The Fading Effectiveness of RENT- Page 2

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 11:38pm

Amen, Kringas.

[La_Becca]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 11:53pm

My mom (who's 47) saw RENT with me for the first time in July and fell in love with it. Age isn't necessarily a factor. Granted, teenage audiences would be more willing to be open to the themes addressed in the show as opposed to middle-aged conservatives (like my mom). But I think it's more of a "first time" thing. I think the effectiveness we're speaking of fades with time *after* your first time experiencing the show.

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 11:53 PM

[Khashoggi]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 6:58am

"What you can't pay Rent? Get a job!!!"
Umm, I think you're kind of missing the point. Their refusal to get a standard job is part of their lifestyle choice as Bohemians, hence the bitterness towards Benny for "selling out".
"To riding your bike mid day past the three-peice suits"
If they had jobs there would be no story here.
They are aritsts, not Sales Executives. :)
-J.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 7:03am

I think the effectiveness we're speaking of fades with time *after* your first time experiencing the show.

I have to disagree with that. I was actually much more affected the second time I saw it. I don't know why. I know that's kind of off-topic, but I thought I'd mention it.

And I can kind of see people's point about the way the message is conveyed. I can see how it wouldn't be as effective is the story isn't convincing to you. Interesting.

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 8:36am

I can honestly say that my feelings for Rent have always been pretty consistent, and I think my age has nothing to do with it. I saw Rent when I was about 14 years old. I had heard the recording a couple of times, and thought the music was extremely overrated and at that point, tiring. After seeing the show, my sentiments were pretty much the same. I found the show loud, crude and not-at-all-entertaining. I am now 19 years old, and every so often I put in the recording to try and understand why so many people fine this to be "THE BEST SHOW EVER!" But I have still yet to see the light. I think that had Jonathna Larson not died, he would have written some amazing things. I think Rent did some good for theatre, getting younger people involved and stuff. However, I hate people who's only musical knowledge is of Rent and Wicked and all that.

I will be seeing the Rent movie when it comes out with my mother. She is very interested in it, and has a cursh on Adam Pascal. I am happy they made the movie. I am happy they were able to keep almost the entire cast intact. How wonderful that 9 or so years ago, these people were just stage actors. Stage actors who nobody knew of. And now, they are able to do their work on the big screen! I think that's an amazing achievement for Broadway and for theatre in general.

However, Rent and its subject matter hasn't touhced me at all.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 9:47am

"What you can't pay Rent? Get a job!!!"
Umm, I think you're kind of missing the point. Their refusal to get a standard job is part of their lifestyle choice as Bohemians, hence the bitterness towards Benny for "selling out".
"To riding your bike mid day past the three-peice suits"


But most artists DO get conventional jobs to support themselves while pursuing their passion and they don't expect allowances to be made for them simply because a conventional job isn't their calling. And you don't have to be over forty or politically conservative to have little sympathy for people who choose the financial uncertainty of the bohemian lifestyle.

Also, a twentysomething friend of mine who is politically liberal, doesn't care for Rent because she feels that it is a suburbanite romanticization of abject poverty. As someone from humble beginnings, she doesn't think there is anything romantic fun or cute about being poor.

Just goes to show that age and political leanings do not always predict how a person will respond to a work of art.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 9:58am

I think RENT has run into the problem that HAIR ran into late in its initial run. When HAIR first opened they had a cast who was living/breathing/eating/dropping/smoking the time period. They weren't actors playing hippies, they WERE hippies. The creative team for the show would walk up to the freaks (and I don't mean that in a bad way)in washington square and ask them if they wanted to do a show. The cast would drop acid at "places" so that they could peak during the Walking In Space number. As the show ran and ran and time passed the cast became actors and dancers playing at being Hippies rather than just portraying their actuall lives onstage. It was at this point that Hair became antiquated and ineffective. This is why revivals have never been able to capture the true spirit of the piece. Besides what producer would let a show run where they knew their actors were openly under the influence of drugs today?

This directly relates to RENT. When RENT opened, a good chunk of the cast were making Broadway debuts. I know Taye had only done Carousel to this point. They were a bunch of young actors and artists, true genXers themselves. They were onstage bringing their friends, family and lifstyles to life in this story. The current events were relavent to them and also a major emotional piece of who they were. Today you get young actors who were between the ages of 12 and 17 when RENT first opened. Most likely they were watching the original cast as young misunderstood teens in Ohio or Upstate NY. They weren't kids growing up in Alphabet City, they hadn't been struggling in a diner or starving to get a screenplay filmed. They can only capture an idea of the era, they don't embody the era like the original cast.

Yes the issues are timeless and important. But you can't ask Johnny Middleclass with a good family life from Shermer Illinois to portray Roger or Mark without losing a little in the translation. Much like you can't get the same person to play at being a hippie in HAIR without losing a little of the original spirit.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:11am

Oh and, yes I am an artist with a conventional job. Their called survival jobs. However I have met those people who want to devote all their time to their art and nothing else. They don't care who's couch they have to sleep on either.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:32am

Even Jonathan Larson had a survival job...but it really is a minor point (after all, these characters are based on the folks from La Boheme...so one has to make certain allowances).

And I don't think 'age' so much as 'life experience' has to do with reaction to the piece over time. Notice the age of everyone whose opinions have shifted: 30-31. We were all at the graduating-college point in which life was ahead of us completely. I'd venture to guess that a lot of us posting are artists who really reacted to the ideals in the show. It was certainly a romanticized view of the Bohemian life in NYC during the AIDS crisis (and that's not meant as a critique). For many of us, it was seeing ourselves represented on a stage in a musical for the first time. It was overwhelming. But unlike the characters in the play, who are forever frozen in that time, we grow and change and learn to negotiate life on a different level. Doesn't change the profound impact the show had on us...just that we've moved from that experience into another.

[jynni]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:41am

I saw Rent for the first time when I was 21 - I took my 17 year old brother with me. I thought he might like the show since I had heard the music was more pop/rock than say PTO or Les Miz.

Neither of us knew anything about the show, the characters or had even heard the music. Both of us loved it.

I couldn't really relate to any of the characters or the circumstances but I thought the message was good. I was very touched by the charachter of Angel.

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:44am

This thread made me think about the opera "La Boheme," on which RENT is based. "La Boheme" is a timeless classic, and the very young characters are usually played by much older actors (of course, it's the opera). Anyway, I don't think many opera fans would say that this opera has lost something through time and they can't relate to it anymore. Just a thought.

[cookie2]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:01am

this thread has been so interesting to read, for me. I've kind of had the opposite experience with RENT. When the show was in it's first year and the height of the RENT-head hysteria, I was in college in Boston. People around me were OBSESSED. I knew people who had gone to NY every weekend, and by Christmas time had seen the show over 15 times already. Walking down the halls, I heard the OBC streaming from every dorm room. I was sick of RENT and i'd never seen it. I started to feel that if I heard "Seasons of Love" one more time I would have to bludgeon someone 525,600 times just to make the point. I had little interest in seeing the show, even when it came to Boston.

Then I had some cousins come to town, and they wanted to see it, so we got tickets. I liked the show, but didn't get why people were obsessed with it. The whole "no day but today" thing just flew right by me. Maybe because I was in the middle of my college career, and didn't really relate to that idea. I was still thinking back to friends and family at home (yesterday) and trying to imagine what life would be like when I got out of school (tomorrow). I think my favorite part of the show at that point was "Over The Moon", probably because it was odd, theatrical and not so sentimental. I didn't find myself relating the way many of my friends (some of whom were just coming out) did.

After college, I moved to NYC. I was broke. I lived in NYC for 6 years. I never saw RENT on broadway. After time had passed and I heard the OBCR again, I started to really like it, but I refused to see the show that meant so much to starving artists, with a popstar in the cast...so I had to wait a while. Earlier this year, I finally went and saw the show with A friend I had seen it with in Boston. The show got to me more than I expected. I found myself extremely moved by the words "Forget regret or life is yours to miss" and "no day but today". Yes, I agree that Mark and Roger could find jobs...but that wasn't what it was about for me this time. It was about friendship, love, facing fears, loss, trying to find your place. "we're dying in america to come into our own...and when you're dying in america at the end of the millenium - YOU'RE NOT ALONE".

Maybe it was, in fact because I got a little older and had some more experiences. When I was 19 and I saw this show, I hadn't had to deal with not having the rent. I had never mourned someone I knew who died from AIDS. I had never lost a dear friend to drug addiction. But times have changed. Now these things are all forever part of me. "Give in to love, or live in fear".

I am now 27 years old...and I cannot wait to see this onscreen, as I never saw the OBC so this will be as close as I can get. I have a feeling there will be some weeping. Especially since I recently moved away from NYC.

excuse any spelling errors and non-capitalization, as this just sort of poured out of me. thanks.

[ElphabaRose]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:18am

Wow, its really interesting to hear about rent from the perspective of people who were going through some of the same situations as the characters when the show first opened. I'm 17 and I saw Rent for the first time when I was 12. It affected me then greatly, but I could never really emphasize with any of the characters. It was also probably the first show that began to get me more into theatre. I saw it 4 times in about two years. I know that the the second to last time I saw it was in December of 2003. I saw Rent again this past March, and I finally felt like I really got it. I had some qualms with the actors in some parts, but after a few more years of life experience I finally truly understood the show. After watching some friends struggle to come out and others contract HIV, I actually got it. The other thing that I just realized is that when I saw it recently, I was sobbing through about half of the second act, but when Mimi came back to life, it just ruined it for me. When I was younger, I loved the happier and more hopeful ending, but now it just seems so unrealistic and disappointing.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:28am

I adored Rent when I first saw it with the original cast. The show held up well for a couple of years. When I saw it again summer 2003, the entire show is simply going through the motions. Characterization and choreography has changed. It's obvious that little attention is given to direction and the producers probably haven't cared since it turned a profit. It needs to be cleaned up and overhauled, but if the film rejuvenates the box office, I doubt it will happen. I hate to say it, but it should probably close. I paid half price the last time I saw it and I felt ripped off. It's not Rent any more. It's been through the photocopier so many times, it's nothing more than a smudgy mess. I'm looking forward to the film (not as much as my mother, though), but I doubt I will pay to see it on stage again for a very long time.

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 12:27pm

Touching on a few various points ...

Also, a twentysomething friend of mine who is politically liberal, doesn't care for Rent because she feels that it is a suburbanite romanticization of abject poverty.

I had a friend like that, too. She was a dyed in the wool leftie and saw the show and referred to it as "liberal propaganda."

"La Boheme" is a timeless classic, and the very young characters are usually played by much older actors (of course, it's the opera). Anyway, I don't think many opera fans would say that this opera has lost something through time and they can't relate to it anymore.

Boheme is also a period piece, and was never - at least in any of our lifetimes - a part of the zeitgeist. There's a huge difference between watching 18th century bohemians struggle with TB in France and watching artists in NYC of the recent past.

Their refusal to get a standard job is part of their lifestyle choice as Bohemians, hence the bitterness towards Benny for "selling out".

Others have already responded to this, but I wanted to add my two cents. They may be bitter towards Benny for his "selling out," but no one in the show ever once takes a bit of self-examination to realize that even though Benny did screw them over royally, they were still taking a hand-out from "the man" by staying in the building rent-free.

If they had jobs there would be no story here.
Plenty of "bohemians" get jobs. Even in the show. Mimi has a job, Roger had one in NYTW version.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 12:34pm

It seems to me that Rent was part of a movement in America in the early to mid-90s to move America toward accepting its marginalized population. While in it's original version, it shocked, it no longer shocks, and must stand on its merits as a story. I believe it is strong enough to stand (I mean, it is an old story that has proven effective), but when we see the show now, it is important to not expect to be shocked -- it just ain't shocking anymore -- it is a lovely period piece of sorts -- and should be viewed as such.

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 12:37pm

Did it ever really shock, though? I remember even when it first came out how plenty of people sneered at it as a candy-coated and unrealistic. I remember it being a huge sensation, but shocking?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 12:41pm

Sure, when was the last big hit musical we saw two boys kiss, a drag queen dance, a girl moon the audience, while cursing and discussing AIDS?

I mean, now it's pretty much required material for a new show, but...back then, there was no such template.

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 12:55pm

Well, maybe not all in one show... I do see your point, and it may just be that I (and those I associated with at the time) are not easily shockable.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 12:58pm

I will say that there were shoes before Rent that approached the same sort of subjects in probably superior ways...but none were hits in the way Rent was...it somehow tied into the pulse of a large population, and held on for dear life.

[parkopjen]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:29pm

I was 16 or 17 when I first heard Rent on the car stereo of a friend on the way home from school (band practice to be more specific). I was shocked at the time simply by the language. Yet at the same time i wanted to hear more i wanted to know more. It became a small pastime of mine that everytime i went to Wal-mart to see if they had the rent soundtrack because i wantd to hear more than just the five minutes or so that i heard in my friends car. (small town ohio wal mart is the only place to find music at that time)The soundtrack showed up on the rack and it was soon the only thing i listened too..i didn't relate to the story but that didn't deter me from it.. just because i didn't relate to the three little pigs didnt' mean i didn't like the story..I was 19 when i saw rent on stage...i saw a touring cast in Columbus with the same friend who had turned me on to it to begin with.. I loved every minute of it.. i cried..i laughed.. and i cried some more.. and since then i've waited and waited for this movie.. just becuase i wanted a good story to be brought to the masses.. i know i'm probably in a minority but oh well.. i live in small town ohio an area that doesn't have much money so jsut going to New York or even Columbus to see a "Broadway" show just doesn't happen. There are loads of shows that i would love to see and i want future generations to see.. and if bringing them to film is how it has to be then thank goodness..
sorry if i am like way off course and if my spelling and grammar suck. I think i have dyslexia when i type. :)

[thetheatrekook]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:39pm

out of curiousity...what was Roger's job supposed to be? I don't know anything about Rent in it's pre-Broadway days.

I have to say...when I first saw the show back in 2000 (at the age of 16) I liked it because I liked musical theatre...but as a kid who never had it rough in life, I couldn't -really- connect with much of what the characters were going through. I saw the show last week for the second time (at 22) and although I still haven't lived what most of these characters have lived, I was definately more impressed with the show. I had just assumed to some degree that the show would be tired, worn out, that the whole show would just be phoned in. sooooooooo not the case. the talent on that stage was...wow. i was blown away.

i think it's also unfair to assume that because some of the obc actually lived what was protrayed on stage back then, it can't be the case anymore (i think that was the point that was made, or i misread.) and therefore the show isn't what it was. i don't know the point i was trying to make here...the train of thought is just gone. :)

as for the whole shock factor...i have to agree with both sides that it was shocking and not shocking. i don't think that the material alone is/was shocking (as a 14 year ol listening to the cast recording i wasn't shocked.) but to see those things portrayed on a Broadway stage...probably more shocking in that avenue. yes, there were more shocking shows that came before it, but i still think it could make people go "whoa...they said/did/portrayed WHAT on Broadway?"

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:41pm

I have to agree with MisterMatt. Rent should close. If it's not being loyal to what it once was and merely becoming a show thats going through the motions, then it needs to close.

Personally I think what has hurt this show alot has been the fact that for the most part they have tried to cast actors who closely resemble the OBC. Why not see something radically different. I remember people lost their damn minds when they cast a Mark with long brown hair. Get a grip seriously.

Maybe just maybe Rent should close. All things run a natural course and it just might be it's time. Cabaret, although I think it stuck around too long, ran it's course. Some could argue that Chicago has run it's course. Rent, I feel, as reached that point. Let it celebrate 10 years by going out, before it becomes a mere shell of what it used to be.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 2:05pm

MisterMatt, I agree. I paid to see Rent ONCE in my life and I don't see myself doing it again anytime soon unless there's a majot overhaul. It was magical with the OBC (can't speak for it afterwards, not sure what it was like), and I think it's sad that it's being represented the way it is on stage these days.

At the same time, I think it'd break my heart to see it close. For...strange reasons, I guess. One of them being, I have to play Maureen before it's gone, LOL.

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 2:33pm

I can never truely say i've seen the magic that was created with the original cast, though i wish i could have, it makes me so frusted to think about now. So, that is one of the reasons why i'm so excited for the movie. But even though i've never scene the original cast of RENT i understand how some may think it has lost some of it's magic or effectiveness, i've scene the original cast of other musicals and i couldn't imagen seeing it again and enjoying it as much as i did the first time.

Also the first year RENT was performed, many were still morning over the loss of Jonathan so there must have been so much more emotion generated into the musical.