rOcKS @ 'Angels in America'

Zoe has to do a lot to get back into my good graces after her awful performance in Behanding! So we'll see!

Okay, so my attempt at some organized thoughts on tonight:

The show started about twenty minutes late and was stopped about 70% through the first act due to a set malfunction. They fixed the problem within five minutes and everything else went off relatively smoothly. You could hear some set pieces falling and the hustling of the stage hands, but these are things that will obviously be ironed out in the coming days or weeks.

The first act was absolutely fantastic. It did take a few minutes for the cast to seem to gel and get into the groove of things but once they did, the show took off. The cast is great, overall. I wasn't the hugest fan of Christian Borle's performance after the first act, but he grew on me. Robin Bartlett had quite a few line stutters and hesitations but nothing that took away from her performance drastically.

The best performances came from the four actors I mentioned in the first post. Zoe Kazan is giving a really special performance. She is so real, so believable, and so heartbreakingly honest. I was NOT a fan of her work in BEHANDING but she has definitely made me a born-again fan now. Billy Porter practically stole the show with his scene opposite Zachary Quinto in the third act...funny, acerbic, and yet very, very moving. Bill Heck is so devoted to this character that it is at times unnerving. You feel his pain, you feel his anguish, and you feel his frustration. He's fantastic. But my favorite performance of the evening came from Mr. Quinto. What a performance. There's not much else to say. He is really brilliant.

Michael Grief's staging is very tight for a first preview. He moves the show along swiftly, so much so that tonight's 3 1/2 hours felt like 90 minutes, truthfully. And, with all the delays and lengthy intermissions, it probably hit 4 hours. And I barely noticed it.

The set design is really gorgeous (although, as I mentioned, has a few kinks that need to be worked out) as are the lights and costumes.

My one major qualm about the production is the angel's descent scene. I am still a bit on the fence to how I feel about it. Maybe they just need more time to rehearse it? But, truth is, for me, it felt a bit mechanical and kinda cheesy. I hope they smooth it out to make it work more fluidly. It is hard to stage a moment that expansive on such a small stage, so I do think they did a commendable job with it, but it just teetered on falling flat for me.

The bottom line? Once this show gets rolling and into the swing of things, it will be pretty damn close to flawless. I can't wait to see Part Two this weekend!! And I already want to see Part One again! Get tickets people. This is the theatrical event of the season, and with pretty damn good reason.

**** out of **** for me (just because I have complete faith that all the little kinks will be ironed out ASAP)

If anyone has any questions, ask away.

Updated On: 9/15/10 at 12:09 AM

I wish I had been able to get tickets for this. Regardless, I am going to at least try the standby line- it sounds too exciting not to give it a shot. I love this play, and would kill to see it staged.

---

And Frank Wood as Roy Cohn was ...?

Not too much, I think, although I guess it depends on your familiarity. There's historical context you need to be aware of, obviously, but I don't think it's a play that requires research, per se as much as it requires paying serious attention while you are watching it. The play will pretty much give you what you need to understand the issues as they relate to the characters, but if they're subjects you're not up on, you might want to look into an overview of Reagan-era politics, Mormon beliefs, Roy Cohn's career, his role in the Rosenberg trial, and what the state of the AIDS crisis was in the mid-80's. There are always going to be questions the play leaves you with -- even if you've read it 100 times. There's no way to "get" everything that's going on there. But those things should help you to put it in context.

---

Quinto's performance was just a genuinely great performance. There isn't much to explain or describe. Just see it for yourself and be blown away like I was. He's a wonderful, wonderful actor. He has razor-like precision when it comes to the rough and wordy material he is given and delivers it with gusto. Frank Wood was good as Roy. He seemed to be doing a bit of a Pacino impression at times and his first scene was definitely rocky but once he got into it, he was very, very good. I couldn't help but think what Frank Langella could have done with the role though.

i actually remember (and most people agreeing with me) when the original production opened that Part 2 was the more exciting and interesting of the two plays. That's the part I'm really looking forward to!

How close is the HBO mini-series to the actual play? I was only able to get tickets to Part 2 (hoping to catch part 1 later in the run). Will watching that and reading the play be enough to understand part 2?

Just don't get intimidated by the Oldest Living Bolshevik monologue at the beginning of Perestroika!

---

Thank you for posting that information. I was just able to snag a pair for this Friday!

Perestroika is definitely my favorite of the two parts. But the piece as a whole is obviously just remarkable. Glad to hear this isn't a disappointment! Thanks a lot to the posters who shared their thoughts.

I don't know if that's true, but Maggie Gyllenhaal would have been a stunning Harper, I think. I also think you're supposed to have at least some distaste for Louis (or his choices), so I'm not sure if making him "entirely likable" is an ultimate success, but I guess I'll see for myself.

the scene with Belize and Louis which was the "moment" of the first half.

The diner scene? "Real love isn't ambivalent," etc. etc.?

---