I agree the tone was angry throughout, but recognizing the point-of-view from which Larry Kramer perceived it, I truly appreciated the brash tones, directed to and from the main character. In real life, Kramer was always angry that not enough people in influential positions were similarly angry, at least angry enough to act with some sense of collective urgency. So many movies and plays leave the outrage at a simmering level, while Kramer aims for full-boil.
Watching the movie again, it felt to me like characters were living and working fully within the eye of a hurricane and trying not to get swept up in the surrounding winds. That's whether the threat was the growing virus/cancer of then-unknown name, or simply the unyielding ire of the central character (Ned Weeks).
I felt Kramer displays not only criticism of others through his works but self-criticism as well. He directs the reflective element through the reactions from the other characters.
Frank Bruni did an excellent piece on Kramer last month. The collection of people he's p*ssed off in his quest to remain assertive is wide-ranging.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-angel-in-larry-kramer.html
Frank Bruni (NYT)And he once said, in an interview with New York magazine, that he didn’t understand why “every gay person doesn’t agree with everything I say.”
“I’m serious,” he added.
In being a screaming voice within the wilderness, with every new production Kramer risks making this all about himself. And, of course, he doesn't mind that at all. Next year, Kramer is planning to release through HBO a biopic alongside an epic gay historical documentary.