Rent's Legacy & Reputation Today

[Soaring29]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 7:23am

Rent was obviously a big success at the time of it's release and had a huge fan following(I have heard it described as the Hamilton of it's era)- but  from what I understand,  people aren't that supportive of the show anymore.  Why is this? Is it dated? Was it shoved down our throats? Did the film's poor reception translate into alienating viewers who could have been   fans of the work as a whole?  Did it just wear out it's welcome and should not have run as long as it did? Tell me your thoughts. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 8:44am

The length of its run has nothing to do with it. (If there is even an "it" to discuss. )

I know groups in New England that think it's still the bee's knees, and I know of two different productions this summer alone.

Personally, I never cared for it, so I dont pay much attention to chatter of it.

[BwayLB]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:34am

Rent cant be that dated because of its racially diverse characters and themes of hope and dreams. But the music has changed Broadway forever.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:38am

You are asking a question that is going to get the usual pile of subjective responses. Objectively, the show is and will remain one of the most important shows of the latter part of the last century. Whether any one person adores it or not is truly irrelevant (and yet you have one above and will likely have dozens below that think we need to know what they personally thought about it). Dated? Sure. So is Oklahoma and virtually every show before and since. Shoved down our throats? I don't see how, plus you don't shove something down people's throats for a decade. (And yet here again, the correlation will be with those who did not like it.) I would not say it wore out its welcome. Shows open, shows close: did Oklahoma wear out its welcome?

[YvanEhtNioj]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:39am

BwayLB said: "Rent cant be that dated because of its racially diverse characters and themes of hope and dreams. But the music has changed Broadway forever."

This.

I'm not sure who you're speaking of when you say people aren't supportive (not being snarky or anything) because everyone I know still enjoys the show and sees it as revolutionary. I think if a revival was announced 2 or 3 years from now, people would go crazy because it's so iconic. 

I will say, the recent tour wasnt that good. The Cast seemed thrown together and kind of felt like a high school production. I think that may have left a bad taste with a lot of people but I think the love is still there. 

[BwayLB]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:46am

I enjoy it and I saw the recent tour. The cast wasn’t all that bad

[YvanEhtNioj]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:48am

BwayLB said: "I enjoy it and I saw the recent tour. The cast wasn’t all that bad"

I just felt "meh" about it personally. I felt more emotional seeing the movie and the final performance that was recorded on youtube than seeing it live 

[BwayLB]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:56am

At least those were more exciting. And Rent has the most emotionally energetic music I’ve seen performed tied with Next to Normal

[7thbighero]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 10:04am

This should cover that ground and more

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 10:16am

There’s a reason why they’re planning a live television broadcast of this musical....think about it.

[GoblinKing2]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 10:26am

Although, ironically, doesn’t it seem that the New York City of today is closer to what Benny envisioned than what the Bohos wanted?

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 10:35am

7thbighero said: "This should cover that ground and more"

 

Evidentally the girl narrating this video was not around in the 80's.

 

[Valentina3]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 10:51am

7thbighero said: "This should cover that ground and more"

I came to this thread just to share Lindsay Ellis's video essay about rent. She covers all the issues I have with this show and then some. For me, personally, it down to the fact that most characters in Rent are inherently ****ty people who are very selfish, not at all self-aware, and their brand of liberatarism is deeply exclusionary. They are a bunch of Rand Pauls wearing the skin of Ru Paul.

[YvanEhtNioj]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 11:04am

I've watched her videos before. I dont agree with the majority of the ones she makes because I feel like she's reaching.

 

She made some valid points in this one, but even if the characters are flawed the score of the show is so legendary that I think it should be kiiiinndda forgiven. 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 11:09am

I agree with HogansHero. When I saw it for the first time, it was on the excellent first equity tour through Tulsa. At that time, I had probably seen only a handful or less of touring productions and I had never been to New York. I wasn’t always sure about how I felt about certain elements. I was thrown off my equilibrium a bit. (Isn’t that what art is sometimes required to do?) I wasn’t sure what to think or feel about what I was seeing. I remember walking out maybe slightly disappointed despite the incredible cast. However, in the years since it has grown and grown in my estimation of it. I even love (sacrilege, I know) the movie (although I didn’t like it either the first time I watched it at the theater as I kept comparing it to the stage version; I appreciated it much more on DVD in the comfort of my home; for a awhile it was my go-to NYE or NYD DVD to watch every year).

I had the opportunity to watch the 20th anniversary tour in January this year as I was working in Madison, WI when it came through. I agree that some of the cast were better than others. Aaron Alcaraz was fabulous as Angel. There may still be elements that are not perfect, but almost any work of art is going to be flawed. The more you view a show, the more these flaws may become apparent. But I found it completely relevent. When I saw it the first time, my friends were sick, but hadn’t started dying. Now they’re all gone. I was bawling like a baby when (spoiler alert) Angel died when I saw it this year.

Rent deserves its reputation as a groundbreaking work of art. I don’t think I’m quite ready for a Broadway revival. It should be revived with the care and thoughtful consideration it deserves. Maybe a 30th anniversary production.

Updated On: 8/11/18 at 11:09 AM

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 12:14pm

Those who enjoyed the music but took issue with the politics existed during the original run and would exist for a revival. Some take issue with the treatment of the homeless and the same sex couples but I would argue that few shows have attempted to represent the homeless since and that female couples on stage are still rare.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 12:21pm

7thbighero said: "This should cover that ground and more"

She seems to be faulting the show more for what’s it’s not about (AIDS activism) than what it is (the day to day struggle of people affected by AIDS). There are some valid criticism laced throughout but I find it unfair to judge a show for not being about what one thinks it should be about or for something it’s not even trying to be. It’s like being mad that Thoroughly Modern Millie isn’t more about the impending stock market crash. 

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 12:51pm

As others have mentioned, it's an important part of Broadway history. It was groundbreaking when it appeared by bringing characters onstage who had not previously been portrayed, while the nation was being shaken by AIDS and the homeless crisis. Also, the way the music became a hit to younger fans who were not the typical audience for cast recordings.

Of course, the premiere just after the untimely death of its creator is part of show business history and both contributed to its initial publicity and success and prevented further refinement of the work. What we have is what we started with.

Personally, I have a huge emotional attachment to the show (some songs still bring inevitable tears). It was the first show we had seen on Broadway as adults (and my husband's first b'way show ever) and we had lost our dearest friend to AIDS a few months earlier, and knew many with the disease. (It was part of everyday life in San Francisco). It was one of the most moving experiences I had experienced, ever.

With a bit more perspective, I now see many more of the show's faults. But it still has a large part in my heart and in Broadway history. And, despite the flaws, it still works!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 1:24pm

I like many things about Rent, but it has always irked me that it doesn’t state the difference between HIV and AIDS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing in the piece that differentiates between the two.

[Kitsune]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 1:39pm

MarkBearSF said: "Personally, I have a huge emotional attachment to the show (some songs still bring inevitable tears). It was the first show we had seen on Broadway as adults (and my husband's first b'way show ever) and we had lost our dearest friend to AIDS a few months earlier, and knew many with the disease. (It was part of everyday life in San Francisco). It was one of the most moving experiences I had experienced, ever.

With a bit more perspective, I now see many more of the show's faults. But it still has a large part in my heart and in Broadway history. And, despite the flaws, it still works!"

All of this. You could title my high school memoir, "I Was a Teenage Renthead"  It meant the world to me when I was in high school. I even used a quote from "Another Day" for my yearbook quote.

As the show and I have both aged, I can see its faults and I acknowledge them. That being said, I'll always look back at the show fondly (warts and all) because of what it meant to me.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 2:01pm

BobbyBubby said: "I like many things about Rent, but it has always irked me that it doesn’t state the difference between HIV and AIDS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing in the piece that differentiates between the two."

True, those are 2 very different things. 

This is what makes the show very outdated in my opinion, because basically (in the Western world) nobody with HIV develops AIDS anymore due to the big steps in research and medication. It's a chronic disease now, not the death sentence as it is portrayed in Rent. I know the story takes place in that time but it irks me. The story is about friendship and personal dealing with problems, not really about how society sees them or stigma or society, but the show itself gives off a message that doesn't match with the current situation regarding the subject, so in a way it keeps a very negative outdated stigma alive.

But indeed, the lack of differentiation beween those 2 things, combined with the fact that the characters are ***holes and selfish (The scenes about the characters complaining when their parents call or want to bring a christmas gift always bothered me), make the show feel outdated and makes that I can't give it my sympathy.

Updated On: 8/11/18 at 02:01 PM

[Valentina3]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 2:09pm

TheQuibbler said: "7thbighero said: "This should cover that ground and more"

She seems to be faultingthe show more for what’s it’s not about (AIDS activism) than what it is (the day to day struggle of people affected by AIDS). There are some valid criticism laced throughout but I find it unfair to judge a show for not being about what one thinks it should be about or for something it’s not even trying to be. It’s like being mad that Thoroughly Modern Millie isn’t more about the impending stock market crash."

I think it's a fair criticism from Lindsay. You as a lover of the show have your interpretation of what the show is about. That took good amount of actually reading the text, understanding it is not talking about activism. The show itself, however, does masquerade as "the AIDS musical" (and commercially benefit from that impression). Not just that, like I said before, the characters are painfully bad representation of the community they're trying to represent and very few of them have any redeeming qualities.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 2:11pm

BobbyBubby said: "I like many things about Rent, but it has always irked me that it doesn’t state the difference between HIV and AIDS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing in the piece that differentiates between the two."

At the time it was written there was no real distinction. If you contracted HIV, you expected to die from it. So what you are asking for is to rewrite history. BTW, the following post is wrong: people still die of aids. People who have access to treatment survive, but not everyone in the world does, and not everyone avails themselves of it. Michael Friedman died of AIDS less than a year ago. 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 2:24pm

True, but those cases are quite rare nowadays. We don't know his personal story, maybe he decided not to take medication or became resistant or something like that. My point is that I think a show today should really be clear about the difference in the 2 things.

Edit: They shouldn't have to rewrite history, but if you ask me about Rent's reputation today I'd say the show feels very outdated.

Updated On: 8/11/18 at 02:24 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 2:37pm

I would also say these characters may not have known the difference between the two things. Starting in the early nineties, part of my job involved HIV counseling and education. Many people, including those most at risk, didn’t necessarily know the difference between HIV and AIDS. And by the time, some people found out they were HIV-positive, they already qualified for an AIDS diagnosis or did very soon after due to the lack of effective treatments available.