"...the most powerful screen adaptation of a major American play since ... 'Streetcar Named Desire'..."

I agree, a particularly powerful Rich piece. The timing of Angels on the heels of the Reagan miniseries cancellation has a delicious irony. OT: I was especially fascinated with Rich reporting on the ire raised among the Reagan kids, when two of them made mega bucks writing Mommie/Daddy Dearest tomes. Now they've had rapprochement with the ailing family, and don't want anyone ELSE to say a negative word -- after they were paid handsomely for their nasty reports. Patti, in particular, is a huge hypocrite. If the networks had considered buying her lurid book for TV, she would've entered a bidding war as fast as she stripped for Playboy. Talking about extending your 15 minutes...

As for this potentially mesmerizing version of "Angels," in the words of our current prez, Bring it on.

---

Updated On: 11/17/03 at 08:54 PM

I personally agree with Musicman. I remember the hiatus between part one and part two. I was stunned by the first half. 6 months later ... when I went back for part 2, I thought it was bloated and repetitive, and -- big subj -- as a playwright, he turned on his own character, poor Joe Pitt. He judged him without finding a satisfying ending for his story, IMO. (People may disagree -- maybe we should wait and see how it works in the mini?) Yes, there are harrowing parts in part two -- the death of Roy, etc. -- but there was way too much of that loquacious angel, whose brief appearance was enthralling in part one (it's like the ALIEN movies -- once you've seen the Alien, all you can do ... is see it again. None of the Angel's babbling/Peter Pan wire effects compared to her simple, eloquent curtain line at the end of one). Less is sometimes more. But then, Mike Nichols is savvy, so perhaps the reshaping for the camera has resulted in trims. I expect floodgates to open, outrage from fans who love the 2nd half.

---

Updated On: 11/17/03 at 09:17 PM

You have to forgive FindingNamo, Auggie, he/she consistently forgets to take his/her medication. Just ignore him/her.

Never saw the original on Broadway ( along with many shows I did not see ) so it will be an experience but will not be able to compare it to the original. The promos make it look good so we shall see.

---

Namo: You're making me want to look at the entire piece with new (older, to be sure) eyes. I guess I felt Joe was so empathetic in part one, we were on his journey, too, as he entered Cohn's world, etc. He was so bewildered -- in some ways an innocent of sorts -- I truly cared about him, I must admit. I thought we'd at least see him more tragically. It felt like he was dealt a kind of slap by Kushner. Maybe he wanted Joe to be a living/breathing cautionary tale. I do need to see it again, as noted. But you're right -- Harper has a fascinating place to end up. That speech where she's flying (yikes, from memory! Maybe I'm wrong). And Marcia Gay Harden was brilliant.

The bottom line for me was/is the overall scathing portrait of the times, of the critical look at the decade. A shallow decade that had too little analysis. I remember feeling the same way about Kramer's NORMAL HEART, when he dared to take on the current mayor of NY. The Rich piece really excited me about the political ramifications of mini -- but so has the trailer being shown in NY theaters. The play's biggest achievement -- the Roy Cohn character -- seems to be fully realized on screen via Pacino.

We should all have a very spirited debate here, after 12/7 and 12/14, when the HBO film is shown. Needless to say, I'll be taping this one. Isn't it amazing that it got made? (Kushner wanted Altman, but in a way, I think the Nichols NY sensibility better serves.)

---

Updated On: 11/17/03 at 09:52 PM

What I felt slowed down Part II were the scenes in the Mormon Welcome Center/Wax Museum. They seemed to slow down the show and not lead anywhere. That may be my not understanding their purpose, but I felt that Part II wasn't as interesting overall as Part I.

---

Not to mention Suddenly Last Summer. That was a watered down as the champagne at an 8th Avenue strip bar. Not that I'd know.

---

Does anyone know what this play is about? Is it a musical? Is it based on that Hailey Mills movie THE TROUBLE WITH ANGELS? I thought that took place in England, though, cuz they all talked pretty funny, like.

How can Rich say this is the best screen adaptation since STREETCAR? I mean did he not see CRIMES OF THE HEART and STEELE MAGNOLIAS?



Seriously, though, this is a very interesting article. I particularly appreciated the irony of Nancy Reagan asking for stem cell research because it might help Ronnie with his Alzheimer’s. Basically accusing the Bush Administration of wasting precious time when it could be saving lives. If it weren’t so sad it would be hysterical.

As for ANGELS IN AMERICA, the stage production was eight hours, if I recall, and the film version is only six. I suspect Kushner and Nichols have done some tweaking and condensing some of the more awkward portions of the original.

I for one cannot wait to see this and everyone of the “younger” posters on this board should go out of their way to see it, also.

Sueleen Gay

---

Like some previous posts, I thought Millenium Approaches was the most amazing play I had ever seen but in Perestroika, TK got a little too pedantic, too much sermonizing by all them angels, and I too was bothered by the fact the Joe Pitt was basically just left hanging. This was someone many in the audience had come to care about during the course of the two plays. In the play's coda, I'd like to have found out what Joe Pitt had been up to the past five years.

Namo, you may be right about the running time. I saw the tour twice and have read the script as many times. I still feel that in adapting a play there are short cuts one can take (showing the sunrise, as opposed to describing it)and I am sure they took care of some of the more awkward portions of the script.

As for Joe, I agree with you totally. It is Harper's journey that I was more interested in. Joe was a very sad and pathetic gay man. I think we all know what happens to him without having it be spelled out for us.

---

...whatever happened to his "Laura Bush" play , wherin the First Lady reads poetry to massacred Iraqi schoolchildren?
I'd love to see a staging of that.

---

I agree with you about Grant. I think that's what made his disappearance so wrenching the first time I saw the show. He was absolutely great. But I think character-wise, the ambiguousness of his outcome make sense for such an ambiguous/cowardly man.

And I also agree with you Sueleen that I expect all sorts of things to be different in the movie, but with the incredible essence remaining.

---