Nudity in Angels in America 2018

[nickk518]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 8:34pm

Does anyone know if the National Theatre version of Angels has a big amount of Nudity/Sexual content compared to the original version/HBO version?? Just wondering if I should be expecting to see any of Andrew Garfield’s man things on Broadway.....

[TheSassySam]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 8:36pm

The National Theatre Live production just showed Joe Pitt's butt, but I am not sure if that was due to filming.  

 

[Nycat63]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 9:41pm

TheSassySam said: "The National Theatre Live production just showed Joe Pitt's butt, but I am not sure if that was due to filming.

"

I may be mistaken but I believe this was asked on another thread and someone responded that it was not just for filming. 

[Callum_brown1]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 9:49pm

Yes, you see his backside and that's it. But from my seat on the end of the front row, I would definitely say that Russell Tovey 'gave it his all'... literally 

[binau]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 10:57pm

Do you know if we can get a refund if we thought we got to see Andrew Garfield’s man things but are disappointed to find out we don’t? 

[Gizmo6]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 9:09am

qolbinau said: "Do you know if we can get a refund if we thought we got to see Andrew Garfield’s man things but are disappointed to find out we don’t?"

I was at the national and it's only Pitt's character (this could change seeing as it's the only part being recast I believe) that has nudity and it felt gratuitous. There was no need. 

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 9:28am

Gizmo6 said: "qolbinau said: "Do you know if we can get a refund if we thought we got to see Andrew Garfield’s man things but are disappointed to find out we don’t?"

I was at the national and it's only Pitt's character (this could change seeing as it's the only part being recast I believe)that has nudity and it felt gratuitous. There was no need."

There is very much a need for it. You have a gay, Mormon character shedding his skin (the underwear) and his religion. Truly feeling and expressing the vulnerability he's hidden and fought all his life. It's a life-changing moment and honestly, it's one of the only scenes I can think of that justifies its nudity.  

Updated On: 10/11/17 at 09:28 AM

Posted: 10/11/17 at 9:42am

Callum_brown1 said: "Yes, you see his backside and that's it. But from my seat on the end of the front row, I would definitely say that Russell Tovey 'gave it his all'... literally"

 

What exactly does this mean?!

 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 9:42am

Actually, the nudity in Angels is one of the few times where nudity never feels gratuitous. We see Prior naked during his exam (usually, but not in the NT production) showing us his vulnerability and fear. When Joe strips naked for Louis, it's both to try to seduce him and make love but also he's stripping down emotionally and showing him who he is, open and honestly. He's also taking off the Mormon undergarments Louis made fun of earlier. 

[Gizmo6]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 9:54am

LYLS3637 said: "Gizmo6 said: "qolbinau said: "Do you know if we can get a refund if we thought we got to see Andrew Garfield’s man things but are disappointed to find out we don’t?"

I was at the national and it's only Pitt's character (this could change seeing as it's the only part being recast I believe)that has nudity and it felt gratuitous. There was no need."

There is very much a need for it. You have a gay, Mormon character shedding his skin (the underwear) and his religion. Truly feeling and expressing the vulnerability he's hidden and fought all his life. It's a life-changing moment and honestly, it's one of the only scenes I can think of that justifies its nudity."

Did you see this production live or mediated for you?

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 10:03am

Deena Jones said: "Callum_brown1 said: "Yes, you see his backside and that's it. But from my seat on the end of the front row, I would definitely say that Russell Tovey 'gave it his all'... literally"



What exactly does this mean?!

"

It obviously means that from the front row you could see his dick

[Valentina3]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 10:15am

Very well said LYLS3637. The nudity is essential to that character, and very justified. It can be a very powerful scene.

But I also partly agree with Gizmo6 regarding the nudity in NT production. I think it was because scene work between Russell Tovey and James McArdle was not all that strong. I, for one, never got the lust aspect of Joe's character. The internal conflict he was feeling was always the dominant characteristic, even when he removed his clothes - the "shedding of the skin" was totally lost.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 10:18am

FYI (and maybe it changed during the course of the run) but, in the original production, David Marshall Grant did not take the entirety of his temple garment off.  He stripped to the waist, and as he was about to remove the rest, Mantello-as-Louis stopped him.  I saw it a second time with, I believe, Jay Goede as Joe and the same thing happened.  I've seen it done both with full nudity and, well...not fully nudity.  I don't think the scene loses or gains either way.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 11:21am

Reinforcing SonofRobbieJ's comment - Grant and Mantello both refused to do full frontal in the original Broadway production, although Kushner's original script called for both. Only Spinella got entirely nude, and then only for a few seconds while undressing for the doctor, in an entirely unerotic context. Mantello was in tighty-whities for his scene, and Grant only (as noted) went down to the waist. 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 1:05pm

Well-expressed, LYLS...I don't know much about this play and as a rule do not care for nudity onstage...but you made about as compelling a case for it as possible.

[Gizmo6]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 1:42pm

Valentina3 said: "Very well saidLYLS3637. The nudity is essential to that character, and very justified. It can be a very powerful scene.

But I also partly agree with Gizmo6 regarding the nudity in NT production. I think it was because scene work between Russell Tovey and James McArdle was not all that strong. I, for one, never got the lust aspect of Joe's character. The internal conflict he was feeling was always the dominant characteristic, even when he removed his clothes - the "shedding of the skin" was totally lost."

+100

[Wick3]

Posted: 6/19/18 at 8:38pm

Is the nudity only in Perestroika or in both parts?

[greenifyme2]

Posted: 6/19/18 at 8:39pm

Wick3 said: "Is the nudity only in Perestroika or in both parts?"

Only part 2

[Wick3]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 8:41pm

thank you!