MovieChat Forums > Angels in America (2003) Discussion > Joe not part of happy ending?

Joe not part of happy ending?


I have to say i found the end pretty kitsch, it seemed like they tried to wrap the whole Prior/Louis/Aids thing as the best happy ending possible. But what i found out of place with the happy ending, was how Joe was completely out of it - The last scene depicted Joe in a very sorry mood, and then we see his mother frolicking around 5 years later with the man who broke his heart, and no sign of Joe.

Do you agree And if so why do you think it was scripted like that?

reply

I liked the last scene overall, not kitschy to me. But I agree that Joe should've been there and been given a happy ending, too.

reply


I think it's a gay republican prejudice thing.

Joe made the mistake of not being liberal, so I guess he's considered a hypocrite and shouldn't be included in any happy "gay" resolution.


Too bad he was the most romantic of anyone. He wanted love, the other guy was tiresome, too busy with his self guilt and, I don't know, but it seems that many gay characters in movies aren't just happy with being in love and accepting other's differences (pro-republican and pro-religious).

reply

I'm sorry, that's b.s. Joe's problem is not that he is Republican. His problem is that he spent his life pretending to be someone else, lying about it to everyone including his wife, working to hurt gay men and so by extension himself... these are major psychological conflicts here.

If Joe was "romantic," it was only that he wanted that which felt good emotionally within the next thirty seconds. He ran back to his wife--whom he left on a whim--just as soon as he discovered that what he left her for would be difficult and complicated (hey, that's life.) And all of this he did without managing to feel any of that "self guilt" you mention-- a synonym would be feeling responsible for his actions.

So yes, the movie ends with us presuming that Joe is off doing whatever Joe is going to do. I think we're to assume that he is probably living somewhere pretending to be straight, sometimes sleeping with men, and generally being his usual wishy-washy self. That, for him, is probably fairly happy anyway (it's just hot happy for the people who care about him.)

reply

Joe was a complicated character -bisexual I would say, and never able to reconcile his bisexuality. He kept messing up with his relationships, was too impacted with his Mormonism, and probably a product of a weird childhood. Everything would be complicated about Joe, including his future, which is probably why the director or writer chose to sort of let it be so.

reply

I think Joe wasn't there because he didn't get a happy ending and he didn't get a happy ending because he had no idea who he was or how he wanted to live his life. He had no idea what would make him happy or how to make anyone else happy. All four characters in that ending, except Belize, had evolved significantly and positively from the beginning of the story and Belize had been pretty evolved to start with. Was Joe even capable of genuine self-reflection and the evolution that results?

reply

A right-leaning and mostly-closeted character isn't going to be thought of fondly in leftist hand-wringing diatribes that masquerade as entertainment.

reply

But he is presented very fondly, shown as someone conflicted and unable to help himself in the end. I've seen many Mormon kids exactly like him, my own cousin for one.


The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.-Oscar Wilde

reply

I actually think it was good that we didn't see everyone with the happy ending. Pryor was the one who most deserved to get one. I loved the fact he stayed good friends with Joe's Mum.

reply

A right-leaning and mostly-closeted character isn't going to be thought of fondly in leftist hand-wringing diatribes that masquerade as entertainment.

I am a leftist hand-wringing type and was concerned he was no longer with the group. Joe is gay AND Republican; that makes him all the more entertaining to keep around in a leftist diatribe.
\
However, logically he shouldn’t be there; he was part of the love triangle with Prior and Louis. It seems there would still be too much emotion for him to be part of their little gathering in the park. Mother Pitt still remains right-leaning, doesn’t she? She can represent him.

reply

I completely disagree with this take.

I care about Joe and the story makes me love him. He's a sweet guy at heart.

But the reason we don't see him achieve his happy ending is that even though he embarks on the relationship with Louis, he is still lying to himself. Still lying to all around him.

And even in the end, he is willing to keep lying to himself. Joe is a sweet guy but we have watched him literally sell his soul to the devil throughout "AiA" -- he is perfectly happy to lie about who he is to get ahead in his career even at the expense of his life and wife and self-respect, he is willing to work for the devil (Cohn), he is willing to live a lie every single day by working in an administration dedicated to destroying him, as well. Which, no matter what side you're on politically, it has to be acknowledged that the Reagan administration hated and feared gays (and notoriously would not even refer to AIDS until it became almost comical by omission.

I love Joe. I care about him as a character. But he does not deserve happiness in the end. And that's the point of the plays. Joe is willing to sell out, to compromise. He is an innocent. But he is guilty. In a story about actual angels, Joe aligns himself repeatedly with the devil himself (Cohn), with those seeking actively to bring down the simple fact that sometimes in this world, love is not simple, that people fall in love with others of their own sex; that men fall in love with men.

Joe reaps what he sows. Joe is excluded in the end very justifiably. And yet the story is ultimately so gentle that I don't hate him, and continue to think that maybe someday he comes to see how hypocritical it is for him to work according to the world's most hateful principles (and actively supporting them) while hiding his true self away and never actually acknowledging the massive sadness of that choice.

I love the miniseries and plays and think everyone involved was superb.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

reply

Yes, Paramitch, yours is the best explanation. But even now, watching it again, I am sad for Joe and feel compassion. I mean, God, even Roy Cohn had the Jewish prayer for the dead, but Joe--nothing. As a total sentimentalist--along with being gay and liberal--I like to imagine a happier life for Joe than the playwright allowed.

reply

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not so sure Joe is exactly wallowing in misery. Our last glimpses of him are that he is successful but still willing to lie to himself, and that he is still in touch with his Mom even after Harper leaves him.

So, he's actually probably pretty happy. He's okay. He will be more so once he stops lying to himself. But in the meantime, he doesn't have a tragic outcome. But he is missing out on the real love and honesty and revelation shared by the others in his circle (including -- and what a wonderful surprise -- his Mom).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

reply

The Epilogue is probably my least favorite part of the play/series. I like it but it kind of kills the power of Harper's final monologue. I believe the series/play should have ended after the monologue. The ending just felt too tacked on and the exclusion of Joe also bothered me, even though it kind of made sense to leave him out.

reply

That's a great question!

On first viewing one would probably feel for all the characters..

But if you watch closely how the character of Joe actually behaves during the story, you'll realize that he's actually completely selfish and uncapable of loving anyone, but himself. He hurts everybody that cares about him. There is almost nothing coming out of his mouth, but lies and manipulation.

I'd say that the idea behind that is that it's not sufficient to be unhappy to qualify for a happy ending. You actually have to be a good person. And he really isn't. We could say that everyone deserves to be happy, but the movie is about a deep message that doesn't go well with such a simpification.

In contrast - Louis succumbed to his weakness, but he always kept a loving heart and kept pursuing the truth. He always looked for the error in himself, while Joe's rationalization on this topic was that nothing is perfect and therefore he was free to do whatever he pleased. Louis was a seeker of truth and rejected such a notion and accepted his guilt troughout the movie. He might have been weak, but he was a loving person, who never betrayed truth and love in his heart and that tormented him troughout the movie.

Even the 'evil' Roy was more of a loving person than Joe - he was portrayed as a survivor, but one who always believed in his ideals - he never reveled in self-pity or justified his mistakes - he looked like a wounded kid and in a strange, peculiar way showed that he was still capable of love. So he was given more of a happy ending than Joe. He received forgiveness and hope for a better life in the world to come. The scene in which he begs for some love in the end is very moving - even the childish conclusion to the scene reinforces the idea that he was just a wounded child. All the way he behaved like a child and he was a very real person to everyone - he adviced, he jested, he explained why he believed in his ideals and why he did what he did. He was a real person. Joe wasn't a real person - he was a complete and uncaring hypocrite who stood for nothing, but his whim and pleasure. He rationalized everything and hurt everybody that loved him and didn't even want to change that, in fact - it seemed like he liked that about himself.

It's a thin line, which the movie portrayed in an incredible mannner. It was especially amazing how Roy's hate always somehow seemed like it was motivated out of love. He cared deeply about things and that is almost the same isn't it? Perhaps love towards an ideal, or maybe - towards an unknown memory (his mother perhaps?), but still - love. :)




On a side note, given the strong religious themes of the movie, one could say that it is the righteous that went to Heaven. It is symbolical of course, but almost literal as well - it seems like they've been washed away from all the dirt in this world and are now entering the world to come. A parable if you wish. Harper deserved to be there as well though. Perhaps she's on one of her vacations. :)

reply