Recently Seen: Angels in America
It took two years to get here, but finally HBO Asia has televised Angels In America. This is the long awaited and long-in-making screen adaptation of Tony Kushner's Tony Award winning plays - Angels in America: Millenium Approaches and Angels in America: Perestroika.
I saw all five hours plus within one day and was rather overwhelmed and initially, a little intimidated. This is fiercely erudite writing, a piece of work that wears its intelligence on its sleeves. Kushner was concerned with big themes and important ideas. As a viewer, one is challenged to look beneath what is said to discern what is meant.
The plays deal with gritty reality using the language of the theatre. It is ostensibly about AIDS and homosexuality in America in the 1980s. But Kushner was also exploring larger ideas of a world (and a Heaven) which has been abandoned by God, and our resilience in surviving this abandonment. There is an actual Heaven in Angels in America, and actual angels, as conceived by Kushner. The flights of fantasy (or at least what is fantasy to us, but is supposed to be as good as reality in the world of the plays) are plentiful and frequent.
I think Angels in America is a brilliant piece of work and a masterpiece of late 20th century American theatre. I also think it is probably a work that is best seen on stage. Because it is concerned with such large themes, it sacrifices nuanced characterisation for concepts, metaphors and symbolism. Characters in the play represent ideas, rather than being individual personalities. On television, this sort of stylisation is not 100% successful.
This TV version, directed by Mike Nichols, is as bold and audacious as Kushner's plays. It is a significant achievement and compulsively watchable, fully deserving of its multiple Golden Globe and Emmy Awards. But the medium of television focuses our attention differently and we find ourselves sympathising with the characters as people, rather than what they represent. It is here that I think Kushner's personal biases were revealed and this weakens Angels in America as a story about people and personal growth (of course, it could be said that Kushner was not telling that story, but these plays are about America; and what makes America what it is, if not its people?)
This review in the New York Review of Books says it better, more eloquently and more coherently than I ever could.
I can only say this. I found myself not reacting to the characters the way I think Kushner wanted me to.
The characters I find myself most interested in are Pryor, Joe and Roy Conn. Pryor is probably the central character in Angels in America, notwithstanding top billing going to the Roy Conn character. The writing makes sure that Pryor is always sympathetic; reminding us every so often of how he is coping with AIDS. We are obviously supposed to like Pryor and he gets a happy ending of sorts. I am glad that Pryor got his happy ending and I like Pryor as a character for his complexity and his genuine pathos. But Pryor the person was not always likeable and after the burden of prophetdom, has a creepy edge. I sensed I am supposed to like him, I don't actually like him, but I want him to be well.
Joe is a rather different prospect. Poor closeted Joe is left with no closure at all and in pretty bad shape when we last see him. Kushner does not mean for us to like Joe; he is closeted, he is repressed, he voted for Reagan and he likes Roy Conn. We are pointedly directed to blame Joe for the breakdown in his relationship with his wife Harper. And yet, in this TV version, I find Harper severely unsympathetic, whiny and unreasonable. Joe, despite his many flaws, is almost admirable in his struggle to reconcile his conservative value systems with the truth of his sexuality.
Roy Conn is of course the representative of all things evil in the Angels in America world. He says outrageous, terrible, insensitive things. He is a bigot, a homophone, a racist, a hypocrite, a liar and pretty much a murderer. For all that, I find Roy entertaining rather than evil. Ultimately, his character is just very, very sad. His death is not a comeuppance to me, but a tragedy of a life gone badly wrong.
How much of this is in the acting?
Jefferey Wright played Pryor on Broadway and interprets the role with care. He knows better than to portray Pryor as a martyr (and the writing would have easily allowed for this). Because he chooses this difficult and more honest route, I find myself becoming less irritated with Kushner's manipulation of his characters, and able to care for Pryor as a very real person.
Patrick Wilson (unrecognisable from his Raoul in the Phantom of the Opera) plays Joe with heartbreaking honesty and vulnerability. In this role, his face has a clear-eyed purity and innocence that contrasts so startlingly with his internal demons; the struggle within him is palpable every time we see him on screen. Mary Louise Parker, on the other hand, is somewhat mannered and makes Harper annoying rather than a tragic figure. When she is stoned on valium, she is manic in a way that reminds me of a whiny teenager having her period. We are supposed to sympathise with Harper when Joe leaves, and to blame him for his heartless abandonment. The way these roles are played, Joe's leaving seems an act of courage while Harper's reaction is that of an ungrateful and self-centred brat.
Al Pacino is Roy Conn. But of course, Al Pacino is always also Al Pacino. He does a remarkable job in this role, almost entirely escaping hamminess. I have learnt to forgive hamminess in Al Pacino because he has such an incredible ability to tailor a role to his own persona and strengths as an actor. As he spits out Roy Conn's vitriol, I get a sense of a man who says outrageous things partly for the effect of it. This reading makes Roy Conn seem more human, and I have no doubt that he must have been at least somewhat less of a beast than some writers would have us think. Roy Conn was no doubt a nasty piece of work, but Al Pacino plays him as more than just a caricature of evil.
In other roles, Meryl Streep is her usual terrific self as Joe's mother. Emma Thomson (whom I have said before is one of my favourite people in the world whom I don't actually know) is unfortunately miscast as Pryor's Italian nurse, and somewhat better cast as the Angel. As a classically trained actress, she pulls off the Angel's bombast and verbosity with aplomb, but the special effects rendered these scenes somewhat comical, rather than terrifying. Justin Kirk plays Louis, Pryor's lover who leaves after learning about Pryor having AIDS. Kirk makes Louis a lot more likeable than we are supposed to think, because he conveys such a genuine sense of self loathing even while Louis is being a complete bastard.
On the whole, this is a superlative production of a massive work. Mike Nichols has drawn wonderful performances from his cast and structured the movie (or mini-series or whatever) meticulously, playing up the advantages of the TV medium in choosing effects and locations. The issues, though, seem somewhat dated in light of what has happened in the world since the 1980s.
I saw all five hours plus within one day and was rather overwhelmed and initially, a little intimidated. This is fiercely erudite writing, a piece of work that wears its intelligence on its sleeves. Kushner was concerned with big themes and important ideas. As a viewer, one is challenged to look beneath what is said to discern what is meant.
The plays deal with gritty reality using the language of the theatre. It is ostensibly about AIDS and homosexuality in America in the 1980s. But Kushner was also exploring larger ideas of a world (and a Heaven) which has been abandoned by God, and our resilience in surviving this abandonment. There is an actual Heaven in Angels in America, and actual angels, as conceived by Kushner. The flights of fantasy (or at least what is fantasy to us, but is supposed to be as good as reality in the world of the plays) are plentiful and frequent.
I think Angels in America is a brilliant piece of work and a masterpiece of late 20th century American theatre. I also think it is probably a work that is best seen on stage. Because it is concerned with such large themes, it sacrifices nuanced characterisation for concepts, metaphors and symbolism. Characters in the play represent ideas, rather than being individual personalities. On television, this sort of stylisation is not 100% successful.
This TV version, directed by Mike Nichols, is as bold and audacious as Kushner's plays. It is a significant achievement and compulsively watchable, fully deserving of its multiple Golden Globe and Emmy Awards. But the medium of television focuses our attention differently and we find ourselves sympathising with the characters as people, rather than what they represent. It is here that I think Kushner's personal biases were revealed and this weakens Angels in America as a story about people and personal growth (of course, it could be said that Kushner was not telling that story, but these plays are about America; and what makes America what it is, if not its people?)
This review in the New York Review of Books says it better, more eloquently and more coherently than I ever could.
I can only say this. I found myself not reacting to the characters the way I think Kushner wanted me to.
The characters I find myself most interested in are Pryor, Joe and Roy Conn. Pryor is probably the central character in Angels in America, notwithstanding top billing going to the Roy Conn character. The writing makes sure that Pryor is always sympathetic; reminding us every so often of how he is coping with AIDS. We are obviously supposed to like Pryor and he gets a happy ending of sorts. I am glad that Pryor got his happy ending and I like Pryor as a character for his complexity and his genuine pathos. But Pryor the person was not always likeable and after the burden of prophetdom, has a creepy edge. I sensed I am supposed to like him, I don't actually like him, but I want him to be well.
Joe is a rather different prospect. Poor closeted Joe is left with no closure at all and in pretty bad shape when we last see him. Kushner does not mean for us to like Joe; he is closeted, he is repressed, he voted for Reagan and he likes Roy Conn. We are pointedly directed to blame Joe for the breakdown in his relationship with his wife Harper. And yet, in this TV version, I find Harper severely unsympathetic, whiny and unreasonable. Joe, despite his many flaws, is almost admirable in his struggle to reconcile his conservative value systems with the truth of his sexuality.
Roy Conn is of course the representative of all things evil in the Angels in America world. He says outrageous, terrible, insensitive things. He is a bigot, a homophone, a racist, a hypocrite, a liar and pretty much a murderer. For all that, I find Roy entertaining rather than evil. Ultimately, his character is just very, very sad. His death is not a comeuppance to me, but a tragedy of a life gone badly wrong.
How much of this is in the acting?
Jefferey Wright played Pryor on Broadway and interprets the role with care. He knows better than to portray Pryor as a martyr (and the writing would have easily allowed for this). Because he chooses this difficult and more honest route, I find myself becoming less irritated with Kushner's manipulation of his characters, and able to care for Pryor as a very real person.
Patrick Wilson (unrecognisable from his Raoul in the Phantom of the Opera) plays Joe with heartbreaking honesty and vulnerability. In this role, his face has a clear-eyed purity and innocence that contrasts so startlingly with his internal demons; the struggle within him is palpable every time we see him on screen. Mary Louise Parker, on the other hand, is somewhat mannered and makes Harper annoying rather than a tragic figure. When she is stoned on valium, she is manic in a way that reminds me of a whiny teenager having her period. We are supposed to sympathise with Harper when Joe leaves, and to blame him for his heartless abandonment. The way these roles are played, Joe's leaving seems an act of courage while Harper's reaction is that of an ungrateful and self-centred brat.
Al Pacino is Roy Conn. But of course, Al Pacino is always also Al Pacino. He does a remarkable job in this role, almost entirely escaping hamminess. I have learnt to forgive hamminess in Al Pacino because he has such an incredible ability to tailor a role to his own persona and strengths as an actor. As he spits out Roy Conn's vitriol, I get a sense of a man who says outrageous things partly for the effect of it. This reading makes Roy Conn seem more human, and I have no doubt that he must have been at least somewhat less of a beast than some writers would have us think. Roy Conn was no doubt a nasty piece of work, but Al Pacino plays him as more than just a caricature of evil.
In other roles, Meryl Streep is her usual terrific self as Joe's mother. Emma Thomson (whom I have said before is one of my favourite people in the world whom I don't actually know) is unfortunately miscast as Pryor's Italian nurse, and somewhat better cast as the Angel. As a classically trained actress, she pulls off the Angel's bombast and verbosity with aplomb, but the special effects rendered these scenes somewhat comical, rather than terrifying. Justin Kirk plays Louis, Pryor's lover who leaves after learning about Pryor having AIDS. Kirk makes Louis a lot more likeable than we are supposed to think, because he conveys such a genuine sense of self loathing even while Louis is being a complete bastard.
On the whole, this is a superlative production of a massive work. Mike Nichols has drawn wonderful performances from his cast and structured the movie (or mini-series or whatever) meticulously, playing up the advantages of the TV medium in choosing effects and locations. The issues, though, seem somewhat dated in light of what has happened in the world since the 1980s.
Labels: Movie Reviews
posted by gentleice the deptfordian at 2:02 AM
<< Home