GlennCT

I'd have to say that nearly all of my straight friends (and many of my gay ones) were deeply unsettled by HBO's "Angels In America." Their gripes were that the sexual content was too deliberate, the AIDS symptoms too graphic. Heck, even a writer below even expresses their shock at witnessing an angel having an erotic experience with the living.

Big news to all y'all: it's all part of life, living and dying... or at least as one exceptionally talented writer sees it. And, like it or not, Tony Kushner's "gay fantasia on national themes" chucks it squarely in all of faces with a ferocity and tenacity that they just don't put in movies anymore.

Unpleasant? Yes, the film can be exceptionally unpleasant. Kushner has such a fire in his belly that you can nearly feel an empathetic burning in your chest as the film progresses. But there's also an immense passion and beauty to "Angels in America." For once, the filmmakers don't try to hold back the emotions of the piece, and don't allow some dipstick producer to dilute their visions for something more sellable. The result is a work of art... and that means that it's open to interpretation, and as likely to offend people as move them to tears. Fortunately, I was one of the latter.

Okay, there are some downsides to HBO's six-part adaptation of Kushner's plays "Millennium Approaches" and "Perestroika." First is that some of Kushner's artsy prose (far more like poetry than conversational language) can get a bit long in the tooth. It's understandable, actually... if I knew how to write so eloquently, I'd have a hell of time editing my own work too. A few of the scenes dragged a bit in all those layers of talk. And, call me escapist, but I could have dealt with a hair more humor... although the few, spare funny moments of the piece were scorchingly funny without being glib.

After that, well, I was just swept away by the beauty and starkness of "Angels in America." I guess I just understood the piece, and I could understand why some people wouldn't.

Kudos at every last one of the actors. Perennial scene-chewer Al Pacino kept the "Scent of a Woman"-style outbursts to a respectable minimum. Meryl Streep does her best work in years as a repressed Mormon mother, Ethel Rosenberg AND, especially, an aged rabbi. Jeffery Wright (he's straight? really??) is remarkable as hospital nurse Belize, and Mary-Louise Parker simply nails the role of Harper. Patrick Wilson? Awesome. Justin Kirk? Amazing. I could go on and on.

Someone who didn't "get" the movie entirely asked me what the moral of the story is. I think the best response to that comes from a proverb that's noted in the stageplay script on which the movie is based. It says, "In a murderous time, the heart breaks and breaks, and lives by breaking." It means that our weakest moments show our strongest character traits. It means that the world can be a sad, relentless, amazing place. It means that angels are extension of a heaven that is filled with as many contradictions as our own real world. It means that we live, we die... and we live again.

"Angels in America" IS disturbing. I'm so glad it is too. Maybe I'm of the minority, but I'm never disappointed by a film that tries to wake it's viewers up.

I've been searching and waiting patiently for the perfect gay film to come along. Something with a real plot and real characters. Something that doesn't pander to the straight audience, but doesn't play exclusively to gays. Something with bite AND a heart. Julie Davis' `All Over the Guy' comes close. so close. And then tanks.

The story in brief: while shopping in a furniture store, Jackie (Sasha Alexander) meets furniture designer/salesman Brett (Adam Goldberg). The sparks are instant. After realizing that they both have a gay male best friend, they decide to fix the two of them up. The first date of Eli (Dan Bucatinsky) and Tom (Richard Ruccolo) goes down in flames, but on a second meeting something ignites. But Tom's alcohol fueled insecurities and Eli's need for order makes their ensuing relationship rocky. Essentially, they just can't seem to get it together. Will true love prevail?

Look, I really, REALLY wanted to love this film. In the end, I liked it a lot, but it missed that being-a-classic benchmark by a good distance. Here's why:

There aren't many films with opinions are widely and clearly polarized as those regarding `All Over the Guy.' That's a nice way of saying you either loved it or hated it. Me, I can understand both points of view. if you aren't into snappy, overly-glib, `Friends'-like dialogue you are going to definitely hate this film. I happen to love that sort of stuff. Okay, call me shallow, but the movie made me laugh out loud on several occasions. (Example. BRETT: `Be there or be square.' ELI: `I hate that expression. Even when I'm there, I'm square, so where's the incentive?') Overall, I thought the dialogue was sharp, and the juxtaposition of a gay relationship against a straight one was handled nicely.

I also really liked the acting in this film. All of the supporting characters do a nice job bringing in a level of quirkiness to their small parts (I mean, c'mon. how funny was Andrea Martin as Eli's analysis-obsessed mom?), and the four leads handle what they're given with tenacity and appeal.

Likewise, the first three-quarters of this film are structured well and interesting. I hate to say it, but it really drew me in. The non-linear storyline doesn't feel choppy or forced. So what went wrong? Why does that final quarter of the film take such an incredible nosedive?

The primary blame has to be placed on the character of Tom. As much as the filmmakers try to make this Eli's story, the crux of the action centers around Tom's behavior when faced with a potentially fulfilling relationship. We're asked to believe that Tom is a nasty drunk, and his addiction is why he endlessly treats poor Eli like a yo-yo. And although we never really see Tom even remotely plastered, we can see that he's overflowing with anger and bile.

What the script doesn't do is completely justify Tom's wild swings from wanting to be near Eli to harshly and nastily (really nastily) pushing him away. And it all reflects poorly on the character of Eli, who never truly tells Tom to get lost. I wanted so badly for someone to just level this jerk. when it does sort-of happen at the film's climax, Tom's reaction is to DEFEND himself. What is all this saying? `Oh, poor damaged me. my lousy upbringing gives me the right to treat others like ca-ca.' Sorry, I don't buy it.

Similarly, I don't buy Tom's seemingly happy-go-lucky decision to end up at AA. The fact that alcoholism is simply wrecking his life is woefully unexplored. Most of all, that angle of the story completely lacks any grit and bite. Alcoholism is ugly. It's a disease that can kill, just like AIDS or cancer or any other unpleasant illness. Here, it's handled like a plot device, giving it sufferers a reason to be verbally cruel, and nothing else.

Please note that I can't blame Richard Ruccolo for any of his character's failings. He does an amazing job with what the script gives him. He plays his winning smile and boyish good looks to the best of their ability. Likewise, his control onscreen is superb. he's one of the rare breed of actors who can flash a single facial expression and it says pages worth of words. (Just imagine Keanu Reeves in the part and you'll see the complete opposite of what I'm talking about.)

Nonetheless, I was exhausted with the on-again-off-again nature of Tom and Eli's relationship by the end of this film. And as much as Tom has something of an excuse for his yo-yo-like behavior, Eli doesn't have one for not just telling him to shove-off. We're asked to believe that it's because he sees something greater in Tom, but by the final quarter of the film it looks more like Eli hasn't an ounce of self-respect. The ending seems entirely forced; any two everyday gay men in Los Angeles would have called it quits long, long before these two.

It's too bad, because there was so much in this movie that I really enjoyed. I'd love to see this group try again with something meatier. How about this: explore the alcoholism angle with depth and sincerity by adapting Augusten Burrough's hilarious, self-deprecating book `Dry' into a film? And please cast Rich Ruccolo in the lead!

With so much gay hub-bub in the news lately, I couldn't help but think back to some of the first bits of gay-oriented entertainment that were considered landmark for their time... "Making Love," "An Early Frost," even "Boys in the Band." I recall how stunning and important "The Truth About Alex" was back in 1986; this was an afterschool special about a teen being gay, for goodness sake. Or was it? The story here was really about Scott Baio's character, whose best friend is the one doing the actual coming out. And, if you look at it now, the script of this piece handles that process really, really poorly. Every time poor Alex, our gay character, touches on anything to do with the gay world, it turns out to be a miserable, stereotypical experience... a trucker hits on the kid in a public bathroom; nearly the entir worlds rejects him once he comes out; and, worst of all, his trip to a decent enough gay pub prompts an INTERVENTION (!!!) by his so-called caring friends. For cryin' out loud... the kid was just having a beer and making some new gay friends. Leave him be. The producers definitely had their hearts in the right place back in '86, but couldn't they have gotten somebody gay to write the script? Look at this show today and it doesn't come across as gay-positive at all.