Class Blog

One important theme presented in Angels in America is the significance of human connection, specifically the interconnection of the “outsiders” or identities who were excluded and repressed during the Reagan era. One claim I make in regard to this theme is that the human connection between the “outsiders” Prior and Harper emphasizes how the necessity for human empathy during tragedy transcends a society that tries to divide and repress them. 

During their mutual dream scene in act one scene seven, it is emphasized that Prior and Harper are outsiders of their respective identities because they don’t fit into these specific molds. As a gay man with AIDS, Prior is alienated from both society and his relationship with his partner Louis due to the stigma of AIDS. Harper is alienated from her religion as she does not fit into the traditional expectations or gender roles due to her failing marriage with Joe and her addiction to Valium. Prior and Harper are able to connect by sharing their unique life experiences with each other in this private, shared space. For example, the two are able to joke with one another when Prior tells Harper his church does not believe in Mormons (Kusher, 32). While homosexuality is not typically accepted by the Mormon religion, Harper does not react negatively to Prior’s identity but instead seems curious and wants to learn, especially in regard to Joe and his sexuality. Similarly, Prior does not judge Harper for her addiction but instead tries to understand her and sympathizes with her when revealing her husband’s sexuality to her. 

In act three scene three, Prior and Harper meet in the Mormon Visitors Center’s Diorama Room, connecting through the “threshold of revelation” or the state of mind that reveals one’s deepest and most painful truths. While it is terrifying to confront one’s deepest fears, Prior and Harper have created a space that allows them to both confront their individual struggles and fears while recognizing their shared experiences and suffering, even if they have not had the same life experiences or beliefs. As “outsiders” in both society and their marginalized identities, Prior and Harper meet in unideal circumstances that creates a unique human connection that transcends the tragedy and society turmoil of the time period, allowing them to confront their individual struggles through their shared revelations, shared suffering, and human compassion.

In Angels in America, Tony Kushner shows us something uncomfortable through Louis: how fear can poison love and make us abandon our responsibilities to the people we care about. When Louis tells Prior, “I’m afraid of the disease. I’m afraid that you’ll die. And I’m afraid that I’ll die,” the way he keeps saying “I’m afraid” says everything. He’s not just scared of AIDS; he’s so consumed by his own terror that he can’t be there for Prior in any real way.  What’s striking is that Louis keeps circling back to his own fear instead of thinking about what Prior is going through. Kushner seems to be pointing to something bigger here. During the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, a lot of people protected themselves instead of showing up with compassion.  Similar to examples we talked about in class such as hairdressers refusing to cut hair and how the lesbian community stepped up. The scene makes us ask, what does courage really look like when everything’s falling apart? What does love actually demand from us? Louis’s answer is heartbreaking; he fails at both. His fear isn’t just about death. It’s about facing what it means to abandon someone who needs you. Through Louis, Kushner shows us that we can’t grow or do better by running from what scares us. Real love means showing up for people even when it’s hard.

In the series of articles by J. Bryan Lowder, “Postcards on Camp,” the author discusses the French philosopher and writer Barthes and his ideas on camp, describing it as “the rescue of nuance.” Barthes refers to nuance as the direct opposition of the perceived and stereotypical, coining the term doxa. There are multiple instances of challenging doxical conventions included in Tony Kushner’s play, Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia on National Themes. By challenging these doxical conventions, Kushner complicates the ideas of politics during the Reagan Administration and spiritual authority in Mormonism.

One example of this is Roy Cohen’s character, which challenges the doxical convention surrounding political inaction in regard to the AIDs epidemic. The Reagan Administration is criticized for their lack of initiative in combatting the AIDs crisis, which stems from the disease primarily affecting stigmatized groups. Cohen’s character holds lots of political influence and power, yet he is diagnosed with AIDs. Cohen says to his doctor “No, Henry, no. AIDS is what homosexuals have. I have liver cancer” (Kushner 2013, 47). Roy makes this distinction, lying about his condition, as a result of his internalized homophobia and because he is aware of the power and influence he could lose if others were to find out that he was diagnosed with AIDs.

Another example of this is the angel’s declaration of Prior Walter as a prophet, challenging the doxical convention surrounding homosexuality and religion. In the play, Prior and Harper meet in his dream and her delusion, and Harper says to him “Oh! In my church we don’t believe in homosexuals” (Kushner 2013, 32). Mormonism is a central theme to this play; it plays a major role in the lives of characters Harper and Joe. In Mormonism, acting upon same-sex attraction is considered a sin, often resulting in the homophobic and exclusionary attitudes towards homosexuality from Mormons. The idea of a gay man dying of AIDs being declared a religious figure is a doxical convention in and of itself.

I know this is a cliché answer, but there are so many claims I could make about this text. But the one I want to focus is the nature of Joe and Louis’s relationship. Even though Louis is obviously the bigger asshole in lots of ways (i.e. leaving Prior when he is literally dying and saying everything to Belize during the democracy monologue in Act 3 Scene 2 (97-100)), I am going to argue that Joe is not that great of a person as well. First of all, it seems like Joe and Harper got married just because they had to and not because they initially loved each other. The nickname ‘buddy’ kind of alludes to this because it makes it seem like they are more friends than lovers or partners (18). Secondly, Joe is not forcing Harper to get help for her Valium; he honestly seems to shut down about it i.e. when they are arguing and he asks how many pills she has taken: “I won’t talk to you when you-” (36). This is not dissimilar to Louis shutting down Prior’s sickness.

Even though these passages above do offer insight on Joe, the main scene that solidified this claim for me was Act 3 Scene 4 in Perestroika. They are talking on the beach in Brooklyn and Louis is trying to grapple with the severity of their actions together: cheating, abandoning their partners, exploring sexuality etc. But Joe just wants to initiate sex with Louis when he is attempting a mature conversation (202). Even more so, Joe is just plainly ignoring his identity as a Republican and a Mormon (203). In my opinion, Joe’s thought process consists of the reasoning of since he is in a sexual relationship with Louis, his entire past cannot have an impact because it is entirely separate. The fact that Louis acknowledges that in this scene and Joe doesn’t is pretty telling.

Even though this statement was kind of tangential, I want to make it clear that I do have more sympathy for Joe than I do for Lewis. No one should have to deal with the internal conflict that comes with this brand of self-discovery. However, Joe needs to do serious internal work in order to come with terms with his religious affiliation, his relationship with his wife and not distract from his problems with sex.

Angels In America uses humor to add levity to a deeply emotional crisis in the US. This strategic usage of comedic relief reveals a similar structure to the Shakespearean tragedy Hamlet. When comparing the two pieces they both give the audience a break from the heavy and dark content while conveying a deeper message that would otherwise be difficult for audiences to absorb raw. Converting the message into an entertaining piece allows for the message to be more accessible to a wider audience. Angels in America has strategic comedic relief much like when the gravediggers in hamlet make light of Ophelias’s suicide, a serious and uncomfortable subject while also glorifying their professions as gravediggers. (Hamlet, Act 5. Scene1) Hamlet detracts from the serious nature of the subject of death just as Angels in America detracts from the uncomfortable and painful subject of the AIDS crisis in America.

Furthermore Hamlet himself is much like our Prior Walter using witty and sarcastic comebacks in their unfortunate circumstances. Prior Walter who is suffering but undoubtedly funny is one of the plays biggest comedic reliefs even though he is in one of the worst conditions, symptomatic with aids and understanding of his ultimate early demise. Prior when arguing with Louis responds to Louis’s serious discussion of law with thick sarcasm “I like this; very zen its … reassuringly incomprehensible and useless. We who are about to die thank you.” (Act 1. Scene 8) The play’s dark humor shows some of the characters resilience and strength in their ability to find humor amidst the overwhelming tragedy surrounding their lives during the AIDS epidemic.

Prior also carries a message for this story as he has received a “prophecy from the 8 vaginad angel”(Act 2. Scene 2) much like when a spirit came to Hamlet. (Act 1. Scene 5) This interaction is a point of revelation for both characters and will influence their actions through the second half of the play and impact the overall message that they hold for the entire story. While priors story is not the only main focus in Angles in America the dark humor and relief he brings will have a more widespread impact on an audience as his comedic relief breaks the heavy story into bite sized pieces that is more appealing to a diverse audience that might otherwise be uncomfortable or unwilling to hear the story.

When I first read Angels in America by Tony Kushner, one thing that  stood out to me was the contradiction between the emphasis on camp and camp imagery and the bleak reality which the play is really focused on. For all the ghosts, hallucinations, and angels, reality remains the same, but the characters remain distracted. Angels in America is about the futility of queer infighting in the face of oppression. One of the scenes which stuck out to me the most was Belize and Louis’ conversation in Act Three Scene Two of Millennium Approaches. It’s a split scene with Belize and Louis in a coffee shop and Prior in a hospital room. Notably, Belize and Louis refuse to speak about Prior in this scene. Instead, Louis draws Belize into an unrelated argument which resolves nothing. When they eventually do bring up Prior, the conversation is steered back towards an argument:

Belize: “You promised Louis, Prior is not a subject.”

Louis: “You brought him up.”

Belize: “I brought up Hemorrhoids.”

Louis: “So it’s indirect. Passive-Aggresive.”

Belize: “Unlike, I suppose, banging me over the head with your theory that America doesn’t have  a race problem.” (Kushner 97)

Eventually, the two do talk about Prior and the scene shifts to him and his deteriorating state. This scene reads like a critique of queer infighting. While Louis concerns himself with abstract theories and coffee shop debates, Prior is still dying of HIV/AIDS and Louis is not there for him. We even see Belize, who was initially simply nodding along, get sucked into an argument with Louis, which reads as an allegory about how it is easier to argue about abstracts than it is to do something about actual issues affecting queer people in the present. Angels in America is emphasizing the importance of action in the face of crisis as opposed to distracting oneself. We see this many times during the play, Harper hallucinates Mr. Lies , Roy Cohn insists he’s not gay and has liver cancer, and the angel itself may not even be real. But Harper is still in a dysfunctional relationship, Roy Cohn is still dying of aids, and so is Prior. Ultimately, Angels In America is a critique of inaction and passivity, the thing which made the AIDS epidemic so deadly in the first place.

Perestroika… oh where to start. Let’s talk about that orgasm shall we…!

Reading that was genuinely one of the most interesting things I’ve ever read, and it got me thinking about how powerful FEELING GOOD actually is. It is a radical act in and of itself, but specifically for Prior. At the cusp of the AIDS crisis, men were advised to stop having sex, which can be interpreted as sexual barriers and infringement on their freedoms and desires. I could never imagine living through this and advising the world that their sexuality must be halted and closeted for the world. When looking at the context of “Plasma Orgasmata” and how the Angel fits into all of this, I notice that there is an extreme sense of hypersexuality in this religious space. We can also bring up the fact of a gay man being the prophet and such, but I really appreciate the sensualness and campiness we get to experience in this part… especially since this man is gay and just encountered 8 vaginas (spiritually of course). I think the most interesting part is the creativity of the word choice in this act. Starting on page 163 and ending on 174, the Angel says things like “the universe aflame with angelic ejaculate” and “seraphic rut,” which emphasize this idea of divine sexuality within deep religious imagery/queer spaces.  Queer bodies are divine; queer bodies are heavenly and should be treated as such. I love what AIA did in this scene to camp it up and also make a comment on the socio-political relationship of the church.

That’s all for now queens.

– Para Scisscors

     In the play of Angels in America, Roy is a political figure who hates gay people and actively pushes the narrative that they spread AIDs. In some instances, this can be viewed negatively due to the amount of people advocating for gay rights and refusal of gay people spreading AIDs. Tony Kushner does an interesting take with Roy, as they constantly set representations for someone in the political with homophobia.

     During the exchange with Henry and Roy, the process of getting Roy to accept his illness was a never-ending denial, especially for their character. However, the things Roy talks about in Act 1 Scene 9, “No say it. I mean it. Say: ‘Roy Cohn, you are a homosexual.’ And I will proceed to destroy your reputation and your practice and your career in New York State, Henry. Which you know I can do” (Kushner 45). Roy uses his power as a political figure to shut down any ideas of Henry claiming that Roy might be gay. In addition, during the AIDs epidemic there might be possibilities of politicians preventing research of curing AIDs as seen in the quote. Roy seems to carry this skewed perception of reality, especially when they go out of their way to deny their disease. In Act 1 Scene 9, Roy says, “AIDS. Homosexual. Gay. Lesbian. You think these are names that tell you who someone sleeps with, but they don’t tell you that” (Kushner 46). This ties together the issues of AIDs being linked with homosexuality, since it is viewed in a negative light enforcing discrimination and shame on the LGBTQ community by people in power.

     Something Roy brings up near the end of their conversation with Henry is that there seems to be men sleeping with him to get good connections like communicating with the President and such. A part of hypocrisy that Roy continues to deny any relation to AIDS and homosexuality and even deconstructing labels. In Act 1 Scene 9, Roy tells Henry,” Not ideology, or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Not who I fuck or who fucks me, but who will pick up the phone when I call, who owes me favors. This is what a label refers to” (Kushner 46). This showcases the level of denial Roy has for their sexuality going as far as using it for “clout” and not acknowledging the proper use of labels for LGBTQ folk. 

“Boy in a Whalebone Corset” by Saeed Jones is about a gay man who likes to dress femininely and this is found out by his seemingly conservative and non accepting father who reacts very harshly and negatively. “Im against the wall, bruised/but out of mine: dream-headed/with my corset still on, stays/slightly less tight, bones against/bones, broken glass on the floor,/dance steps for a waltz/with no partner”(12). The speaker is hurt, whether physically or emotionally and mentally after his father finds his feminine clothing. As I know from other Saeed Jones poems and his New York Times essay, Jones would use poetry to distract himself from his reality– to pretend he’s not experiencing these feelings but rather a character he’s written about. “Bruised but out of mine” is the speaker’s way of disassociating, from pretending he’s anywhere but in his room watching his father burn his clothes. I imagine “dance steps with a waltz/with no partner” to mean his journey of self-discovery he’s had to take alone. “Father in my room/ looking for more sissy clothes/to burn. Something pink in his fist,/negligee, lace, fishnet, whore./His son’s a whore this last night/of Sodom”(page 12). His father is searching his room to look for more feminine clothing which later in the poem I learn he burns with a gasoline jug and matches in their yard. The italicized “sissy clothes” could mean the father called them that. While the actions in the poem are quite literal, how it makes the author feel is represented in metaphors. Other Saeed Jones poems like The Blue Dress and Boy in a Stolen Evening Gown relate to this poem with the part clothes can play.