Roy Cohn

Tony Kushner has developed all these characters with extreme wit and charm. It's like, even when you hate them, you still kind of love them. Case and point, Roy Cohn. He, in the play, admits and even revels in being responsible for the murder of an innocent woman. Well, he doesn't exactly call her innocent, more like quasi-innocent. At least, not worthy of execution. He's just nasty! He's a mean person. But, I still kind of like him.
When Belize talks to him, he finds himself in the same predicament. Belize hates everything fundamental and essential to Roy. But Belize still entertains him. Roy calls Belize every rotten name he can think of, yet Belize remains. Maybe Belize justifies his actions with using Roy for what he's worth; the drugs. But, I don't think this fully encompasses Roy's appeal.
Why would Kushner present Roy this way?
Is it because that's how Kushner writes? Does he not want such a heartless villain in this type of play? What genre is this, anyway? It has got to at least be partially a comedy. A comedy/drama, I suppose. So, why can't Roy be a clear villain?
I guess, in life, things aren't ever that clear. Kushner is dedicated to portraying the chaotic and foggy nature of life. Many scenes border on hallucinogenic. I say border because none of the characters will outright admit to hallucinating.
So, maybe, in this sense, an outright villain wouldn't fit in Angels in America. Or maybe Kushner assumes that such a quick and effective lawyer would inherently come along with quick wit.
Maybe I also have an inclination towards Roy because in the movie he was portrayed by Al Pacino. Al Pacino seems to always play a charismatic bad guy. (Take a good look at da bad guy! I always tell the truth, even when I'm lyin'!) But I like his characters.
Or maybe... there's no such thing as a "villain." Maybe everyone can be explained and empathized with.
But I don't really think that. I bet I would hate Roy Cohn if I actually knew him.

Harper

I kind of love the character Harper. When Joe describes her he says, "I loved it that she was always wrong, always doing something wrong, like one step out of step" (59). I don't think Harper's "wrong," but I like the description of "one step out of step." She seems very "right" in her character. She refuses to deny the truth, even if it means completely disregarding her current life and starting over. This is incredibly strong. The "man in the bedroom" whose existence she insists on is the invisible, yet menacing truth. It's hard to suppress this villain, but even harder to entirely confront it. Harper was a Mormon born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah. Can you imagine being anymore absorbed in this lifestyle? Yet, Harper dares to confront its flaws. Also, she's entirely isolated in Brooklyn with Joe. Still, she refuses to entirely rely on him for happiness. Joe thinks that she needs him, but this may just be a tactic to avoid his own homosexuality. He insists that the legitimacy of this accusation is irrelevant, since he won't leave her. She says, "Well maybe not. But I'm going to leave you" (56).
Being a Mormon married to Joe was Harper's entire life. How's that workin' for ya? She realizes how unhappy she is, confronts it, and is willing to change it. How many people do the same? I've heard so many people say something like, "I know how bad this sounds but..."
No but! If something sounds bad when you're explaining it to someone, that means you KNOW it's bad for you. The "but" you're going to do it or continue it anyway... means you're too weak to stop. I.e. "I know it sounds bad that I drink five times a week but it makes me happy." It does not make you happy! If Harper said "I know it sounds bad that my husband is gay, but I'm staying with him because it makes me happy," would you believe her as a reader? Does she seem happy to you?
I really admire that Harper refuses to settle. In the long run, as I've tried to explain many-a-time, your life will be easier even if you have to make drastic changes. Happy is the easiest way to live, right?
Oh, but to finish what I started; I like the description "one step out of step." Though Harper seems right in her actions, she goes about them in a funny way. She's tragically humorous. I loved the conversation about burning dinner - "It just seemed like the kind of thing a mentally deranged sex-starved pill-popping housewife would do" (42). She confronted the matter, all right, but what a funny way to do it.
Though she is unhappy, she is not miserable. She found comfort in the truth, and could even joke about her predicament. And does she not get some of the best lines in the play?
"A baby born addicted to pills. A baby who does not dream but who hallucinates, who stares up at us with big mirror eyes and who does not know who we are" (47).
Wow. She sure did get her point across.