NY's Signature Theatre to revive Angels in America- Page 3

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 1:23pm

I cannot see Raul as Prior. At all.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 1:31pm

Elizabeth Marvel is a marvelous choice, though I would give Aya Cash the opportunity to play Harper. She'd be (dare I say) fierce.

[Lumen2]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 6:31pm

Raul Esparza as a gay WASP emaciated by AIDS?

I would love to see an unkown cast, as I suspect that will be what happens, but throwing out some big names is fun. Dianne Wiest as Hannah is exceptional!

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 6:58pm

This is going to be epic...(bad theatre joke a little intended).

[Taryn]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 7:44pm

Count me in the camp that thinks Raul would be an amazing Prior. Definitely not as Joe, though. At ALL.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 10:13pm

If not Prior, maybe Louis, but I definitely can't see him as Joe.

Is there any chance that this might be transfered to Broadway officially?

As opposed to unofficially?

[Taryn]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 10:43pm

As opposed to unofficially?

Maybe they can sneak it into an empty theatre?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 1:27am

Exciting news, but the HBO adaptation was SO good, I can't imagine it being topped. I think Angels in America is kinda like A Streetcar Named Desire now: yes, it's a great play, but with a practically perfect film version, is it even worth doing onstage anymore except for the excitement of it being live?

That said, I can't wait to hear about the casting decisions.

[Lumen2]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 2:14am

Yes, because you cannot compare the two (I'm speaking of both works you mentioned.)

The play "Angels in America" is vastly different from the miniseries, despite the "live" aspect. I had the fortune of seeing the original Broadway Production on tape and believe me when I say it cannot be compared to the miniseries, if for any other reason because of its frankness and, well, theatricality. As written, it takes full advantage of the stage, and in most ways, it is the only place it belongs. There's no need to ever believe that because the play precluded a film version that had a higher budget, bigger stars, and wider distribution, it is in any way weakened or irrelevant.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 7:54am

The film is practically a word-for-word adaptation.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 7:56am

The film was good, but onstage, it was better. It was funnier, more exciting, more electric in the theatre.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 8:04am

The film is a poor mans version, seeing it on stage it is a breathtaking life changing event. One of the finest pieces ever written.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 10:30am

It was funnier

That's really one of the biggest differences. The HBO version, despite some great performances and being a decent translation all around, brings at times almost too much gravity and reverence to the material. I'm reminded of the Family Guy moment where Peter is at a performance of "Uncle Vanya" and blurts out, "Jeez, somebody throw a pie or something."

And I miss Prior's "VERY Steven Spielberg" at the end of the first part.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 11:32am

As far as the HBO movie, I most felt the absence of Ron Leibman and Stephen Spinella. Leibman was larger than life - manically funny and terrifying, with a thrilling rat-a-tat delivery. I think he was completely electrifying. Pacino is low-key, by comparison. Justin Kirk is a sympathetic Prior, but Spinella's performance had an element of terror coupled with a comic hysteria that I really missed. But I think Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson, Ben Shenkman, Mary Louise Parker and Emma Thompson all at least matched and in some cases surpassed the Broadway performances.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 12:18pm

Kirk was too straight as Prior. You saw him in drag and didn't believe it for a second. Some parts just simply need to be played by the gays.


Oh, and I know what you're thinking, casting directors of the Signature and no, no, no, no, and NO to Zoe Kazan as Harper!

[Lumen2]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 12:42pm

"The film is practically a word-for-word adaptation."

It really isn't. Watch Perestroika again. Besides, that still isn't the point.

And cheers to Justin Kirk being too straight for Prior.

[Hest882]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 3:06pm

The movie experience in no way compares to the full stage experience. The plays on stage are spectacular theatrical events. The HBO movie is good, but personally I found it flat compared to seeing them on stage.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 5:35pm

I saw the OBC of both Parts 1 and 2. To be honest, this show could do with a bit of trimming, especially Part 2.

I know Signature isn't about stars, but here's my choices.

I'd like to see Elisabeth Moss as Harper. Moss is a bit "efficient" but I think a good director could bring her around to the more dreamy quality of Harper.

I'd like to see Ron Rifkin as Roy Cohn. And why not Sally Field as Hannah.

I think the others could be cast by unknowns.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/3/09 at 6:44pm

How about Joseph Cross for Louis?

[candles]

Posted: 9/5/09 at 11:18pm

I want to see Cherry Jones back on Broadway but not in this.

"Tho I think they are still pals, Cherry and Sarah are not together".

Hey Smaxie, do "pals" leave messages like this(Cherry's recent message to Sarah)
http://mycharitywater.org/p/campaign?campaign_id=180

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 9/6/09 at 1:32am

"It would be great to fall in love with Angels all over again while watching eight, possibly unfamiliar stage actors getting the opportunity of a lifetime."

I agree with this.

...Yet am very intrigued by the idea of Aya Cash as Harper.