Peiss 13 and 14, Angels in America Part 2- Perestroika
To start off, I accidentally read the essay on the Tuskegee study before reading the other two. It was very informative and a fine addition to the context with which I understood the primary source readings. In this weeks readings, I found my focus clearly on the alliance and kinship relationships in both Angels in America and the second essay. Of course, it is also evident in the other readings, but I found there to be a prominent relationship with the Weston essay and Kushner’s second part.
First of all, in both the parts of Angels in America, the technical blocking in the play lends itself to a blurred perception of the lives of the characters, and the overlap and intermingling of characters, which becomes more pronounced in Perestroika, highlights the ideas in “Families We Choose.” In the essay, Weston talks about how some people in the gay “community” (I put this in quotations because of the lengthy discussion of the application of the word) identify with their blood-relatives, while others do not. Subsequently, those who are related biologically may or may not be considered family. This consideration translates into the relationship Joe has with his mother throughout Angels in America, through the complex inferences about Joe’s past, but also the evolution of Ms. Pitt once she joins the characters in New York. The supportive role she takes on with both Harper and Prior illustrate this. As an in-law, she is a traditional extension of Harper’s family, but with her son’s departure from the marriage, she takes on a different kind of maternal role; one that is not compulsory. With Prior, she also takes on a somewhat maternal role, comforting and staying with Prior through his vision and sickness.
Another aspect of this is the overlap in actors and characters. Because actors in the performance play more than one role, they cement the theme of continuity between people. With Belize as Harper’s travel agent, and all the characters save Prior playing the angels, and Prior’s nurse also playing the angel, the play itself reflects the sameness among different people, and the roles that they may play in one anothers lives.
The idea of the chosen family comprised of lovers, friends, children, and myriad other people, whether they are loved dearly or not (500), is also illustrated in the last scene. With all the characters sitting around the statue Bethesda Fountain, the audience sees the total package of connected people. Though Louis and Belize have some tension (both also past lovers of Prior), they remain his family, brought together through time and suffering. Weston mentions how chosen families would sometimes disintegrate after tragedy, and how others would prevail to be stronger (501).
The scenes with references to the Ramble in Central Park were also interesting to me, when comparing them with the essay on the debate over the bathhouses. It is certainly a difficult undertaking to attempt to regulate the sexual behavior of people in the public setting, and the private is impossible, without question. The uncertain benefits of closing the bathhouses in San Fransisco, and the uncorroborated ties between attendance and contracting HIV/AIDS is a reminder of that difficulty. The question then is in the worth or value of the pursuit to do so, and whether the ends justify the means. A thoroughly heated debate, especially because of the divide within the institutions making the “final decision.” The Ramble was well-known as a meeting place in NYC for people to meet and engage in activities with one another, or for people to go see said activities taking place (as Joe mentions when he explains where he goes watching/walking). The overlap between individual liberty and the public forum is one that is continuously mired in contention and precariousness. There were a number of references to the libertarian point of view, which I think is interesting, as it has not been a prominent one in the American psyche since the rise of neo-conservatism. The rise of importance in this culture of social issues in the political forum has also muddied the ability to differentiate between discourses, and has been a platform where there is a divide within one or another. This divisive tendency coincides with the Deployment of Sexuality and the blurred ideas of family. It seems that within the great endeavor to shake oneself clean of the conventional “values” and “morals,” be it conscious or not, there is socially and culturally a lack of clarity in what direction the divergence is moving. This lack of understanding creates the need for a backlash and a clinging to the traditions of yesteryear, be they useful to the population or not. I digress…
