Category: Angels in America

Angels in America was a fascinating tale about homosexual life in Manhattan in the 1980s, and although many of the social allusions were out of date, the work’s substance and relevance are still pertinent in today’s cultural and political atmosphere. No modern play has succeeded so indisputably in confronting Reaganism or McCarthyism, religion and immigrants, and even AIDS against the context of New York City in the mid-1980s. The drama revolves around three groups of individuals and their interactions. One is Louis Ironson and Prior Walter, his AIDS-affected partner. Louis is unable to deal as Prior’s illness worsens. Joe Pitt, a Mormon legal clerk, and his worried, pill-addicted spouse, Harper Pitt, are next. The Pitts struggle to comprehend Joe’s secret homosexuality, especially in light of their stringent religious convictions. Finally, the plot follows Roy Cohn, a closeted lawyer who is largely based on a historical man, as he confronts allegations of removal from office from the New York Bar. Cohn is also dealing with a surprise diagnosis of AIDS and a lifelong denial of the affliction. Despite the seriousness of the subject matter, the play has a number of humorous moments. They act as a shield against the film’s overall grim particular topic, allowing viewers to chuckle when tears may be more suitable. In light of our increasingly accepting culture, it’s difficult to truly comprehend the closed character of gay life in the 1980s.

The play’s overarching narrative revolves around fears about the AIDS pandemic and the government’s purportedly lackadaisical approach to it. The play’s central theme, however, is the ethically and morally corrupt nature of American civilization. As Louis proclaims in act three, ‘There are no angels in America, no spiritual past, no racial past, there`s only the political.’ (Kushner, act 3, sc. 2) Kushner claims that America is a constantly shifting power struggle between diverse factions and individuals. The human predicament, according to Kushner, is a never-ending huge conflict in a dysfunctional society, a brutal battle between progressive and regressive forces in the lack of any leading ideals. Explaining his drama, Tony Kushner said, ‘The question I am trying to ask is how broad is a community’s embrace. How wide does it reach?’ ‘Community’ encompasses both personal links and political ties that we can define as democratic citizenship.

In its most basic form, Angels in America’s storyline revolves around the destruction and re-creation of both types of communities. Kushner’s favorite topic is the antagonism between stability and change, which he introduces throughout the first act of the play. The impulse to block change to maintain the past while ignoring or suppressing the future is a normal reaction in a society filled with dread. Because identity groups are among the forms of connections around which societies emerge, the play’s topic of identity is inextricably linked to the idea of community. Although we often conceive of white people as deficient in identity, all of the protagonists in this drama are ethnically branded. Furthermore, the homosexuality of the male heroes defines them.

‘Angels in America’ is a 31-year-old film that explores identity in a way that is as important now as it was 31 years ago. The play’s difficulties, combined with a persistently positive view, make ‘Angels in America’ a tribute to the sociopolitical mindset.

A New York article published in 2006, attempts to persuade readers that all immigrants, no matter their origins, should be accepted by Americans. “Angels in America,” written by John Tierney, goes on to say, although most U.S. citizens’ ancestors were at one-point immigrants, today they fail to give any concern for new migrants. Tierney makes the point that Mexican immigrants are no different from other immigrants. He questions why it is so difficult for someone with Hispanic, Latin, or Chicano provenance, to become a legal citizen of The United States.

In Tierney’s first few paragraphs, he makes a correlation between the main character, Angel Espinoza, and his Irish grandfather. First, comparing their lifestyle; At arrival, they made little money, but over time made their way to “better-paying jobs.” They both then married legal U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, unlike Tierney’s grandfather, Espinoza couldn’t settle. In fact, Espinoza was likely to be transported back to his home country.

“I work hard and pay taxes and don’t want any welfare. Why deport me?”, says Espinoza. (Tierney page 1) Tierney quotes Espinoza because he too has the same question. Sadly, by making the decision to enter the U.S., even though he was already worded off, he technically did break the law. He was given “in order to stay out.”, and because he didn’t do so he’s now a “criminal”. If there aren’t regulations for other immigrants, then there shouldn’t be regulations for Mexican immigrants too, Tierney argues. If his grandfather was so easily accepted then why is it so arduous for Espinoza, and other Mexican immigrants to become U.S. citizens? These are one of the many questions Tierney struggles to discord.

One of the many stereotypes about former Mexican citizens is that they will be unlikely to understand and isolate themselves because they’re near their home country. Another stereotype is that their children will receive low grades in school, and eventually grow up in the lower class. Tierney disproves this by talking about Espinoza’s life. Espinoza goes from making barely minimum wage to seventeen dollars an hour. He and his wife buy a house for about two hundred thousand dollars. That would put Espinoza in the middle class. Even though Espinoza’s first language is Spanish, he continues to learn and speak English. His daughter on the other hand, only in her first year of school, is already speaking English. Tierney continues to speak on these stereotypes by saying, “No matter where they live, their children learn English.” This means that no matter how close immigrants are to their homeland, their children grow up to speak the dominant language in the country, which is English for America. Just as any other immigrant would, rather from Europe, Africa, Mexico, etc. Their children will grow up to speak English.

Lastly, Tierney includes a few American viewpoints on immigrants, and what they think should be done. Tierney talks about the Senate, the Republican party, and an individual named Bobby Rush. A compromise, letting almost all immigrants become legal citizens, seemed to be concluding with the Senate. Until the Republicans would only collaborate if there were regulations. Some of which could keep Espinoza from ever returning to America again. Fortunately, a Democratic representative, named Bobby Rush is trying to protect families from being split up. This shocks many “immigrant advocators and Chicago public officials” who are already pressing immigrant cases.

Tierney concludes by asking a series of rhetorical questions. He wants Republicans to explain why their ancestors are worthier than Espinoza. Why should Espinoza, and immigrants like him, be made to leave their families? Tierney asks. Espinoza even has his own set of questions he would like answered for his daughter. One of them states, “I would like them to tell my American daughter why her father can’t stay with her.” (Tierney page 3)

In this essay, I will be exploring how Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956), a theatre practitioner, director, and actor from Germany had a major and profound impact on current acting practice and the wider theatre and film industry, predominantly focusing on his practices of narration and direct address, the heavy political undertones of his work and the influence of his theatre company ‘The Berliner Ensemble’

Brecht, born Eugen Berthold Friedrich Brecht in Augsburg Germany began his career with the play Baal in 1918. Being heavily influenced by the rise of the Nazis and his extreme and vocal opposition to their ideals, in 1921, he was banned from performing by Hitler`s party, as well as his books were included in the infamous Nazi book burnings.

His political views were heavily based on Marxism and were born out of nazi suppression and were revolutionary at the time, as well as having continued to influence other performers in their practices and the industry as a whole, notably writer Caryl Churchill and a plethora of other creators.

Many techniques used in modern theatre and film are attributed to Brecht such as narration, direct address, and a circular narrative. These are found in projects such as Blood Brothers by Willy Russell, Fleabag by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and many musical theatre pieces such as Joseph and The Amazing Technicolour Dream Coat and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

The Berliner Ensemble is the Berlin-based theatre company Brecht founded in 1949 as a way to showcase his plays, with some being performed as recently as 2021.

Many of Brecht`s plays have a political message, some being more subtle than others. ‘Drums In The Night (1922) centers around a young woman, Anna Balicke, whose lover went to fight in The First World War but, unbeknownst to Anna or her family, was held as a prisoner of war for years after, leaving Anna`s parents to believe he had abandoned her, so set her up with a wealthy gentleman instead. Anna eventually runs away to find her lover, leaving the play with a happy ending.

This is a slightly more subtle nod to Brecht`s political beliefs, commenting on classism and the family’s desperation for their daughter to marry the wealthy. He was not, at the time of writing this, a Marxist, but some of the basic fundamental ideologies of the belief can still be spotted.

Brecht wasn`t always so subtle in his political messaging, however. In 1938, he wrote a play called ‘The Fear and Misery of The Third Reich’, a series of playlets depicting life in 1930s Germany under Nazi rule. He used his techniques of Epic Theatre to present his overtly Anti-Nazi message at a time where to do so could be both a social, and in some cases literal, death sentence as publicly going against Hitler could lead to, at the least, social isolation, or at worst, legal repercussions. These playlets discuss everything from the Hitler Youth to the plight of the Jewish community to the SA and their impact on the community. He wrote many Anti-Nazi plays after this one whilst in exile.

In the theatre world of today, this concept of overtly political plays has carried over, and can especially be linked to Brecht`s work, with similarities in tone and style to those of the 1920s and 1930s.

Tony Kushner`s two-part play ‘Angels In America’ is a perfect example of this. Set in America in the 1980s, ‘Angels In America’ focuses on the journey of a community in New York City ravaged by AIDS. Kushner expertly uses multi-rolling and other epic theatre techniques to tell the story of Prior Walter, an AIDS patient, and his partner Louis Ironson. The overt political alignment of the play is focused on the disdain of the LGBT community and its allies towards the president of the US at the time, Ronald Reagan. An article by Vox in 2016 perfectly illustrates the official stance on the crisis in the mid-1980s. German Lopez, a reporter for Vox wrote an article titled ‘The Reagan administration’s unbelievable response to the AIDS epidemic’ and references a Scott Calonico documentary titled ‘When AIDS Was Funny’ in which it is reported White House officials referred to the AIDS epidemic as the ‘gay plague’ and joked about reporters having the condition.

Kushner used this fury felt by large swathes of the American public as fuel for his play, something many would argue was popularised by Brecht, if not totally created by him, evidencing the claim that Brecht`s influence regarding political plays is firmly felt today, with productions of not only his own works but similar works by other writers being performed or otherwise enjoyed today.

Brecht is also famous for the creation of Epic Theatre, a set of techniques that were commonplace in Brechtian works, both his original writings and his adaptations of others’ works

A profound aspect that Tony Kushner incorporates throughout act one scene seven of ‘Angels in America’ is the manner in which he defies the logic of Harper’s hallucination. Despite Harper never having met Prior and stating that the mind “shouldn’t make up anything that wasn’t there to start with”, both Harper and Prior have specific knowledge of one another. Harper knows that Prior is unwell, and she has this knowledge since “[t]his is the very threshold of revelation sometimes”, whilst Prior also replies with “[y]our husband’s a homo”, the colloquial use of “homo” somewhat trivializing Joe’s situation. This prevalent tone of ambiguity is further sustained through Kushner’s enigmatic sense of place, which is exemplified even in the stage directions preceding the dialogue, stating that “Prior has appeared in this [hallucination]. Or Harper has appeared in Prior’s dream.” The use of the conjunction “or” indicates that the location of this crossover is open for interpretation for the audience, and, fittingly, Kushner structures this scene in a very fragmented manner to support its ambiguous nature. For example, the scene is broken up into Harper’s appearance and disappearance, during which a “(Pause.)” stage direction divides it further, and the unusual inclusion of “A Voice” towards the end of the scene followed by “(Silence.)” leaves Prior in a puzzled state. Kushner’s incorporation of exclamation and question marks in Prior’s line, “Hello? Is that it? Helloooo!”, enforces the tone of despair but also puzzlement, unsatisfactorily concluding the two bewildering encounters.

Amidst the tone of ambiguity that Kushner creates by subverting the logic of Harper’s hallucination, the themes of change and fluid identity also have a strong presence throughout this scene. It is presented to us that Prior is undergoing a fluid transition in identity through his drag appearance, a change that Kushner indicates as a means of an escape from the pressing conventions of the ordinary world. For example, the manner in which Prior describes the stealing of the new makeup as an “emotional emergency” underlines his reliance on this change of identity to survive, and the alliterative “e” also emphasizes the importance of this form of salvation from the monotony of daily life. Similarly, Harper also struggles to achieve a sense of change, stating that the imagination is mere “the same old ordinariness and falseness re-arranged into the appearance of novelty and truth”. Kushner’s inclusion of the phrase “same old” in this line evokes a rather frustrated yet unsurprised tone, implying that, even with Harper’s reliance on “Valium” and Prior’s dependence on his drag identity, they are still the same figures but re-modeled into different scenarios and identities. Moreover, this sense of constant change is epitomized in Prior’s comment that “[p]eople come and go so quickly here…”, indicating the rash, changeable nature of Prior’s encounter with both Harper and the “voice”. Although individually Harper and Prior struggle to achieve a sense of change, it is the encounters themselves that remain unstable.