Topic: "Angels in America" Marathon.

[Najemikon]

What makes this forum great is the attitude. The other day Eric and myself ran roughshod over Karsten's thread, and no-one complained about it being "off-topic". Ok, the mod in this case was perpetuating the problem, but you get my meaning! 

[Touti]

The mod had to perpetuate the problem because the member wouldn't admit he was wrong.

Oh btw, that post of yours was off-topic 

The best part of any movie for me is a good discussion after it.  Movies often make us revisit thoughts, concepts, ideas and beliefs that we take for granted.  DVDCOL is a wonderful place for that because not only it allows us to do that in a friendly manner but it also brings views and values from people of different countries and cultures.

This is why I am much more liberal in my moderation here than on my other forums.  Karsten asked what were good movies about King Arthur, although we did hijack it I don't think we were off-topic, not in the context of DVD Collectors Online.

[goodguy]

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. 
...
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.

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

As I already said in my first post, AIDS isn't the only thing this movie is about. The full title of the original play from 1993, which the movie follows pretty closely, is "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes". AIDS is more like a prism or catalyst to explore themes like religion and death, migration and identity, freedom and responsibility, race and homosexuality, justice and love, stagnation and change. The fantasy parts are not only important in emphasizing these aspects; they are also essential in providing an associative element between themes and between characters.

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.

Well, it is an Angel - a big entrance and glorious and poetic words should be expected. Very Whitmanesque, which makes sense for the Angel of America. Also, quite funny in her irritation about the missing prophetic implements. And as to the sexual relation? "Not physics but ecstatics makes the engine [of creation] run." Besides, parallels between religious and sexual ecstasy don't seem so far off to me. Anyway, we are introduced to a sort of negative theology from a gay viewpoint here. It is all spilled out pretty explicitly and, since the visitation is told as a flashback, discussed at the same time. At its core is the conflict between stasis and change, which is probably the most prominent theme throughout the entire movie.

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.

I disagree. You are asking the movie to be something that it isn't. If you look for something that is more specifically about AIDS, there are other good movies. Longtime Companion (1990) comes to mind as an early example, or HBO's And the Band Played On (1993). Especially HBO has quite a history in (co-) producing such movies and documentaries.

[Touti]

I disagree. You are asking the movie to be something that it isn't.

I wouldn't say that.  I obviously didn't understand the subject of this movie.......or at least not the way you do.  I'm not asking it to be something that it isn't, I felt that it lost a wonderful opportunity to do what I thought it was trying to do.

Now one thing you said changes a lot of things here.

The full title of the original play from 1993, which the movie follows pretty closely, is "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes"

That changes many things, I was not aware that this movie was based on an "old" play, the original title definitely gives a hint at what the play was about.  Had I known, I would have probably watched the movie with a different approach.