When did ReNt become a classic?- Page 2

[winston89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 1:46am

I have trouble believing that EVERYONE reviewing the show went down the " He's dead so we'll cut him slack" path.


Most of the original Rentheads interest in the show was because of the material. Not because Larson died and they want to see the dead guys work.

If you have been to the Nederlander in the past few years the Rentheads are friggen nuts. The sad part is that most of them don't know who wrote the damn show yet they are still interested in it.

These are also the same people who saw the film and are convinced that they know everything about Rent without seeing the show. And that they are pissed when they find out that Adam is no longer Roger ect.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 1:53am

Well, with those standards, the "feline" show is much more of a classic for that matter.

[winston89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:05am

I beg to differ. The feline musical which you refer to will always be associated with shows like Les Miserables, Phantom and Miss Saigon. Only because it was one of the four mega musicals to come out of London in the same few year span.


Rent has been able to stand up and hold its own.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:29am

In any case, I'd say that for this to become a Broadway classic, you should give it some time.

First, let's see how it does regionally - remember that it has virtually flopped everywhere outside of NYC.
Maybe wait to see how a revival does (Remix anyone?)

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:30am

"And it brought the AIDS scare into the forefront of the storyline... "

Angels In America brought AIDS front and centre before Rent did, and if we want to go back further than that, we can go to Larry Kramer's A Normal Heart.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:35am

First, let's see how it does regionally - remember that it has virtually flopped everywhere outside of NYC.

I don't think there'd have been 3 US tours if that were the case.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 3:08am

Rent=hype.

Great hype, mind you, but serious hype none the less.

From the night of Larson's death, this show has been a publicist's dream. Why? Because the flacks have a story to sell. The great, unknown author who burns brightly, then flames out. That's a story they can (and did so well) sell.

Is this show really deserving of a Pulitzer? They have been awarded by mistake or through sympathy before, the judges are human, after all.

The big problem I have is that the show itself is overwrought claptrap and "ooooh, aren't we cool "Digme" theater. The music is forgettable (Going Ohhhhuuuut tonight....") and if the author hadn't [assed away when he did, the show would be a small listing and a footnote in Burns Mantle.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 3:34am

First, let's see how it does regionally - remember that it has virtually flopped everywhere outside of NYC.

I don't think there'd have been 3 US tours if that were the case.

I stand corrected, though they were limited runs. Outside the US.

[winston89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 4:58am

I stand with what I said before. I still feel that it wouldn't have gotten all the awards and the acclaim from the media just based on Larson's death alone. I don't think that it winning an obie or a Pulitzer or a Tony for that matter. Had anything to do with Larson being dead or not.


To say that it is because of Larson's death that it got this success is just a cop out and not giving the work credit where it is due.

Yes, Larson's death does add a nice little human interest story in the mix. But, it didn't have a thing to do with any of the awards or praise it got.

And, it is hard to say that that any story line in Rent or any story line in any famous musical for that matter is truly original, never been done before. In every famous musical there is always at least one thing or two that is based on another work. It is hard to be truly original when it comes to theatre.

The one thing I can see as being one thing that Rent did to be "original" is that it got the youth back into the theatre. Other then that when it came to story lines ect is is always going to be a battle of who finds the musical that it came from first.

[Urban]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 8:24am

Well it won the Tony for the simply reason the competition was not great that year, and other then BOTNBOTF, almost category filler.

1996 was just not exactly a stand out year for new original shows.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 8:29am

Ok...I give. BOTNBOTF? ibdb makes you put in more than one letter.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 8:30am

It's actually BIDNBIDF.

BRING IN DA NOISE, BRING IN DA FUNK

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 12:44pm

"Angels In America brought AIDS front and centre before Rent did, and if we want to go back further than that, we can go to Larry Kramer's A Normal Heart. "


Absolutely. I think Angels in America is a masterpiece (and that Tony Kushner is a genius). However, before and after the Angel mini-series, if you were to mention those three shows (Angels, Normal Heart, and Rent), which would be the most recognizable to the "average" American?

Regardless of the hype, you can't argue that Rent obviously brought people of all backgrounds to the theatre to see the story. Musicals seem to do that.

Sure there are plenty of plays that bring all of the issues Rent touches upon to the stage. I would never deny the impact of Angels (which I only wish I had the opportunity to see in NY). However, I'm talking about the appeal and draw to middle America.

I think there is a difference in disliking a piece of theatre and denying it's impact on theater (if nothing else -- you can't deny it brought youth and affordable tickets to Broadway).

I DESPISE Oklahoma, but I would never say that it isn't an important part of the development of musical theatre simply because I dislike it.

[broadway86]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 12:49pm

While hardly perfect, there are many, many songs, moments, characters, etc., that are truly transcendent and haunting.

[winston89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 1:05pm

Okay fine. I can see how you would make the argument that Rent won the tony due to lack of compitation. That the year it came out it wasn't the best year for musicals and it was just the better of the bunch.


But, it's hard to say that it won the pulitizer on the merits of Larson's passing. It is a major thing that Rent is only one of seven musicals ever to win the title. And, I don't thinkg that the pulitzer committe had said " we should give it to Rent because Larson died."

I agree with what has been said. That to say that the show got anywhere due to the death of Larson is a total cop out to the fact that the show is one of the all time major american musicals. And by saying it is all due to the death of Larson. it is not giving the credit to the work where credit is very much due.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:12pm

I think it is hilarious that so many people can, 12 years later, say what would have happened if Jonathan Larson had not passed away. There is no way of knowing. Things are what they are. And what Rent did was open Broadway to an entirely new generation. 12 years ago Broadway was dominated by megamusicals and revivals. Along came Rent (and Bring in da Noise, Bring in da Funk) and basically kicked every single one of the musicals playing at the time down a couple of notches.

"The big problem I have is that the show itself is overwrought claptrap and "ooooh, aren't we cool "Digme" theater. The music is forgettable (Going Ohhhhuuuut tonight....") and if the author hadn't [assed away when he did, the show would be a small listing and a footnote in Burns Mantle.

Give me "ooooh, aren't we cool "Digme" theater over the absolute stagnation that was Broadway back then any day. By the way, one person's pretentious is another's cutting edge.

[sondhead]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:31pm

It is not giving a little bit of credit. That is true. If everyone saw it as horrible, it indeed wouldn't have won any awards.

BUT if you think reviewers and award givers can't get caught up in the hype you are kidding yourself. Just saying.

Regardless, what many have said here is true. It is ridiculous to even think about calling Rent a classic or "one of the all time" American musicals because it is still so relatively new. Let's reconvene in 20-30 years on this one.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:36pm

"Regardless, what many have said here is true. It is ridiculous to even think about calling Rent a classic or "one of the all time" American musicals because it is still so relatively new. Let's reconvene in 20-30 years on this one"

Agreed. It's too soon to declare RENT a classic.

[winston89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 2:46pm

I find it interesting that ther was a conversation of the same topic on the West end board in a thread that talked about the closing of the Broadway show

https://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?boardid=3&boardname=bway&thread=954638#3435354


That being said. I feel that it is hard for a show to stay open for 12 years without resonating with other people. The original Rentheads found the work moving for them. And, the current generation. The one that worships the ground that Idina and anthony and Adam walk on. Don't even know who wrote the damn material which they have fallen so deeply in love with.


Despite playing at the very and no longer cursed Shaftsbury (Thanks Hairspray) it still resonated with people. And there were people there who didn't know who Larson was and still loved the work.

Once again, to say that Rent ran this long/ is a classic due to Larson's death is a cop out to not give credit where it is due. I can understand the show running a year on Broadway and someone saying it only got that far due to the death of Larson. But, I have trouble belieaving that 12 years down the line.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 3:43pm

Rent became a classic when it ran for 12 years and released one of the few musical theatre songs of the past 25 years that has become a well-known pop song. (Seasons of Love.)

Also, it was revolutionary in its own right.

Oh, and WannaBeAFoster, Fiorello! won the Pulitzer Prize. I wouldn't exactly consider it a classic. It's definitely great that Rent won the Pulitzer, and that puts it on the map, but the Pulitzer is a very, very odd award. For example, winning compositions have to take place in America, yet "Sunday in the Park with George" won. I feel like, at times, the winner is chosen in an arbitrary way.

Rent is definitely a classic, but not necessarily because it won the Pulitzer.

[snl89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 4:08pm

I DO consider RENT a classic, actually. And it's not just because I personally love it. Like it or not, it really was a milestone in Broadway history. I *believe* (and I could be wrong on this, feel free to correct me if I am) that, other than maybe Hair, it was the first show to ever introduce the idea of the "rock opera", and it pretty much changed the way a whole new generation of young people viewed musical theater.

Again, I'm not saying this just because I happen to be a fan of the show. I'm just saying that, technically speaking, it really did jumpstart a whole new era for Broadway, and paved the way for shows like Spring Awakening, Bare, Next To Normal, etc. Not saying it's not possible, but I doubt that Spring Awakening ever would have garnered the success it did if RENT had not existed before hand to kind of warm people to the thought that Broadway can deal with heavy, controversial issues and incorperate modern, "not-heavily-theatrical" music.

and plus, as has been mentioned, it is in an elite catagory simply for having won the Pulitzer Prize. But more than that I just think it really did have a powerful, lasting effect on Broadway and the way people view Broadway, so therefore in my mind it is a classic. Classic doesn't necasserily mean old I don't think, it just means something with great staying power that has/had a lot of influence. That's how I see it anyway :)

[snl89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 4:19pm

sorry, double post, but:

"I have trouble believing that EVERYONE reviewing the show went down the " He's dead so we'll cut him slack" path.


Most of the original Rentheads interest in the show was because of the material. Not because Larson died and they want to see the dead guys work."


Thank you. I completely agree with that. I just think it's funny that so many people assume fans of the show love it BECAUSE Jon Larson died. I WILL say that I think that plays a very big part in why I have such an attachment to the show and it's spirit NOW, but it by no means was why I became a fan of the show in the first place. I had vaguely remembered hearing that the creator of RENT died right around the time it had opened, but I was not thinking about that at all when I saw the show for the first time about 3 1/2 years ago. I fell in love with the show ITSELF first, and BECAUSE I connected so deeply with the show itself, that is why I got so emotional learning Jon Larson's story. So really, it works the opposite, I think, of how so many people assume it does. If I didn't love the show on its own first and foremost, I probably wouldn't be as personally affected by Jonathan and his story. Sure, I'd think it was very sad and everything, but it wouldn't make me LIKE the show. But it's because the spirit of the show itself is so strong that I connect with Jonathan's own story.

Sorry, I'm probably making very little sense here haha. I think it made more sense in my mind than it does written out :P

[sondhead]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 4:29pm

"I *believe* (and I could be wrong on this, feel free to correct me if I am) that, other than maybe Hair, it was the first show to ever introduce the idea of the "rock opera","

Evita, Jesus Christ Superstar, Your Own Thing, etc. etc.

As I've said earlier, Rent is hardly the first musical to use popular music, or even rock music. Broadway has used popular music for scores since its inception.

[snl89]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 4:37pm

^Okay, I stand corrected :) haha, like I said, I wasn't totally sure! I just know that, generally, when you say "rock opera", the first thing that comes to mind is RENT. At least in the eyes of our generation.


(was Evita really rock? I don't know the show really at all, so it totally could be, I just always thought it seemed more classic-theatrical from the few things I've seen/heard)

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/10/08 at 4:58pm

scaryclowns, most of the second act of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE takes place in America. I suppose that was enough for the Pulitzer committee.

And was "Seasons of Love" really a well known pop song?

And Tommy was also a rock musical before RENT, but that was based off a pre-existing album.