Jonathan Larson wouldn't want RENT as it is today...- Page 3

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:44pm

nd that's fine, if that's not what it's about, but stop pretending the two are really in direct competition for being "better," or whatever. Other than your personal vindication over the fans, what's the point?

- But see, thre you go blaming everything on me again. This time I didn't even bring up Chicago in this thread. I just helped defend a show that I love. You and your fellow groupies sure do it enough.

And keep trying to intimidate me with your big words. It really doesn't do anything.



Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:44 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:49pm

I haven’t seen the show in years so I have no idea about the current state of the production and performances compared to the original Broadway cast. However, there's more dialogue in the movie than in the show. Much of what was sung through in the show is spoken in the movie. The movie was dumbed down so that mindless moviegoers could more easily follow the story. The singing was also more enunciated. That, and close-ups, helped to make the lyrics easier to understand. I know you say that you're not comparing the show to the movie, but if you've only seen the movie (multiple times) and have never seen the show before now, then what are you comparing it to and what the basis for your opinion that Jonathan Larson wouldn't be happy with the show as it’s being presented today?

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:49 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:55pm

Huh? See, there you go being defensive against something I didn't even do. I never said you were the first one to bring up Chicago, but I was disagreeing with some of the points you made. You act as if just because I like Rent better than Chicago, that's some sort of mortal sin. I'm certainly not blaming everything on you, and that's a really lame thing to accuse me of; talking about what you specifically have done doesn't blame you for everything. I don't even see how what you quoted makes it seem like I'm blaming "everything" on you. You've made it MORE than clear that you don't like Rent fans, and your defense of Chicago -- more often than not -- doesn't display itself as merely love for the show, but in proving that it's better than a show with a huge group of fans that you happen to dislike.

That's the problem; by all means, defend a show you love, but you don't have to put down another and its fans in order to and every time you do so, because rather than talking about how great Chicago is, you get really caught up in how much better Chicago is doing than Rent or how much better it is than Rent, and you do it in a significant amont of threads. You don't defend the quality of a show that you love when you do that, no matter how much you love it; you defend it against a show that you want to put down.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:57pm

*edit* this isn't in response to Queen Emcee's post above. That was posted while I was writing this.

And one last thing for you, Miss Emcee.

You always seem to have such angst against Chicago. But the other revival of another legendary K&E show (Cabaret) you were a HUGE supporter of.

But have you not realized those producers of Cabaret used the same cheap tricks of stunt casting also? Cabaret had a long list of stunt casted stars. I would almost bet there were more stunted Sallys in that revival then stunted Roxies on Broadway.

And thank you, but the Weisslers never had to result to John Stamos.
Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:57 PM

[peach]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:03pm

I am a huge RENT fan, but I've been seeing it since 1996. And, I've seen it many times. In 1996 it was fresh and new and very relevant.

I still love it; I think it's message is timeless (and I love the music), but I recently took someone to see it who had never seen it before.

Her reaction was that it seemed "a little dated." I personally don't agree, but I could see where she was coming from - not having seen the show before (or listened to the music, etc.). Having her first exposure to the show 10 years after it came out, she ws expecting something more "modern" I guess.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:06pm

Honey, PLEASE. Your points don't make any sense. I don't have "angst" about Chicago, but the fact is that the show never did anything for me. I disapprove of certain things about the way the production is handled, and I probably seem "angsty" about it because one of its biggest supporters here feels the need to support it by dumbing down another show. I recognize that it is a good, solid and very historic piece of theater, some of the acting was great, and I love the score, but... I just didn't love it. I can't believe you're imply that just because I fell in love with Cabaret, I shouldn't dislike Chicago, or that to like one K&E show means I cannot DARE dislike another. I happen to think Cabaret is a much better show, and that the revival was a better production than is the current production of Cabaret; it moved me a lot. I'm sorry to say Chicago didn't do the same thing for me, because I did want to like it. I realize that Cabaret used a lot of stunt casting, but they didn't do it nearly as often. I don't support blind stunt casting simply for celebrity factor under ANY circumstances, and if I had been an active part of this community during the height of it in Cabaret, I would have spoken out against it back then, too. Chicago has stunt-cast far more roles than just Roxie, obviously.

No, the Weisslers haven't had to resort to John Stamos, but they have done way, way worse. Hello, Melanie Griffith? At least Stamos had some redeeming qualities.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 02:06 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:10pm

CHICAGO may have stayed alive for a decade on "stunt casting" but the entire point of the show is its dissertation on celebrity. So the star casting works. Even when the stars aren't talented. Thats what the show is about. It's brilliant.

Just about everything about the way the CHICAGO revival has been handled from casting to marketing has been genius. There should be a college course on it. Seriously.

I do think RENT is dated, and I'm sure I would probably be depressed if I were to see what its become ten years later. But it was dated before it even opened, so my guess is that Larson would be happy that its still running if it were still moving audiences. It IS a shame, however, that the show isn't being better maintained. No excuses for sloppy, tired performances.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 02:10 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:16pm

Regarding Mel Griffith. She actually did get good reviews. I'm not doubting she stunk. But the reality is, a lot of critics DID like her in the role.

and MB, your last post makes some great points. I just can't convey my feelings that well. Thankfully someone can convey the similar feelings/thoughts I have on the Chicago revival.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:17pm

CHICAGO may have stayed alive for a decade on "stunt casting" but the entire point of the show is its dissertation on celebrity. So the star casting works. Even when the stars aren't talented. Thats what the show is about. It's brilliant.

I have thought of it that way, and the concept is genius, really, but I can't help but cringe at the idea of willingly sitting down for what is pretty much guaranteed to be a horrible performance, in some of these cases. I mean, do you want realism and thematic representation or pleasing performances?

PS, critics fawn over stars, even if they suck. Look at Brantley and Julia Roberts.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 02:17 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:20pm

I'm sure Mr. Larson would be happily collecting his checks and living in style.

And I'm sure many of you want to believe otherwise.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:21pm

You gave a valid review, but don't doubt Larson's vision if you haven't see the original show as he left it and if you haven't personally discussed it with him.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:22pm

This is my favorite show, but I would have to agree with you. I think the producers need to come in with the director and just clean-up the show. They need to tighten things and refocus everyone's energy. I think the problem is most of the people are with RENT for more than a year or two, so they get bored in the part and there for get unfocused and goof off on stage - which totally looses the entire meaning of the piece. While I think more about the show, some of it does come off a bit whiny though. My brother use to complain that the song "RENT" was all whiny and why wouldn't they just pay the f---ing rent already and stop complaining - which is sort of true.

Capn, how was Christopher J. Hanke's Mark?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:24pm

Well, I'm thinking from a business standpoint more than an artistic standpoint, but I truly believe that one reason fans of the show are baffled by the rave reviews Melanie Griffiths received are just forgetting that the charater of Roxie is supposed to be a born loser. You felt that in Griffith's performance and her sad, almost pathetic lonliness in the part just sort of forgave her actually having to sing or dance well.

It's kind of the Sally Bowles casting thing. Do you cast somebody who is the character - a pathetic, bad singer in a second rate german nightclub. Or do you go for Liza Minnelli?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:28pm

I think that sort of think is definitely very important, both in critical consideration and in performance; but when looking at someone who was as bad as she was, I have to wonder... how far is too far, you know? I mean, people went to laugh and see just HOW bad she was. It got butts in seats, but yikes.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:33pm

But Emcee, Did YOU see Melanie? It really seems you are only going by word of mouth.


It's evident many hated her in the role. But I have come across several people besides critics, who DID like her performance.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:34pm

"All of you people wishing for any show to close on Broadway obviously don't know or care about the many people that become unemployed when a decision like that is made. Maybe you saw these actors having an off night. It's live theatre, not a machine and people are human. You try making that dated material seem fresh 8 performances a week and see how YOU fare."

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but personally, I don't wish for any show to CLOSE because of the many people involved who would be out of work. BUT...it is the actor's JOB to keep a performance fresh 8 shows a week. It is the reason they are given a PAYCHECK. It is indeed live theatre for which the audience PAYS to attend and it is the responsibility of the actors to give the best performance they can. And it is the responsibility of the director, stage managers and producers to monitor the level of performance. When the show starts to resemble a machine, as they often do in long runs, it is not the fault of the audience. It is the fault of the staff and cast for no longer caring to deliver a quality show if people are continuing to buy tickets. If they themselves treat the show as a machine, then they deserve to be treated that way.

When I get paid for performing 8 shows a week and you purchase a ticket to the show, you can voice your opinion about my performance. Given the price of tickets for a Broadway show, every single audience member has purchased the right to voice their opinions on the performances they have invested to see. And just for the record, I have seen actors having off nights who perform 8 shows a week who do not toss away their lines, rush through the dialogue or deviate from the core of their characters. And it's not like the cast has been performing the show for its entire run. Some of them have been doing it for a while, but that is what they chose to do, so I'm not all that sympathetic to the 8-shows-a-week-is-so-hard defense considering 1) it is exactly what is expected of them and 2) all the other shows with the same performance schedule, most of which I've seen have given far superior performances. Not to mention the previous Rent casts that were able to adhere to the schedule and deliver a better show. If it was an "off-night", then 90% of the cast must have been on the same cycle and few of them remembered what the show was about and/or that a paying audience was attending.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:37pm

Thank you, Matt. It's no secret that I spent years working in that business, but even I get sick of that whiny "if a show closes, people are out of work!" crap. It's the business they CHOSE to be in. RENT has been running for 10 YEARS. Do you have any idea how much money the union members who have been there all that time have raked in? Give me a break.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:53pm

Mister Matt, I agree with every word you said. The show as it is and has been for the past several years is rather embarassing. It seems like nobody is doing their job--producers, directors, actors, musicians. Everything is like a machine; I just see no heart or care put into anything that goes up there. I can't speak for Mr. Larson, but if *I* had written the show, I'd be heartbroken at how little care the piece is being given, and how the performers and the fan base has seemed to lose sight of the wonderful piece it COULD be.

I can't stand when I refer back to the magic that was in the show with the original cast, and people use the excuse that the "past can't be re-created." When Will Chase stepped in as Roger for a month at the end of last year, he proved that it's just about understanding the piece and doing your job--not re-creating the past.
That being said, I do not want to see the show close. I want to see the powers that be put some effort into what they do, because there are plenty of people who would in their position.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:54pm

^ Regarding Rath's post.

But see a lot of the RENT fans want to believe the performers live the struggle the characters live in RENT. They believe the actors would be living the same struggle once the show closes. They also want to believe Larson would still be struggling if he were alive.

And many of them believe they are living the struggle!

That's my biggest problem with many of the RENT fans. Some refuse to think of all the money and success many Rent actors have made from this show. And they refuse to believe Larson would be a rich and happy man right now.
Updated On: 10/9/06 at 02:54 PM

[kyle.]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:56pm

I've been seeing the show for 8 years, and the Broadway/touring productions are a far cry from what they used to be. Anyone who as access to the "opening night" video should watch and compare. It is a totally different show. If they want to keep this show alive and well for the next few years they need to completely recast it and Mr. Greif needs to do some extensive rehearsals with the cast.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 2:58pm

I don't get that. Why wouldn't Larson be swimming in cash right now? It's his show, it's been a huge success; where else would the money go? He wasn't a saint, as one of the actors once said. He probably wouldn't be like "um, no, I'm not taking the cash, I want to keep bathing in my sink, thanks!"

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 02:58 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:02pm

I think a lot of Rent fans mix up the idea of one HAVING money and making money off of art you love with selling out and becoming a rich bastard because you made money...

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:06pm

Life would be so much less complicated if people didn't have opinions...

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:15pm

The irony is that these are the same people who scream about how "little" Broadway actors get paid.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:18pm

I skipped a lot of posts to say this:

For whoever said that he's glad actors are working, if RENT closes, another show will open. More actors will get paid. It might not happen immediately, but it'll happen.

That argument gets on my nerves the most.