I just watched the first half of Angels in America, which is a total of six hours long. I really kinda didn't mean to, but it's really interesting. Pretentious as hell, but I haven't finished it, so it's hard to know if it winds up working in the end or if it just stays weird through parts. But it's definitely good and if you didn't watch it on HBO when it ran, I recommend renting it. I wasn't bored once and if it weren't six in the morning now I'd still be watching.
The only thing that bugged me is I know it won a metric fuckton of Emmies, and while I don't necessarily disagree with that, it sort of annoys me that the recipients were Al Pacino and Meryl Streep for leads and Geoffrey Wright (I think that's his name...the one who played Jean-Michel Basquiat in the movie Baquiat) and Mary-Louise Parker for supporting. Not that they weren't good, but so far, as far as I can tell, Al Pacino and Meryl Streep are not the leads. They're in it a lot, and Meryl Streep has played three roles so far including a male rabbi, but they aren't the central characters. I know there's a hierarchy in Hollywood, but honestly, the no-names who do play the leads could probably use an Emmy far more than either of them. And they are very good also.
Ah, well, not a big deal. I know it turned out to be a fairly big thing on TV so I'm sure they'll get roles either way, but still. Would've been nice, you know, to be in a miniseries with Meryl Streep and Al Pacino and Emma Thompson and then get recognized for your work on it over them.
By the way, Mike NIchols made an excellent HBO movie a year or two ago called Wit which starred Emma Thompson and was written by the two of them. About a woman dying of ovarian cancer. It's depressing stuff, but if you're feeling up for it, god, it really was excellent, and I don't think it really ever got recognized for it.
The only thing that bugged me is I know it won a metric fuckton of Emmies, and while I don't necessarily disagree with that, it sort of annoys me that the recipients were Al Pacino and Meryl Streep for leads and Geoffrey Wright (I think that's his name...the one who played Jean-Michel Basquiat in the movie Baquiat) and Mary-Louise Parker for supporting. Not that they weren't good, but so far, as far as I can tell, Al Pacino and Meryl Streep are not the leads. They're in it a lot, and Meryl Streep has played three roles so far including a male rabbi, but they aren't the central characters. I know there's a hierarchy in Hollywood, but honestly, the no-names who do play the leads could probably use an Emmy far more than either of them. And they are very good also.
Ah, well, not a big deal. I know it turned out to be a fairly big thing on TV so I'm sure they'll get roles either way, but still. Would've been nice, you know, to be in a miniseries with Meryl Streep and Al Pacino and Emma Thompson and then get recognized for your work on it over them.
By the way, Mike NIchols made an excellent HBO movie a year or two ago called Wit which starred Emma Thompson and was written by the two of them. About a woman dying of ovarian cancer. It's depressing stuff, but if you're feeling up for it, god, it really was excellent, and I don't think it really ever got recognized for it.
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
soleils:
I read the play in Play Analysis, when I was a drama student a few years ago. It made for some pretty interesting class discussions. I think it would be really awesome to see it on stage. As far as the tv version goes, I saw it a few months ago on tv, and I was happy with how they presented it. I kinda liked the idea that the actors played more than one role because in a way that made it more theatrical.
aperfectsonnet:
"You suck at having a penis." made my week.