National Theatre Live: Angels in America Part One - Millennium Approaches

Eight hours in a theatre (or in this case my two favourite cinemas; The Cameo in Edinburgh for Part 1 and The Hippodrome in Bo'ness for Part 2) is a daunting prospect, especially when the subject matter threatens to overwhelm you emotionally.

In fact it is a breeze because the writing of Tony Kushner and the direction of Marianne Elliot (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night) pepper this doomsday epic with both humour and beauty (in staging, lighting, sound and movement – it's a technical masterpiece throughout).

The acting is uniformly brilliant with Andrew Garfield in the lead role of AIDS sufferer Prior Walter. But the support he gets from Nathan Lane, in particular, is astounding. Core ensemble shout outs also have to go to the entire cast especially Denise Gough, James McArdle, Nathan Stewart-Jarrett and Russell Tovey.

Whilst, at times, you might want Garfield to slightly reign in the histrionics (and the fey gayness to be honest) you sit with bated breath waiting for Nathan Lane to go off on vitriolic outburst after hateful rant. He plays a corrupt, gay bashing (ironic) lawyer who has no limit to what he will do to save himself (he too had AIDS but says it's cancer, having spent his entire life in the closet, much to the disgust of most of the rest of the male gay cast). He is the highlight of the show.

Although ostensibly a 'gay fantasia' the background of story is built largely on a religious platform. The AIDS 'plague' has clear biblical connotations and the angels of the title are fantastical creations that are there to question morality, justice, belief and whether or not there is an afterlife.

The creation of the 'main' Angel played by six dancers/puppeteers and Amanda Lawrence as the angel itself is breathtakingly original and continuously mesmerising. She's magic.

I grew up during the 'AIDS Epidemic' and my home city of Edinburgh had to deal with an almost unique needle sharing problem, as well as the gay spread of the disease, (It's well captured in Trainspotting) so, that meant it was as much a heterosexual issue as a homosexual one in Edinburgh, Consequently, HIV/AIDS was very front of mind in this city. Another reason that the story strongly resonated with me.

Two of the central characters are Mormons and that particular creed comes in for some pretty hefty slagging although overall you sense that Kushner has deep religious beliefs or at least is hedging his bets on whether there is a God. The fact that both Louis and Nathan Lane's evil character are both Jews is also an important part of the storyline and leads to considerable debate about the morals of that belief, compared to Christianity.

Politics, too, feature heavily in the storyline with a clear leaning towards both Socialism and the Democrats that make Reagan (the then leader) an object of ridicule. Indeed Part Two is subtitled Perestroika with a certain reverence for it's chief architect Gorbachov in evidence.

One of the lead characters (a gay nurse, Belize) former lover of both Prior (Garfield) and Luois (McArdle) and an ex drag queen is black and proud of it. As he nurses Lane's character (Roy Cohn) this opens up another topic for Kushner to at times hilariously, at times terrifyingly, exploit; racism. The man is a pig and it's all that Belize can do to maintain his dignity and ethical professionalism to tolerate the monster that he tends. In fact a relationship develops that is, at times, surprisingly tolerant and even tender.

Meanwhile closet gay and Mormon, Joe Pitt (Tovey), married to Valium addicted Harper (the superb Denise Gough) is straying into an experimental homosexual exploration of his sexuality with Louis (former lover of both Belize and Prior) this has massive personal consequences. McArdle, in particular, plays a really strong supporting role and has the subtlety to play his part with conviction and sympathy. He's the 'tart with a heart' but can't deal with all the consequences of these tumultuous times for the world's gay population.

It's complicated. And that's why Kushner needs eight hours to unravel the labyrinthine plot and the fundamental BIG questions it tackles, but he does so with great skill and lightness of touch.

The National Theatre are to be applauded for reviving this monumental work. And it's to our great fortune that we can experience it (from essentially front row seats) in small movie theatres all over the world.

A production that has wowed audiences and critics alike, I expect to see it pick up many more London Theatre awards. If you get the chance to see it when NTLive does a reprise, kill for tickets.

Have always gotten so much pleasure out of going to see the National Theatre Live screenings at the cinema. There is a real sense of authenticity in the auditorium despite seeing it much more accessibly. They are also a great opportunity to see a lot of familiar plays, often favourites, with enormously talented casts, and they are an equally great opportunity to discover plays completely unfamiliar to one beforehand.

That was the case with both parts of 'Angels in America', the first part being 'Millenium Approaches' and the second 'Perestroika'. Just doing one part rather than both is a mammoth task by itself. Doing both parts, and with the same cast for continuity, is even more of a Herculean undertaking. Was not familiar with either 'Angels in America' part before seeing the screenings and am so glad about seeing them. Both parts are must sees as are the productions of both, an enormous amount had to be taken on and both did so brilliantly.

While 'Perestroika' is a touch more imaginative in scope and visuals perhaps, to me 'Millenium Approaches' is a little tighter in pace and more taut structurally despite being more talky in dialogue. They are equal in the performances and staging fronts though. Really appreciated that both parts make a difficult and sensitive subject accessible to anybody who wasn't born during the period depicted, or like me just missed it, and also make it remarkably relevant. It is a very serious and brave subject treated with respect and both productions managed to make something entertaining, moving and imaginative out of it without distaste coming through.

'Millenium Approaches' may not be as visually striking as 'Perestroika', but it manages to have the right amount of not going over the top that it becomes overblown or being so minimal it looks under-budgeted. The dialogue provokes a lot of thought and amuses, moves and intrigues. It is a long play but it never feels it, with the pace being tight without feeling have-a-train-to-catch rushed. The stage direction never falls into distaste or irrelevance and manages to make the storytelling and subject accessible while not trivialising, the emotional impact is felt.

All the performances are superb, with James McArdle, Denise Gough and Russell Tovy portraying their conflicted characters with heartfelt charisma, Gough in particular.

Two in particular stood out. Andrew Garfield as the most developed character of both parts brings the right amount of camp and anguish. Most surprising was Nathan Lane, absolutely chilling as Cohn and proving that he can do more than just comedy.

In conclusion, outstanding. 10/10

Angels in America is up there with the greatest works ever written for the theatre, but this NT production is seriously sub-standard in many respects. While the brilliance of Kushner's work shines through, this is nevertheless a limp, one-note, caricature-filled interpretation of his plays(s), unimaginatively designed, and directed, for the most part, like a middling sit-com. Andrew Garfield is mostly annoying as Prior Walter. He gives a performance that is fey and whiny beyond anything in the script, with too little of the strength and intelligence that is also there. He reduces the part to just another bitchy queen, seemingly more inspired by a camp Bette Davis impersonation than any real three-dimensional gay man. I also question why the director chose to depict three of the four main gay characters as flaming, sibilant, wrist-flapping sissies. Two of the four are wearing nail varnish throughout. Now, seriously, do two of every four gay men you know wear nail varnish? Do any of them? And does a gay man covered in lesions, shitting blood, dying of AIDS really take time to re-apply his nail varnish?! It's just one detail, but it's a telling one, in that it is typical of the way this production reduces characters to caricatures, rather than goes for complexity and nuance. The main saving grace of the production is Nathan Lane, who is appropriately chilling and revolting as Roy Cohn. His speech dismissing his AIDS diagnoses and denying that he's even gay, shows exactly where Donald Trump learned his "fake news" tirades (Cohn was Trump's lawyer and mentor). But Lane's star turn is not enough to make this a worthwhile interpretation of Angels. At the end of it all I just wanted to watch the HBO adaptation of the plays again, so that that superb version would wipe this one from my memory.

The screenplay and acting performances are just shocking. Not a single actor of the ensemble cast gives a bad acting. The line design and the line delivery are simply speechless. The play takes a comedic and fantastical approach to a very serious and deep subject, making itself rather accessible to the general audiences.

i usu don't rate stuff...i leave it to the rest of the commentators. unless i differ from the opinion stated and need to try and balance the scales...

i saw this in NY when it was first presented...i saw it in late '98 or '99. i wasn't particularly moved. i'm not homophobic. in fact, i was a nurse during the epidemic. in the Bay Area...Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, etc. i was working with aids patients when it didn't have a name. and the Filipino nurses refused to work with them(they were fired. you shouldn't be 'in this business(which isn't a 'business')' if you don't know what you signed up for. it just didn't seem to go anywhere...and ended before it began, it seemed to me. i didn't see pt 2. until the HBO production. which i wound up thinking was one of (emphasis)the best pieces of work i've ever been lucky to be exposed to...maybe Pacino's best performance. and that isn't 'saying a little', considering the breadth of the man's career. it (emphasis)was different than the play, though. easier to do in film 'format'...real sets, etc. and it made perfect(emphasis on the purr) sense to me. it also introduced me to Jeffrey wright, who i thought matched Pacino step for dramatic step. those two were burning up the stage with the scenes they did together, Pacino and wright... SO... when i got to this, was seated and a)found out it was a London production and that Nathan lane was playing the Pacino part...i have to say...i was skeptical...i KNOW lane's a great actor. i just thought they would be impossible(emphasis on the poss, which, for whatever reason/s the IMDb program took issue with as 'shouting'. i wish people knew the diff between shouting and emphasis. and this is a site that contains dramatic works by the thousands. how do you spell irony?) shoes to fill... but lane seemed to have no problem warming up to the role...the man's been around a long time...he shows how a great actor becomes the character...till you don't even notice the actor anymore... another recognizable face is Andrew(?) Garfield...another great performance. but, honestly. EVERYthing/body in this production really nailed their parts...some playing a few of the roles...Denise Gough...where DID she come from? i can't believe i haven't, somehow, noticed someone THIS good before...i guess, maybe, she does television? if you're at ALL on the fence as to whether to go see this? i don't know what to tell you to illustrate how much i understand about storytelling. so either trust me that when i say something is worthwhile, it is...or lose out on an extremely moving experience, if the material sounds at all interesting to you. i entered this last comment as a caveat to those offended by 'foul language'(not a bird to be seen! 4 hrs and not even a chicken dinner!) or homosexuality(plenty of those).