Jonathan Larson wouldn't want RENT as it is today...- Page 4

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:20pm

Especially when its regarding a show that's been open 10 years, for chrissake. No one expects a show to be open anywhere NEAR that long.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:24pm

But in terms of business, who in their sane mind would close a show that costs thirty cents per week to run and charges the same as the ones with the feathers, chandeliers, barricades, pride rocks and flying nannies? They could really get the OBC together for the 50th anniversary, and people would still say that Idina's ass is in great shape!

[AudreyTwoTwo]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:24pm

I'm kinda in the same boat as you, Capnhook...

I have seen the movie multiple times, and I didn't think the story was really told either. But I did like the feeling of the music being live, and I loved Christopher (he was Mark when I saw it). Angel and Mimi were good also, but everyone else was just... not. I didn't think Collins was all that great, and Roger was- ok. Everyone kept telling me ITS ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL!

Everyone also says the movie is crap. I don't think so. It's the closest I can get to seeing the original cast performing.

Even though Christopher is awesome.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:53pm

Though it is completely off-topic, I thought the movie was completely screwed in the beginning when it opened with the song "Rent" and no explaination was given as to why Roger and Mark didn't want to pay their rent. The exposition of the stage production outlined the events leading up to the song quite clearly. I could understand how anyone who saw the film without prior knowledge of the original story would have no compassion for the characters. It set the wrong tone for the entire film.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 4:15pm

ljay dear, when I mentioned Kander and Ebb, I was- to quote jimnysf- being snarky. Did you not notice the previous sentence where I mentioned Abba's feeling's on Mamma Mia? Or do you just block out any statements not pertaining to Chicago? I brought it up because I think it's ridiculous that people drag Jonathan Larson into their arguments, but never with other shows or other composers. I'm sure Verdi would have had a heart attack when he saw Destiny's Child Member #3 onstage too, but that's irrelevant in someone's personal reaction to the performance.

I mention something in passing and you blow it completely out of proportion. CapnHook was the one that first brought up the Chicago comparison in this thread, not me.

Currently, I'm just curious about these reviews which apparently praised Melanie Griffith to the high heavens. I've only seen the dozens of negative ones. And, no, "She can't sing or dance, but she's a star!" is not a positive review.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 4:44pm

"And, no, 'She can't sing or dance, but she's a star!' is not a positive review."

Well, it worked for Lauren Bacall.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 04:44 PM

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 4:58pm

I definitely do agree that the show can often lack in direction, or choreography for that matter. The latest touring production is brilliantly directed and does feel like the kind of production always intended for Rent ... the pacing and choreography was perfect, as was the singing and acting. The guy who plays Roger (his name escapes me; it's in my program at home, but I'm currently at school) is definitely one of their greatest actors.

When I saw Rent in NY, the pacing was extremely rushed (almost dizzying), actual good choreography was absent, and some of the "acting" was stiff as a board.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 6:04pm

And for all you haters out there, Jonathan Larson thinks you have a bad haircut.

So there.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 6:46pm

Brantley on Melanie Griffith in CHICAGO:

"Ms. Griffith is a sensational Roxie, possibly the most convincing I have seen. This doesn't mean that she gives the most electric or crowd-stirring interpretation ever of the aging jazz baby turned killer. How could that be, when her predecessors include Gwen Verdon (who created the role in 1975), Ann Reinking (the original Roxie of this revival) and Renée Zellweger (who deserved to win the Oscar for her portrayal in this year's film version)?

What Ms. Griffith offers is a powerful and instinctive empathy for the part, which she walks into as if it were a longtime lover's embrace. Since she swam into celebrity as a vixenish teenager in the 1975 film 'Night Moves,' Ms. Griffith has exhaled a scary, seductive aura of corrupted innocence. Or is it innocent corruption? In any case, in movies like 'Something Wild' and 'Body Double,' she discovered dark roots in the classic dumb blonde that redefined the prototype for the late 20th century.

Showbiz history is filled with examples of screen stars whose flame shrank and guttered onstage. Ms. Griffith, however, projects big, while doing what seems like very little. She is certainly the least kinetic of Roxies, wrapped in a languorous, protective mantle of self-absorption. She becomes the ultimate vague narcissist, unable to register anything that doesn't feed her ego or threaten her existence.

This gives Roxie newly organic depths of humor and pathos. When Ms. Griffith steps to the edge of the stage to confide, with a mix of bewilderment and resignation, 'I am older than I ever wanted to be,' it resonates as never before.
___________________________________________________________

Her Roxie is one of the few fortunate examples of the penchant of this show's producers, Barry and Fran Weissler, for revolving-door replacement casting of famous people. (Only Reba McEntire in 'Annie, Get Your Gun' has offered comparable satisfaction.)

The vultures who were expecting to see Ms. Griffith stumble, in other words, will have to look elsewhere for their fix of schadenfreude. 'You're a phony celebrity, kid,' Roxie's lawyer tells her. Ms. Griffith, on the other hand, is definitely the real thing, with a persona that translates into a heartfelt presence onstage.

As the evening progressed, I even forgot to think of her as Ms. Griffith, she was so simply and completely Roxie.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 7:24pm

He agreed with me on Tim Howar! Finally someone else who thinks Tim is awful!!

I do completeky disagree with Justin, he's bad too. Chris and Jaime are holding that show right now.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 7:30pm

"ljay dear, when I mentioned Kander and Ebb, I was- to quote jimnysf- being snarky. Did you not notice the previous sentence where I mentioned Abba's feeling's on Mamma Mia? Or do you just block out any statements not pertaining to Chicago?"

Your snarkiness just won me over a little bit, orange.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 7:39pm

CapnHook...You asked why nothing is in the Palace. If I am not mistaken, Legally Blonde is going into the Palace. Also as far as the producers going in and cleaning up the show. I seem to remember in a documentary on the show (I think it was part of the movie's special features) that Mr. Larson's family goes in regularly to make sure the show stays fresh. Are they in fact doing this? I have onlyt seen the show on tour (Its first National Tour) and loved it. I do plan to see it in New York on my next trip.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 7:44pm

The tour I saw sucked.
I'm not sure what you saw.

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 7:49pm

Well, when it came to San Francisco, it was nearly flawless. A fe minor complaints, but nothing major at all. Superb actin; wonderful singing. Non-equity, yet so much better than some equity tours of other shows.

The direction was perfect; contrary to the production in New York.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 7:56pm

"I seem to remember in a documentary on the show (I think it was part of the movie's special features) that Mr. Larson's family goes in regularly to make sure the show stays fresh. Are they in fact doing this?"

Even if they are, they okayed the Rent film, which I think suffers from the same lack of passion and care as the stage show. It says a lot about their standards...

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:15pm

And for all you haters out there, Jonathan Larson thinks you have a bad haircut.

Er...I'm not sure he was one to talk about bad haircuts.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:16pm

Besides, and with all due respect, they shouldn't have much of a say about how a show is kept "fresh"... I wouldn't send my family to take over my job just because we are related, that's silly.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:20pm

My mother had a conversation with one of the original cast members shortly after she had seen the stage production for the first time, and she liked it very much, but she spoke a lot of the lack of passion and connection and chemistry -- having never seen the show before in ANY form. Said actor was shocked and NOT pleased. It made me wonder if the Larsons really do check up on it regularly; I'd imagine -- and I hope -- they care as much as the person my mother spoke to did.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 08:20 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:23pm

I agree - family members? Since when does that make them skilled and experienced enough to oversee a Broadway production?

They want it to keep running so his legacy is kept fresh, and their bank accounts are kept healthy. That doesn't mean they have any idea of how to do it correctly.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:24pm

Well, I didn't mean to imply that they didn't CARE, I'm sure they do. But I think there's a certain sentimentality that comes along with the show for them especially, and none of them are artists themselves. Just because they are his relatives, it doesn't mean they could step in and make notes that a professional director could make. So them checking in really won't do much.
Updated On: 10/9/06 at 08:24 PM

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:26pm

I don't think the Larsons are exactly going in and telling everyone what's wrong with the production like a director would--I get the feeling they just visit the new casts and sit down with them and try to make them understand what Jonathan was about. I can't imagine they go in presuming that they can do a director's job--I think it's probably up to the actors themselves to bring energy to the piece. I'd lay the blame on Michael Greif if the show is not being kept fresh, not the Larsons.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 08:26 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:27pm

No, no, I'm sure they do. I just found it a little bit odd that he was so shocked to hear this. If they were really checking up on it, I'm not sure that would be the case. I mean, this is purely speculation on my part, but it was peculiar. They should be getting the director in there, though.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:37pm

The Larsons live on the West Coast. If anything, they're probably more likely to just see the new tour cast when it rolls through. Many people here have said that the tour is in better shape than the Broadway production. So that would kind of make sense.

Not to mention the fact that Michael Greif last worked with the touring cast only a few weeks ago when the new cast members came in. I wonder when the last time he worked one on one with the Broadway cast was- instead of just leaving his notes with the stage manager.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 08:37 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 8:40pm

Have the Larsons given up their NY place? . Al was at every show of Tick Tick Boom.

[uncageg]

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

Fiction Writer - What I saw was the 1st National Tour in Denver. And though it was bit loud, it was everything I had expected the show to be and more. I can remeber the reprise of I'll Cover You had the entire theatre in tears.

BroadwayGirl - I do agree with you about the movie. I so wish Spike Lee had directed it.

As far as the Larsons checking in on the show, I just threw that out there because it hadn't been mentioned.