ANGELS IN AMETICA Reviews — Page 3

JBC3 said: "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."

I loved how they did the Angel as well. (Just in case you don't want staging spoilers, stop here!)

I got the chills when the lights went out before her entrance at the end of Part 1, and my jaw was gaping wide open as the shadows raised her for the first time. The costume choices were stunning - the tattered American flag, skeletal, tarnished wings. The unfinished nature of her appearance just added so much more to the sense of decay in the play. To have a pristine-looking angel is kind of out of the cards for Marianne Elliott's vision here - and I thought it was really beautiful.

My issue with Lee Pace's performance was I felt he played the character too literally. Joe is supposed to be a cold, repressed, closeted gay Mormon and Lee Pace checked the boxes. He was cold. He looked repressed. He adopted the mannerisms of a 1980's conservative lawyer.

But IMO in order to care about Joe I think the actor has to show an inner life underneath the layers of repression. Patrick Wilson in the HBO miniseries was excellent in fleshing out Joe and it was a much more sympathetic portrayal.

"...The shadows were undulating against the ground before bringing the angel to life."

That does sound interesting-- unfortunately my view from the 4th row prevented me from seeing any of the floor.

Re Joe: whether he's awful or not, his crisis of identity should certainly be recognizable to anyone who's suffered through a closet of his own making. No gay person can watch his story without remembering what the closeted life was like-- it's a key part of all of our histories. It's heartbreaking the choices Joe makes, and every audience member should feel it personally. Writing him off as just an awful human being is only the result of an actor's weak portrayal.

Updated On: 3/31/18 at 10:47 AM

If the remake is don in Navi...

It would be "Angels in Omaticaya"

Updated On: 4/1/18 at 04:47 PM

I have great empathy for Joe Pitt, despite his toxic decisions. Though I can understand why some people can't get behind his "childlike" discoveries, he's going through a really tough time. He's discovering his truth late in life.

That said, I thought Lee Pace was by far the weak link in this production and did Joe a disservice. He was very direct and stern (which is 50% of Joe), but offered no further emotional depth or nuance (which is the other, much more important, 50% of Joe). It simply doesn't work for the character at all, because the entire point is that he and Louis connect on an emotional level which is new and thrilling for Joe. In every scene between Pace and McArdle, it felt like McArdle was doing much of the heavy lifting.

Updated On: 4/1/18 at 05:53 PM

The previous interpretations of Joe are more forgiving, but Pace plays the part as it is described in the play. With Pace, I see a man suppressing a lot and I see a man who was probably a nice "golden boy" at some point. Harper talks about how his face is never quite the same and that there's something cold and hard about him now. Both him and Harper have a childlike innocence about them in this production. Pace's Joe seems almost primitive in a way. He doesn't play the part in a romanticized sort of way like others have. He plays him as Kushner describes, which I think is a good way to play the part. Pace doesn't attempt to make the audience like him. He just plays the part and I can respect him for that.

Sorry if there is a thread devoted to this already (I searched and did not see one) or if this has been answered elsewhere.

I just booked my NYC trip for June 19 - 26 (so excited)! I’m definitely going to see Angels in America. I know after the Tonys, demand will likely go up, but right now the show appears to be frequently listed at TKTS. However, I’d prefer to a) see both segments on the same day (I believe that’s only possible on Wednesdays or Saturdays) and b) sit in the same spot for both parts. My question is can you buy same day tickets for both parts at the same time at any of the TKTS Booths? Or is that only possible via Ticketmaster or the box office. I believe TKTS usually only offers tickets separately for same day matinees or evening performances. But wondered if things are different for shows that have two parts.

Much thanks in advance for all helpful replies.

Updated On: 4/10/18 at 11:22 PM

I saw the NT Live a few days ago and compared with Russell Tovey’s take on Joe, Lee Pace felt like a speaking log on stage.

I’m adding my thoughts after seeing it over a week ago. I have not seen any version of this material (stage or film) nor was I familiar with its storyline. My expectations were high considering its cast and with Marianne Elliott as the director having previously seen her work on “Curious Incident”.

This production is spectacularly done. The staging, sound and lighting designs are beautifully done. The angel’s appearance at the end of Part 1 brought down the house. Audiences were applauding at their seats for the longest time and didn’t want to leave.

Nathan Lane is magnificent as always. But the biggest revelation here is Andrew Garfield. His work here is beyond amazing. The Tony is his to lose. The rest of the cast was great too.

We had great seats for the show - center mezzanine, Row A. Glad we upgraded it from rear mezzanine after seeing better seats open up online. Telecharge couldn’t upgrade our seats and had to do it in person at the box office. Turned out better this way as the tickets were $20 less than what Telecharge is charging and these Row A seats were offered to us that were unavailable online.

Loved this show. So glad to have seen it.

I saw the marathon yesterday, 5/19. One thing that bothered me was that there were several occasions where Prior was speaking what I considered to be very deep and meaningful lines but the audience responded with laughter, I guess because of Garfield's campy delivery. I have seen one other University production of Millenium Approaches and the HBO miniseries, and I don't remember laughing... at all.

Millenium Approaches is full of humor.

I think Garfield's voice is actually a choice. AIDS would affect the vocal chords and respiratory system and would cause the voice to get raspy. When I hear Andrew speak outside of the show, his voice sounds healthy, so I'm assuming that it's a choice.

GeorgeandDot said: "...I'm not sure that we're supposed to really care about Joe or really even like him. He's kind of awful."

There are no saints in Angels in America. Each character is flawed and complex. You can find humanity and goodness in every character and you can find immorality and indecency in every character. That's the beauty of this show.

While I believe Tony Kushner's writing inherently leads the audience to "root" for or be more sympathetic with Prior, the same can't be said of any other character. (Maybe Belize if anyone else)

(Late reply sorry!)