Angels in America

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 7:45pm

Wow. Saw both parts yesterday and it is a magnificent and rich production. The seven plus hours flew by, and I came home and snatched up single tickets to do it again in February.

The cast is strong. Christian Borle and Zachary Quinto ... hell, everyone in the show ... lends dimension and texture to their characters that are accessible in so many different ways.

I haven't seen a stage production before, just the movie, but although it was set at a specific point in time, it was still about today. And not just about AIDS, but about relationships, and loyalty, and change, and healing.

Bravo!

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 7:51pm

I look forward to seeing PERESTROIKA this coming weekend. MILLENNIUM APPROACHES didn't really thrill me; found the casting to be a bit uneven. (That could also be due to the fond memories of the production of MA that I worked on a few years ago).

[stee]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 8:06pm

I bought a pair of tickets for both parts in January, but now can't go. Boo!

I'm selling them at cost if anyone wants to take'em off my hands. Msg me!

Angels in America Part 1 Friday January 21, 2011 7:30pm
(2) Online Full Section Main Floor Right $85.00/each $170.00

Angels in America Part 2 Saturday January 22, 2011 8pm
(2) Online Full Section Main Floor Left $85.00/each $170.00

[DAME]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 8:14pm

This sounds wonderful.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 9:13pm

I'm so glad it still delivers.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 9:41pm

It's really something, PJ.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 10:00pm

I've always thought this play was flawed. Part 1 really builds to an interesting climax. Part 2 seems to wander around and not be as interesting as Part 1. I've always found the mother in the visitor's center to drag down Part 2.

[Kevn520]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 10:00pm

Is the current cast contracted through the end of the run in February?

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/10/10 at 10:40pm

That's the thing. I'm not sure if it's been tightened up or whether it's THIS direction, but Part II seemed clear to me. I didn't feel like it wandered around at all...the Visitor Center didn't seem all that long. Things seemed relatively clear and meshed together pretty coherently.

[Holbee]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 12:00pm

The play is so strong, the dialogue so intellectual and legitimately funny...its hard to really screw this show up, even when the direction is a little messy (the set in the Signature production is very cluttered as well). What a good production of Angels comes down to now (especially after the amazing casting of the HBO movie) is the acting. That can make or break a production of this show. On almost all counts the Sig production scores. Billy Porter isn't very good and Zoe (who I usually love) is a little whiny and a little too-young-looking as Harper). The rest of the cast (especially Quinto) is as good a cast as one could hope for. For barely having a "straight" play credit on his resume, Christian is marvelous. As good as any Prior I have ever seen. Frank Wood actually manages to underplay Roy and is fantastic (has it been noted yet how scarily he looks like the real Roy Cohn?) Robin B is perfection (some may argue a little too Streep-like in her delivery) and Robin W is WAY better than the original Angel and/or Emma Thompson in the film. Bill Heck is the most "Ken Doll"-ish Joe ever. If someone can be "blandly" gorgeous, he's exactly that--which is perfect for the character). And such depth. I have a feeling he won't get all the reviews he should, but his Joe is very raw and innocent. I know Kushner thinks of Joe as the "villain" of the piece, writing those horrible decisions, but besides that (and beating Louis) he really didn't write him that way. And Bill does such a good job at making Joe sympathetic. Plus, he and Quinto are so hot together in their erotic scenes... I loved this cast and hope they get the credit they deserve come review time.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 11:01pm

I've been meaning to see this one. It was mentioned that Zoe Kazan is a bit young for Harper. How old is she? Harper's only supposed to be around 30/32. To me, though, nobody is ever going to be able to top Mary-Louise Parker's performance.

I don't see Joe as the villain. At his worst he's a self-loathing enabler, and at his best he's just very, very confused. I think if there is a villain it's Roy. And don't make me tell you what I think of Louis.

Updated On: 10/11/10 at 11:01 PM

[Holbee]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 12:24am

Well, that's what I mean. Louis is apparently forgiven. Joe gets no moment of redemption, no final monologue.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 12:30am

"nobody is ever going to be able to top Mary-Louise Parker's performance"

I saw Marcia Gay Harden, Cynthia Nixon and Susan Bruce do much better than that.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 1:30am

Kushner's treatment of Joe (ie- no apparent redemption. Even Roy, in the optional monologue, gets to continue on the way he likes after death) is a point of contention for some.

[Holbee]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 4:16am

I've heard the best Harper ever was Deborah Messing...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 10:09am

Ugh. I can imagine what she was like, trying to suppress the smirks before the laugh lines. That's one I'm glad I missed.

[Holbee]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 12:12pm

Yes, I'm sure she played Harper exactly like she played Grace. The characters are so similar and she ISN'T an NYU Graduate Theatre Program alum and has no other acting style but sitcom. Oh, sorry. She IS and DOES.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 1:03pm

It's just that I've seen the smirk in everything I've ever seen her in. Maybe it's just a fun affectation she picked up AFTER NYU. Maybe her Harper was divinity itself. Maybe after that she said to herself, "If I'm gonna make it big I'm gonna need a signature move like George Clooney's head bob."

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 1:24pm

Marcia Gay Harden was light years ahead of Mary-Louise Parker. She was what every other Harper (including Harper Lee) wished that they could be. MLP always comes across too whiney for my liking.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 1:34pm

Harper Lee. Good one!

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 1:39pm

See, that's why I liked MLP. I never saw Marcia Gay Harden, but I always thought of Harper as a whiney, annoying character.

Updated On: 10/12/10 at 01:39 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 1:59pm

"See, that's why I liked MLP. I never saw Marcia Gay Harden, but I always thought of Harper as a whiney, annoying character."

Not when she's played correctly. She's not Betty Draper.

Harper is a woman who didn't quite become grounded in life. She married a handsome, but cold, career driven man. She can't quite cope with all that her life demands of her and so she begins to drift.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 2:23pm

I see your point. She's got Linda Loman syndrome - husband can't cope so it starts affecting the wife.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 2:52pm

Also, Harper doesn't have anything to stabilize her. She has no children, she doesn't like living in the city, she doesn't know how to make friends in the city. She's out of her element.

[Broadway Doctor]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 12:06pm

In honor of opening night, The Doc finally does Angels in America.
What's Wrong with Angels in America