Angels in America...

The first half has made me definitely regret not having seen this on stage. Any big differences for those that have seen both? I felt that it lived up to all of the hype that it's gotten this past week, and then some.

Rob who's very much looking forward to part two next week...

The messenger sure has arrived!

Whenever I see a filmic adaptation of a work written for the stage I ask myself if I think they made the best possible movie of the material. In the case of A Chorus Line, for example, I think the answer is definitely no. In the case of Hedwig & The Angry Inch, for another, I would say enthusiastically yes. And in the case of Kushner's untamable two part epic, I would also say yes. At least for part one.

And yeah, Rob, it was something to see on stage!

There were some big differences. For one thing, the movie is very naturalistic, which makes some of the talkier passages that took place in the form of monologues in the more magical world of the theater threaten to bog down. And just when I thought it would tonight: enter Belize! Talk about your angels in America.

Ben Shenkman is a little more strapping than I am used to seeing Louis be. But he was good, although I didn't think he nailed the long speech in the diner the way Joe Mantello and subsequent Louii did. On stage it's not only desperate, but really funny. He just digs himself in deeper as Belize blinks at him. It was fine in the movie, but not stratospheric.

One big change is a techncnical one that happens in the filming of the break up scene between Prior and Louis that is juxtaposed with the confrontation between Joe and Harper. On stage both couples are seen and the cross cutting happens without cross cutting, because it's live. So, ironically, Kushner was attempting cross cutting on stage and when it actually is cross cut on film it loses something. Live, it is like a fugue that builds and builds and is easily my favorite scene in any modern play. It was fine in the movie, because it can't be what it is live.

I thought Emma was great, I thought Pacino was very good, Streep was also, Wright, fantastic, and Shenkman and Kirk fine. I missed David Marshall Grant as Joe, but Wilson really played up the plasticness that part requires.

Part two has a lot of funny material in it, and I'm looking forward to it. I believe Nichols has turned this huge amount of material into the best movie it can be.

P.S. Oh yeah, I missed the line from the show as the lights are flashing and the special effects are kicking in for the arrival and Prior says, "VERY Steven Spielberg."

---

Updated On: 12/8/03 at 11:18 PM

A few lines were altered or dropped and a few scenes were deleted. Otherwise it was all there originally, the very same ideas and speeches and points. You must have missed what was good about it the first time around. A lot of people require second viewings to catch on.

---

Updated On: 12/7/03 at 11:30 PM

"One big change is a techncnical one that happens in the filming of the break up scene between Prior and Louis that is juxtaposed with the confrontation between Joe and Harper. On stage both couples are seen and the cross cutting happens without cross cutting, because it's live. So, ironically, Kushner was attempting cross cutting on stage and when it actually is cross cut on film it loses something. Live, it is like a fugue that builds and builds and is easily my favorite scene in any modern play. It was fine in the movie, because it can't be what it is live."

That was my favorite scene in the movie. Unfortunately I never saw it on stage though so I can't compare.

I don't know.. I found this movie boring- but then again I only saw an hour of it =-/

---

I would agree with the cross cut scene between the two couples having worked better on stage. There is an intensity to teh emotions which were lacking in the movie. It seems though taht if you haven't seen the show on stage, this scene may have worked.

The special effects took something away in my opinion. The dream and hallucination sequences have an errier, more dream like feel on stage when you don't have effects and scenery to distract you. This was especially true in the appearance of the Prior Walter Ancestors, Ethel Rosenberg and Mr Lies. To see these charcters walk onto a stage out darkness adds to the atmosphere of the scene in a ay taht having them walk through walls can't do.

The arrival of the messanger angel was a bit over the top in effects.

In spite of all that, if you look at it by itself, as a movie and forget that it is an adaptation of a stage play, it really does come across as a great movie. Compared to other film adaptations of plays (non musicals), this is the best that ever remember seeing.

---

I am so with you Aug.

"Still, Nichols did many magical things, my favorite: the camera movement from the Oak Bar to the Rambles. The way the film stitches together life in Manhattan is masterful, no?"

Yes!

"Yet we're used to seeing anything come crashing down in a movie,no? Ceilings are broken through all the time."

Indeed.

"This a.m. I reread the ending of part one in the script -- and it brought tears to my eyes."

An alternative weekly reviewer printed the final bit from Perestroika in her review and reading it on the subway I too got tears in my eyes. Because of Kushner's prescience and the beauty of his language.

---

I had a very similar reaction to you, Namo. Sure, I missed certain things... For me personally, Ron Leibman and Stephen Spinella dominated "Millenium Approaches". I missed the loneliness and terror of Spinella's Prior and Leibman turned his scenes into arias that were just designed for the theatre. The special effects on Broadway were somehow a little more special, since we're so used to CGI effects in the movies these days. (I did miss the "VERY Stephen Spielberg" line. Thought that it showed a gay man retaining his wit in the face of an incomprehensible event.) Still, all of my reservations are minor. Kushner's is an awe-inspiring, staggering work of such intelligence and audacity. Watching Part I last night immediately brought me back to 1993 when Angels in America seemed about the most exciting thing to happen to Broadway theatre in decades. Seeing it 10 years later, its truths are just as potent. Looking forward to seeing what Nichols and company do with Part II.

---

Updated On: 12/8/03 at 10:47 AM

I have to sorta agree with the people who found it so/so and I think I know why:

This film was hyped as:

THE GREATEST TV EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND THE GREATEST THING EVER TO HAPPEN>>>EVER!

I mean, your gonna go into it with the highest of expectations...and it is almost certain you will be let down..

It felt long and it felt like it didn’t have to be as long as it was…yes, there is much that is wonderful in it. Yes, it is an achievement…but I have to admit I was a little bored by the halfway mark….

I bet when this is released on DVD…. I will re-watch it and change my opinion completely as by that time (4-6 months from now) you can have a fresh perspective…

..as the old saying goes distance lends enchantment….

I hope I am thrilled by Part Two…

"THE GREATEST TV EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND THE GREATEST THING EVER TO HAPPEN>>>EVER!

I mean, your gonna go into it with the highest of expectations...and it is almost certain you will be let down.."

Anthony, by now, living in this culture, this surely is not a new phenomenon for you. You really must have learned to modulate your reaction to hype by now. Of course it's impossible to blot it out of your consciousness, but there's no reason to let yourself get your hopes up so high you're set up for disappointment. You had to have learned this by the Christmas of your 9th year, right?

---

Namo,

Of course you try to ignore hype but the hype was everywhere..so you get excited...

I mean people were having "Angels in America" parties...(LOL)

ya know....

As I said, I'm sure i will revise my opinion after Part Two or after the DVD come sout...

Auggie27 -

I'm 22 and straight, and I was put beyond words by the film. Take that for what you will.

-Wayne

Thank you, Wayne. I agree with Namo's response. But please, if the play creates a kind of dark "nostalgia," I didn't mean to suggest that ANGELS must be viewed exclusively as a window into 80s gay sub-culture. That's unfair to Kushner, the play, and probably the subculture itself.

On b'way, ANGELS wasn't a "gay play," in the sense of, say, the way "Love Valour Compassion" was ghettoized. It was praised for its staggering, epic look at a variety of distinctly American issues. I realize the danger in over-playing the gay card in any discussion. I saw Toni Morrison on Charlie Rose recently, and he kept talking about her following in the footsteps of James Baldwin, when to me, he should've been speaking of, say, Faulkner. A ghetto is a ghetto, even a literary one is unfair, and minimizes the achievement.

---