Difficulties of Translating Medium for Angels in America

Difficulties of Translating Medium for Angels in America

Mike Nichols’ 2003 HBO film adaption of Tony Kushner’s 1993 play Angels in America provides an almost word for word representation of its predecessor though it has a vastly different resonance to the play. The resounding difference between these two mediums lies largely in the delineation of Jewish themes of persecution and faith as well as the undeniably different socio-cultural responses to Aids since its appearance in the 1980s. That is to say that the 2003 film adaption becomes far less a narrative about the future than Kushner’s play. In shifting the medium of Angels in America from play to film with dramaturgical loyalty the script becomes unavoidably more insular and thus resonates differently with the audience.

The first evidence of the unavoidable introspection of the film adaption is shown to the audience in the opening scene of the film (different to the opening credits.) While both film and play open on Rabbi Isidor Chemelwitz presiding over Sarah Ironson’s funeral the audience to which this speech is delivered in the film is articulated to the audience, while in the play these words are delivered straight to the audience themselves, the Rabbi is the only character present. This scene was created to be impersonal, the Rabbi “unapologetically consulting a sheet of notes for the family names” (Millennium Approaches, act 1, scene 1) furthermore acknowledging “I did not know this woman.” (Millennium Approaches, act 1, scene 1)  Deliberately the scene was constructed in this way by Kushner but in the film it is presented differently, with the camera surveying the family and their responses during the reading making the filmic introduction far more personal than that of the play. This shifts the audience’s response both emotionally and in regard their role in constructing meaning.

The first scene of Angels in America acts in the way a prologue would for a novel. What is revealed to the audience is not narratively crucial but is thematically constructive. It introduces the audience to themes of the formative power of a shared history - “… not a person but a whole kind of person,” (Millennium Approaches, act 1, scene 1) - and highlights the contention of the concept that is ‘America’ – “You do not live in America. No such place exists.” (Millennium Approaches, act 1, scene 1) – all while framing these concerns in a Jewish theological perspective. It can be inferred then that the minimalism and candor of this scene with its direct communication to the audience, as opposed to the congregation of family was intended to instruct the audience in how they should construct their meanings (as most prologues do.) The directness of this scene is lost; what the film offers as a substitute, the panning opening scene soaring through the clouds over America does not go as far to suggest the themes of the text as the directness of addressing the audience. This creates some distance between narrative progression and audience.

Oddly enough despite the refusal to blur the distinction between literal and figurative audience in the opening scene, the film does break this fourth wall (as does the play) with the departure of Hannah and also in the Epilogue. The final words of both film and play, delivered straight to the audience are:

“This disease will be the end of many of us, but not nearly all, and the dead will be commemorated and will struggle on with the living and we are not going away. We won’t die secret deaths anymore. The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come. Bye now. You are fabulous creatures, each and every one. And I bless you: More Life. The Great Work Begins.” (Perestroika, Epilogue)

The concerns of this passage mirror the ones presented to the audience at Sarah Ironside’s funeral and are crucial almost-concluding thoughts on Kushner’s thematic exploration of national identity and direction. Breaking the fourth wall in this way obviously imbues the audience with a certain agency in constructing meaning. The film flirted with this directness to the audience in many of Prior’s dream scenes in which a front on headshot alluded to the real audience being the intended audience, but visual cutting from Angels to Prior and back meant that this was only flirtation. In finally addressing the audience in the closing scenes of the film it leaves the audience dealing with an uncomfortable jolt in narrative perspective. It removes the insulation that the film had created for itself to open Kushner’s intended meaning to the audience, but does it far less successfully than the play. This is due in part to the necessity of retrospection in films firmly grounded in realism.

The practical time in between creation and production of play versus film means that plays present a certain flexibility which allow them to cater for socio-cultural shifts, while a film will always be a product of its time because of its stasis. That is to say, a film will always be as it was made, it is unable to be improved upon or added to. (This is to discredit any substantial thematic change in becoming ‘high definition’ or with the inclusion of removed scenes in a director’s cut edition.) The progressive ideology which propelled Kushner’s play was substantially enhanced by his choice of medium, he acknowledged as much in the playwright’s notes:

“A NOTE ABOUT THE STAGING: The play benefits from a pared-down style of presentation, with minimal scenery and scene shifts done rapidly (no blackouts!), employing the cast as well as stagehands – which makes for an actor-driven event, as this must be.” (Kushner, Playwright’s Notes, Italicism my own.)

 Although these rapid shifts are far more easily achieved in a filmic medium, the audiences’ responses to them are distinctly different as the history of the medium has conditioned us for this expectation, such is not the case with a stage production. Kushner capitalizes on the manipulation of the stage to further the forward thinking themes which propel the play. This is unfortunately unable to be capitalized on in Nichols’ adaption. The uses of Kushner’s filmic techniques in a filmic medium appear considerably drabber than they would on stage.

The Jewish focus that is present in the play, although seen in the film, seems substantially less important. The parallel between Jewish diaspora and the American identity was introduced in the opening of the play, though the importance of this scene was substantially marginalized in its translation to film as previously discussed. This theme though provides an interesting crux not only by which to examine the themes within the play, but also in exploring the change of importance of these themes in translating the medium of the play. The diaspora of Jews and their incorporation into American identity provided a strong analogy to suggest the future of the gay community in 1993. By 2003 this analogy seems less potent as the acceptance of this identity had (to some extent) already occurred. This underscores much of what is lost in the translation of medium.

The agency that is given to the audience in constructing meaning is something that is inherent in the medium of plays and is not so readily seen in a filmic context. This is why the breaking of the fourth wall at the end of Nichols’ Angels in America seems misplaced. When an audience attends a play it presents a far more immediate and visceral experience than offered by a film, so to call upon them seems considerably more acceptable. Being in the moment of the play diminishes the socio-cultural changes which occurred since its creation by removing the audience from the real world – that is by placing them in a dark and silent room – in a way that a ‘Home Box Office’ cannot. These changes can also be accounted for in other ways in production: reimaging wardrobe, modernizing language, so on. The medium of a play is far more fluid and ‘real’ than a film and this seems vital when comparing the filmic and stage imaginations of Angels in America. Baz Luhrman’s 1996 film, Romeo + Juliet is a relevant point of comparison as it alludes to the different functions of film and stage, it suggests that for a film to be ‘successful’ (the measurement of success in films being almost impossible to quantify) it requires a re-imagination of its staged predecessor, or at the very least an acknowledgement of passed time. Nichols’ adaption does not seem to offer this re-imagination effectively. Luhrman saw necessary to reinvent a tale that exists separate to time (for what is more enduring than a love story?) Yet Nichols’ fails to see the necessity to update the perspective through which he explores the direction of the American identity, despite the passing of 20 odd years between the plays setting and its filmic debut. This disparity seems more potent a failing when dealing with something as important as re-envisioning the American identity.

The primary failing in the re-imagination of Kushner’s Pulitzer Prize winning Angels in America is precisely in the failing to re-imagine. America’s response to the Gay community had changed so vastly from the year in which the play was set – 1985 – to the year it was released on film – 2003 – that it seems unjust to acknowledge in no way the passing of time and the altered socio-culture resonances that are implicit. This calls back to the opening scene:

“You can never make that crossing that she made … But every day of your lives the miles that voyage between that place and this one you cross. Every day. You understand me? In you that journey is.” (Millennium Approaches, act 1, scene 1)

Nichols’ adaption failed this understanding in his approach to representing the plight faced by the Gay community in the face of HIV. Nichols Angels in America had neither the propelling dynamism of Kushner’s production or the reflection he favors through Jewish/Gay analogy. This is not to say there is any clear way to resolve this issue in translating the medium of other plays in the future, nor to condemn Nichols’ adaption – for it is an accurate recapitulation of its predecessor – rather it underscores an issue posed by any text which deals with such significant and culturally present themes as Angels in America.

Works Cited:

Kushner, Tony Millennium Approaches, Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, New York: Theatre Communications Group. 1995. 15-125. Print

Kushner, Tony Perestroika, Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, New York: Theatre Communications Group. 1995. 127-280. Print

Angels in America, dir. Mike Nichols, 2003, Home Box Office, 2004. DVD