At a very
crucial moment in American history, there was the rise of panic. As more people
became aware of HIV/AIDS, what the disease meant, what it could do, many lost
control, many were afraid at what this meant for society. Many were afraid of
how HIV/AIDS would tear apart at the fabric of society.
We can see a similar panic rise in
Harper Pitt, of the play Angels in
America, described by author Tony Kushner in the stage notes as “an
agoraphobic with a mild Valium addiction.” Poor Harper is trapped within a
cycle of disintegration. She spends most of the first half of the play
squawking about the collapse of the ozone layer, which she has heard on the
radio will burn skin and efface the entire planet. She says, “everywhere,
things are collapsing, lies surfacing, systems of defense giving way…” At the same time, her husband, Joe, is
finally bringing to her attention the hidden truth of his sexuality. He has
spent his entire life attempting to hide his gayness from himself and from her,
but it is finally revealed, and this tears Harper’s world apart even more. From
how Harper is described and how she is portrayed, we can gesture to say that
she is not necessarily the most stable individual in the first place. Because
of her susceptible nature, she is at risk of being affected by these ideas more
so than someone we would call “normal.” Something that is very enchanting about
Harper’s character, though, is that her reactions seems to be perhaps more
authentic and realistic because of this. There is something about her
unbalanced life, her wonky way of imagining, her unusual lack of structure and rigidity
that has us – upon witnessing her terror at homosexuality and the ozone layer –
saying, “of course.”
It does not
seem wrong, given the play’s tendencies for the magical, the mystical, to
extend onto it a little creative thinking. Perhaps we can say, then, that
Harper’s sustained hysteria throughout the production is a bit of a metaphor.
As “A Gay Fantasia on National Themes,” this play sets itself up in response to
American issues. As such, we can identify with a character like Harper, who is
so unlike us that she feels incredibly like us, and we assume similar reactions
to what she is presented with. We, too, worry about what might happen with the
ozone layer, with Joe’s self-esteem and also the strength of their
relationship. More abstractly, we worry just as Harper does about all things
that are collapsing, about all the lies which are surfacing, about all our
systems giving way in our current social-historical-cultural-economic
environment. For example, when the knowledge of the power HIV/AIDS holds over
the body began to surface, this sort of sorrowful worry found in Harper was
found in everyone. In some ways, it still is.
We panicked. We did not hold ourselves together. Our thoughts joined
together in irrational patterns that fueled our anxiety.
That is why
Harper’s resolution at the end of the play is so powerful, because we see her
future as something we can attain as well. In her final monologue, she
describes a dream where the souls of those who died “from famine, from war,
from the plague” float up, “like skydivers in reverse, limbs all akimbo,
wheeling and spinning. And the souls of these departed joined hands, clasped
ankles and formed a web, a great neat of souls, and the souls were three-atom
oxygen molecules, of the stuff of ozone, and the outer rim absorbed them, and
was repaired.” In some ways, our response to the reality of HIV/AIDS was like
this. We lost control, we wheeled and we span. But Harper shows us that always
– always – there is a possibility to join hands and settle ourselves, to come
back together even when we are fractured and make something good out of that
joining. HIV/AIDS threatened, and continues to threaten, our social
infrastructure by informing us with
irrational fears, but we can always return to what is lost in the panic. Harper
tells us, then, that “nothing is lost forever. In this world, there is a kind
of painful progress. Longing for what we’ve left behind, and dreaming ahead.”
Such a poignant post. Your focus on Harper opens up a very interesting and important way of understanding the entire play (and really, as you suggest, our entire response to HIV/AIDS and other ecological disasters that plagued us and will continue to plague us) and it's tentative hopefulness, not a naive or easy hope, but the kind of hope that is situated deeply in the pain of suffering, a hope that we might also say becomes necessary, even as it forces us to confront the worst about ourselves and the world.
ReplyDelete