Themes In Tony Kushner's Angels In America
The very existence and success of Tony Kushner’s Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes suggests a decline in prejudice and an increase in tolerance. And while we consequently may be inclined to offer congratulatory praise to humanity for this forward movement, the content of the play challenges this affirmatory belief in ourselves. As Kushner presents characters, notably Joe and Louis, who express faith in and attempt to actualize a seemingly inevitable linear progression of history, the events in their lives continually illuminate not only the inhospitality of their present, spanning autumn of 1985 to winter of 1986, and the present of the play’s initial performance in 1993 towards a forward progress, but also ironically emphasize
…show more content…
Kushner explicitly deconstructs the faith in a linear progression of history that Joe and Louis hold through the contradictions that surround their beliefs. Joe insists “America has rediscovered itself. Its sacred position among nations” because of “what President Reagan’s done,” establishing a clear separation between the present and the past, asserting “we become better” and have rapidly become qualitatively distinct from “six years ago” when the world seemed in decline, horrible, hopeless, full of unsolvable problems and crime and confusion and hunger” (1.5.91). Yet on the other hand, Louis expresses belief that “the power that was once so carefully preserved at the top of the pyramid by the original framers of the Constitution [seems] drawn inexorably downward and outward in spite of the best effort of the Right to stop this” suggesting not only that progress inevitably occurs even in the face of challenge, but also communicating an understanding of progress that mutually opposes Joe’s understanding (3.2.5). Louis views progress as distinct from the vision of the Right while Joe’s progress lies in close connection with his support for Reagan, a quintessential conservative. Logically, both of their claims cannot be true, an indication that one of their claims lacks veracity. …show more content…
Joe, a homosexual who has remained in a heterosexual marriage for years, becomes exhausted over the fact that “I try to tighten my heart into a knot, a snarl, I try to learn to live dead, just numb, but then I see someone I want, and it’s like a hot spike right through my chest, I know I’m losing” (2.9.34-36). But when Joe finally comes out to Harper, an implicit attempt to free himself from his continual feeling of loss, progress is not well defined for any of the characters involved, a concept most visible through Harper’s diverging emotions. As Harper’s reactions vary, ranging from “I want this to stop, to go back,” to converse begging, “I want to get away from here. Far away. Right now,” and also an expression of indignance and betrayal over the fact that “[he was] going to save [her], but the whole time [he was] spinning a lie,” she demonstrates a desire for both truth and ignorance, a want for both an ending and continuity to the relationship, indicating that no clear answer exists as to how either Joe or Harper can move forwards from this crisis in their marriage (2.9.65-66;73;77-78). Progress cannot and does not exist because a return to the status quo would keep both Joe and Harper trapped in a situation they both clearly cannot remain in and when Joe attempts to move forwards towards a location of
Kushner explicitly deconstructs the faith in a linear progression of history that Joe and Louis hold through the contradictions that surround their beliefs. Joe insists “America has rediscovered itself. Its sacred position among nations” because of “what President Reagan’s done,” establishing a clear separation between the present and the past, asserting “we become better” and have rapidly become qualitatively distinct from “six years ago” when the world seemed in decline, horrible, hopeless, full of unsolvable problems and crime and confusion and hunger” (1.5.91). Yet on the other hand, Louis expresses belief that “the power that was once so carefully preserved at the top of the pyramid by the original framers of the Constitution [seems] drawn inexorably downward and outward in spite of the best effort of the Right to stop this” suggesting not only that progress inevitably occurs even in the face of challenge, but also communicating an understanding of progress that mutually opposes Joe’s understanding (3.2.5). Louis views progress as distinct from the vision of the Right while Joe’s progress lies in close connection with his support for Reagan, a quintessential conservative. Logically, both of their claims cannot be true, an indication that one of their claims lacks veracity. …show more content…
Joe, a homosexual who has remained in a heterosexual marriage for years, becomes exhausted over the fact that “I try to tighten my heart into a knot, a snarl, I try to learn to live dead, just numb, but then I see someone I want, and it’s like a hot spike right through my chest, I know I’m losing” (2.9.34-36). But when Joe finally comes out to Harper, an implicit attempt to free himself from his continual feeling of loss, progress is not well defined for any of the characters involved, a concept most visible through Harper’s diverging emotions. As Harper’s reactions vary, ranging from “I want this to stop, to go back,” to converse begging, “I want to get away from here. Far away. Right now,” and also an expression of indignance and betrayal over the fact that “[he was] going to save [her], but the whole time [he was] spinning a lie,” she demonstrates a desire for both truth and ignorance, a want for both an ending and continuity to the relationship, indicating that no clear answer exists as to how either Joe or Harper can move forwards from this crisis in their marriage (2.9.65-66;73;77-78). Progress cannot and does not exist because a return to the status quo would keep both Joe and Harper trapped in a situation they both clearly cannot remain in and when Joe attempts to move forwards towards a location of