Anjos na América

There are films that are so good, so good, that are almost a miracle. That's the case of this extraordinary miniseries, "Angels in America", which proves that TV-movies don't have to be inferior, technically or artistically, to any other big production. It was good that Tony Kushner's adaptation of his Pulitzer-winning stage play was turned into a 6-hour miniseries, otherwise much of it would've been lost in a 2 and half hour movie.

"Angels in America" is a stunning epic about the AIDS crisis in 1985, around a group of people haunted by the disease. Kushner even included a real character, the hateful right-wing fixer Roy Cohn (Al Pacino - Cohn was also played by James Woods in another acclaimed TV-movie, "Citizen Cohn", in 1992). The 6 hours are always interesting, often sad, sometimes funny, never depressing. The ensemble cast is just wonderful and I couldn't pick one favourite - Justin Kirk (the real lead and the one who, sadly, got less awards, what's a shame by the way), Mary-Louise Parker, Meryl Streep, Pacino, Emma Thompson, Jeffrey Wright, Patrick Wilson, Ben Shenkman and James Cromwell. "Angels in America" is one unforgettable cinematic experience, everything that a film should be - films don't get better than this. It's hard to point out the "guilty", but let's give special credit to the veteran Mike Nichols ("Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", "The Graduate"), who made another modern masterpiece the following year: "Closer", based on a Patrick Marber's play. Since his debut in "Virginia Woolf", Nichols proved he could turn a play into a great film like no other. "Angels in America" is one of his finest works. Unmissable. 10 out of 10.

"This disease will be the end of many of us, but not nearly all. And the dead will be commemorated, and we'll struggle on with the living, and we are not going away. We won't die secret deaths anymore. The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come".

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.

Set in 1980s New York and subtitled "A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," the six-hour ANGELS IN America concerns a group of largely gay men who find themselves caught up in series of disasters that range from love to religion and from politics to philosophy--and most specifically caught between the rising tide of AIDS and a generally unsympathetic society.

In the midst of this, AIDS patient Prior Walter begins to have a series of visions, which may be fever dreams, medicine-induced hallucinations... or, most unnerving of all, real. His long dead ancestors rise to speak to him, the floor cracks open to reveal a burning book--and at the conclusion of the play's first half a beautiful woman with majestic wings crashes through his roof. She is the Angel of America. He is, she tells him, a prophet, and she has come to bring him a message for mankind.

Intertwined with Prior's other-earthly experiences are oddly parallel lives. Joe and Harper Pitt are a deeply dysfunctional couple doubting their faith in the Mormon Church, Joe a closeted homosexual, Harper a Valium-addicted and mildly psychotic woman given to visions as strange as those of Prior Walter's. And as further counterpoint historical figure Roy Cohn (1927-1986), among the most sinister figures of 20th Century America, finds himself taunted by the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg as he drifts toward his own AIDS-induced death. The characters swirl in and out of each other's lives and dreams, playing to stereotypes and yet defying them, arguing politics and philosophy and love and death--and it is fascinating stuff.

Although the play stunned 1990s audiences, most considered it utterly unfilmable due to both length and content. But this HBO-produced, Mike Nichols-directed version not only captures the power of the original, in some ways it improves upon it. Playwright Tony Kushner has adapted his work to the screen, rearranging certain problematic scenes and bits of dialogue to better effect, and certainly no one could argue with the cast, which is absolutely stunning in a series of multiple roles.

With a mad swirl of irony, intense drama, outrageous humor, and unexpected twists and turns, ANGELS IN America is almost sure to hold your attention--particularly if you recall the Ronald Reagan years well enough to recognize the truly bitter allegory the film offers on what many consider his largely absentee second term. Truly a must have, multi-layered, bearing repeated viewings, beautifully directed, performed, and filmed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Simply the best piece of American Cinema/Television I have ever seen!! Superb acting by the entire cast, fantastic and clever script, magnificently filmed, a pure joy from start to finish.

I am amazed how well such an excellent stage presentation has translated to film. This will become a classic. All of the awards that it has received are fully deserved.

It has captured the essence of what being gay was in the 80's with all its fears, problems and excitements. But it is more than just a gay document, it speaks of life generally in the 80's, of everyones fears and hopes in such an affluent time. The depiction so real (even in the surreal sequences) so insightful of that period.

Totally remarkable.