User reviews

Eight hours in a theatre (or in this case my two favourite cinemas; The Cameo in Edinburgh for Part 1 and The Hippodrome in Bo'ness for Part 2) is a daunting prospect, especially when the subject matter threatens to overwhelm you emotionally.

In fact it is a breeze because the writing of Tony Kushner and the direction of Marianne Elliot (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night) pepper this doomsday epic with both humour and beauty (in staging, lighting, sound and movement – it's a technical masterpiece throughout).

The acting is uniformly brilliant with Andrew Garfield in the lead role of AIDS sufferer Prior Walter. But the support he gets from Nathan Lane, in particular, is astounding. Core ensemble shout outs also have to go to the entire cast especially Denise Gough, James McArdle, Nathan Stewart-Jarrett and Russell Tovey.

Whilst, at times, you might want Garfield to slightly reign in the histrionics (and the fey gayness to be honest) you sit with bated breath waiting for Nathan Lane to go off on vitriolic outburst after hateful rant. He plays a corrupt, gay bashing (ironic) lawyer who has no limit to what he will do to save himself (he too had AIDS but says it's cancer, having spent his entire life in the closet, much to the disgust of most of the rest of the male gay cast). He is the highlight of the show.

Although ostensibly a 'gay fantasia' the background of story is built largely on a religious platform. The AIDS 'plague' has clear biblical connotations and the angels of the title are fantastical creations that are there to question morality, justice, belief and whether or not there is an afterlife.

The creation of the 'main' Angel played by six dancers/puppeteers and Amanda Lawrence as the angel itself is breathtakingly original and continuously mesmerising. She's magic.

I grew up during the 'AIDS Epidemic' and my home city of Edinburgh had to deal with an almost unique needle sharing problem, as well as the gay spread of the disease, (It's well captured in Trainspotting) so, that meant it was as much a heterosexual issue as a homosexual one in Edinburgh, Consequently, HIV/AIDS was very front of mind in this city. Another reason that the story strongly resonated with me.

Two of the central characters are Mormons and that particular creed comes in for some pretty hefty slagging although overall you sense that Kushner has deep religious beliefs or at least is hedging his bets on whether there is a God. The fact that both Louis and Nathan Lane's evil character are both Jews is also an important part of the storyline and leads to considerable debate about the morals of that belief, compared to Christianity.

Politics, too, feature heavily in the storyline with a clear leaning towards both Socialism and the Democrats that make Reagan (the then leader) an object of ridicule. Indeed Part Two is subtitled Perestroika with a certain reverence for it's chief architect Gorbachov in evidence.

One of the lead characters (a gay nurse, Belize) former lover of both Prior (Garfield) and Luois (McArdle) and an ex drag queen is black and proud of it. As he nurses Lane's character (Roy Cohn) this opens up another topic for Kushner to at times hilariously, at times terrifyingly, exploit; racism. The man is a pig and it's all that Belize can do to maintain his dignity and ethical professionalism to tolerate the monster that he tends. In fact a relationship develops that is, at times, surprisingly tolerant and even tender.

Meanwhile closet gay and Mormon, Joe Pitt (Tovey), married to Valium addicted Harper (the superb Denise Gough) is straying into an experimental homosexual exploration of his sexuality with Louis (former lover of both Belize and Prior) this has massive personal consequences. McArdle, in particular, plays a really strong supporting role and has the subtlety to play his part with conviction and sympathy. He's the 'tart with a heart' but can't deal with all the consequences of these tumultuous times for the world's gay population.

It's complicated. And that's why Kushner needs eight hours to unravel the labyrinthine plot and the fundamental BIG questions it tackles, but he does so with great skill and lightness of touch.

The National Theatre are to be applauded for reviving this monumental work. And it's to our great fortune that we can experience it (from essentially front row seats) in small movie theatres all over the world.

A production that has wowed audiences and critics alike, I expect to see it pick up many more London Theatre awards. If you get the chance to see it when NTLive does a reprise, kill for tickets.

Have always gotten so much pleasure out of going to see the National Theatre Live screenings at the cinema. There is a real sense of authenticity in the auditorium despite seeing it much more accessibly. They are also a great opportunity to see a lot of familiar plays, often favourites, with enormously talented casts, and they are an equally great opportunity to discover plays completely unfamiliar to one beforehand.

That was the case with both parts of 'Angels in America', the first part being 'Millenium Approaches' and the second 'Perestroika'. Just doing one part rather than both is a mammoth task by itself. Doing both parts, and with the same cast for continuity, is even more of a Herculean undertaking. Was not familiar with either 'Angels in America' part before seeing the screenings and am so glad about seeing them. Both parts are must sees as are the productions of both, an enormous amount had to be taken on and both did so brilliantly.

'Millenium Approaches' is more talky but is also slightly tighter and more taut somewhat, which some may prefer. Others though will prefer the more expansive and more imaginative approach of 'Perestroika'. Again, when it comes to quality of performances and stage direction though they are equal for the same reasons pretty much. Really appreciated that both parts make a difficult and sensitive subject accessible to anybody who wasn't born during the period depicted, or like me just missed it, and also make it remarkably relevant. It is a very serious and brave subject treated with respect and both productions managed to make something entertaining, moving and imaginative out of it without distaste coming through. The Ethel Rosenberg touch will either perplex or intrigue people, am in the latter camp myself.

'Perestroika' is a little more surreal somewhat in the visuals, bolder in scope and a little more imaginative, but it doesn't get over the top in that so the drama is never swamped. There is more breathing space in 'Perestroika', but the mometum is still there so one never feels the length. Whereas 'Millenium Approaches' is more philosophical, there is more of a theatrical approach to 'Perestroika', again without going overboard. The stage direction never falls into distaste or irrelevance and manages to make the storytelling and subject accessible while not trivialising, the emotional impact is felt and the relationships in both parts handled tactfully.

All the performances are superb, with James McArdle, Denise Gough and Russell Tovy portraying their conflicted characters with heartfelt charisma, Gough in particular.

Two in particular stood out. Andrew Garfield as the most developed character of both parts brings the right amount of camp and anguish. Most surprising was Nathan Lane, absolutely chilling as Cohn and proving that he can do more than just comedy.

Summarising, equally outstanding and both parts are must watches. 10/10

what was detracting about it that makes it less than a 10. and if you think i'm an easy marker, you don't(emphasis on the 'don't' ;-) know me... like i said last week, in my review of part 1...i don't like spoilers. reading or writing, of course... and i feel the other person who wrote a review did a very good job in providing an outline to give people wondering about this work an excellent idea of what to expect...i do feel he left out a few of the women actresses that did stunning work...but that's just it...everyone involved with this performance did it as if they're life, if not their livelihoods depended on it...and, of course, then there's the comparisons...was it as good as 'this production' or 'that production'. i've been to professional(and some damn good amateur) plays around the world. many in ny, including part 1 of this play. i say this production is as good as any other i've seen and i was privileged to witness it...it IS dark in places. very dark, in fact. but it's those places that need exploring if we're ever going to experience resolution...progress. if you have trouble with the material, it might be a good time to give that a look and try and understand why...in any case, if there were flaws, i didn't notice them. this is one of the few works i know i can EASily say deserves all points...writing/acting/staging/'choreography'/lighting/even the sets, as simple as they were were VERY effective as settings for that part of the story...and some of it was ingenious in its practicality AND...not being at all distracting from the story, itself... if anything that's been said sounds interesting, try and catch SOME form of this work...there are few that have been or will ever be as well done and powerfully moving...