Miriam Gillinson
posted 17 July 2007

Tony Kushner’s epic, ambitious 1990s play is talked about in almost reverential terms these days, whilst director Daniel Kramer has a talent for creating memorable moments and pervasive moods on-stage. It seemed like a fail-safe combination. Angels in America also has incredible theatrical potential, jumping from New York to Salt Lake City, Antarctica and anywhere else his characters’ imaginations fancy. His characters have vivid imaginations at that, which make for some lively and surprising scenes in this flawed, though striking production.

Dealing with the confusion and fear prompted by the explosion of AIDS in Reagan’s America, this is a provocative, surreal and exceedingly long (7+ hrs) play. It looks at the ripple effect of protagonist Prior’s contraction of AIDS; the impact on his relationship with lover Lewis, as well as Mormon couple Joe and Harper Pitt. Joe’s formidable boss Roy (in a splendidly scary performance from Greg Hicks) also later contracts AIDS, but shuns the sexual implications of his diagnosis: ‘Homosexuals are men who know nobody and nobody knows... What I am is defined by who I am.’

Joe goes in quite the opposite direction, leaving Harper for a passionate relationship with Prior’s boyfriend Lewis. Deserted by his lover, an increasingly ill Prior is treated to some pretty spectacular visions; a scary (eventually rather irritating) angel becomes a regular bedside visitor. Not satisfied with bringing heaven to earth, Kushner also serves up a number of incredible scenes via Harper’s imagination, who passes her days in a Valium-induced daze. Thankfully, she dreams up some pretty incredible stuff: we see her travel to Antarctica, gnaw down trees and speak with inanimate objects. You won’t see anything like it anywhere else.

However, whilst these visions are undoubtedly intriguing they don’t really come to life on-stage. Instead, it feels like the production’s visuals and Kushner’s imagination don’t quite match up. A play of this scope does not need much layered on top of it: its esoteric, spanning locations and ambitious content are more than enough for the audience to cope with. Instead of holding back and letting the play work for itself, Kramer pushes it a little too far. The power of suggestion is all but eliminated from this production and it suffers as a result. The scenes in Harper’s imagination – which cry out for rigorous but retrained direction – are played out against a vast white sheet or sparkly, silver stage curtain. They don’t really work. Nevertheless, the production does contain some booming moments when the show’s garish lights, set and colours combine to magnificent effect.

These powerful stage effects also interfere with the acting: often it feels like the actors are competing against these elements, rather than working with them. Tellingly, it is when everything stops that any real emotion is generated. When Joe finally leaves Harper the stage business stops and their sad, quiet parting conversation is played out in the dark: it is one of the most successful of the lot. Overall, the acting style is confused – occasionally broaching genuine, but mostly excessively stylised. It feels like they’ve gone through the script marking ‘forte’ and ‘piano’ and the dialogue grates as a result. Granted, Kushner’s play does not call for diligent, naturalistic acting - but we still have to be able to connect with this piece and the characters in it. All the emotional climaxes in the production are horribly empty. It doesn’t help that most of the actors deliver their lines to the audience and rarely to each other, making it hard for any real on-stage chemistry to develop. Indeed, apart from Hicks (who edges his way to centre-stage with an assured, witty and compelling performance) none of the actors truly convince.

More often than not, the cacophony of ‘special effects’ overcrowd and overpower this production. I’m not sure how necessary they really are. Why, for example, is the world outside the set’s yawning black doors perpetually full of smoke? It may look pretty, but it gets predictable and silly after a while. This is indicative of the production as a whole: a lot of smoke, but no real fire.

Till 22 July 2007