Signature's "Angels in America" Discussion Thread

[Katurian2]

Posted: 12/31/10 at 5:46pm

I haven't really seen a discussion thread, or even many threads in general for this fantastic production! Anyone on BWW take in this beauty?

I went to the marathon on Wednesday (saw Stephen Schwartz at Pt. 2 funnily enough), and enjoyed it more than I ever thought that I would. The show seemed to be experiencing a few tech problems that day though. During part 1, there was a blackout during the Prior/Harper dream scene and a short break as the techs fixed the stage lighting. Also some audio issues with the music later on.

BUT, I didn't even care, because I think this was the best acted production of any play that I have EVER seen. Not a single weak link in the cast. Christian Borle was out, and his understudy was absolutely brilliant, not to mention adorable! In certain productions of the show, Prior gets on my nerves in certain spots throughout Part 2, but I really loved him this time around. Same with Zachary Quinto's Louis. A character I usually consider to be a huge jerk, I understood for the first time. I think the moment that really hit it was when Louis saw Roy's body in the hospital for the 1st time and Quinto just paused for a long moment and let his hand rest on Frank Wood's forehead. My favorite cast member was for sure Zoe Kazan playing Harper though. I didn't think she had it in her, since she looks like she's about 14, but I loved loved loved her performance. I think her small stature really worked in a special way- when she was yelling at Joe and then turns around for a 'buddy hug,' you really saw how small, physically and emotionally she had to play with when against Joe's rages.


Anyone else have thoughts on the show??? It's not often enough we get quality productions of it, so it's great to talk about it while we can!

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/31/10 at 7:39pm

I found it to be a visually beautiful production and one of the most organized and NEAT productions Michael Grief has ever directed. He showed real restraint with this project and never let it fly off into the distance (which is something that he often does...). He kept it tight and I was mesmerized by how clean it was. It's a shame your performance was bumpy.

That being said, I was blown away by Zoe Kazan - who, until now, I've found to be a pretty dreadful actress. Her final monologue was the stuff of genius. I was also incredibly touched by Zachary Quinto and Robin Bartlett's performances. I wasn't as much a fan of Christian Borle as everyone else was. Personally, I didn't buy him. Ah, well. Wasn't a fan of Billy Porter's first part, but loved him in Part Two. I didn't see too much difference between Mr. Laws and Belize, though...

The real stand-out for me was Frank Wood's Roy Cohn. For me, it's up there with Molina's Rothko, Langella's Tobi in MATCH and Sir Thomas More in A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS. A truly magnificent performance. I was privileged to be ushering that day and got to watch him warming up and preparing. He was drenched in sweat from a simple warm-up, making sure his body was prepared for that tour-de-force. And, from chatting with him at the diner around the block between shows, I must say -- he truly transforms. Simply mind-blowing.

HOWEVER, something always felt OFF to me. There was something missing and I couldn't put my finger on it until very recently. It was cold. Stand-offish. The audience wasn't truly INVITED in. Perhaps the white curtain that I first found genius was a turn-off. Perhaps it was something deeper. Whatever it was, it was the only thing holding me back from truly loving it.

(P.S. I was very confused by Grief's decision for Belize to actually SEE the angel in the scene at the top of Part Two.)

I do wonder what this production would've been like in the hands of Joe Calarco. Sublime, I bet.

Updated On: 12/31/10 at 07:39 PM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 12/31/10 at 7:59pm

Frank Wood really was remarkable! That's very interesting about his physical warmup for the show. I can see how he would need to really get in the zone for the character, because he never left 'it' the entire show. And that mouth! I just wanted to take his tongue and shove it in! It was marvelous all the way.

That's intriguing that you call the production standoffish. I almost felt it was too warm for its own good! But yes, very clean. The projections with the scenes in motion were very genius.

It was odd that there were so many technical problems though! I saw Spider-man the night before and there were less issues in that than in this one! People didn't really seem to mind though, and the cast did fine picking up with the disruption.

I'm very curious what Borle does that people find off-putting. You are the third person I've heard from about it who identified him as the only sub-perfect performance in the lot. I absolutely adored his understudy, and the moment where the angels bless Prior was just the most beautiful thing.

I'm curious- did you or anyone identify the changes that Kushner made for the second part? I thought I could pick out a line or two that seemed unfamiliar, but wasn't sure. Was the Ed Koch reference in there the first time around?

Also, I was so happy to see the angels in heaven scene. Every other production of the show I've gone to has cut that part out, and I feel it's absolutely essential to explain where The Angel is coming from for the whole show.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/31/10 at 8:17pm

I wasn't thrilled with Grief's staging of the scene in heaven -- something felt a little sloppy about it. But it might've been because the stage is so tiny. I didn't pick up on any of the changes, but I didn't know he made them. The Ed Koch reference was in the film, I believe...

I personally don't find Borle to be convincingly gay. I found it to be a performance rich in stereotype. What I always liked so much about Erik McCormack's Will was how believe able Will Truman was.

I think the reason the production felt stand-offish to me was BECAUSE of Borle's performance. I didn't love him. I found him annoying and campy and often would yearn for him to leave the stage. And if you find Prior annoying, how can you truly go on that journey?

My two favorite moments:

- Harper and Joe are arguing. The back wall is drenched in raindrops. A moment before, Joe had walked in the door with wet hair. Sublime.

- Harper atop the filing cabinets, flying high above the world. So simple. No tricks. Just asking the audience to suspend their disbelief and use their imaginations.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 2:02am

I don't think Belize sees the angel. He's just following Prior's gaze as he tells the story.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 8:29am

I understand that, Namo. But there were points that the angel and Belize actually make eye contact, or at least there were at my performance. I found it to be a strange choice.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 9:56am

Yeah, I remember noticing that too, actually. I don't think he ever registered seeing her in full, but he for sure seemed to look right at her at least. It didn't realy bother me at the time, since I kind of just assumed it was a illustrative noticing, and he wasn't really seeing her-seeing her. At least to my understanding!

The Joe/Harper argument scene was just brilliant. I love the rooftop scene between them as well when Harper is all wet and talking about the Millennium. ahh- all her scenes were just fantastic though!

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 10:31am

Yes, Zoe was quite phenomenal. She really took my breath away at so many moments.

I understood what was going on in the Belize/Angel/Prior scene, but I felt that someone who didn't know the play already may be confused. It just seemed an odd choice to me. I, personally, would've never had Belize look at the angel once. I'd just leave it all to Prior.

This was a really magnificent use of projections.

[littlepaperstars]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 10:36am

I saw the matinee of part 1 on wednesday and I'm seeing part two tomorrow night, and so far I am so disappointed in this production.

I absolutely hated the actor playing Roy Cohn, and I thought Zoe Kazan was terrible and distracting (which surprised me, I loved her performance in Behanding in Spokane). In general, I found the production to a lack a certain spark or gravitas...I'm not sure if I feel that way because I'm comparing to my memory of the miniseries (which I love) or not, but I was expecting something better than what it is. The source material is still spectacular so I don't regret seeing it, but I just wish they had done something different...though I can't pinpoint exactly what (besides firing Zoe Kazan.)

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 10:41am

It's a very different performance than the miniseries. That might be why.

You also may be seeing an off-night. I usually can't stand Zoe Kazan but found her enthralling here.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 11:05am

hmm- that's interesting, because I when I saw "Behanding in Spokane," I thought Zoe Kazan and Anthony Mackie were both absolutely aggravating. Of course, that may have been in part due to the material they had to work with. I really enjoyed how different she was from Mary Louise Parker in the miniseries. She was less zoned-out addict and more sort of dependent and vulnerable to the point that when she was able to escape at the end, it really was all the more of a triumph. I love both performances though, but it was fantastic to see such a different interpretation.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 11:24am

I'm very excited to run the marathon in March. I've read the play many times and seen the movie, but there's just so much there that I know some of it is going over my head. Most of my problems lie with the scene between Prior and the Angel. She just speaks so cryptically that I'm missing something. Maybe someday soon I'll sit down with that scene and a hiliter and piece it together.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 12:12pm

haha- I sat down with that scene and my best friend in high school who was a Mormon, and she really did excellent in helping me with some of the religious/Mormon religious content in the part.

[fosca3]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 2:27pm

I've seen both parts as a 'marathon' twice, and I was there this past Wednesday when Eric Bryant played Prior Walter (it sounds like several of us were there )

I didn't really mind Christian Borle the first time I saw it, but I really like Eric Bryant's portrayal better -- I felt he played Prior as less campy and not-so-fragile, which worked better for me

And I LOVED Frank Wood as Roy Cohn -- for me he was the strongest actor in the play. His mouth fascinated me -- his tongue flicking out almost reptilian, and later, as he got sicker, when his mouth was always dry. I FELT him getting sicker, and weaker, and his frustration with the whole situation was palpable. I think my favourite scenes in the whole play were those with Roy and Ethel Rosenberg

I enjoyed Bill Heck's 'Joe' much more this time. I don't know if he's changed his portrayal, or if I just found him more moving this time. He really broke my heart in 2 or 3 of the scenes, and I found myself feeling more sympathy for Joe than I really wanted to

And I agree with Katurian -- I didn't care for Zoe Kazan in BEHANDING (I thought Anthony Mackie was weak too), but I thought she was perfect as Harper

I also thought Robin Bartlett was AMAZING. Her Rabbi and Bolshevik were perfection, and her Hannah and Ethel were spot-on

I loved the whole production, and think the cast was just stellar. I wish I could see it again, especially when the cast changes -- it could be a whole new play

I think this was my most treasured theatre experience of 2010 (or VERY close behind ORPHANS' HOME CYCLE)

[Katurian2]

Posted: 1/1/11 at 4:44pm

haha- It was an unintentional BWW meetup! They really should do more marathons though. They're so fulfilling to go to. Two of my favorite theatrical experiences have been AiA here and then Coast of Utopia at the Lincoln Center, both of which I saw in marathons.

Thanks for posting about Eric Bryant- I didn't want to dig up the Playbill, and I couldn't find his name on the website! He was probably one of the more sympathetic and gentle Priors I've ever seen. I absolutely loved what he did.

Orphan's Home Cycle was genius as well, but AiA will always hold a special magic and place in my (and I'm sure many others') heart. Signature did so marvelous in getting to its heart. It's too bad there's no plans so far to transfer or keep this running past its second extension! I would see it again and again if I could!

[LadyJane7710]

Posted: 1/4/11 at 8:09am

Enjoyed most of the performance, disappointed that I just found out about the benefit on Thursday, I am sure it is sold out and probably way too expensive LOL.

Really enjoyed Robin and Zach Quinto in the show, I wonder if they are all moving on to other plays after? Also heard an odd rumor that Zach and Zoe are dating, but I have no clue.

Back to the show, liked Billy Porter more the Pierestroka (sp) and Zoe was hit or miss for me.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/4/11 at 10:44am

Zachary Quinto is an out homosexual, so I highly doubt he and Zoe Kazan are dating.

Especially considering Zoe and Paul Dano (Free Man of Color, Little Miss Sunshine, There Will Be Blood) are an item...

[Huss417]

Posted: 1/4/11 at 11:03am

"Zachary Quinto is an out homosexual."

I never knew he was out?

This is what he said to the New York Times.

While Mr. Quinto accepts the occasional fan ambush as part of the movie and television stardom package, he chooses to keep his distance from what he regards as mindless celebrity-gossip culture. “I’m grateful that celebrity or notoriety wasn’t thrust upon me when I was in my 20s, because I think I would have buckled under the weight of it, as so many people do,” he said. “But I’ve come to realize through experience that ultimately I really do have a lot of power in terms of the way I relate to the public or to people outside of my intimate circle of friends and family. Boundaries are very important to me.”

Despite Mr. Quinto’s efforts to keep his private life private, the blogosphere is rife with speculation about his sexuality, no doubt fueled by his support for gay rights and organizations like the Trevor Project. He prefers not to feed that rumor mill with either substantiation or dismissal. He speaks passionately about gay marriage, about “don’t ask, don’t tell” and about the recent wave of gay bullying and suicides.

“The fact that these things are such hot-button issues right now, socially and politically, I would much rather talk about that than talk about who I sleep with,” Mr. Quinto said. “I would love to be a voice in this maelstrom of chaos and obsessive celebrity infatuation that says, ‘Let’s talk about something that matters,’ ” he added.

Updated On: 1/4/11 at 11:03 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/4/11 at 11:36am

I could've sworn he came out fairly recently -- within the last few months. Apologies if I'm wrong.

He's most certainly gay, though. There's been plenty of photo coverage of him with his partner. (If they're still together?)

[LadyJane7710]

Posted: 1/5/11 at 7:28am

Not wanting to turn this into more gossip, but since I brought it up

Zach hasn't come out, and as a fan of some of his other work, I am not sure where you are getting the photo coverge of him and his partner is, I have heard that before. He is usually just photographed with his dog, alone, his brother or the 2 guys from his production company who are both married to women.

I have heard that he is bisexual, but what do I know?

[frankiec]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 3:29pm

Anyone know the running time for each part? Thanks.

[theatremom2]

Posted: 1/22/11 at 7:39pm

I was disappionted as well. The acting I'd rate from poor, the Harper character- in Mil- but gets better in Per- to great, Louis. But the physical production bothered me the most. I have a copy of the play and in the playwrights notes it states 'The play benefits from a pareddown style of presentation, with minimal scenery.." There wasn't a square inch of that stage left opened. They threw every gimmick in the book at you. Things glided and swirled constantly. You could get dizzy from all the movement. And during the intermision in Mil it sounded like a construction site going on behind the curtin. Hated all the projections. Talk about a plane, cue picture. You want a vista view of Salt Lake City, there you go. It was all very distracting, down to the music during the bar scene. And with people pulling their pants up and down so much it diluted the power of the most important nude scenes, the medical exam and the garment. Both should invoke in the audience the fear, pain and humilation the character is experience, not 'oh here we go again'.

I don't know whose idea it was to have Prior deliever his final speach in a whisper but it didn't do much for the people sitting on the far right. A lot of very dranatic moments were missed.

I wouldn't have missed seeing this performed again, but they could have done so much better.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 1/22/11 at 8:14pm

I'd say the scenery in this production was more minimalistic than in the original Broadway production... I think it's very essential for the play to distinguish between locations very clearly due to the many central characters and plot lines going on. I've seen productions VERY minimal- done with little more than a bed and a black stage, and I've yet to see one that I've liked. The set here was so multifunctional and yet unobtrusive.

Also I really enjoyed the projections. There was the constant theme of motion with the taxis, the plane, the subway, etc. I think more than anything that's what they were there to convey. Maybe even the set to some extent. Movement and change are the central themes underlying the whole show, and I think this production showed that in very ingenious ways.

There was a lot of nudity, but was it really any more than most other productions are doing nowadays? It feels awkward 'counting' it all, but I can think of: Prior at the exam, Harper talking to Joe, Joe in front of Louis and a slight bit of Louis in the park sex scene. Any I'm missing? If so, I think Harper's 'Look at me!' plead to Joe is just as painful and useful of demonstration as the other examples. It's a shedding of skin referenced in the Oldest Living Bolshevik monologue. Both Harper and Joe had to do it to escape themselves once they were ready to move on. And the Louis sex scene wasn't what I'd call gratuitous nudity. I was looking pretty darn hard (c'mon, Zachary Quinto is FINE.) and it was only a little ball slip for less than a second. Trust me, I wish that one were longer! So the only one of those that wasn't in the primary script was Harper's, and that is frequently added in since the miniseries when Mary Louise Parker did it.

Updated On: 1/22/11 at 08:14 PM

[Chad Eberle]

Posted: 1/22/11 at 10:53pm

We flew in from Columbus, Ohio, on the 15th to see both parts. I thought it was a marvelous production - everything I'd hoped it would be. I was enthralled with all the performances, and it was almost too emotionally overwhelming to absorb and process it all in one day. I was a little nervous after reading all the negative feedback about Zoe Kazan. I have to say I could not disagree more with the naysayers. Zoe Kazan's portrayal of Harper was gut-wrenching and exquisite. I daresay I enjoyed it more than Mary Louise Parker's version of Harper in the miniseries. I thought she was FABULOUS, and I got so much more out of Harper's journey because of Kazan's interpretation of the role. My only regret was not being able to tell her how great I thought she was afterward. She kind of bolted from the theatre and didn't even stick around to sign Playbills (not that I blame her since I'm sure they were all thoroughly exhausted after performing both parts in one day).

Zachary Quinto impressed the hell out of me as well. I had no idea he had such depth as an actor. I enjoyed his Louis much more than the miniseries Louis (I can't remember the actor's name off the top of my head - Ben something?). I had no problem's with Christian Borle's Prior at all. I thought he made a wonderful Prior. The only quibble I have is that I agree with the previous poster about Prior's final monologue at Bethesda Fountain being whispered. I found it an off-putting, odd choice as well. Fortunately, we were sitting on the same side of the stage as Prior, so we had no problems hearing it. Had we been on the opposite side of the theatre, though, I'm positive I wouldn't have heard 80% of what he said.

I LOVED the way Greif staged the breakup scene with Harper, Joe, Prior, and Louis. Speaking of Joe, Bill Heck was simply OUTSTANDING! Again, much improved from the miniseries Joe, and I got so much more out of his character because of Heck's portrayal. I couldn't really sympathize with Harper/Joe to any great extent in the miniseries, but I could with this production. Kazan and Heck made it feel like I was experiencing these two characters for the first time...not an easy feat, so KUDOS to them!

My husband and I have been talking about it off and on since last weekend. I noticed this time that Joe is the only character that Kushner doesn't really give closure to. When you think about it, every other character has a complete arc or evolves to the point where they are changed for the better by the end of the play, but you don't get that sense with Joe. Even Hannah has developed into a fuller, almost completely different character by the end of the play. It really made me feel sad for Joe. What do you think Kushner's message is there? I think - and this is just my interpretation - that Kushner might be saying that when you don't embrace your individual truth and live your life authentically, you end up a tortured, adrift person emotionally.

I'm so glad this thread exists and that people are discussing this magnificent production. I wish everyone in the world could see this - it's that's good. And it's themes and messages are that important.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/22/11 at 11:14pm

I believe - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - that Kushner stated in interviews that he ultimately views Joe as the villain of the piece.