December 1, 2000
Women in Anaels: Does this
amazing play make a statement about women as
well as gay men?
Joanna Shunk
STAFFWIUTER
Angels in America finished
its run last Saturday. The play more
than filled up every one of its six
shows, and was passionately em
braced by almost all of the students
that viewed it. It transcended major
sexual boundaries with its humor.
The play is far more than a sen
timental look at AIDS as it afflicts
four gay men directly and indirectly
The play delves into homosexuality
and AIDS, but, as director Jack Zerbe
tells, it is a story about life in New
York City, how it (to use New York
comedian Lewis Black's word) terror
izes everyone that lives in it. The play
is about a variety of different reac
tions to "the shit hitting the fan" in
New York City.
"Angels in America" is obvi
ously not a one-man play. "Harper
(the female lead) is supposed to be
just as important as Prior (the male
lead)," says theatre major Lis Tyroler,
who read Tbny Kushner's play before
Guilford produoed it. Zerbe agrees
and says furthermore that the play
is not making a statement about gen
der in its juxtaposition of Harper and
Prior. In the initial production, many
of the women's parts were played by
men and vice versa. The director of
that first rendition felt the need to
compensate for something. I think
that something is a bias toward the
gay men that is deeply ingrained in
the play. The play, as all plays do,
pushes the audience toward certain
players more
than others. It
:■ -v • , ■ ;
PUR JVH
MK -'- RF * NFL
N I I^^HHHHBHHHHH!
pushes the audi
ence toward four
gay men, and in
so doing obscures
five women.
All the
women in the
play- - f r o m
Hannah to the
homeless woman
to Ethel
Rosenberg
em to be tass
aooniK..w aiid
less human than
the men. The
women could
simply be foiling
gay male protago
nists in a play ex
clusively focused
on gay men, but
in a far reaching
play like this, the
positive inclina
tion toward the
men raises ques-
tions. The protagonist in this play is
ambiguous: it could be Harper, or it
could be Prior. This shows that
women are not just a supporting ele
ment in this film, a stool the men step
on in order to elevate themselves to
a more glorified position. This would
be demeaning, regardless of whether
the play intended the statement that
women are inferior in sanity and ra
tionality, to the men. The women's
thrust in this not to repress
the men's campaign of sexual free
dom. No, the women have missions
of their own in this play; they are
battling their own monsters in New
York City.
The structure of the play invites
us to compare and contrast the is
sues the males and females are deal
ing with and how they handle them.
Yet this must be done in the light of
the fact that the sex of the players is
not supposed to be given close atten
tion. The meaning of the play is not
supposed to be gender-specific.
A more extreme instance of in
tentional juxtaposition used to con
vey a message is propaganda in a war
film from the forties. Look at those
stinking animal-like Japs; now look
at the glorious American boys. Not
quite so caustically, the audience is
challenged, look at that Harper stuff
ing her mouth with pills and listen
to that Mormon b*tch Hannah talk
ing to her son in a machine-like voice;
now look at Joe doing everything he
can to be a loving husband, despite
the circumstances! And look at Prior
arching with primitive passion --
bringing fond memories to all of us -
- as an angel infuses him with the
divine. If that's not enough to pull you
Does "Angels in America" encourage gender bias?
The Guilfordian
7 orum
to the cause of the gay men, and un
fortunately estrange you from the
women at the same time, juxtapose
the homeless woman and her fran
tic declaration, "in the next century,
everyone's going to be insane" with
Louis' agonizing over the morality of
his actions.
I think that we should be
keenly aware of this portrayal of
women. Once aware of the fact that
the female players bear much of the
negative characterization of New
York - the selfishness, the aggres
siveness, the neurosis -- we can care
fully embrace the gender-blind
meaning of the play. This play is nigh
perfect; it conveys a humanity and
charm on the homosexual man's part.
Our society continues to deny the ho
mosexual man, especially the homo
sexual man with AIDS, these traits.
That is a major problem that needs
to be fought with all of Guilford's ar
tistic might. Congratulations to Jack
Zerbe and all of the Guilford Theatre
Company. Yet, I believe that I can only
appreciate the play to this extent
because of my assumption, which
Zerbe and Kushner encourage, that
the women represent a much larger
demographic. Unfortunately, not ev
eiyone who saw the play knew this.
They are the world's non-homosexu
als. The men are not just men in gen
eral: they represent homosexuals af
flicted with AIDS...a group that hap
pens to be predominantly male.
Finally, I think it's important to
mention that gender, especially in
this play, is not to be confused with
sex. Rosa Levasseur pointed out to
me that "Belize is pretty effeminate."
Hats off to Belize.
COURTESY OF 808 ELDERKIN
Page 9