天使在美国

Introduction In the past century, the LGBT in America have fought long and hard for their equal rights. The majority of Americans are now in favor of homosexual marriage, while as lately as 1989 merely a little more than 10 percent of the nation liked this idea (Smith). Gay writers have played a big role in this shift, as Christopher Bram writes: “The gay revolution began as a literary revolution” (qtd. in Smith). According to him, The Second World War and the civil rights movements in the 1960s have helped normalizing gay’s social image, however that progress was impeded by the epidemic of AIDS. Gram argues: “Antigay politicians now used the disease to resist campaigns for tolerance and equality” (qtd. in Smith). The circumstance is especially so in the Reagan Era as he championed traditional family and Christian values, protecting the mainstream rich and neglecting the needs of those who pose alternative religious and political stances, especially gays and AIDS patients. The gay rights movement retreated, and they desperately needed a voice to preclude from being ostracized and misread by the mainstream values. So, gay writings were “invigorated” (Smith). This is when Tony Kushner’s Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia on National Themes stepped on the stage of history. In 1991, the first part of Kushner’s play, Angels in America: Approaching the Millennium received its premier in San Francisco, and the second part: Perestroika premiered in 1992. By the time that Kushner officially published the complete work in 1995, Angels had already earned one Pulitzer and two Tony Awards accompanied with a great number of other awards and nominations. Being a Jewish homosexual, Kushner was well aware of the problems described by Bram, and he saliently highlighted AIDS and homosexuality at the center of the stage. Among the eight main characters, all the five males are homosexual and two of these five have AIDS. Kushner puts them in New York City in 1985, amidst the Reagan Era, and lets them demonstrate the intolerance of the conservative mainstream. The right-wing thinking at the time prevailed, and the Reaganite Republicanism encouraged prejudiced opinions on gays. Every gay character of Kushner’s suffers impact from that environment. Prior Walter, Louis Ironson, and Belize are out of the closet. And according to Prior, he and Belize even used to be drag queens (Part One, Act II, Scene 5). They are fine with exposing their sexuality to the unaccepting world. On the other hand, Joe Pitt and Roy Cohn are very much closeted. Contrary to the attitude of Prior’s group, Joe and Roy both reject the identity of gay – Joe responses “No, I’m not!” immediately as Louis comments “Well oh boy, a gay Republican” (Part One, Act I, Scene 6), and Roy delivers a big speech to his doctor about power contrasting gayness after being diagnosed of AIDS (Part One, Act I, Scene 9). However, whether revealing or concealing their sexuality, they all face both fear and threat from AIDS, and the censure from the conservative mainstream. Since the existence of contradictions in the characters’ sexuality, religious, moral, and political inclinations, throughout the play, they are confronted with choices with regard to political, religious, and personal identity. The character Louis particularly takes an ambiguous stance on political and social issues of the country as he asserts “I’m ambivalent” (Part One, Act III, Scene 2). The other characters, though not saying so and some -- such as Roy Cohn-- even seeming very sure of their own view and place in the world, all have a trait of ambivalence in their character. And as they go through “several separate but inevitably intertwined relationships that are complicated by homosexuality and AIDS” (McCallum 3), the result, as Ranen Omer-Sherman observes, is that “By the end of the drama each of these characters will have not only experienced, but embraced, startling changes and shifts in identity” (Omer-Sherman 16). How does a play deliver its meaning if it is full of ambivalence and doubt? This question can be one of the reasons why critic Lee Siegel called it in The New Republic, “a second-rate play written by a second-rate playwright who happens to be gay,” and an “overwrought, coarse, posturing, formulaic mess” (Siegel). Notwithstanding Siegel’s opinion, it is David Savran’s assertion that the ambivalence in each individual character is not messy at all, but as a whole unequivocally champions a certain ideology – liberal pluralism (Savran 219), which he thinks remains the best hope for tolerance and change (Savran 223). I am more inclined to agree with Savran and do not think that Angels is a mess, and I see a strong connection between the ambivalent characters and the idea of tolerance and acceptance. As Kushner said in a video interview: ［I］f the play works, you just feel everybody go “Oh my God, we are not isolated individuals, lost one another, and we don’t stop at our own skins. We share something.” It’s like a momentary experience of the universal mind. (Kushner, interview by Signature Theater Company) That is, no matter how queer and unique the characters are, they can be reached, related to, and united through their ambivalent identities. The thesis intends to examine the traits of “ambivalent identity” of the key characters. The purpose of the analysis is to show the relationship between an ambiguous identity in a person and the idea of tolerance and catholicity that is needed by people of the minority. If we fail to recognize the fact that people of different religion, sexual orientation, and political agenda are all ordinary human with common ground on other respects, reading/watching Angels would be like a perfunctory trip that is none of our business. Thus, on the basis of close reading and textual analysis, the research demonstrates how Kushner probes into the identity struggling characters, and expresses his appeals for tolerance and compassion to the gay community. The following is the format of the research: besides the Introduction and Conclusion, four chapters establish the main body of the paper, successively discussing the ambivalent identity of characters in this order: Prior, Roy, Louis and Joe, Hannah. They each addresses how the ambivalence of the character is caused and presented, and then analyses their connection with the theme of tolerance. Lastly, the research findings will be summarized in Conclusion, which demonstrates Kushner’s hopes for tolerance in America. Chapter One The Ambivalent Identity of Prior Walter Prior Walter is considered by many critics such as Kimberly Lynn Dyer to be the hero of the play, but before the Angel comes to him, Prior is just a heartbroken gay man who is dying from AIDS. Kushner portrays the Reagan era as “dysfunctional” (Dyer V), and Prior’s condition can be an epitome of that. Abandoned by Louis, angry in pain, hallucinating in his own room, talking to the ghosts, these images of darkness and depression all contradict his heroic figure. Therefore, the largest ambivalence in Prior’s character is his imminent mortality and his identity as “America’s hero” (Dyer V), i.e. his weakness and his strength. Prior Walter’s homosexuality is, as he brandishes himself, “stereotypical” (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 4). He speaks in a femininely refined manner, taking part of his soliloquy for example: “One wants to move through life with elegance and grace, blossoming infrequently but with exquisite taste, and perfect timing, like a rare bloom, a zebra orchid…” (Part One, Act I, Scene 7). Also, he wears make-up to deal with “emotional emergency” (Part One, Act I, Scene 7). He curses all the time, and he carries HIV. Facing AIDS and death, Prior frequently shows his frustration and vulnerability. After his fantastical encounter with Harper, he looks in the mirror and says, “I don't think there's any uninfected part of me. My heart is pumping polluted blood. I feel dirty,” and at the end of the scene he morns, “Poor me. Poor poor me. Why me? Why poor poor me?” (Part One, Act I, Scene 7). In the hospital with Belize, he suddenly bursts out desperately, “I don't remember, I don't give a fuck. I want Louis. I want my fucking boyfriend, where the fuck is he? I'm dying, I'm dying, where's Louis?” (Part One, Act II, Scene 5). Even after the angel tells him that he is the Prophet (Part Two, Act II, Scene 2), he still shows a lot of despair. After his friend’s funeral, refuting Belize’s consolation, he complains with an especially pessimistic tone: “A great queen; big fucking deal. That ludicrous spectacle in there, just a parody of the funeral of someone who really counted. We don't; faggots; we're just a bad dream the real world is having, and the real world's waking up. And he's dead” (Part Two, Act II, Scene 1). Apparently, the discrimination from the rest of the “real world” and the trauma from both AIDS and Louis’s abandonment have taken some of his faith away. And then, there is another side of Prior, one with courage and vision. Contrary to what he said earlier about his “polluted blood,” when the Angel approaches and he gets scared, he goes through a little ritual to stay calm: “no, no fear, find the anger, find the… anger, my blood is clean, my brain is fine, I can handle pressure, I am a gay man and I am used to pressure, to trouble, I am tough and strong” (Part One, Act III, Scene 7), which we can assume is a mechanism he has used before. After this, his role as a prophetic hero begins. Here, before reading into his heroic figure, we can still see weakness even when Prior is accepting the role, as he still shows ambivalence. On the one hand, he cannot be sure if his encounter with the supernatural actually happened. On the other hand, he somehow believes the whole experience and meditates on it. When he discusses this with Belize, he says “I’m almost completely sure of it” (Part Two, Act II, Scene 1). Then when Belize questions the truthfulness of the story, he gets into a debate with him: PRIOR (Overlapping): I hardly think it's appropriate for you to get offended, I didn't invent this shit it was visited on me… BELIZE (Overlapping on "offended"): But it is offensive or at least monumentally confused and it's not… visited, Prior. By who? It is from you, what else is it? PRIOR: Something else. BELIZE: That's crazy. PRIOR: Then I'm crazy. BELIZE: No, you're… PRIOR: Then it was an angel. BELIZE: It was not an... PRIOR: Then I'm crazy. The whole world is, why not me? (Part Two, Act II, Scene 2) The ambivalence as to whether to accept the prophetic role indicates again the vulnerable and despair side of Prior, having lost faith in reality. However, it is because of the despair that Prior is willing to believe his fantasia: “Maybe I am a prophet. Not just me, all of us who are dying now” (Part Two, Act II, Scene 2). Finally, albeit still in ambivalence, Prior decides to deal with the Angel no matter she is real or not. When Hannah fearfully refuses to deal with the angel in the hospital, saying “I don't, I don't, this is a dream it's a dream it's a...,” Prior responses quite comically: “I don't think that's really the point right at this particular moment” (Part Two, Act V, Scene 1). So he chooses to confront the angel, going with his guts and rejecting the vision. The most heroic part is his short appearance in Heaven, returning the tome, shaking his fate, giving instructions to the Angels, and asking for life (Part Two, Act V, Scene 5). Not only because in this scene Prior’s speech shows certainty, clarity and determination (On the notion of “stop moving” he refutes, “It's animate, it's what living things do,” touching the notion of progress that Kushner tries to convey; referring to God, he tells them to “sue the bastard,” as if talking about Louis, which reminds us again of the uncertainty of the truthfulness of his Prophet identity; then, though he is told by the Angels that AIDS cannot be stopped, he demands, “Bless me anyway. I want more life. I can't help myself.”), but also because he tosses off the Angel’s manipulation, as the Angel here represents Reagan Era values. I hereby allude to Dyer’s argument that the Angel in Angels is linked to human institutions, capitalism, self-interest, and Celestial Apparatchiks (Dyer 8). Therefore, there is a sense of survival and triumph as Prior goes back to a world without the Angels, though still with AIDS, still with his socially and politically prejudiced homosexuality, and of course still with his vulnerability. The victory belongs to his stereotypical gayness, feminine, weak, but increasingly stronger. Dyer also quotes John Paul Middlesworth, that Kushner “finds the epic mode irresistible and creates in Prior Walter a hero, making the character a spokesperson for his community during historical crisis, the emergence of AIDS as an epidemic” (qtd. in Dyer 11). Therefore, Prior as a member of the vulnerable and dying stands out to be optimistic and vigorous, as he talks to the audience with warm hope at the end of the epilogue, “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” (Epilogue). To sum up, this chapter discusses Prior Walter’s ambivalent identity between a dying gay with AIDS and a hero. By making Prior stand up as a representative of the weak and dying and of the disparaged, Kushner expresses his view that strength, integrity and goodness can be found in gayness, which deserves some respect and tolerance in the world. Chapter Two The Ambivalent Identity of Roy Cohn Kushner’s Roy Cohn is known to be enjoyed by critics (Hilton 20). According to Melissa Hilton, Richard Hornby says the character Cohn is a “Brutal, manic, lying manipulator, a Richard III without a hump” (qtd. in Hilton 21). Don Shewey observes, “［T］he stage is dominated by Roy Cohn, a tour de force role: Flagrantly unpleasant, shrewdly seductive, the Devil incarnate” (qtd. in Hilton 21). In this chapter, the thesis will show that the generally acknowledged viciousness of Roy Cohn derives from his ambivalent identity, and then discuss the ambivalent attitude that Kushner has toward him. Social-Darwinism and self-interest is the center of Roy Cohn’s philosophy. On life he pontificates, “I see the universe, Joe, as a kind of sandstorm in outer space with winds of mega-hurricane velocity, but instead of grains of sand it's shards and splinters of glass” (Part One, Act I, Scene 2). He also teaches Joe Pitt: Life is full of horror; nobody escapes, nobody; save yourself. Whatever pulls on you, whatever needs from you, threatens you. Don't be afraid; people are so afraid; don't be afraid to live in the raw wind, naked, alone. . . . Learn at least this: What you are capable of. Let nothing stand in your way. (Part One, Act II, Scene 4) Indeed, in Roy Cohn’s life, nothing apart from death could stand in his way. On the basis of Italian scholar Umberto Eco’s outline of features of fascism, Hilton even argues that Kushner’s Roy Cohn is a categorical fascist (24). Indeed, many of Roy’s talks brazenly advocate contempt to the weak and the dissident and embraces power at all cost, which is what, as Prior and Kushner consider, foments injustice and endangers the country. One of the examples is when he brags about his lawyering masterpiece of securing Ethel Rosenberg’s death: Why? Because I fucking hate traitors. Because I fucking hate communists. Was it legal? Fuck legal. Am I a nice man? Fuck nice. They say terrible things about me in the Nation. Fuck the Nation. You want to be Nice, or you want to be Effective? Make the law, or subject to it. (Part One, Act III, Scene 5) However, Roy’s malignant attitude contradicts his own identity. Before he is a Reaganite Republican, he is a Jewish homosexual. But he belittles people from both categories. In reality, Roy Cohn was Joe McCarthy’s “vicious boy-henchman, expert in publicly humiliating and smearing alleged communists and homosexuals (nearly all of them Jewish)” (qtd. in Hilton 19). He is the alienator, traitor even, to his own group. In Angels we can find congruent statements. “But the thing about the American Negro is, he never went Communist. Loser Jews did” (Part Two, Act I, Scene 5), as if he is racist to his own race. Most importantly, Cohn equates homosexuality with weakness, and steers clear with that identity, as he instructs his doctor not to mistake him as a homosexual in this scene: ROY: Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men. Homosexuals are men who in fifteen years of trying cannot get a pissant antidiscrimination bill through City Council. Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout. Does this sound like me, Henry? HENRY: No. ROY: No. I have clout. A lot. I can pick up this phone, punch fifteen numbers, and you know who will be on the other end in under five minutes, Henry? HENRY: The President. ROY: Even better, Henry. His wife. HENRY: I'm impressed. ROY: I don't want you to be impressed. I want you to understand. This is not sophistry. And this is not hypocrisy. This is reality…Roy Cohn is not a homosexual. Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man, Henry, who fucks around with guys. HENRY: OK, Roy. ROY: And what is my diagnosis, Henry? HENRY: YOU have AIDS, Roy. ROY: NO, Henry, no. AIDS is what homosexuals have. I have liver cancer. (Part One, Act I, Scene 9) Contrary to Roy’s own excuses, this is obviously sophistry, and the fact that he can blatantly twist the obvious shows how hypocritical and cowardly he is about who he really is. The ambivalence of Roy Cohn sets off his image as a satanic villain. Then it is naturally acceptable that the honest Prior could live while the savage Roy dies. He is an activist of the right-wing intolerance, but he ends up a victim of the Right (Hilton 41). However, although Kushner’s Roy is meant to be so bad and to be hated so much, Kushner deliberately creates space for the audience/reader to feel compassionate for Roy. Approaching his demise, physically, Roy suffers from frequent and painful spasms, but what he cares more about is his reputation of prowess, his legacy. “After I die they'll say it was for the money and the headlines. But it was never the money: It's the moxie that counts. I never wavered. You: remember” (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 1), he tells Joe. So it hurts him tremendously that he is disbarred. So at last he takes a cheap stunt of faking death, trying to win for the last time: “I fooled you Ethel, I knew who you were all along, I can't believe you fell for that ma stuff, I just wanted to see if I could finally, finally make Ethel Rosenberg sing! I WIN” (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 9). But under such circumstances, the cheaper his stunt is, the more deplorable he gets. As Hilton observes, “Despite the despicable and hypocritical aspects of Kushner’s Cohn, the play generates sympathy for the man Cohn, as he is dying of AIDS. The audience’s ambivalent feelings toward Cohn – disgust mixed with compassion – generate some of the most powerful tension in Angels” (Hilton, 21). This kind of ambivalence is actually portrayed in the play, as Belize tries to give friendly medical advices to Roy: ROY: YOU hate me. BELIZE: Yes. ROY: Why are you telling me this? BELIZE: I wish I knew. ROY (Very nasty): You're a butterfingers spook faggot nurse. I think ... you have little reason to want to help me. BELIZE: Consider it solidarity. One faggot to another. (Part Two, Act I, Scene 5) In this way, Cohn’s “actions repulse us but” his “suffering moves us” (Hilton, 21). Therefore, the idea of compassion and tolerance is embedded. To sum up, this chapter discusses the ambivalence of Roy Cohn. He is Jewish but he treats Jews as a group of enemies. He is gay but he treats gay as weak grass roots of the society. Ostensibly, he sticks to a solid way of life, but actually, he turns his back on himself and the people like him. Kushner perfectly portrays the ambivalent and ironic aspect of his character, but generates compassion for his death. In my opinion, any death from AIDS is worth grievance to Kushner, and that is a message he wants to send in order to get people’s attention on the issue of AIDS, and encourage tolerance. He has succeeded in this regard. Chapter Three The Ambivalent Identity of Louis and Joe The experience of Louis parallels with that of Joe Pitt, as they both abandon someone they have responsibilities for, and somehow their stories also intersect with each other by becoming lovers. Louis’s ambivalence is explicit in the play on religious, political and moral respects. To begin with, morally, he is troubled by the contradiction between his need for love and his fear for death and loss. From the beginning, he reveals to Prior after the service for his grandmother that he had abandoned her for a decade, “I never visited. She looked too much like my mother” (Part One, Act I, Scene 4). Later after the funeral he confesses to his Rabbi that he cannot “incorporate sickness into his sense of how things are supposed to go,” and “vomit… and sores and disease… really frighten him” (Part One, Act I, Scene 5). He loves Prior very much, but till the end he still fails in loving him. I really failed you. He explains to Prior, “Failing in love isn't the same as not loving. It doesn't let you off the hook, it doesn't mean ... you're free to not love” (Part Two, Act V, Scene8). In addition, Louis’s religious, political and moral concerns also conflict with each other. For example, he thinks his passion for the law and for politics cannot be fulfilled because of his Jewish identity: Jews don't have any clear textual guide to the afterlife; even that it exists. I don't think much about it. I see it as a perpetual rainy Thursday afternoon in March. Dead leaves…Well for us it's not the verdict that counts, it's the act of judgment. That's why I could never be a lawyer. In court all that matters is the verdict. (Part One, Act I, Scene 8) Also, as he attempts to seek moral relief from his religion, his Rabbi’s response enfeebles his Jewish identity: “RABBI ISIDOR CHEMELWITZ: You want to confess, better you should find a priest. LOUIS: But I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Jew. RABBI ISIDOR CHEMELWITZ: Worse luck for you, bubbulah. Catholics believe in forgiveness. Jews believe in Guilt.” (Part One, Act I, Scene5) In the meanwhile, politically, Louis’s left-wing liberal view of politics starts to unveil in his conversation with Belize, who describes them as “yaddadda yaddadda blah blah blah” (Part One, Act III, Scene 2). What complicates things is the fact that he admits of being racist, which contradicts a liberal thinking, to which Belize comments, “Oh I really hate that! It's no fun picking on you Louis; you're so guilty” (Part One, Act III, Scene 2). But the most ambivalent part of Louis comes with his affair with Joe Pitt. His guilt and love for Prior, who needs him too, makes him extremely lonely, and yet his solution is to find companionship from Joe, whose Reaganite Republican and Mormon background cannot be any more incompatible with his own ideal. He cannot get around the question of “how can a fundamentalist theocratic religion function participatorily in a pluralist secular democracy?” (Part Two, Act III, Scene 3). He and Joe can never find common ground on Reagan. But as he confesses, “This is interesting. I'm losing myself in an ideological leather bar. The more appalling I find your politics the more I want to hump you” (Part Two, Act III, Scene 4). The case that Kushner presents here is a conflict between human nature and political ideal. It makes Louis very complex and hard to define, and the harder it gets for us to define this person, the more possibilities and ideas he embraces, which adheres to the theme of “liberal pluralism” (Savran 219), a calling for tolerance. Joe Pitt is also very unsure of his choices, his belief, and his future. His ambivalence is not like Louis’s, only between nature and his political outlook. His good nature – austerity, ethicality, etc. – is largely shaped by his Mormon belief, which is also the source of his right wing conservatism. However, since politics is not a church of dignity but an arena of power that requires indecency, as Roy Cohn teaches him, he cannot find a way to fulfill both his religious and political ambition. This can be complex enough, although it must be Joe’s wishful thinking that his predicament stays binary, but he has a third identity – he is a closeted homosexual who has a wife. Thus, his ambivalence proliferates. His gayness contradicts his religion, since the Mormon Church “don’t believe in homosexuals” (Part One, Act I, Scene 7). His gayness also contradicts his partisanship, because gays are not equally treated by the right-wing agenda. He is obligated two-fold to hate gays, therefore to hate himself, and a part of him has been doing it for years. He tells Harper “I pray for God to crush me, break me up into little pieces and start all over again” (Part One, Act II, Scene 2). And then he confesses to her, “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 nail, like a hot spike right through my chest, and I know I'm losing” (Part One, Act II, Scene 9). The misery caused by decades of self-denial and the frailty by lengthily desired happiness and freedom, these are some powerful emotions to be exposed in front of the audience. This is a crucial point where different experiences and even prejudices are exchanged and even challenged. As Joe finally decides to let go of any past bridle and stay with Louis, he is at last happy. As he tells Louis, “I keep expecting divine retribution for this, but... I'm actually happy” (Part Two, Act III, Scene 4). However bothered by the concern that his wife is abandoned and lost due to his happiness, he tries not to care about it. “What you did when you walked out on him was hard to do,” says he when he tries to convince Louis to stay with him, “the world may not understand it or approve but you did what you needed to do. And I consider you very brave” (Part Two, Act III, Scene 4). It is a line of exoneration not only needed by Louis, but also desperately needed by Joe himself, indicating that no matter how acceptable he tells himself his conducts are, deep inside, he has a sense of guilt. Sure enough, his argument that he and Louis both fundamentally want the same thing contradicts the ideological and political differences between them, and as he is confronted by Louis regarding his court decision against his conscience, their differences maximizes. He cannot get back to Louis, without a trace of anybody that can either love him or be loved by him. At this point, sexual satisfaction has to become peripheral, and the thing more important is to keep his wife who loves him. So when Harper finally decides to leave him, he implores, “I don't know what will happen to me without you. Only you. Only you love me. Out of everyone in the world. I have done things, I'm ashamed. But I have changed. I don't know how yet, but Please, please, don't leave me now” (Part Two, Act V, Scene 8). Is Joe ashamed of his sexuality again? Or does he simply say that just to keep Harper staying with him? In what way has he “changed”? Judging from his joyous and free status when he is with Louis, I’d say he can never go back to the life of self-denial. As for Joe’s ending in this story, Kushner does not specify. His future is not given any description, leaving a large space for interpretation. It may be because Kushner himself cannot be sure, as to how a decent homosexual Republican lawyer can find a right path. But the door of that discussion has certainly been opened. However, as far as I am concerned, the future of Joe Pitt is not important. What matters is what Kushner has shown us, the misery it causes by pretending to be something you are not, and doing things inconsistent with your good heart, which are both productions of the pressure from Reaganite conservatism. In conclusion, Louis and Joe are both struggling with their ambivalent identities, from which they suffer a lot. Louis’s biggest quagmire is the fear of imperfection in life, such as death and guilt, and at last it is his rather steady political principles that cause him to leave Joe, so he travels a big circle from Prior to Joe and then back to Prior. Joe’s predicament is his sexual orientation which contradicts his religion and the Republican doctrine that he approves. When the play ends, Louis loses his lover Prior but he can still hang out with him, while Joe remains alone with an unclear future. Although gayness is still a noticeable identity in the two characters, their complexity raises questions involving more than sexuality, that is Kushner’s political vision. Metaphorically, Joe’s sullen ending embodies the fact that, under gay scrutiny, the Reaganite Republicanism is numb, unjust and detrimental, incapable of welcoming and defending the needs of the minority. Chapter Four The Ambivalent Identity of Hannah Joe’s mother, Hannah, does not appear in as many scenes as Belize and Harper, but she is more fitting to the subject of ambivalence and tolerance. That is why the last chapter only discusses Hannah and forgoes the analysis of the other two characters. Our first impression of Hannah is that she is a very harsh and religious Mormon. Because there is no place for gays in Mormon Church, as Harper reveals, “In my church, we don’t believe in homosexuals” (Part One, Act I, Scene 7), when she gets her son’s phone call at three o’clock in the morning, and learns that Joe is a homosexual, she could barely process the news: HANNAH: YOU really ought to go home now to your wife. I need to go to bed. This phone call. . . . We will just forget this phone call. JOE: Mom. HANNAH: NO more talk. Tonight. This… (Suddenly very angry) Drinking is a sin! A sin! I raised you better than that. (She hangs up) (Part One, Act Two, Scene 8) As this scene shows, Hannah is not ready to accept Joe’s homosexuality. Not only that, at a time when her son is in need of support and direction, she simply flees from the topic, and even criticizes Joe’s drinking. This is a very cold reaction. However, based on people’s impression on Mormonism, it is probable that not many people would find it surprising. That is why this scene actually strengthens people’s prejudice against Mormons, who are considered rigid, harsh odd, and certainly anti-gay. When Hannah appears for the second time, she is already in New York, lost. Joe fails to show up to pick his mother up, and she is understandably angry. The conversation between her and the homeless woman reveals very little more about her, but she does express some opinion on an issue that slightly touches politics, i.e. immigration: I asked the driver was this Brooklyn, and he nodded yes but he was from one of those foreign countries where they think it's good manners to nod at everything even if you have no idea what it is you're nodding at, and in truth I think he spoke no English at all, which I think would make him ineligible for employment on public transportation. The public being English-speaking, mostly. (Part One, Act III, Scene 4) It is a comment that implies a very tenuous hostility to immigrants, plus our first impression of her, Hannah emits conservatism. It’s when Prior meets Hannah in the Mormon Visitor’s Center and later in the hospital that we see another side of her. First of all, when Prior gets very uncomfortable and asks her to call him a cab (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 4), she takes Prior to the hospital even though she does not have to come along, which, considering the attitude toward homosexuality that we assume she bears, is very generous. And she continues to surprise us. But first of all, Hannah will not discard her conservative values, and her discussion with Prior circles around religion. Prior thinks that he must be insane to have seen an Angel, but Hannah tells him the story of Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith, which is amazingly similar to Prior’s encounter. “He had great need of understanding. Our Prophet. His desire made prayer. His prayer made an angel. The angel was real. I believe that” (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 6). At this point, it is more obvious that Hannah values her religion very much. That is why it should be surprising to us that her view about homosexual is very clement, which is expressed in the scene that follows: PRIOR: I don't. And I'm sorry but it's repellent to me. So much of what you believe. HANNAH: What do I believe? PRIOR: I'm a homosexual. With AIDS. I can just imagine what you... HANNAH: No you can't. Imagine. The things in my head. You don't make assumptions about me, mister; I won't make them about you. PRIOR (A beat; he looks at her, then): Fair enough. HANNAH: My son is ... well, like you. PRIOR: Homosexual. HANNAH (A nod, then): I flew into a rage when he told me, mad as hornets. At first I assumed it was about his . . . (She shrugs) PRIOR: Homosexuality. HANNAH: But that wasn't it. Homosexuality. It just seems ... ungainly. Two men together. It isn't an appetizing notion but then, for me, men in any configuration ... well they're so lumpish and stupid. And stupidity gets me cross. PRIOR: I wish you would be more true to your demographic profile. Life is confusing enough. (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 6) Hannah clearly denies Prior’s presumption that she must be homophobic because of her Mormon beliefs. She just finds it not an appetizing notion which does not have that much of a difference from any other notion that is unappetizing, as if she were saying, “homosexuality does not offend me; it does not offend my God, only I am just a little not fond of it, the same as I am not fond of pornography.” It’s actually a very accepting attitude, because it is natural for heterosexuals to feel uncomfortable about gays being intimate, only it should not permits different social status. Hannah being so moderate on this issue, no wonder Prior feels confusing. After this, she has more progressive opinions about Prior’s vision as Prior asks her what would happen if he doesn’t want to be the Prophet: PRIOR: The prophets in the Bible, do they... ever refuse their vision? HANNAH: There's scriptural precedent, yes. PRIOR: And what does God do to them? When they do that? HANNAH: He____ Well, he feeds them to whales. (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 6) Then she tells Prior to disregard the tradition in the Bible, “An angel is just a belief, with wings and arms that can carry you. It's naught to be afraid of. If it lets you down, reject it. Seek for something new” (Part Two, Act IV, Scene 6). It is very fresh to see someone who takes her religion extremely serious to pose the idea that a belief can be changing, progressive. It is certainly not something that Roy Cohn and Ronald Reagan would want to encourage. At the end of the play, although it is unknown if Joe is living with his mother, Hannah finds herself a new family. “The couple that Prior and Louis once formed is replaced by the play's final argumentative, but communal, quartet of Prior, Louis, Belize, and Hannah” (Kruger 156). A family of three gay men and an old Mormon lady shows enormous conversion on Hannah’s part. To sum up, this chapter analyzes Hannah’s moderate attitude against her very strict belief. She is certain about her religion, but she is also ambivalent about the possibility of other explanations of the world. It is Hannah who offers a sense of catholicity and wholesomeness while she, as a Mormon, is assumed to be the last person to behave like this. Through depicting the character of Hannah, Kushner describes his wishful vision for America, in which a pious believer can respect and accept the existence of alternative religious and political views. Conclusion In the 1980s, i.e. the Reagan Era, conservatism prevailed and the voice of minority, including gays’, was ignored. It is in the same period that the storm of AIDS started to rage in America, but the issue of AIDS was also ignored by Reagan. The LGBT community suffered from two kinds of discrimination, one of their sexuality, and one of AIDS. They were ostracized and rejected by the majority. Tony Kushner’s Angels in America is one of the earliest literary works that explore on this issue. Kushner says in a reflection of this play, “People who don’t recognize common cause are going to fail politically in this country. Movements that capture the imagination of people are movements that deny racism and exclusion” (Kushner & Vorlicky 16-17). Therefore, it is essential to find bits and moments in the play which call for tolerance and illuminate on common ground, in order to understand Kushner’s political ideal. The research discovers a notion of tolerance by examining the ambivalent identities of key characters. Ambivalence is a key motif of Angels, and every character is ambivalent about different elements of their identity. Prior Walter’s ambivalence lies between his vulnerable gayness and his courageous heroism, which brings integrity to the gay community, and denounces Reaganite conservative institutionalism. Roy Cohn’s ambivalence derives from the contradiction between his innate Jewish and gay identity and his disparaging attitude towards Jews and Gays, and his demise embodies the dysfunction of the Reaganite and self-interested Republicanism. Louis Ironson and Joe Pitt are both ambivalent about many things, including love and responsibility, religious and political belief and personal happiness. They represent pluralism, which, as far as Kushner is concerned, might be the best hope for change of America’s chaotic situation (Savran 223). And Joe’s struggle with his family and his uncertain ending in the play also reflects the detriment of conservatism. Hannah Pitt is very moderate. She loves and adheres to Mormon teachings, but is also in favor of the others’ freedom and right to choose and believe in what they think is right. The advocacy of tolerance can be discerned in each one of these five cases. In this way, Kushner’s purpose of conveying a political ideal that denies racism and exclusion is fulfilled. Works Cited Dyer, Kimberly Lynn. Prior Walter as Hero: a New Mythological Paradigm in Tony Kushner’s Angels in America. Thesis, Angelo State University. Ann Arbor: ProQuest/UMI, 2006. (Publication No. AAT. 1436344.) Hilton, Melissa. The Political Ideologies of Roy Cohn and Prior Walter: Tony Kushner’s Political Vision in Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia on National Themes. Diss., Angelo State University. Ann Arbor: ProQuest/UMI, 1997. (Publication No. AAT. 1386100.) Kruger, Steven F. “Identity and Conversion in Angels in America.” Approaching the Millennium: Essays on Angels in America. Eds. Deborah R. Geis and Steven F. Kruger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. 151-169. Kushner, Tony. Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1995. Kushner, Tony and Robert Vorlicky. Tony Kushner in Conversation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. McCallum, Robin Lee Green. Medieval Death Iconography in the Portrayal of AIDS in Angels in America. Diss., California State University. Ann Arbor: ProQuest/UMI, 2005. (Publication No. AAT. 1430838.) Omer-Sherman, Ranen. “The Fate of the Other in Tony Kushner's Angels in America.” MELUS, Vol. 32, No. 2, Thresholds, Secrets, and Knowledge Summer 2007: 7-30. Savran, David. “Ambivalence, Utopia, and a Queer Sort of Materialism: How Angels in America Reconstructs the Nation.” Theatre Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, Gay and Lesbian Queeries (May, 1995): 207-227. Smith, Jordan Michael. “The Literary Roots of the Gay Revolution.” Page Views. 2 February 2012. 22 May 2012 <http://www.cjr.org/page_views the_ literary_roots_of_the_gay.php?page=all>. Siegel, Lee. “Angels in America.” The New Republic. 29 December 2003. 22 May 2012 <http://www.tnr.com/article/angles-america>.

这部剧涵盖的政治和宗教我看得并不太明白，但可以确定站的是左派立场，毕竟Roy和Joe这两个共和党人在剧里都没有好下场，还都是虚伪的深柜，对他们外在政治立场和内里真实人性的嘲讽也时不时出现。(Al Pacino演混蛋政客也这么棒！)剧里引用的一些宗教故事，看注释也只能是一知半解，倒是对Prior在天堂对上帝出走的控诉大呼过瘾。两对情侣的分手和拒绝复合戏太精彩了。Louis，在得知伴侣罹患艾滋而不能面对对方遭受的病痛折磨和要来临的死亡，他逃离了，并和深柜Joe同居。当然他一直遭受着内心的自我谴责，我相信他是爱Prior的，但却无法承担爱一个人的责任。Prior自然也爱他，但被辜负被抛弃后他已经无法接受对方回到自己的身边。Joe就太可悲了，你一个深柜终于突破了压抑多年的自我，就因为在同性友人那里受挫，居然可怜兮兮的乞求妻子的爱，你忘了你们这些年不愉快的婚姻生活了吗？你怎么可能一下子就变了呢？你是个gay，怎么可能给她想要的生活?所以，你只能得到一个耳光。

当然这部剧最重要的还有对在病痛中依然选择生活下去的人们的鼓励，以及对艾滋病患的正名。正如Prior最后如同宣言的一段话，“这病会夺走我们中许多人的生命，但不是所有人。死了的将得到纪念，活着的则要继续和生活缠斗，我们不会离去。我们不会再死而无名。世界只会朝前走，我们将被冠以公民身份。”

看完Angels in America已经有几天了，想写一下又不知道从哪开始写起。不过首先我可以很肯定地写：对Tony Kushner来说，这是一部非常个人化的作品。因此我也要先完全以个人感情出发来评解它。

我觉得这是一部充满了“gay pride”色彩的作品。更确切地说，是gay men pride。

我没有在里面看到它对女人的正向解读。开场的葬礼，死去的年迈女人是受尽折磨、被人遗忘的，她生前扛起整片乡土踏上这片陌生的国度，死时，她的血脉远离她而去，只有一位陌生的同样年迈的拉比为她说出悼词。被深柜丈夫抛弃的女性毫无疑问从始至终是深切痛苦的。儿子出柜后的母亲是深切痛苦的。以女性形象展示的天使是蠢笨的、被拒绝的、甚至还以“性”作为其出现先兆。连被恶事做尽的麦卡锡主义者律师Roy Cohn害死的Ethel Rosenberg的鬼魂都带着复仇不得的痛苦。

上帝选中了先知，天使对其现形，能够代表全人类命运对“停滞不前”这个来自一个未曾参与过人类历史进程的缺席更高层存在的无理要求说“不！”的人，是谁？是gay man。这难道不是一种天选之子的自大吗？说白了，还是有一丝丝父权“舍我其谁”的意味在的。

除此之外，这也是一部完全左派的作品。因为故事里的右派全都没有好下场。Roy Cohn深受病痛折磨，孤独惨死病床，死相惨不忍睹，死后还被人偷了财产（尽管对他已经没用）。内心纠结无比的深柜摩门教徒、同时也是共和党律师的Joe Pitt，他根本就是失去了一切，形式妻子也是唯一的陪伴离他而去；他深爱的人只把他当做提供了“外在可见的鲜血横流”证据的工具，用来追回前任的心；他的母亲，在给予他无数年压抑性向的痛苦、向其出柜后的否定拒绝跟冷漠以后，最后居然在他不知情的情况下，同三个gay men成了无话不谈的好友。

《天使在美国》这个本子，从个人感情出发要我说，就像是，一个左派男同性恋的深度意淫。但我依然认为它是伟大的。

为什么？因为它刀刀见血地刻画出了千禧年时代背景下各类少数群体切肤之痛的侧写：艾滋病肆虐，由于缺乏知识，其在社会中的广泛妖魔化使得同性恋群体生存条件雪上加霜，经济动荡，冷漠如病毒一般在社会中蔓延，激化的种族问题、信仰问题动摇着人们精神生存的根基。同时，它原封不动地保留了古典戏剧所特有的戏谑元素。并且它还是一部电视剧。

剧中所用到的舞台艺术技法令人诚服。天使每每现身时所设计的纵深场景、演员Emma Thompson在Prior Walter攀爬燃烧的梯子造访天堂并索要祝福后对他说的那席话、变装皇后护士Belize（fun fact：这位演员就是《新蝙蝠侠》中的哥谭市警探Gordon）深夜向注射安定神智不清的Roy描述天堂景象的独白，遣词造句与表演方式用的都是非常典型的戏剧手法，但却很好地融入了整部剧的风格之中，说是近二十年来最出色的改编作品都不为过（毕竟是戏剧剧本作者亲自操刀的）。

实际上，除却我前面所提到的各式各样的“女性的痛苦”，它也同样精准展示了处在不同阶段的、面对不同问题的gay men的痛苦。它看似在说同性恋，说艾滋病，说犹太人，摩门教徒，说这些在当时不被主流所接受的概念，实际上，通过书写这些人的痛苦，它展示了社会中普遍存在的痛苦与迷茫，因为没有人能够完全断绝与他人的联系，而个体的痛苦必然会在其身边的所有人身上发酵、影响、播种、转变，吐放出它独有的样子。

它也同样展示了一些看似冷硬的东西，那是政客的痛苦、医生的痛苦、律师的痛苦，因为政治、医学与律法这三样东西是组成现代文明的钢筋。痛苦在这部作品中简直无处不在。而极其激烈却又深埋与血脉之中的矛盾冲突纠葛在其中，在每一个人物、每一句对白里都埋下种子。

比如说Louis Ironson，一个典型的左派知识分子，最有可能的作者本人自己在故事中的投射，他却是全剧中最为保守的人物，比起鼓足勇气追寻内心声音的摩门教徒Joe Pitt有过之而无不及。他就像个虚伪的政客那样，一边做着伤人的事，一边进行无止无尽的自我鞭挞。值得比对的是，他的自我鞭挞甚至没有实际的形式与意义，因为与他进行同样动作的Joe（提到Louis，就不能不提Joe，因为Joe是Louis的镜像反面），甚至会流着泪对他的妻子Harper承认自己的残忍，说出“我才是那把刀”这样痛彻心扉的话。

更讽刺的在于，保守派的Joe反倒对他的自我鞭挞做出安慰，他不惜当着Louis的面脱下自己第二层肌肤（这同时也是一层电影语言的隐喻，出柜对他来说正像是撕掉一层皮肤，他是带着滚热的新鲜血肉去找到Louis的），“…The good thing is to be guilty and kind always. But it’s not alway kind to be gentle and soft. There’s a genuine violence in softness and weakness. Sometimes, self-interested is the most generous thing you can be.”这一番话，仿佛也符合演员Patrick Wilson本人的一些待人处世的哲理，作为他首次在银幕亮相的某种坦白，居然成为了全剧中最为自由、最为解放的一种见地。

而Louis的眼泪，就像他的情人Prior Walter所说，不是为了哭泣，只因他着迷于哭泣的概念。他批判一切又逃避一切，肩上无法扛起甚至是一个年过六旬的摩门派老母亲所能扛起的职责（照顾他病入膏肓的同志情人）。他极易受暗示，并对概念性的东西深信不疑，迷失在他自己的构建的高尚的道德情操里。从他从Belize那里听闻了了几句话就去花大量精力求证，寻找Joe的“罪证”，并在公寓里自以为正义凌然地与Joe对峙，导致矛盾激化就能看出。对Louis来说，好像只要有了这样的精神默认设置，便可以在肉体世界中影印成为如此完美的存在，而不必再去关注在眼前能触到、能听到的实物。

Louis的出现，是炸开在所有知识分子头顶上空的一击惊雷，但同时又是仁慈的。因为作者在故事叙述层面对他的这些特质只是做了展现，并未做批判。Louis Ironson这个人物是专为与他如出一辙的人们打造的，也只有这类人，且是这类人当中的一小部分人，能够体会到这层仁慈批判，在无地自容的同时，一并感谢作者的不揭穿。

回到前面，我说这部剧是在诉说广义苦痛的一部史诗，它如此庞大，却又细腻得可怕，仿佛作者有一双无时无刻不在监视着你我生活的眼睛。而这些苦痛的来源是什么？

对，就是天使向先知提出的那个荒谬的要求：“别动！”——停滞不前，对变革的恐惧就是痛苦产生的根源。它同时也是一个宏观的概念，因为社会整体进步的要求投射到组成它的个体之上时，便会分化成数亿个面貌不同、内容不一的矛盾冲突，就好像是一场气势磅礴的战争，而你面对的敌人，每个人手中都拿着一把形状完全不同的武器。假如人们不攻克这些矛盾，打赢这场“战争”，后果也是显而易见的，那就是这部剧中所展现的各种各样深切的痛苦：肉体和灵魂上的，人与人之间和人与自身之间的……令人被迫分别或者囚禁，令人神智不清或清醒疯癫，迷茫，混乱，恐惧，死亡。可怕的是，这些，即使是放到当今的社会中也能找到印证。毕竟，千禧年离我们也并不遥远。

所以做梦、意淫吧！有人在月球上踏出了全人类的一大步，你会去计较这个人本身的政治倾向和生活习惯吗？这部剧的意义是里程碑式的，而它的背后，作者的立场已不重要。并不是因为立场本身不重要，而是因为，Kushner已经展现出了足够的胸怀，足够的教养，在强加自己意淫的同时也对时代的苦难表达出了极大的共情。他是一个从一而终的忠诚的叙述者，一个记录者，在这部作品的创作上，他是赤诚的、仁慈的，同时也是心怀希望的。无论结局如何，他都给了剧中的每位深陷痛苦的角色一个小小的希望的光点，一个举重若轻的善念：

Louis终于如自己所愿回到情人身边，消除了心中的愧疚；Joe冲破世俗的桎梏，甚至有过一段身为处子的美好感情；而他形而上的妻子Harper也最终放开了这段无果的关系给她带来的无尽折磨；他的母亲Hannah，从最开始来到纽约的迷茫气馁，到放下所有偏见，成为一个聪慧时髦的纽约女人，宛若新生；Prior从肺炎中恢复清醒，得以与艾滋病长期共存下去；天使们茅塞顿开，弄明白了他们应该起诉出走的上帝；就连Roy都在他生命最后几天为Joe送出Joe的父亲未能给出的福祉。这些小小的善举，在这样一个激烈冲撞、明嘲暗讽、横眉冷对千夫指的作品里，在那些疯狂的，荒诞的，闹哄哄的对白与场景中，成了一种最柔软的留白。实话说，看完这部剧后，我已经深深为作者本身的人格魅力所折服。

所以自豪吧，同志！因为没有什么能够阻止你们不去这么做。

-

补充一点。有读者可能误认为我像开头那么说就是不喜欢这部剧中的女性形象，或者认为她们没有被塑造成功，其实不是的。这个剧里面的两对couple，彼此互为镜像，Louis和Joe相对应，Harper和Prior相对应。可能我的用词不够准确，不是“正向的解读”而应该是“积极的解读”。AIA在角色塑造上是无可厚非的，里面的每一个角色都是完整丰富的个体，Harper当然也不例外。我并不是在这点上否认原作的成就。

就像前文里说的，我觉得作者是一个赤诚的记录者。他描绘的女性虽都有各式各样的痛苦，但其真实面貌反映到我们眼里，的确会成一种有魅力的满怀希望的形象，因为我们能与她们共情。但也有可能在一些道德观不同的人眼里看来，Harper就是一个疯疯癫癫可悲的同妻。她最后坐在飞机上的那段话，诉说她如何看到死者的灵魂织成一张网，也是可以有双面解读的。首先，灵魂相连象征着人与人之间的联系（所以我前面说，没有人是能完全与他人分隔开来的），苦痛也能够如病毒般在人之间传播。其次，她说由三个氧原子组成的灵魂修补了臭氧层空洞，这和她出场时听到的臭氧层空洞新闻相对应上了。世界分崩离析是她恐惧的一部分，这不仅仅是外部世界，也是她内心的世界。而灵魂之间的联结帮助她修复了这个空洞，Harper在共享的痛苦中找到了对自己的救赎。剥离过去是痛苦的，但至少未来还有希望，这就是我最后说的“小小的希望光点”体现在她身上的样子。她的确也是整部剧中我最喜欢的角色之一。一千个人眼里有一千个哈姆雷特，这就是戏剧的魅力。