The first official Rent rave.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:04pm

From Jeff Wells
----------------------------
Rent Renewal

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/

The advance word on Rent (Columbia, 11.23) for the last few months has been that it's going to feel slightly dated (being a late '80s piece about some young AIDS-af- flicted Manhattanites), and Chris Columbus, not the grittiest and most naturalistic of directors, will gloss it up too much, so watch out.

The buzz was wrong. Say it again: the buzz was wrong.

Call me emotionally impressionable, call me unsophisticated, call me a sap...but I saw Rent last night in Santa Monica, and in its vibrant, open-hearted, selling-the- hell-out-of-each-and-every-song-and-dance-number way, it's a knockout and an ass-whooper and damn near glorious at times.

I didn't just like it...I felt dazzled, amped, alpha-vibed. I got into each and every song, every character and conflict...I settled back and went with it. People were applauding after almost every song, and the film really does give you a "whoa... this is special" feeling.

Somewhere up there (out there, in there...whatever), Jonathan Larson, the guy who created the play but died in January 1996, just before the stage show opened, is breathing easy.

Columbus went with almost the entire original cast, and they're all spot-on. A cer- tain theatricality is inevitable when actors are breaking into song, but everyone plays it down and naturalistic; they don't project in a playing-to-the-baclony way that throws you out of the piece.

Adam Pascal's Roger and Anthony Rapp's Mark are note-perfect. Rosario Daw- son's singing is surprisingly assured and satisfying, in addition to her usual first- rate emoting. Wilson Jermaine Heredia, Jesse L. Martin, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms, Taye Diggs...everyone gets a gold star.

Rent is a slicker, punchier, more revved-up movie musical than Milos Forman's Hair , which had some of the same elements (kids in New York, in and out of love, looming tragedy). But it's not that different from the Forman film; it has a similar elan.

I kept saying to myself last night, "What's wrong with this film?....where's the mis- calculation? Where's the gross Chris Columbus saccharine overkill?"...and it just didn't happen to any bothersome degree.

It may not be hip enough for some of my nyah-nyah, know-it-all critic friends. It may not be Alphabet City enough. It may be, for them, too far removed from the vitality of the original off-Broadway, pre-Broadway show...too much of a Holly- wood-style take on something that may have been a bit sweet or cloying, but which worked because of the Lower East Side funkitude balance-out factor.

Critics said the same thing about Robert Wise's West Side Story . That overly Oscar-awarded film brought an overly sanitized, sound-stagey quality to the material, wich furthered the loss of the immediacy and excitement of the original B'way play. The dissers of Wise's film were right. It was too 1961 mainstream.

But Columbus is not Robert Wise. He lived in Manhattan way back when and knew the Lower East Side, he knows the stage show backwards and forwards, he's pruned it down a bit and has made a film that's a lot tighter and brighter and a cleaner "sell."

I saw Rent in '96 with Jett, who was then about eight, and I remember enjoying the energy and a lot of the songs and feeling a general respect for it...but I wasn't floored. For me, the film is a better ride.

I don't want to compare apples and oranges, and I understand that Rent -heads might not agree that it's "better," but the film is a cleaner, more easily processed thing, and it delivers a fuller, riper feeling.

There's really a lot to be said for being able to hear each and every song lyric. (I digested them only occasionally when I saw the stage version.) And being able to hear each and every voice in the chorus of "Seasons of Love" (and every song after that) provides an amazing high.

Has Columbus made a kicky and colorful c'mon-kids-let's-put-on-a-show musical? Yeah, kind of...but what's wrong with this approach? Maybe I'm not hip enough. What was Columbus supposed to do? Play down the energy, go grimmer, shoot in on Super 16mm, channel Darren Aronofsky or Larry Clark?

Rent is a big-studio movie musical. It's not Open House . As I understand it, the idea is to turn people on, attract the fans of the stage show, sell tickets, etc.

It's not Open City or Paisan or Rocco and his Brothers . It's a revamp of Puccini's "La Boheme" with all those primary emotions, catchy thrash-guitar songs, drama- tic condensings, lovers loving and losing each other, tomorrow belongs to no one so go for it today, etc.

And it's Rent , for heaven's sake...butter wouldn't melt in its mouth.

I'm sorry to differ with the nyah-nyahs, but Columbus has taken these ingredients and made it all sound quadruple-fantastic (be absolutely certain you see Rent in a theatre with a great sound system) and punched it up and brought out the bells and whistles and made a movie musical that really delivers.

You'll be more likely to feel this way if you're a not-very-hip type like myself, or if you're in the same kind of head-space as those 425 satisfied folks who saw it with me at the Aero theatre. And if you're in the opposite camp...it's your call.

Rent is set in 1989 -- the stage show was written between 1988 and '90. The show is basically about the effect that being close to death has upon your basic life atti- tudes. We all know the riff about "the clarity of mind experienced by a man stand- ing on the gallows is wonderful," etc. That's all that's being said here, and that's obviously a theme that will never lose relevance.

The young-gay-guys-and-urban-drug-users-dropping-like-flies-from-AIDS element isn't the same today as it was in the early days of the first Bush administration , obviously (and thank fortune)...but this doesn't date the film -- it just places it in a certain cultural context, and that's nothing to get over.

I know it when something is working. Call it subjective, but I felt it last night and it wasn't just me.

A guy who loved the off-Broadway stage version said he's heard it doesn't work because the actors seem too old. "They're all supposed to be in their early 20s ...the actors all look like they're 28 or 30," he told me this morning. That's bull- ****...they're young-enough looking. It's a non-issue.

There are three love relationships in Rent , and only one of them (Adam and Rosa- rio's) is hetero. We're really in a gay-friendly season these days, and there's no watching Rent and missing the notion that we're all God's children. The Mel Gibson contingent can go stuff it.

The energy and punch of this show are there all the way through, and the emotion- al specifics of each and every character and situation are clearer and more vivid than they appeared to me when I saw the stage show...whoops, repeating myself.

There will be more to say about Rent in a week or two. Those crab-heads really need to be slapped around.

Columbus did a q & a with Variety 's Ian Mohr after the screening, and here's how it sounded . It's a big fat (probably slow-loading) sound file, but it's worth a listen.

You'll hear me ask a couple of questions -- one about an angry duet number between Pascal and Rapp that was cut, and another about the "dated" issue, which Columbus answers pretty well.

- Jeffrey Wells

[greenegirl87]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:09pm

YAYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:15pm

This guy sounds like my kind of geek. XD

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 08:15 PM

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:16pm

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/111104/Columbus.wav Here's the sound file of Columbus at the Q&A session. I believe it mentions Goodbye Love and its cut. *listening*

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:26pm

who is this guy, and why am i thinking that his review doesnt matter?

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:31pm

Columbus's official explanation for cutting the second half of Goodbye Love: "It was too much emotion. I simply couldn't deal with it."

We found the film finally "worked" without it.

"It will be on the DVD."

"I wouldn't put it back into the context of the film because I do feel it's too much."

"We struggled with Contact. For months... we choreographed an entire sequence and it just didn't work." Well, it's at least interesting to hear that they tried filming Contact.
Updated On: 11/9/05 at 08:31 PM

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:32pm

You forgot the part where Columbus said that it would

"Take away from the impact of the finale."

Which is important. Ruins the pacing.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:34pm

Well, I'll be! A rave.

(Fun fact--my dad has written stuff for this website, I'm pretty sure)

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:35pm

"Which is important. Ruins the pacing."

Interesting explanation but more people have argued that the absence of the second half of Goodbye Love diminishes the emotional impact of the finale.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:36pm

I want to see the movie first before making any judgments either way. *eyebrow* For now, I can seriously understand how such a scene can negatively affect pacing.

Besides, a few negative reviews, a few positive reviews... How come the negative reviews seem to be having so much more impact than the positive ones?

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 08:36 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:37pm

In addition to the pacing issue, perhaps it was just so emotional that people would still be stuck on it when it came time to respond to the finale. Probably depends on the person, in which case they had to do what they thought best.

I can't listen to that audio clip for some reason. gr.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 08:37 PM

[Mandi Moo]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:38pm

Well, this makes me happy. Who cares if this person isn't really that important, knowing that someone absolutely loved it is great.

So, he wouldn't put it back in because it was too much emotion? Ok. Hopefully we'll be able to put it back in the context of the film on the DVD.
Updated On: 11/9/05 at 08:38 PM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:40pm

"How come the negative reviews seem to be having so much more impact than the positive ones?"

Because everyone here has been following the film's production closely. We judge reviews by whether they jive with what we've seen and read (in most cases, this includes the screenplay) rather than taking them as gospel based on who wrote them or how well-written they are...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:43pm

Because, Lari, if people believe the positive ones, and then they see it and it's not what the expected, they run the risk of being disappointed. If they put more belief in the negative ones and have lower expectations, it's easier. There's no risk of let-down, but only the chance to be pleasantly surprised.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 08:43 PM

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:43pm

But rather than give equal attention to both the negative and positive reviews, the negative reviews have far more weight.

I honestly think that the whole situation is being blown out of proportion. People jump on these negative reviews, start agreeing with them preemptively (BEFORE SEEING THE FILM), and then rally together to take down Columbus/preach for change.

Calm down, everyone. I really doubt the movie is as bad as some people are making it out to be.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:48pm

"who is this guy, and why am i thinking that his review doesnt matter?"

Jeff Wells obviously doesn't have the prestige of Roger Ebert but he's important enough to attend press screenings and ask questions. He might also be quoted in ads. By the same token, he can be a little childishly supportive of films he likes (i.e. telling people who say that actors are too old that that's "bull****" or something to that effect).

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:58pm

Columbus's official explanation for cutting the second half of Goodbye Love: "It was too much emotion. I simply couldn't deal with it."

We found the film finally "worked" without it.

"It will be on the DVD."

"I wouldn't put it back into the context of the film because I do feel it's too much."

I read that as that the filmed product was too melodramtic.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:02pm

Michael--

Yup, pretty much.

[twotrey]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:04pm

The thing to bear in mind is that Wells is notoriously contrarian, particularly when it comes to an opinion that David Poland has. It's cool that he liked the film and it worked for him. All I can say is that it doesn't quite work for me, and that the explanation that Columbus gives quite frankly shows that he did, indeed, wimp out, afraid to go to some darker places I think it needed to go to in my opinion. But, again, just my opinion, and I have no illusions that mine has any more weight than others.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:09pm

If it didn't work, it didn't work. I think that the film's being so inherently emotional makes directing choices quite parallel with emotional ones. But that also means that some of those choices ARE very personal. So, I'd say that it just didn't work for him (just like the movie didn't work for you) before I'd say that he "wimped out." Some people may have been fine with Goodbye Love in its entirety. He wasn't. Whatever it is.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 09:09 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:14pm

Emcee -- I think the fair assumption is that it didn't work in the context in which he filmed it. It's arguable that a different director could have found a way to make it work. Afterall, it is a pretty pivotal scene to the story.


Updated On: 11/9/05 at 09:14 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:16pm

Perhaps. We all know that the director choice has been in conflict since day one. But again, at this point, I'm too exhausted by this to do much more than resort to "it is what it is."

When are you seeing it, MB?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:17pm

I'm seeing it Saturday, emcee.

[Steeler Jim]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 2:53pm

"How come the negative reviews seem to be having so much more impact than the positive ones?"

I think the reason behind this is simple - all of us Rentheads have been salivating for this film for years, and there's no way we want it to suck. We've invested too much emotion and time into it, and when we see something bad written about it, we take it personally.

I personally think the film's gonna be great, no matter the naysayers. But, that's just my opinion.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 2:55pm

Exactly my point of view, Steeler Jim.

Updated On: 11/10/05 at 02:55 PM