True to its alternate name of "A Gay Fantasia," Angels in America is a play integrally bound up in the issues concerning the gay community of the mid-1980's. Indeed, the play does not simply touch upon gay issues but actually is fundamentally about homosexuality in America, in the social and political climate of that era. As a result, when reading it, it is impossible for anyone, particularly a gay or lesbian reader, to bypass the question of exactly what impact this dramatic work has had on the gay community. Specifically, one finds oneself considering whether the primary effects of the play were positive, negative, or mixed, and what exactly these effects may have been.
For most gay men or lesbians struggling to survive in mainstream American society, the image which the gay community presents to the straight majority is of crucial importance. Thus, one of the first questions which comes to mind upon considering Kushner's play is whether it presents a positive image of gay people to the straight reader. A particularly crucial area of concern here is the question of how stereotypes are dealt with in the play. Taking into account the personalities of his characters, the way in which Kushner deals with gay stereotypes can reasonably be a first question for consideration here. So-called "assimilationists" in the gay community today, like the character Louis (in Act III, Scene 2), favor aggressively trying to eradicate stereotyping by, if necessary, actually remodeling one's behaviors for the sake of society's imprimatur. These face off against the rather more confrontational activists, like Kushner himself, who understand the fact that stereotypes are ultimately grounded in truth. To destroy the stereotypes would be to destroy an actual part of the community, a part which in fact has as much right to exist -- and to be celebrated -- as has any other. Nearly all of the gay men in Angels display at least some element which may be found in the stereotypical image of the male homosexual; yet these traits are neither exaggerated nor apologized for. Further, the positive and even endearing elements of these possibly stereotypical behaviors are brought forward as well, and it is also made abundantly clear that the character's identities hardly revolve around the stereotypical elements in their behaviors. Examples of the treatment of stereotype in the play include: Louis' usually fairly "butch" behavior punctuated by his displays of tears and intense emotion over his lover's illness and his own indecision; Prior's inspiring strength and insight in the face of his illness coexist with his "swishy" behavior and modes of speech; and Belize the quite convincingly "femme" drag queen possesses enormous depths of compassion, intelligence, and humor, while also being capable of quite effectively expressing and defending zir political and social views. It is true that the straight reader -- and in fact, the gay reader as well -- might come away from the play with a reinforced image of gay men as exhibiting some stereotypical behavior. However, the reader, whether straight or gay, should also gain an appreciation not only for the positive aspects of these traits, but also for the other aspects of their personalities which often lie behind it. Considering how well this effect is accomplished by the play, it is likely that Kushner had such an intent in mind when he created the personalities of its characters.
Turning from the play's effects on society's image of gay men to ways in which it more directly impacts the gay community, one question which comes to mind is whether it has helped the gay community by increasing awareness of the AIDS problem. After all, the play is almost as much about the ravages of the AIDS epidemic as it is about gay men. It is true that the play was actually written in 1991, after AIDS awareness had been raised to a far higher level than it was at during the time at which the play is set, 1985. But unfortunately, AIDS is a disease about which people need to be educated and reminded even today, and it certainly was so in 1991 as well. Angels is a play which graphically and heart-wrenchingly confronts the reader with the physical and emotional effects of this disease on its main characters. The reader sees Louis lose his love and his honor due to his inability to cope with Prior's decline and looming death; sees Prior facing a lingering death bravely but alone and in agony; and sees Roy Cohn struck down at the height of his power due to his lack of caution and unwillingness to acknowledge his condition; all his power and aggressiveness is not sufficient to save him. All three of these striking examples of lives affected by AIDS leave a deep impression on the reader, one which may reasonably be expected to sway the reader not only to greater caution and awareness of AIDS on his or her own part, but also to increased understanding and sympathy for its victims. Each of these three examples, in fact, offers a different message to the reader: Louis' case brings home the importance of being prepared to deal with and support a loved one who becomes infected; Prior's case awakens sympathy for the physical and emotional sufferings of the victims; and Roy's arouses anger at the hypocrisy of those who deny the significance or severity of the epidemic and also offers an image of the consequences of unsafe and irresponsible behavior. Finally, Angels gives the reader a moving and vibrant snapshot of the AIDS situation of the 1980's. One sees not only how devastating a disease it was, but also how the human element -- naivet�, denial, and government indifference -- served to make its effects far worse than they might have been. A receptive reader cannot fail to be moved to outrage and compassion at this image, and quite possibly to take positive action currently as well, for even today the situation regarding AIDS is hardly a rosy one.
One of the play's most pitiable characters, who surely bears his share of both personal anguish as well as responsibility for the emotional suffering of others, is the Mormon, Joe Pitt. Reading about his struggle to repress his homosexuality is especially significant now, when the latest attack of the religious right upon the gay community has come in the form of the so-called "ex-gay" movement, which holds forth the mirage that all gay people can and should make themselves straight. Joe, being a devout Mormon, was mired in this philosophy as well; one learns that even from childhood, he struggled with all strength to quash his growing homosexual feelings. His reason for marrying Harper did not involve anything approaching true love for her. In fact, his primary motive for marrying her was the near-cliche incentive of the repressed gay male: he wanted to use her as a kind of camouflage, to help himself pass. Further, he wanted to be with her in order to make himself feel better, more righteous, since she was always wrong in some way, always out of step. When he was with her, he could pretend that he, in contrast, was "okay." But it was not enough. He remained inescapably tortured by the inescapable truth of who he was. Describing his efforts to kill his homosexual desires, Joe gives the reader an absolutely haunting mental image as he says, "I try to learn to live dead, just numb, but then I see someone I want, and it's like a nail, like a hot spike through my chest, and I know I'm losing." (Act II, Scene 9) It would be extremely difficult to find a more perfect, compact, and moving portrait of the self-torture of a repressed gay person. As if this were not bad enough, however, Joe is not the only victim here. Harper, who was wounded enough before, is being used by Joe, who can never truly love her as she deserves to be, as his wife. As Joe is stretched closer to the breaking point, he emotionally draws further away from her, to the extent that she begins even to perceive him as a stranger, someone to be feared. She is forced to struggle alone to an understanding of the situation, while Joe, who wants to believe himself righteous, rages at her when she tries to uncover the truth of his secret. Their sex life is deeply dissatisfying to both of them, Harper's longing for a baby remains unfulfilled, she responds to her husband's withdrawal from her by retreating deeper into her fantasies and hallucinations, and all the while is racked by emotional torment and uncertainty. Finally, Joe, in his efforts to be a "righteous" man, is blithely working with hideously unscrupulous right-wing politicians whose agendas include demolishing any hope of gay rights legislation. In Joe, the reader is presented with an image of a man who is not only tragically and needlessly torturing himself by repressing a part of his soul, but is also seriously harming others by so doing; hence the effects of repressed homosexuality are made apparent, in all their frustrating tragedy.
The final, lingering message which Angels in America brings to the reader is an implicit call for social and political change. One is presented with an image of a nation and a society full of injustices and cruelty, and is shown both the good people who suffer in it (Prior, Joe, Harper, and in a sense, Louis) and the unfeeling people who perpetuate its ills (Roy Cohn and his cronies). One beholds the corruption of the political right as exemplified by Roy Cohn, in such things as his hypocritically contemptuous and even predatory attitude towards gay men, whom he should by rights regard as brothers; his utter disrespect for the law; and his destructive -- and self-destructive -- thirst for political power. Another outrage is the blatant unfairness inherent in the fact that Louis and Prior, who for most of the play truly loved one another, could not have their relationship accorded the same recognition and respect as that given by society to Joe and Harper's marriage, even though the latter partnership was largely a tragic farce. And one is given a small glimpse of the ravages of AIDS during an era when the government was only reluctantly willing to acknowledge the disease's existence, let alone take any action to help those suffering from it. And these examples of problems portrayed in the play are hardly unique to its time setting, for the political right has hardly changed since that era in terms of its power and its overall aim, AIDS is still a deadly problem in America, and the battle for legal gay marriage continues to rage on. Through exposure to all this, the reader, particularly the gay reader, comes away from the play with a renewed appreciation for the need for sociopolitical reform in this country.
In all these ways, it becomes plain that the effects of Kushner's play on the gay community are indeed primarily positive in nature. Stereotypes and behaviors are explored in a probing and insightful, non-abusive manner. AIDS awareness is enhanced, as well as compassion for its those victimized by it in different ways. The extensive and varied harm of repressed homosexuality is convincingly and piercingly illustrated. And the reader hopefully will come away from the play with inspiration to try to make this world a better place, or at least to have more respect for those who do. Hence, Angels in Americais a prime example of modern activist theater.
| back to essay index |
