Topic: "Angels in America" Marathon.

[Touti]

This 6 hours mini-series was lend to me by my sister last week.  I'm gonna spend the next 6 hours watching the whole thing and will post about tonight.

[Kathy]

I just finished this DVD a few days ago. I will be most interested in what you think of it.

[Touti]

Is there any point to this ?  I've been watching it for 3.5 hours now and frankly if there's any meaning or message I don't get it.  I really don't understand why my sister and brother found it so extraordinary, I find it stupid and uninteresting.

[m.cellophane]

Is there any point to this ?  I've been watching it for 3.5 hours now and frankly if there's any meaning or message I don't get it.  I really don't understand why my sister and brother found it so extraordinary, I find it stupid and uninteresting.

I haven't seen it yet and I was curious to read your review. Maybe all of the extraordinary-ness is in the last 2.5 hours. 

[goodguy]

Is there any point to this ?  I've been watching it for 3.5 hours now and frankly if there's any meaning or message I don't get it.  I really don't understand why my sister and brother found it so extraordinary, I find it stupid and uninteresting.

Wow, that's harsh. Well, obviously it is about AIDS. But in a wider sense it is about communities breaking down and being rebuild across borders that previously were pretty insurmountable.

I already have watched it three times since I bought the DVDs in late 2004. Meaning I found it extraordinary, too. Overall, I rated the first part slightly higher than the second one. Mostly, because of the semi-ending in heaven and because of the more "message-y" overtones.

First of all, I love to *hear* great writing. Not only on stage, but also in movies. I don't need people to speak in a realistic way, I much more enjoy them being poetic and literate. Kushner's dialogue is such great writing (it's based on a stage play from 1993, after all). But spoken words also aren't restricted to conversation purposes. They have there own rhythm and melody that can transcend their meaning.

Which brings us to the score by Thomas Newman. He is one of my favorite composers, because he doesn't score emotional or heavily themed. He doesn't "cue" you in. His work is almost always aerial, light. The score doesn't constrict the movie, it accompanies it on his own terms. And, of course, it sounds beautiful.

If found the cinematography and production design equally amazing. At least for the most part. Again the "in heaven" part falls a little flat for me, but otherwise it is quite stunning and imaginative.

And the actors. The entire cast was terrific, but I have to single out Marie-Louise Parker who completely blew me away as the slightly crazy Harper. If not anything else, at least her performance should have drawn you in. How anyone could find her "uninteresting" escapes me.

Anyway, I don't want to convince you that you are wrong (you are, of course  ). Sometimes, we just cannot relate to a certain movie. I just said something similar in the "Man/Men Marathon" thread about "The Third Man". It obviously is a great movie, but I don't care for it.

[Touti]

I still have about 2.5 hours to watch, I needed a break yesterday.  I understand that it's about AIDS, the way it affects the life of people around those who have it and how they have to deal with it.  I just don't see the point of all the fantasy they've put in it. 

(click to show/hide)

The scene where the angel comes down to the guy who has AIDS (Can't remember the name this morning) to show him the book and the "sexual relation" they have, that put me off completely and that's where I stopped watching.

I think it was too long and the few sentences that she starts by repeating "I" a few times ("I, I, I, I am blah blah) really got on my nerves.  That of course is a matter of personal taste and is not the reason why I'm hard on my opinion.

Maybe I'm too "down to earth" but I think there's too much of this fantasy stuff, it takes my attention away from the real subject.

One thing that never does it for me in movies is the mix of fantasy and reality, I like fantasy movies like LOTR and such because they are complete fantasy but mixing fantasy and reality never works for me.  I really don't need the "poetry" in the writing.  For me good writing is when the dialogs make sense, when it sounds like that's what people in real life would say.  Fantasy movies don't try to tell us anything, they only try to entertain us and when I watch such a movie I am in a state of mind where I don't have any problem just watching, being entertained without thinking and trying to understand.

When a movie has "content" however I like it to be "to the point", I don't like my attention to be taken away by some fantasy, dreams and other things like that.  Maybe I am somewhat obtuse or lazy but I don't like having to work hard to understand a movie, I'd rather take my time reflecting and what the movie is about than concentrating on deciphering what's part of the story and what's been put there only "for the show".

I still reserve my final judgement for when I've watched it completely but here's a short list of movies I totally hated which will probably confirm what I wrote above.

Chicago
Moulin Rouge
From Hell (And yet I'm a big fan of anything about Jack the Ripper)

[Kathy]

Eric I'm glad to read you feel the same way about this movie as I do  We're both right by the way! Although there were a few parts I liked, yes the score was one of them, I wish I could get my money and 6 hours of life back. I would not recommend this DVD to anyone. I waited to give my opinion because I didn't want to ruin for you...obviously something I couldn't have done!

[Touti]

I finished watching it and my opinion hasn't changed much.  I understand the subject, I understand the message but I dislike the way.

I know this is a bit of a different subject but it relates to this movie and my opinion of it in a way.  I am not homophobe but one thing I dislike with the gay community in general is how they keept saying they don't want to be treated differently while doing everything to be different.

Every year in Montreal there is the big gay parade, they call it "Défilé de la fierté gay" (I guess it could be translated as Gay pride parade).  That really bothers me because being gay is nothing to be proud of, it's nothing to be ashamed of but nothing to be proud of either, no more than there is a reason to be proud of being straight, or being a man, or being a female, or having blue eyes or blonde hair or long legs or small ears or anything else that you haven't done anything to become.  Being gay or straight is what you are, it's not an achievement so it doesn't call for pride.

The other thing that bothers me with that is how they dress like drag queens and dance and sing during the parade, guys almost completely naked wearing only g-strings etc.  I see contradiction in this, one can't go out telling people that he/she is not different and then do this which most "normal" people wouldn't do.  You can't do everything possible to be different and then whine because you're treated differently.

That bothered me a little in the movie because there was too many gay stereotypes in it IMO and I think it reduces the weight of the message.

However the very last scene where the young guy who has AIDS (still can't remember the name) talks directly to the camera to say a message of hope kept me wondering who's the intended audience for that movie.  The way  he says that there's hope and that they're gonna survive tends to suggest that this was a series to send a message of hope to the gay community which could explain some of the more "gay oriented" scenes.

As a whole however I believe a nice opportunity was lost to take a true, hard and sad fact of life and use it to show the "straight" world what the gay community was fearing and was going through in the 80's and 90's.

[goodguy]

Every year in Montreal there is the big gay parade, they call it "Défilé de la fierté gay" (I guess it could be translated as Gay pride parade).  That really bothers me because being gay is nothing to be proud of, it's nothing to be ashamed of but nothing to be proud of either, no more than there is a reason to be proud of being straight, or being a man, or being a female, or having blue eyes or blonde hair or long legs or small ears or anything else that you haven't done anything to become.  Being gay or straight is what you are, it's not an achievement so it doesn't call for pride.

The Gay Pride Parades are a tradional event of the gay rights movement. IIRC, they originate from riots that took place after the police raid on a gay bar in New York at the end of the '60s. They were far more political in the early days than they are now; they were also labeled differently - Gay Liberation Marches, I think. Anyway, I don't have a problem with the label "Gay Pride". To me, it clearly is an expression of not being ashamed. And while you concede that this is nothing to be ashamed of, there are still many, many people who see this differently, and it still isn't fully accepted even in modern Western societies. So it seems only natural to me to take the offensive and speak of gay pride.

The other thing that bothers me with that is how they dress like drag queens and dance and sing during the parade, guys almost completely naked wearing only g-strings etc.  I see contradiction in this, one can't go out telling people that he/she is not different and then do this which most "normal" people wouldn't do.  You can't do everything possible to be different and then whine because you're treated differently.

Well, you said you aren't homophobe, so I will trust you on this. But why do you complain about guys wearing g-strings, but not about half (or entirely) naked women? The gay parades I know have both men and women participating, many of them equally scarcely clothed. Is that different in Montreal? And to take this one step further, why is it perfectly acceptable by "normal" society to expose the female body in media and advertisement, but less so the male one? Lastly, the amount of naked skin displayed on those gay parades doesn't differ much from Mardi Gras parades or the Love Parades, which aren't gay events.


Anyway, I'm glad you started this topic (about Angels in America, that is), because it prompted me to watch it yet again, now for the 4th time. I have some work to do now, but will hopefully later have the time to respond to some of your AiA releated comments.

[Touti]

I never watched the gay pride parade (or any other parade actually) but in the short clips I saw in the news over the years I don't recall ever seeing women half naked and/or almost completely naked.  Not saying it is different in Montreal but I don't recall seeing them so the imagery isn't there, that's probably why I didn't mention them.

I am not against the parade itself, actually I am not against they way it's done either, it's up to the organizers and participants to have it the way they want it.  My point is that, as you said, society is not yet completely opened and tolerant to it, I don't think shocking people is a good of helping them evolve.  There is a part of the gay community that still hides because of society's intolerance and I totally agree that these parade send them the message that they should not be ashamed but I don't think it's gonna open the mind of those who are homophobe.  Maybe it's me who's mistaking on who those parade target.

[Touti]

BTW: I feel I have to say that I am not "conceding" that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of.  I am "acknowledging" it.  There's a bif difference in my mind, conceding for me would mean that I am making a concession which implies settling or agreeing to something I don't really believe.

This is not the case here, I do believe that a different sexual orientation (be it gay, bi, transexual although it's not really a sexual orientation per say) is not to be ashamed of.  No one should ever be ashamed of being what they are and "conceding" that sounds to me like "allowing them", "granting them the right not be ashamed although we think it is shameful".

It's sometimes difficult to convey how we mean words when no talking face to face, I hope I explained myself clearly.

[Kathy]

We have quite a active and vital gay community in Buffalo (to make it easier by "gay" I'm including other alternative lifestyles such as trans gender, cross dressers, transsexuals etc. ). I personally enjoy the pomp and circumstance (and nudity!) that "non-traditional" people bring to our community; this is one of the major reasons I live in the city. My family and several friends would never consider urban living for the same reason.

[goodguy]

BTW: I feel I have to say that I am not "conceding" that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of.  I am "acknowledging" it.  There's a bif difference in my mind, conceding for me would mean that I am making a concession which implies settling or agreeing to something I don't really believe.

Sorry, poor choice of words on my behalf. I did mean "acknowledging".

[Touti]

Sorry, poor choice of words on my behalf. I did mean "acknowledging".

No problem, everything's cool  .

There's at least one good side of this mini-series, it's calling for the 2nd good discussion this week..........and I'm sure we're gonna learn plenty of new things on Kathy's twisted little mind 

On a side note about transexuality though I saw an interesting documentary a few years ago on TV.  In a nutshell, it was about transexuality itself but also in relation to Quebec's being one of the place in the world where there's many operations done.  They wouldn't say where it is of course but there's even a special place like a hotel or "Auberge" where they can go and be in peace while preparing for their treatments and surgery and also after for a convalescence.

I'm briging this up because a very interesting scientific part of the documentary was about this Russian scientist who did researches on transexuals for over 40 years.  This was of course never known to the world science community because of the communist governments of USSR and his research was limited due to the difficulty of getting a hand on corpses of transexuals.  The point is that his research was reviewed and continued by other scientists and as part of it they compared slices of men, women and transexuals brains.

I don't remember the name of it but there's some kind of a dark mass somewhere in the brain.  There's a big difference in the size of it between men and women but the interesting thing is that in transexual's brains, that mass is much closer in size to that in the the women's brain.  This led scientists to start thinking that there might be a real biological reason for transexuality and that in fact transexuals could truly have a female brain trapped in a man's body.

I know it's totally beside the subject of "Angels in America" and our discussion on homosexuality but I thought it might be of interest to some of you.

[lyonsden5]

There's at least one good side of this mini-series, it's calling for the 2nd good discussion this week..........

Agreed! That's one of the things I enjoy about this place. When the "discussions" break out they are simply that, discussions. Two sides with two different views actually talk and respect the other (even when the other is completely wrong  ). At the end of the discussion everyone walks away friends.