Angeli in America

It was only a few months ago that I read the plays of "Angels in America". I was amazed that something so massive could be captured on the stage, but even more so to think that it could ever be caught on film.

Mike Nichols is one of my favorite directors and made one of my favorite films ever ("Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"). With one of the greatest casts ever assembled, he has done justice to what is one of the greatest pieces of drama ever written.

Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jeffrey Wright, Justin Kirk, Ben Shenkman, and Patrick Wilson are the ensemble cast that tower along side ensembles like those of "Nashville" or "Short Cuts". Each and every one is brilliant, though Streep and Pacino both prove that with age they have become better than ever.

This is more than some made for TV movie. This is the movie of the year.

The second part of "Angels in America" shows tonight. I am confident that there is no reason to wait to post my comments because I'm certain it will be just as incredible.

The Emmys of 2003-2004 will have a theme: "Angels in America".

There was a statement that was going through my head while watching "Angels in America": I know what art is when I see it. Just like art, this ambitious miniseries dares the viewer to have an opinion on the various subjects brought up by screenwriter/playwright Tony Kuchner.

I saw the miniseries one chapter at a time, which may or may not have been a good idea to get the full impact of the point. At least it did motivate me to read both of Kuchner's "Angels" plays.

I found it to be both a frustrating and challenging miniseries. There were the great performances by Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Justin Kirk, and Jeffrey Wright and the good performances by Emma Thompson, Mary-Louise Parker, Patrick Wright and, in a small role, James Cromwell.

I find it rather humorous that some people thought Al Pacino was miscast as Roy Cohn. Though this is Kuchner's fictional view of Cohn and having seen the real Roy Cohn in television interviews, I though Pacino was not too far from the essence of who Cohn was: an ambitious but very bitter gay man in denial who helped his notable clients but was always out for himself. Cohn was rabid dog without a leash. This was Pacino's first television role and I though he did a great job. (Correction: Pacino's only television acting role prior to "Angels in America" and not including the edited version of "The Godfather Saga" was the short-lived but critically-acclaimed ABC drama "N.Y.P.D." (1967-69).

I did have a few problems with the mini-series. The role played by Ben Shenkman (Louis) was incredibly annoying. I heard that role is Tony Kuchner's alter ego. Louis redeems himself at the end but I found him to be a whiny, cowardly man who had difficulty counting his blessings. I loved it when after Louis' typically long diatribes, Belize (Jeffrey Wright) verbally put him down with a just a few words.

In both plays, many of the actors played multiple roles. It seems more of a gimmick on the small screen, though I think Streep and Wright fared best.

The always dependable Thomas Newman has fashioned a haunting musical score. It was minimalistic and very memorable. The theme has been on my mind ever since I first heard the theme when the miniseries won various awards at the Golden Globes. (Update: The miniseries received 21 Emmy nominations and won a record (for miniseries) 11 Emmys. For some mysterious reason, Newman's brilliant score was overlooked.)

I don't see this play adapted for the big screen without chopping a lot of things out. Congratulations to Mike Nichols and the cast and crew for taking a chance adapting "Angels in America" to television.

I am by far the youngest to submit a comment about "Angels in America" and I must say that all the negative comments are ridiculous. I have never been so moved by a film since I watched "David and Lisa." The acting was superb and the script was beyond beautiful. I can not for the LIFE of me understand why people would be offended by the film. With all the homosexuality aside, the direction, cinematography, and writing has been the best that I have seen to EVER come out of HBO let alone a Miniseries. Why can't any of you who hated the movie so much step back and appreciate it for what it really is, a great piece of art.

"Angels in America" was inspiring, touching, and beautiful and I wish they made it longer!

I saw a pre-screening of this and was trying to keep low expectations, due to all the surrounding hype. But it certainly lived up to all the acclaim, the expectations from such high-caliber actors, and the myriad of awards (Tony's, Pulitzer, etc.) that the play received.

HBO has once again backed/produced a breakthrough piece of entertainment, on the same level (and maybe above) The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Wit, et. al. But it would be nice for the public to able to see this on the big screen, as it has such grandeur at times.

I won't go into too much detail of the plot as it's still being aired, but do yourself a favor and check it out. And contrary to some reviews, it is still relevant. Not because things are still the same now as they were in 1985 in regards to politics and AIDS and homophobia (although in some ways they are), but because humans still still struggle with relationships, pain, disease, death, religion and hope. It would be like saying "Schindler's List" isn't relevant today because the Holocaust is over and Hitler is dead.

Take the time to view this one of the several times HBO runs it. Give yourself time to watch it distraction-free and enjoy!

It seems to me that to be able to experience the full depth of this production, you need to meet a few requirements. First, you need to know that this is a PLAY. Like in any play, texts are delivered that you will not easily hear in everyday life (nobody makes up 'Antebellum Insufficiently Developed Sexorgans' as an alternative interpretation of AIDS during a split second in mid-conversation). Shakespeare isn't realistic in that way, Oscar Wilde isn't, Ibsen isn't, and nor is Tony Kushner. All of them are however extremely realistic in that they highlight essential aspects of the human condition in ways no other medium can achieve. Second, you need an ability to look beyond the surface. Reading reviews of AinA I'm stunned at how simplistically literal some people take it (maybe that explains why you've got Bush for president over there?). This play isn't about gays, it isn't about AIDS, it isn't about Jews and it isn't about Mormons. Its theme is the necessity for people to change, the scariness of change, while most of us would prefer to just let things stay as they are. That's what Louis Ironson wants and makes him run away from his sick lover (consider that: the superficially leftist intellectual is in fact a thorough conservative, more so than the apparently conservative Joe Pitt). That's what the angels want: unchangeable status quo; all the human history making tempted their god to leave heaven, and they want him back. This is the crux of AinA's undeniable political agenda: it sets out to show how conservatism of necessity thwarts and corrupts human nature. Oh yes, that's a third requirement: you really shouldn't belong to that curious group of people who consider the bible a god-given record of factual happenings rather than a piece of ancient mythology: you are likely to be shocked. Kushner's fantasies on biblical themes are very original indeed, and fit into a long tradition of reinterpreting ancient mythology in contemporary contexts. The church could learn a thing or two from him.

Personally, I was very deeply moved by the experience of watching this (as I was by the play nearly ten years ago). I'm sure that, unlike some people seem to think, you don't need to be like the gay men portrayed in AinA to be able to stand it, let alone like it (a ridiculous notion anyway: as a gay man I constantly watch movies about heterosexuals, and am often touched by them). I'm a Dutchman, I know New York only from a few brief visits, and though I'm gay my lifestyle has very little in common with that of the men in AinA; none of that prevented me from being deeply engrossed in this story. Its themes, as said, are universal (if you doubt that this play is essentially about YOU, the closing scene ought to convince you otherwise; if that scene makes you cringe, as I saw somebody complain, you've not really been watching). Its texts are wonderfully written, unafraid of pathos, farce and intellectualism alike, and fiercely direct in their expression. The acting of the whole cast is formidable. Pacino may be redoing previous roles (Devil's Advocate sprang to mind), but boy, does this Roy Cohn have clout, and in the end, how peculiarly difficult it is to really hate him… Patrick Wilson is the perfect pretty boy with a dark secret, and knows how to bring his torment across. Marie-Louise Parker at times has you wondering if she's really been taking pills (and I mean that as a compliment). There simply can't be another Louis than Ben Shenkman (that role was seriously miscast in the Dutch theater production I saw in '95), and Justin Kirk plays his taxing role with utter conviction. Jeffrey Wright goes all out on his ex-drag-queen-with-an-attitude character, and yet succeeds to remain believable as a person. Streep and Thompson are no less great, but I really feel the laurels in the end belong with Parker, Shenkman, Kirk and Wilson. To top it all off, the imagery is beautiful and full of fantasy, without going overboard on bloodless digital effects (it is still a play, remember). The atmosphere is often subtly and hauntingly unreal. And Thomas Newman's score – well, like any truly good music, words cannot do it justice.