THE TROUBLE WITH ANGELS

I saw the plays. Then, I read them. I sat around with friends who were actors and writers -- most of whom were far smarter than me. ...than I? Anyway, I discussed the plays. I read many reviews. I read interviews with Tony Kushner. I read the plays again. I admired the acting and the staging. I liked many of the ideas in the plays, but all too often it felt like the whole of the two plays was just a way to show off some fancy intellectual ideas or "ideals" and to provide some great scenes for some talented actors. In the end, the sum of all the parts did not really add up to much for me. As clever as it some of it was - I could not piece together a point to it all.

Both works had the feeling of importance, but then there would be lapses into comic bits. The metaphors seemed confused or silly. I mean, I enjoyed the idea of a gay-centric play with a gay AIDS patient as a prophet. I liked the idea that San Francisco was (or once was) or was like "Heaven" ---- but I didn't quite follow it all. The point, I mean.

And, when I asked my friends to explain -- well, no one seemed to be able to do so. I would quickly give up because I felt like I was rocking the "cool thing" that we were all to like.

And, then there was the problem of that Angel of America. Was she from God or the Devil? Or was God the Devil? Or was God just pissed off? Was AIDS a blessing or a curse? I was confused by it. I was annoyed. I had lost too many dear friends to AIDS to get into some of these ideas that everyone else seemed to embrace.

Then the movie (or cable special) came out. I tried watching it twice. I couldn't get past the first hour. I was annoyed by the first moment we saw Meryl Streep playing the cranky old rabbi. A few weeks ago B and I discussed the plays and the TV film. He likes all three. And, yet, he could not defend or explain my questions.

The other day I found a used copy of the DVD set for $10. I bought it and decided I was going to sit down and watch all 6 hours of Mike Nichols adaptation of the plays. I watched all of the film. It was a bit different from the plays I remember.

I allowed myself to just enjoy the theatrics of it all and decided to not get too bogged down in the meaning of all the ideas merged into plot. I just absorbed it. I think the biggest changes were made in the final act or chapters. It seemed a bit more clear, but still confused.

When I saw the plays I remember thinking that none of the actors looked like people from the mid-80's. The same was true for the movie. Worse still --- I get very annoyed by lack of attention to details. If you make a film that takes place in a certain time one should make sure that things belong in the scenes. The Coke cans were wrong. As were the chip bags. The logos and packaging were different in the mid-80's. And, the hair styles were not 1985 at all. And, the subways were not correct. Things changed after the mid-80's. Worst of all -- they had a drag queen dressed as Barbra. ...In 1985. ...but she was dressed as Barbra of the early 1990's! Babs had not yet shorn her curly locks completely! True, the afro was gone. But, she did not yet have the flat blonde look working. Her hair was crimped and 80's messy-big. How could a gay film make this error!?!?!? How?!?!??!

But, still, I rather enjoyed the movie. And, I still love this line so well delivered by Meryl Streep:

"An angel is a belief with wings and arms that can carry you."

I like that idea. I like so many of Tony Kushner's ideas. But, I can't help but wonder if some emperor is only half-dressed. Or am I just stoopid?

...don't answer that. Or, if you do -- please be polite.

I guess I always knew I was living in Heaven. Or a place that was once Heaven.