ones take on this particular play. The first Louis I saw was dangerously sexy. I felt he was Prior's Prince Charming who vanished when life provided a test. Prior's longing for him haunted the show. The current Louis was so aggressively charmless in the National Theatre broadcast that I didn't see why Prior hadn't left long ago."

Interesting take.  I would agree that this production is not "pretty" but is amazing.  I really enjoyed Louis and to me, Prior was longing for Louis more out of codependency than his charisma. Lots of people think that their relationship was wonderful when in reality it wasn't when it broke up. Prior's arc in this production is becoming strong and self dependent and not having to rely on someone else for his happiness.  Louis is not a great man and it's only in the end when Prior can see this. People are not always prince charmings even though we want them to be.

[SempreLiberal]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 10:46am

Would the play/performances be nominated as 2 plays? (Like the MA was in 1993 and P in 1994)

[Kad]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 11:10am

No. It's being sold as one production. The original plays premiered in different seasons.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 7:20pm

Here is Vanity Fair's review:

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/03/angels-in-america-revival-broadway-review

Variety:

http://variety.com/2018/legit/reviews/angels-in-america-review-andrew-garfield-broadway-1202735842/

Deadline:

http://deadline.com/2018/03/angels-in-america-broadway-review-andrew-garfield-nathan-lane-lee-pace-tony-kushner-1202353107/

Vulture:

http://www.vulture.com/2018/03/theater-angels-in-america-punches-through-the-roof-again.html

[tictac]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 8:38pm

I really like the Vanity Fair review!

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 8:47pm

tictac said: "I really like the Vanity Fairreview!"

Agree the VF review is by far the most detailed about the actual production whereas many of the other reviews seem more like tomes to Kushner's work than actual reviews.

[Danielle49]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 8:58pm

It's interesting to see the varied takes on the performances, both in these reviews and on this board. Some thought Garfield was revelatory, others thought he overdid it. Some thought Gough was brilliant, others thought she hit one note. Some thought Lane is giving his best performance to date, others thought he was just doing Nathan Lane. I feel like exposure and affection toward prior productions may be influencing this disparity.

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 9:20pm

What review didn't like Garfield's performance?

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 3/26/18 at 9:21pm

Oh, I just read the VF review. Such a wrong performance about his performance, sad.

[SarahNYC2]

Posted: 3/27/18 at 1:32pm

I LOVED the show. And honestly I really didn't think that much of Andrew Garfield until this performance. I have been raving about  it. Nathan Lane-he did great, but that's his schtick. I actually thought he really did a great performance because you wanted to hate him but it was also hard with how sick he was to totally despise him.

 

[CoercedBull]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 12:32am

I was predisposed to love this, as AiA is my favorite work of art (literally) and I've wanted to see a production for half my life, BUT this was by far the most moving, most perfect piece of theater I've ever seen. The direction was impeccable and enhanced the already soaring text in ways I never could have predicted. There wasn't a weak link in the cast for me, and Garfield just floored me. Gough's take on the Night Flight to San Francisco speech was pitch perfect.

My wife and I just returned from the two-show day and we're emotionally exhausted, so I'm unable to articulate more right now. But, holy ****, everyone needs to see this show. I'm still processing how much I really, truly loved it.

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 12:47am

CoercedBull, I echo your review.

 

I sat through both parts today and I am floored at how incredible this production is. Garfield and Gough stand out through their impeccable performances. The stage craft was beautiful. The vast darkness behind the sets was haunting and stunning. The fact that I was able to enjoy and appreciate every minute of this 7.5 hour long production says something about it's sheer brilliances. Bravo, Angels in America!

My one critique was Lee Pace. He was a bit too wooden in contrast to the rest of the characters, but perhaps that was just Joe. 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 3:51pm

Just saw this production yesterday. I saw the original production as well, but that feels like a lifetime ago. I'm going to refrain from making comparisons, however.

That being said, wow. This is a thrilling production. I saw part one over in London last year and the production has just grown. The cast is unanimously great with Nathan Lane giving the greatest performance of his entire career and one the best performances on Broadway right now. He's just downright incredible. Andrew Garfield is also phenomenal and provides the heart of the production. Denise Gough is subtle and heartbreaking and James McArdle is also brilliant and his Louis rambling is just spot on. Nathan Stewart-Jarret is great as Belize and it's a treat to see Lane and him together in part two. Susan Brown and Amanda Lawrence both give great performances *but* their accents are VERY inconsistent. I couldn't help, but dream of Laurie Metcalf or Frances Conroy in the Hannah track and I would have loved to see what Malone does with the Angel track. I hate to say it, but I would rather see a role recast with an American actor than to see an English actor struggle through an accent for 8 hours. They were doing some great acting though regardless. Here's a controversial opinion, I really liked Lee Pace. I think he played the role as it is described in the script. Stiff, cold, mechanical, and yet kind of childlike. I actually really liked his performance. The set is very effective with the set for part one looking almost like the ruins of a modern civilization that has been decked out in eerie neon. The set is then almost entirely stripped away for a then somewhat minimalist design for part two. I liked the bombastic, melodramatic music which really fit the show like a glove. Honestly, this is just a really special production and if you see anything on Broadway within the next few months, see this. It's one of the great American plays and it's a beautiful production of it.

Also, there were like 30 people that showed up late in the Mezz about 3 scenes in.  It was horribly distracting and absolutely ridiculous.  I don't know if it was field trip or something, but it made me so mad.  Also, there was a row of college students a few rows behind me that proclaimed, loudly between each act about how they could've written it better.  It was clearly annoying everyone around them.  I wanted crotch punch the one guy to keep him from hollering another  "O. My. God.  I HATED it!"  This isn't the first time that I've encountered this either with college students.  It's alright to have an opinion about the show you're seeing, but it's not ok to ruin the experience for the people around you.

Updated On: 3/29/18 at 03:51 PM

[The Other One]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 8:25pm

This is a magnificent production, and it doesn't hurt that the play itself gets better and better each time you see it.  If you're at all on the fence about it, get off that fence while it's still here and see it for yourself.

Updated On: 3/30/18 at 08:25 PM

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 11:17pm

GeorgeandDot, I was part of that 30 person crowd. TDF had a major error printing tickets. We waited in line over an hour just to pick up tickets. While in line, people got e-mails saying TDF over sold tickets and they would get tickets for another performance. House managers and stage managers peaked out through the stage door to count people in line. I thought they'd hold the show. (This happened a few years ago at The Cripple of Inishmaan and the show was held for 15-20 minutes.) Once my friend and I picked up our tickets, the show had started. There were at least 50 people behind me waiting to pick up theres. The ushers were VERY disorganized. One by the stairs said go upstairs, one upstairs said go back down, another one told us to go to our seats, and along the way they told us to stand. I we stood at the top of the stairs leading up to the mezz watching the first scene while people stood on the stairs. It was awful.

All in the the Box Office and house staff really messed up getting people to their seats on time. Two ladies were in the seats my friend and I had and the usher told us to sit in two seats nearby. It was a rude mess from the Neil Simon staff.

Updated On: 3/29/18 at 11:17 PM

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 11:58pm

^Yikes. Wow. They absolutely should have held the show. Sorry that happened. We were all wondering what the deal was. We figured it must have been like a late field trip. I was struck by how cramped the mezz was too. It's never taken me so long to enter and leave a theatre in my life. Also, the box office staff was unbelievably rude when I picked up my tickets.

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 3/30/18 at 12:22am

Yeah, it was a crazy start to the marathon that is Angels in America. It's never taken me that long to get tickets, either. I called on Tuesday to see when I could pick up my tickets and was told "30 minutes before curtain tomorrow." I have no idea why it was so slow moving and confusing once inside.

Additionally, an usher had limited knowledge on the show. After Act I, my friend asked her how long Act 2 was to gauge whether or not to run to the bathroom. She goes, "Act 2 is tonight! This is Act 1!" We had to explain to her the design of the acts and parts. She said, "Oh, probably an hour?" Couldn't believe it.

Sorry to have been in that mess. It was distracting for us and came off rude to everyone else. Trust us, my friend and I would have had it differently. I bet everyone else with the ticket problem/slow box office would have had it differently, too.

[Gypsyita]

Posted: 3/30/18 at 9:08am

The ushers were VERY disorganized. One by the stairs said go upstairs, one upstairs said go back down, another one told us to go to our seats, and along the way they told us to stand. I we stood at the top of the stairs leading up to the mezz watching the first scene while people stood on the stairs. It was awful.

All in the the Box Office and house staff really messed up getting people to their seats on time. Two ladies were in the seats my friend and I had and the usher told us to sit in two seats nearby. It was a rude mess from the Neil Simon staff.

I would like to hear what you would have done differently when the ushers are suddenly faced with 30-50 late seaters. please keep in mind that we 1) need to know where everyone is sitting 2) try to organize them so everyone can see the show (since you said people were on the stairs, there was apparently no room for anyone to go without blocking the view or allowing ushers to move around) 3) possibly 2-3 ushers per section to seat 30 people in the dark without bumping into each other can only be accomplished by organizing patrons according to WHERE they need to be seated. 4) try to keep people as quiet as possible while they, take off their coats, turn off their phones, tell us that their seats are "right there" cant they just go, ask questions about acts, intermissions etc.....  If an usher seemed uniformed, as you stated, by getting the acts wrong so your friend can go to the bathroom (which really adds to the lovely chaos already happening) it may be because she trying to remember so many things at once, or possibly, she may have been a trainee ( and NO, it was not me, lol)... but as an usher, we do our best to minimize the disturbance, but being called rude and disorganized? 

[CoercedBull]

Posted: 3/30/18 at 9:31am

Oof, I was already thrilled to not be sitting in the mezzanine but all this hullaballoo makes me doubly glad I upgraded my seats! Speaking of which, if anyone is on the fence about whether or not it's worth it to upgrade or if you're considering getting the cheap seats - this is a show that benefits from immersion! My wife and I were in the front row, which is normally not my favorite place to sit, but for this production, I wouldn't have had it any other way. If you can afford it, it's worth it by far to splurge on really nice seats.

GeorgeAndDot, I liked your review very much. I too really enjoyed Lee Pace in this role, and can't fathom why he's received some criticism from others around here. I am intimately familiar with the text and had SUPER high expectations, but nobody, including Pace, let me down even a little bit. Lawrence's accent shone the most during her scenes as the nurse, I thought. I didn't detect it amongst the grandiloquent language of the angel.

Even a couple of days later, I am still reeling from this show. My wife and I keep having long conversations about intimate details of the show because everything about it is lingering in our consciousnesses. I'm so grateful to have seen this amazing, amazing production.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 3/30/18 at 9:53am

I was thrilled the box office could sell me a single ticket last night for 4th row center with no premium charge. If there's any show that benefits from being up close and personal it's this one. I can only speak to Part One-- Part Two will have to wait for another NY trip.

For anyone like me who has glowing memories of the original productions in the early 90's, this show has a very steep bar to meet. First and foremost, I thought Andrew Garfield was amazing as Prior. The play didn't really kick into high gear for me till 4 or 5 scenes in when Prior appears in drag for his virtual meeting with Harper. Wow was that sequence riveting. Suddenly all cylinders were firing at once and Garfield had me completely. His command of the role never flagged.

I knew Nathan Lane would be brilliant; he's never less than that for me. What was lovely last night was seeing his performance of Roy Cohn overlaid with my fond memories of Ron Leibman and Al Pacino (F Murray Abraham decidedly less so). Lines would pop that had Pacino's spin or Leibman's accent to a tee. But all of it maintained that tightrope walk Nathan Lane is so good at between Vaudeville comic shtick and Master-of-the-Universe terror. Honestly I had forgotten how much smaller Cohn's role is in Part One because of the largeness of the actors playing him; it's definitely a supporting part.

Denise Gough is a radically different Harper than the ladies I'm used to, much more a Kristen Stewart than a Marcia Gay Harden type, but utterly convincing. Loved her anger and loved her delight in the Antarctic snowstorm. Loved Nathan Stewart-Jarrett's Belize-- perfect actor playing a perfect part. James McArdle's Louis strangely seemed to be the second most dominant character in Part One, not a happy choice given how impossible Louis is. But that made his tuxedoed waltz with Prior late in Part One all the more heartbreakingly beautiful. Lee Pace's Joe was simply too constipated and one note throughout the night to move me much. He pales beside the great David Marshall Grant who made that role a major tear-inducing fulcrum in the original production.

Least satisfying were Susan Brown and Amanda Lawrence covering virtually everyone else. Never have the Rabbi and Henry been so implausibly cast, which were ruinous to the opening scene and to those in Roy Cohn's doctor's office. And what the hell were they thinking in portraying the Angel's appearance like that?? No descent from on high, no magic, no vision of the spheres-- just a crazy lady in crazy clothes and a phalanx of decidedly unmagical puppeteers holding up those ash-covered wings. Wha???? One brief moment of THAT and then curtain! It made it really tough to stand up for the resounding ovation that the rest of the evening very cleared deserved.

And one word about the set by Ian McNeill, whose work I've adored on Billy Elliott and An Inspector Calls. What the hell, man? That was the ugliest bunch of flats rotating round and round on their little turntables that I've seen on a Broadway stage in a long while. Floating above it all I could see some metallic cathedral shape that would no doubt play a role in Part Two. But jeez-- what are we in the audience supposed to make of it for the 4 hours that Part One takes up? 

Loved the show, was thrilled to have been there, and despite misgivings above, will hold it as one of the great performances of the greatest play written in the last 30 years. 

 

Updated On: 3/30/18 at 09:53 AM

[JBC3]

Posted: 3/30/18 at 1:02pm

I love the take on the Angel in this production. The all-white fly-in has been done to death and really is not much of a shocker. This Angel reflects the turmoil going on in Heaven and offers interesting and commanding movement because of the shadows helping her. That becomes even more apparent in Part Two.