Angels In America

Started by Ghostboy, December 08, 2003, 01:42:29 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ghostboy

Did anyone else watch this? I've been anticipating it for a while, and if you missed it, I'd definitely suggest catching the reruns later this week.

My full thoughts, copied and pasted from my blog:

I tuned into HBO for the first time in my life this evening (not that I have anything against HBO, I've just never subscribed to cable TV) to watch part 1 of Mike Nichols' adaptation of Tony Kushner's 'Angels In America.' I've never seen the stage version. I think I was about 12 or 13 when the second part,'Perestroika,' premiered in NY and I remember reading a big cover story about it in the Arts section of the newspaper. I didn't understand everything that it was about, but it seemed so grand and important, and the image of the angel hovering over the man's bed that accompanied the article impressed upon me heavily, and I remember thinking that I wanted to make something like that, something huge like that. It premiered in Dallas a few years later (where it was met with picketers, although I honestly can't imagine that happening now), but I never saw it.

The movie is good, often great, but you can feel the schism between the theater and cinema while watching it. Having eight actors play every role on stage must have been exciting, but the same trick is unnecessary on film for the most part. Much of the dialogue has been transposed nicely, but some of it still seems designed for actors speaking to an audience; it's great dialogue, no doubt, but it feels out of place. The special effects get in the way, too; some of them are too CG-reliant, others too physical. I think most of the sixty million dollar budget must have gone towards the cast (all of whom are 100% perfect), Pacino and Streep in particular, because the production values aren't as exemplary as I would have expected. There's a good late-90s Salon.com interview with Kushner in which he talks about the dangers of putting a play on the screen, and aslo talks about the Robert Altman version that was in development for a while: "Robert Altman is not going to be directing it. He thinks that it needs $40 million, and that we're never going to raise that, and so it's a mistake to try and make it."

But even though I don't think the film completely deserves all the plaudits it's been receiving, it's still very good, and it makes me yearn to see it in the theater, where the impact of many scenes must be shattering, if Kushner's screenplay is any indication. The politics of the piece are fascinating to me; I have vague memories of the eighties, having been alive but politically and socially ignorant for their duration. I do recall the Bush-Dukakis debates, or at least the five minutes I had the patience for then, but like so many of my generation, I didn't really care about politics until the year 2000. I've been playing catch-up ever since.

Finn

I hadn't really wanted to see this, but I don't have HBO.
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

Pedro

MY parents were watching it and loving it.  I came in during what seemed to be a really powerful scene, and important too, so I walked away, but the preformances seemed extroardinary.  Ill be catching reruns.

Gold Trumpet

I'm buying a blank VHS tape today to tape the rerun of part 1 and part 2. I am very excited and hopeful for this one.

NEON MERCURY

i ain't got cable...just imagination....and an extensive dvd collectioon......

Pedro

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm buying a blank VHS tape today to tape the rerun of part 1 and part 2. I am very excited and hopeful for this one.
honestly, i can say, i don't think you'll like it.

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm buying a blank VHS tape today to tape the rerun of part 1 and part 2. I am very excited and hopeful for this one.
honestly, i can say, i don't think you'll like it.

Really? Huh...I wanna give it a shot. Emma Thompson is mainly what I wanted to see in this movie anyways. Pacino, too.

RegularKarate

I watched the first part tonight...

It was good...
You could really tell that it was originally a play though... I really get bugged by that for some reason.

Also, I'm sick of people quoting Shakespear... especially when they say which play it came from afterward.

MacGuffin

After winning just about every Emmy Award imaginable, HBO Home Video will release the instant classic Angels in America on June 5th. Directed by Mike Nichols and starring a powerhouse cast led by Al Pacino, Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson, this two disc set includes both parts of the epic miniseries, "Millennium Approaches" and "Perestroika," in six chapters, presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital. Given the lengthy 352-minute runtime, apparently there is no time for extras, and retail will be $39.95.

"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Ghostboy

I finally saw the second half of it the night before last, cementing my belief that it is a great piece of writing with slightly unsatisfactory direction. My main complaint is with the (admittedly infrequent) special effects, which were largely below HBO's standards. Nichols can be a great director, but I wish someone else had handled this. But that aside, the second half is greater than the first, and the performances are just...well, divine. The farewell speech that occurs at the denoument is the one moment where I felt that the movie accomplished something that the play could not...it was truly beautiful.

modage

i agree with everyone else here.  good, but seemed like it would've been a better play and for some reason (besides length) you could tell it was a tv movie.  (despite the level of acting talent involved).  however, the fact that everyone outside of the frustrated wife was homosexual in the first half was sort of annoying.  until they made meryl streeps mormon sympathetic in the second half it was a little too biased.  especially the way they seemed to demonize the closet mormon character even though he didnt seem to do anything worse than louis his character didnt even get a resolution.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.