At the risk of repeating what I've already said in previous posts …
I've now had the good fortune to see both parts of the Angels In America playing in New York, after seeing it at the Berkeley Rep twice. After the rave reviews of the New York production, maybe I was expecting too much, and I ended up rather disappointed. I mean, New York was great, but now I appreciate how Berkeley really nailed it with an amazingly riveting, mesmerizing, gorgeous, and flawlessly designed production.
I was in love with the sets and lighting design in Berkeley – how the mini-sets captured the essence of each scene perfectly, and how they glided on and off (or up and down) so effortlessly. In New York I thought the mini-sets in Part 1 were bulky and ugly and rotated around needlessly and noisily. In Part 2 these gave way to different configurations of props moved on and off the stage by shadow-like creatures, or a large ugly boxy set that rose up from under the front part stage. There didn't seem to be much cohesion or purpose behind using the different set treatments. I *loved* the Berkeley representation of a run-down Heaven, with its smoldering piles of debris and old file boxes stacked, well, to the heavens. The New York Heaven was confined to the back part of the stage and looked very Broadway with all the lights.
The New York lighting throughout was stark and harsh. I realize that was a stylistic choice that many liked and even got a Tony nomination, but it didn't work for me. Berkeley had such exquisite lighting. And the projections! OMG the projections at Berkeley were amazing. I still get goosebumps thinking about the phenomenal entrance of the Angel (and her first exit in Part 2), or even the magical transition between Antarctica and Prospect Park. And I have a new appreciation for the music that accompanies the Berkeley production, again so perfect. In New York the music mostly just sounded loud and bombastic to me.
In nearly every case I preferred the character portrayals in Berkeley over New York. It's really no fault of his, but I can't watch Nathan Lane without seeing Nathan Lane. He did an excellent Roy Cohn, but Stephen Spinella – you really won me over with your performance in Berkeley. New York's Andrew Garfield as Prior also was terrific, but so was Berkeley's Randy Harrison. If I had to choose, I'd actually give a slight edge to Randy. Lots of folks are talking about how Andrew Garfield and Nathan Lane are giving Tony-worthy performances, and I agree. I guess my point is that if that is true, then so are Stephen Spinella and Randy Harrison.
The biggest difference in character portrayal is with Louis. I thought Benjamin Ismail in Berkeley perfectly captured this New York neurotic gay Jewish character to a tee. I felt like I understood Louis enough to see past his faults and accept him for who he is. I actually cared for him. In New York James McArdle was not so gay, not so Jewish, not so New York, and not so neurotic. His speaking style was to include a lot of starts and stops, pauses, and cutting off phrases like he was interrupting himself. I understand that he was conveying that his brain was getting tangled up, but I kept thinking he had messed up a line. (The person sitting next to me thought the same.) I never got that feeling in Berkeley. In New York it took me out of the play repeatedly.
And it goes on … I'll just say that in Berkeley, Hannah Pitt (Carmen Roman) – truly outstanding (along with her amazing Ethel Rosenberg)! Harper and Joe Pitt (Bethany Jillard and Danny Binstock) – terrific! Belize (Caldwell Tidicue, aka Bob The Drag Queen) – wonderful, especially when you consider he doesn't have a long theatrical résumé. Even the more minor characters had more definition and life to them. The Rabbi and the Bolshevik were most unconvincing in New York compared to Berkeley.
Of course the treatment of the Angel was radically different between the two productions: Berkeley with a more traditional angel in white, and New York with a ragged angel in black whose movements and wings were controlled by the shadow creatures. I loved both. But it’s the stage picture of the Berkeley angel's entrance that will live with me.
I wish I had seen the New York production first. For all the negative comments about it I posted here, it was truly grand, well-acted, and powerful. But in my mind, it doesn't hold a candle to the amazing Berkeley production. I'm feeling like it’s too bad the London's National Theater production made it to Broadway first. Berkeley's Angels would have been a worthy transfer, and I believe it would have been equally acclaimed. It's a shame more people aren't going to see this magnificent production.
I just bought tickets to see it a third time in Berkeley.
