Big
Given how many Big Issues are being thrown around in Angels in America like confetti--AIDS, the Reagan years, the Rosenberg case, Mormonism, the fate and promise of America, acceptance of homosexuals in society, religious prophecy--it comes as no surprise that although one begins to expect a grand unification theory to be presented, a clear-cut one never seems to be proffered. Rather, it is content with a number of small conclusions, which don’t seem in the end to merit the weight and grandeur of all that the viewer has undergone in the interim--especially Prior’s millennial angelic visions, which are initially interesting but ultimately a narrative dead-end.
--Chris Barsanti
When I saw Nevada Rep's production of Angels in America (part one) twelve (or more) years ago, the sound system blew out just as the angel delivers the line "Greetings prophet, the great work begins, the messenger has arrived." That kind of glitch shouldn't be happening in such a big play. In any case, the play impressed me so much that I started playing around with the idea of building a web page to address big historical issues. I got no further than an index page, which I preserve (probably out of sentiment). Around the same time someone suggested that I start a blog. I stumbled into LJ, and that was that. It wasn't easy getting an LJ account back then, either. You had to trick it into accepting you, which I obviously somehow did.
I still haven't seen the HBO movie and Brüka's production of part one is called today because of snow. It looks I'll be able to see it March 14. Yes, there is two feet of snow outside and it's still snowing. Anyway, what I remember of the Nevada Rep production, and because I tried to read part two, I'm afraid Barsanti is about right. Part two has a real interesting beginning, indeed, a real promising beginning, but I didn't find it going anywhere. At least in a few weeks I'll be able to compare productions.
[W]ithin the American political establishment, there is unequivocal bi-partisan repudiation of the Nuremberg principles, which outlawed, and made criminal, the planning and launching of aggressive war.
--Richard Hoffman
In the twenty years since 1990, America’s position on international law has crystallised--aggressive war is a legitimate instrument of national policy. It is appropriate to review some of the major milestones in this process, which culminated in Barack Obama’s speech in Oslo last October. In his Nobel Prize speech, the president confirmed that he, too, was a supporter of the destruction of the Nuremberg precedents.
--Richard Hoffman
I didn't read Audacity of Hope but I did attend the meeting of the reading group that discussed the book. The interesting opinion that emerged was that the book illustrates the weakness that is making Barak Obama's presidency a failure--he displays too much balance, too much propensity toward reconciling all sides of issues. It's interesting that Obama's supporters are actually saying that. I'm afraid the reality is a very lack of balance, a complete surrender to the most reactionary elements.
--Chris Barsanti
When I saw Nevada Rep's production of Angels in America (part one) twelve (or more) years ago, the sound system blew out just as the angel delivers the line "Greetings prophet, the great work begins, the messenger has arrived." That kind of glitch shouldn't be happening in such a big play. In any case, the play impressed me so much that I started playing around with the idea of building a web page to address big historical issues. I got no further than an index page, which I preserve (probably out of sentiment). Around the same time someone suggested that I start a blog. I stumbled into LJ, and that was that. It wasn't easy getting an LJ account back then, either. You had to trick it into accepting you, which I obviously somehow did.
I still haven't seen the HBO movie and Brüka's production of part one is called today because of snow. It looks I'll be able to see it March 14. Yes, there is two feet of snow outside and it's still snowing. Anyway, what I remember of the Nevada Rep production, and because I tried to read part two, I'm afraid Barsanti is about right. Part two has a real interesting beginning, indeed, a real promising beginning, but I didn't find it going anywhere. At least in a few weeks I'll be able to compare productions.
[W]ithin the American political establishment, there is unequivocal bi-partisan repudiation of the Nuremberg principles, which outlawed, and made criminal, the planning and launching of aggressive war.
--Richard Hoffman
In the twenty years since 1990, America’s position on international law has crystallised--aggressive war is a legitimate instrument of national policy. It is appropriate to review some of the major milestones in this process, which culminated in Barack Obama’s speech in Oslo last October. In his Nobel Prize speech, the president confirmed that he, too, was a supporter of the destruction of the Nuremberg precedents.
--Richard Hoffman
I didn't read Audacity of Hope but I did attend the meeting of the reading group that discussed the book. The interesting opinion that emerged was that the book illustrates the weakness that is making Barak Obama's presidency a failure--he displays too much balance, too much propensity toward reconciling all sides of issues. It's interesting that Obama's supporters are actually saying that. I'm afraid the reality is a very lack of balance, a complete surrender to the most reactionary elements.