I watched this series, read several dozen reviews and comments, then read the play. I then watched the series for a second time. So, I have given this a fair hearing and with each successive attempt to appreciate and understand it I have liked it less.
The five male leads are gay; the sexual orientation of the females is not specified. Al Pacino plays a dramatized version of Roy Cohn (a lawyer known for prosecuting alleged Communists during the McCarthy hearings in the 50s and figuring prominently in the conviction of, and death sentences for, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - for giving nuclear weapons secrets to the USSR). Pachino is in peak form in his portrayal of Cohn's slow and agonizing death due to AIDS. I suppose the point of such attention being paid to Cohn is to show us that dying of AIDS is one of the worst ways to go and to introduce conflicted feelings of sympathy for his horrible suffering while disliking the man (as he is presented here). It must have been a challenge for Pachino to play a man in such protracted misery. If it was not a challenge for him at least it is for the viewer - long before Cohn finally succumbed I had had enough.
One of the basic themes running throughout the series is that of the vagaries of human emotions and relationships. There are some truly affecting scenes. One scene between Louis (a secular Jew and homosexual of long standing) and Joe (a closeted Mormon just coming to terms with his sexuality) has to rank high among cinematic love scenes. The slow edging toward intimacy that has Louis and Joe using touch, taste, and smell is masterfully done.
Meryl Streep does a great Ethel Rosenberg and her appearance as an old Rabbi has to be seen to be believed (I'm not sure I believe it now). However, I thought Streep's portrayal of Hannah, Joe's mother, was a bit mannered. Her scene with the street person when she first arrives in New York is the weakest scene in the series.
For me the two acting standouts are Mary-Louise Parker (as Joe's wife Harper) and Jeffrey Wright (as the flamboyantly gay nurse Belize). I think Harper's soliloquy when she is on the plane in the final act was meant to be powerful and moving, coming as it does toward the end, but it struck me as new age mysticism about souls rising from the earth and turning into ozone molecules.
The personal relationships between the characters are complex and interesting and I wish things could have been left at that. But the screenplay is so freighted with political and religious commentary that often the characters seem to be giving speeches rather than talking with each other. At one point Louis rattles on for a over a couple of minutes about democracy and power in America in a screed that is unlike any part of a conversation I have ever witnessed. He does end his rant with a nice observation about AIDS showing the limits of tolerance, that underneath public displays of tolerance for AIDS victims lies a passionate hatred. Some of the political commentary can be pretty bald, like Louis referring to the "Reaganinte heartless macho asshole lawyers."
I had real trouble with the whole angel business. This makes me think that I have missed something major, given the title of the series, but the roles that the angels play I found to be quite obscure. I think that Emma Thompson's performance as the main angel was meant to be Shakespearian, but it just seemed overacted, pretentious, and ultimately incomprehensible.
Then there are the special effects used to realize hallucinations and dreams that I found to be a major distraction. A little bit of that is fine, but here we have excess. In Kushner's notes about the play he pleads for dramatic implementation of special effects and it appears that Mike Nicols has taken this advice. But for me the special effects were overwhelming and of little consequence. Mystical books popping out of the floor, fiery stairways to heaven, angels crashing through ceilings, ancient ancestors appearing out of nowhere and disappearing in flames, stone statues that move, and so on. Just too much for me. And on a couple of occasions you have characters who don't even know each other appearing in each other's hallucinations - what is the meaning of that? What I think is intended to be mysterious and magical was simply irritating to me.
Also in Kushner's notes to the play he says that "Perestroika" (the final three segments) is essentially a comedy. Boy, the comedic aspects of following Cohn's miserable death escaped me.
Some of the little messages dropped along the way are simplistic, like wanting to live in spite of suffering - after all we see almost daily confirmations of how strong the will to live is for most of us. Hannah's comments, "How can you steer your life by what you want? Hold to what you believe," and "At first it can be very hard to accept how disappointing life is Harper. But that is what it is and you have to accept it," don't set new levels for deep observation.
Given the opportunity I think I could edit this series into a movie that would impress me, but as it is there is too much that either left me cold or flew over my head.
The five male leads are gay; the sexual orientation of the females is not specified. Al Pacino plays a dramatized version of Roy Cohn (a lawyer known for prosecuting alleged Communists during the McCarthy hearings in the 50s and figuring prominently in the conviction of, and death sentences for, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - for giving nuclear weapons secrets to the USSR). Pachino is in peak form in his portrayal of Cohn's slow and agonizing death due to AIDS. I suppose the point of such attention being paid to Cohn is to show us that dying of AIDS is one of the worst ways to go and to introduce conflicted feelings of sympathy for his horrible suffering while disliking the man (as he is presented here). It must have been a challenge for Pachino to play a man in such protracted misery. If it was not a challenge for him at least it is for the viewer - long before Cohn finally succumbed I had had enough.
One of the basic themes running throughout the series is that of the vagaries of human emotions and relationships. There are some truly affecting scenes. One scene between Louis (a secular Jew and homosexual of long standing) and Joe (a closeted Mormon just coming to terms with his sexuality) has to rank high among cinematic love scenes. The slow edging toward intimacy that has Louis and Joe using touch, taste, and smell is masterfully done.
Meryl Streep does a great Ethel Rosenberg and her appearance as an old Rabbi has to be seen to be believed (I'm not sure I believe it now). However, I thought Streep's portrayal of Hannah, Joe's mother, was a bit mannered. Her scene with the street person when she first arrives in New York is the weakest scene in the series.
For me the two acting standouts are Mary-Louise Parker (as Joe's wife Harper) and Jeffrey Wright (as the flamboyantly gay nurse Belize). I think Harper's soliloquy when she is on the plane in the final act was meant to be powerful and moving, coming as it does toward the end, but it struck me as new age mysticism about souls rising from the earth and turning into ozone molecules.
The personal relationships between the characters are complex and interesting and I wish things could have been left at that. But the screenplay is so freighted with political and religious commentary that often the characters seem to be giving speeches rather than talking with each other. At one point Louis rattles on for a over a couple of minutes about democracy and power in America in a screed that is unlike any part of a conversation I have ever witnessed. He does end his rant with a nice observation about AIDS showing the limits of tolerance, that underneath public displays of tolerance for AIDS victims lies a passionate hatred. Some of the political commentary can be pretty bald, like Louis referring to the "Reaganinte heartless macho asshole lawyers."
I had real trouble with the whole angel business. This makes me think that I have missed something major, given the title of the series, but the roles that the angels play I found to be quite obscure. I think that Emma Thompson's performance as the main angel was meant to be Shakespearian, but it just seemed overacted, pretentious, and ultimately incomprehensible.
Then there are the special effects used to realize hallucinations and dreams that I found to be a major distraction. A little bit of that is fine, but here we have excess. In Kushner's notes about the play he pleads for dramatic implementation of special effects and it appears that Mike Nicols has taken this advice. But for me the special effects were overwhelming and of little consequence. Mystical books popping out of the floor, fiery stairways to heaven, angels crashing through ceilings, ancient ancestors appearing out of nowhere and disappearing in flames, stone statues that move, and so on. Just too much for me. And on a couple of occasions you have characters who don't even know each other appearing in each other's hallucinations - what is the meaning of that? What I think is intended to be mysterious and magical was simply irritating to me.
Also in Kushner's notes to the play he says that "Perestroika" (the final three segments) is essentially a comedy. Boy, the comedic aspects of following Cohn's miserable death escaped me.
Some of the little messages dropped along the way are simplistic, like wanting to live in spite of suffering - after all we see almost daily confirmations of how strong the will to live is for most of us. Hannah's comments, "How can you steer your life by what you want? Hold to what you believe," and "At first it can be very hard to accept how disappointing life is Harper. But that is what it is and you have to accept it," don't set new levels for deep observation.
Given the opportunity I think I could edit this series into a movie that would impress me, but as it is there is too much that either left me cold or flew over my head.