Counterpoint: Angels in America

Written by David Mazzotta
Published December 17, 2003

When I was a little boy I would occasionally get beat up by bullies on the playground. My response to this was to concoct revenge fantasies where the bullies got theirs and came to suffer and regret their actions. Tony Kushner's Angels in America is just such a revenge fantasy; except Kushner is, presumably, an adult.

Angels is about revenge for the AIDS epidemic, and since Kushner is clearly a man who subscribes to the belief that all existence is political, the revenge is demarked by ideology. The "good guys" in Angels — the sympathetic homosexuals — do not hesitate to speak in pretentious, vague, high-minded editorials on the evils of Reagan/Republicans/The Supreme Court/Conservatives/Gingrich/etc., all the standard-issue demons of the mid-eighties (the story is set in 1985). Every thought, every event, every soliloquy has either a political source or political implications or both. Amidst the backdrop of friends and loved ones with AIDS, they fall back on politics for explanation and understanding. Well, OK; annoying people have their place in drama too, but the characters never grow beyond their annoying shallowness. Why not have them transform over the course movie to understand the deeper personal implications of their lives and actions and the actions of others? Hell, the movie is six hours long, you've got plenty of time. And these people are visited by supernatural visions for Christ's sake. Are they so shallow that it does not change them? Turns out they are; they finish off in pretty much the same spot, fretting over the superficial political nature of their existence. That's not entirely true, they go from being depressed, defeated and shallow to cheery, determined and shallow. It's quite a journey.

The "bad guys" suffer horrible fates, and it is made clear to us that they damn well deserve it. The bullies on the playground here, apart from the generalized ideological enemies listed above, are two Republican homosexuals who don't toe the I'm-bravely-out-of-the-closet-and-therefore-I'm-oppressed line. One is Roy Cohn, the notorious lawyer from the Rosenberg trial and McCarthy hearings in the fifties. It may indeed be the case that he was an evil man in real life, but I strongly suspect there are people in this world that could and would make the argument that he did the country a service — such is the nature of politics, opinions differ. The Roy Cohn in Angels has no redeeming characteristics, has done nothing but hurt people out of mean-spiriteness, and most damning of all, he refuses to admit he's a homosexual. For that, he is haunted by his past and dies alone and disgraced.

page 1 | 2
David Mazzotta is author of the comic novels Apple Pie and Business as Usual.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Counterpoint: Angels in America
Published: December 17, 2003
Type:
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Performing Arts, Video: Drama, Video: Television
Writer: David Mazzotta
David Mazzotta's BC Writer page
David Mazzotta's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by David Mazzotta
Video: Performing Arts
Video: Drama
Video: Television
All Video Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — December 17, 2003 @ 16:00PM — Eric Olsen

David, great job. I have never seen the play and have not watched the movie so I have nothing directly to add of any merit.

But, I read with great interest the features on, and reviews of, the play when it came out. It sounded excruciating to me then and it does still now. I think you are absolutely right that the normalization of gays in America has allowed for diversification of political viewpoint that was not acceptable then.

Thank goodness.

Six hours of black and white of victimhood preaching - yum.

#2 — December 17, 2003 @ 17:32PM — Bill Sherman [URL]

As I read the play, the high-minded politicizing (which the character of Belize serves to frequently deflate - and which is jokingly parodied in the play's last half hour) is secondary to the question of whether the characters are being honest and responsible to the people around 'em.

I also think the characterizations are much more complex than Mark acknowledges. The play's most outspoken liberal, after all, is the one who abandons his lover once the lesions show. (He baits the closeted Mormon lawyer for his writing as much out of his own sense of self-loathing as anything - and is "rewarded" with a thrashing.) Even Roy Cohn, played as a Lear-ian monster, is allowed his moments of humanity - particularly in his hospital room relationship with Belize.

In short, I watched and enjoyed all six-plus hours of the play, finding it much more nuanced and entertaining than David does. It's more than just an exercise in "victimhood preaching."

#3 — December 17, 2003 @ 17:38PM — Eric Olsen

I enjoyed your review very much too, and found it convincing as well - this one just gets me off the hook from watching it.

#4 — February 8, 2004 @ 09:39AM — Kaich

http://www.livejournal.com/users/k_hatton/#item25470

#5 — February 8, 2004 @ 09:50AM — Kaich [URL]

Maybe the link will work now - THANK YOU DAVID!

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11051)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments