rOcKS @ 'Angels in America' — Page 2

I have yet to see Millennium Approaches, but Quinto was the perfect Louis in Perestroika. He was a dick, but an empathetic one. He's as likable as the character can be, but you still agree with Prior's decision to not let him back.

I loved Zoe Kazan. I thought she was wonderful. Her final monologue in Perestroika is beautiful. I mean, it's inherently beautiful, but her performance was, as well.

Frank Wood is the ONLY weak link for me. Disappointing.

---

Another interesting tidbit is Lee Pace was supposedly offered Joe before the man who plays it. But he was great. He really gave that part a lot of depth.

Yeah I saw Lee Pace in the Credeaux Canvas years ago and he was amazing. But I think Bill Heck is fantastic and he is definitely the right choice for this production.

I saw Part II tonight, and I have to say I was really disappointed.

First off, the design of the show is AWFUL. The use of the space is AWFUL. The set pieces are super clunky and just get in the way of the show. The show moves with no pace and fluidity because of the stupid curtain and all the random bits of scenery. The projections are really bad, and they don't really add anything to show except to keep us reminded that the space is small. They don't transport us anywhere, and they look really bad especially when the actors bump into the curtain, etc. And what's with the big revolving piece on stage right? It was just all so badly executed. And the fact that we have to see 4 stagehands every time something has to move is just shameful.

The direction of the show is almost non-existent. Every scene is played at profile and the actors barely touch and engage. They basically stand there with their hands at their sides and talk to each other. There is no "stage business" or any sort of scene objective being had. What do these characters want in each scene? What do they need? How are they going to get them? I don't know. I really don't. There bits and pieces that worked, but as a whole it was just poorly staged. The angel enters and then two stage hands come on in the middle of the scene and take her out of the harness. I mean, what?! And we see Prior climb all the way up the ladder only for a spotlight to hit him and then he descends it while a stagehand pushes it. It's just ridiculous choices.

I thought the best performances were (sorry I don't know the actor's names exactly, so I'll use characters) Joe, Louis, and Joe's Mom. I think Roy will eventually get his stuff worked out. He is just missing sort of the moment to moment work of dealing with pain and all that, but I thought he was pretty good. And Billy Porter was okay. He sort of did too many takes to the audience and that sort of thing, but I think his heart is in the right place and he will settle into it eventually. I did not care for Prior. It was very obvious that he was "acting" the whole time. He was just trying to do too much and make every single line matter, but it doesn't need that. The text is solid. It doesn't need you to ADD a ton of "actory" things on top of it. His ending speech was so painfully boring and dull. And he did way too much smiling at the audience. His performance just didn't read "real" to me. I didn't buy Prior was a real person with a real disease, so I didn't feel anything for him. And Harper was AWFUL. Everything was monotone and boring. I think it is hard for Kazan to do spacy as well as say Mary-Louise Park does it. That's Parker's schtick and she does it well, but Kazan was just so boring. Everything had the same meaning and the same weight. There was no vocal energy or anything. Her ending monologue made no sense to me. I didn't know what was happening or going on because it didn't build or go anywhere. It was just her speaking words. It also doesn't help that in her final scene with Joe it looks like Joe is talking to his younger sister or daughter. She reads WAY too young to me. Give her some heels or something.

And those are my initial thoughts. It just is really messy and it was a big letdown. And before people start stoning me, no, I did not go in with high expectations. I did not know what to think. I have never seen the play performed before and I saw the movie when it first came out, but that is it.

Brief Tangent: I was surprised to see that Kitt did not do the music for this.

I could actually see it, Lee Pace as Joe. He has that gentleness about him, but still the right intensity to make a great Joe. It'd go against physical type a little bit, but I don't think that's a rigid requirement in my mind.

---

i forgave some of the tech sluggishness this being only the 4th show in front of an audience. and kushner always wanted the stage fakery to show through. it's in the text. he wanted stagehands and no blackouts and for the wires to show.

Oh, I had no problem with seeing the wires, etc. But the way it was all executed was a little messy. And "no scenery?" Um, has he seen this show? The set pieces are huge and clunky. I'm all for minimalism. I think what Brief Encounter does is amazing, and brilliant, and this production could take its cues from them. The way they use projections and props and make the best use of a small space, and how it is all incorporated would work well for Angels, but this production is horribly designed. The set changes are not quick, and there are a few blackouts. And the design is just a mess. I mean "heaven" is just suppose to be them without shoes and their collars popped? Really?! And if you're going to make the show "theatrical" in the sense that we get to see it all going on, then let us be able to see it all going on and not use that damn curtain to hide all the set changes, or work the set changes into the show. Make it part of the action of the characters in the scenes. Have them setting up for the next scene, or something.

Did they do the whole stage hands thing on Broadway? Regardless of his intentions, I think the idea is just really tacky.

(pretty much just made an account now to post here...haha)

i am in love with this production. simple as that. i only saw part II (definitely going to try and waitlist part I) but there are really no words to describe how i felt when the show ended. i was overcome with emotion.
althought quinto really really suprised me with his spectacular performance (hell, everyone was amazing. but i did have some trouble understanding frank wood. but in a way i kinda loved that part too.) i really think christian borle stole the show. he just had so much energy. it was fantastic to just (maybe this is because of the space) see the sweat on his face, his eyes. everything. he really did it for me.

i think theatre is supposed to be messy. like mentioned above, it's a theatrical experience. there were some mishaps throughout the performance i was at, but i really didn't mind at all. i thought the space was absolutely perfect for Angels. if it was in any other larger house, i think so much would be lost.

sorry if any of this seemed a bit jumbled. (it probably is.) bottom line.

GO SEE IT. this is theatre. Go.

Pretty damn near perfect? Wow, we def. saw different shows!

I saw PERESTROIKA tonight. To the people who could not rave enough about this production: I'm not sure we saw the same show.

While I would not say I disliked the show, I will say that, in its current state, I would not recommend it to a single person but I'm glad I saw it. Long story short, it lacks any kind of gravity or urgency. If this were the original production of this piece, I would have left wondering what the point was. There's absolutely no big picture. It's all very much on the surface.

The performances were a mixed bag, but everyone (with the exception of the absolutely horrendous Frank Wood) had their bright spots. Standouts for me were Christian Borle and Robin Bartlett. Everyone else needs the rest of this preview process to work hardcore on their characters. But there are lots of moments where they shine. For example, Zoe Kazan's final monologue is breathtaking.

The set is an eyesore and is clunky to the point of distraction. The use of projection is more miss than hit. There are times when the projections are used to wonderful effect (the cityscapes and the passing traffic, for example) and times when it's just downright ugly (the fireballs at the beginning of the third act and the fire on the ladder). The show just doesn't work in the space.

All in all, I left feeling underwhelmed and upset that the first production I've ever seen of one of the greatest modern plays, a show that has literally changed lives, was so disappointing. Talked to a few others (who I did not know), who had seen the original, outside who agreed with my friend and I. Their biggest qualm was the lack of magic. I have to agree. For a play that so heavily proclaims itself as a fantasia to not have a single trace of fantasticalness is just a shame.

See this production later on in the run for the performances that will hopefully have bloomed by then, not for the merit of the production as a whole. It simply doesn't do this masterpiece justice in any respect.

Updated On: 9/24/10 at 02:17 AM

The running time of Perestroika last week was close to 3:40 including intermissions.

---