A RENT rant (of sorts)

[SueSnell]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:22pm

Okay, those of you who are diehard RENTheads, please think about what I have said before the flaming begins.

I have a love-hate relationship with this show. I find much of the score to be wonderful, melodic, emotional and affecting...

BUT.....

I also have MANY problems with the show.

In an almost Republican way, followers of this show defend it to death, unwilling or unable to see the flaws and discuss them (like showtune warbling Ann Coulters)...

It makes me INSANE that they kill off the gay transexual dying of AIDS but let the crack-using hetero love interest come back from the dead ("It shows hope," yell the devoted.) I saw the show in previews and bruised the friend I was with when Mimi miraculously came back from the great white light to the Great White Way to sing a reprise.

To me it was the equivalent of Tony in WSS sitting up after SOMEWHERE to reveal he had on a bulletproof vest and he and Maria were going to take a trip to bountiful...

It ruined the emotional heft of the show- the whole night we are being led to a dramatic and emotional payoff that is denied- corpse-us interruptus, anyone?

True, the show depicts same sex loving as matter of factly as 42nd ST depicts tap-dancing- and that is a wonderful thing.

BUT why did the homo have to die? It's like a Hollywood film...

And why do so few people discuss the uncomfortable similarities between the show and Sarah Shulman's novel PEOPLE IN TOURBLE?

And here comes a bigger but...

BUT...I recently saw the show again. It was filled with what looked like red state tourists- and no one groaned at the same sex loving...and maybe, just maybe, it opened some people's eyes by appealing to their ears. And that, I know, is no small occurrence.

So how do I feel about the show?

I think I'll close with a lyric from Jonathan Larson's idol-

"Sorry/Grateful"

I look forward to hoepfully some interesting and thought out posts.....

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:28pm

In some ways I think Angel's death is far more impactful and devastating than Mimi's would have ever been. Mimi is a very flawed person living a fast life and making numerous just plain horrible choices. The character of Angel, however, is the epitome of love, hope and optimism, so by killing him off they are pulling at the heartstrings in a much more effective way.

I do agree that Mimi's "return from the brink" is slightly absurd....but if they had to choose one person to kill off (either Angel or Mimi) I think Angel was the more emotionally powerful choice and overall more effective for the content and message of the show.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:31pm

Collins, Joanne, and Maureen are all alive...to say that Angel is the one that died because of his sexual orientation?...No.

I was never crazy about the ending, so I do agree with you about that in a way. People will argue and argue that it'd be far too depressing of a way to end a show about hope and life, but...it could've been handled so that feeling of hope was still present.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:32pm

While I'm sure there are many Rentheads who are the way you describe, I think most of the fans here can recognize that the show is not perfect.

As for my opinion about Rent's quality...there are lyrics here and there that I wish I could tweak, there are nuances I wish I could add, etc, but it's not in my power to do so, so I just try to enjoy the show for it is. I think overall it works.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:33pm

So few people talk about Sarah Shulman because her argument is basically pathetic. Not just in the similarities of the show with Rent, but her taking it to the next level and attacking EVERYTHING about the show. Not just the gay people, or the minorities, or the "suburban" portrayal of AIDS (which is a whole separate issue with me, so I won't get into that now). But her attacking Jonathan Larson personally (after his death, which is just in poor taste) then claiming that the world is out to get her when her lawsuit was dropped, lost me as a sympathetic ear.

And just because Mimi doesn't die at the end of the show doesn't mean the story is ruined. She still has AIDS, she still will die soon. Just not right at that moment.

[leap_of_moo]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:34pm

I, myself, am a fan of "Rent", but I admit it does have it's flaws. Nothing against the character, but I really don't like how Mimi doesn't die at the end. I guess it is a sort of optimistic way of ending the show, however miraculous it is.
Angel is a better liked character and it hurts more to know that she won't come back, whereas with Mimi, it would be sad but not heartbreaking.


Updated On: 11/7/05 at 07:34 PM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:34pm

I agree MrMidwest.

I do consider myself a RENThead, but I can certainly acknowledge it's many flaws. The reality is, the show is an unfinished product, and it will always remain that way. You just have to love it for what it is.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:37pm

The ending ruins the show.

And, the whole "no day but today" theme is completely ruined, IMO. They say no day but today, but apparently Mimi's got a few more days left in her.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:40pm

I think that Angel's death is used in a way that hopes to change a lot of people's minds about their prejudices against gays and others leading alternative lifestyles by showing that he was just a person, who felt and loved and made a difference in other people's lives. This is most effectively shown by the fact that everyone falls apart after Angel dies, and you realize how instrumental he was in keeping his friends together.

I do agree, though, that having Mimi live is rather gratuitous, and has always sort of bothered me. I just felt that there was so little to indicate that she and Roger would ever be happy together (and particularly NO indication that she would stop using drugs and be faithful to him). Not to mention that if someone is dying from malnutrition/drug use/AIDS, it requires extreme suspension of disbelief to think that they're going to spontaneously recover.

Anyway, I'm sorry that you've gotten such negative reponses from fans of the show when you have valid criticisms of it. I absolutely love this show, but not the point that criticizing it is blasphemy.
Updated On: 11/7/05 at 07:40 PM

[BluCat500]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:40pm

Hey now,lets not judge so fast..didn't anyone even stop to consider the fact that those are probably MAGIC blue pants...

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:41pm

Angel is perhaps the sweetest, most emotionally pure character in the show. He is also the most selfless in the show (at least in my opinion). He is the character that gives love unconditionally, and in many ways was the heart of the group.

To have him die, regardless of his sexuality, seemed to provide far more impact and devastation than anyone else, with the possible perception of Roger/Mark.

Mimi not dying was a bit of a cop out at the end, but I always figured her sole purpose of living was to give Roger a chance at redemption after expressing his love honestly to her.

But just my opinion.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:42pm

LMAOOO Blu. It all makes sense now!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:43pm

"He is the character that gives love unconditionally"

Except, of course, when he agrees to help kill a dog for some cash...

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:44pm

Yes, but that Akida, Evita, just would not shut up. So, he was giving love to the rest of the neighbors by making that sacrafice!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:45pm

I hope you're joking.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:47pm

Yes.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:48pm

Good. :)

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 7:53pm

Not to split hairs, but I don't think Angel is a transsexual. He's barely a drag queen.

That being said, - and I've said this before - while I do love the show, it's massively flawed. I'm just going to cut and paste what I've already said about this on another thread.

"True enough, though these threads have caused me to look back at Rent (the stage version) and wonder if perhaps Larson did give homosexuals the shaft. I'm not questioning his intentions, but when you look at it as a whole, there are things that are unsettling.

Sarah Schulman (who maintains that Larson ripped off her book "People in Trouble") states that "the actual message is that in the gay male couple, the guy dies. The lesbian couple--all they ever do is bicker. The only people who have true love are the straight people. [Also], the gay people with AIDS die, and the straight people with AIDS live. So you end up with a story of the AIDS crisis in which the central, most heroic figures are straight. Believe me, I have lived through the AIDS crisis and I know that that is the opposite of the truth."

If a problem with the gay characters permeates the film, it may stem from the source. Again, I don't think Larson had any malicious intent, but it's also a widely noted fact that he originally had Maureen returning to Mark at the end. Granted, that was dropped, but it does sort of indicate that Larson didn't really have much of handle on writing gay characters, and I think that comes through in the finished product.

Don't get me wrong. I still enjoy Rent and look forward to the movie, but I do think that it presents a lot of mixed messages."

"I'm not sure that Angel isn't a stereotype. Or perhaps she's an archetype (the name alone. Oy). She's the sassy Latin Boy in a dress (see To Wong Foo). She's unlike any drag queen I've ever met in my life. She's so ... preposterously good and holy that I still to this day can't fathom how she contracted HIV to begin with. Perhaps she was administering a needle-exchange program and accidentally got pricked?

I think that Angel and Collins are the least interesting characters in the show. There's nothing below their surface, except that by the end, Collins is advocating outright thievery (again with the mixed messages!).

And I can see the joke about anti-homosexual bias, but still, I think Schulman does raise some points that have to be considered. Yes, April (a character we never see) dies. But it's a suicide. The suicide may have been provoked by her diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, but AIDS is not what killed her. Of four positive main characters, only a gay one dies.

And finally, I don't know that we're led to believe Roger and Mimi will die. The show's biggest misstep, in my opinion, is bringing Angel back on at the end of the finale, before the show is actually over. I've never quite figured out what we're supposed to make of that...

...Mini-Spoiler: Granted, Angel does drive a dog off a terrace, but she does it via drumming, and once we discover the dog was Benny's, we feel she is justified. Even her cruelty to animals becomes sanctimonious. "

I just don't think Larson had a good handle on writing gay characters.

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 07:53 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:01pm

"People in Trouble") states that "the actual message is that in the gay male couple, the guy dies. The lesbian couple--all they ever do is bicker. The only people who have true love are the straight people. [Also], the gay people with AIDS die, and the straight people with AIDS live. So you end up with a story of the AIDS crisis in which the central, most heroic figures are straight. Believe me, I have lived through the AIDS crisis and I know that that is the opposite of the truth."


That paragraph is full of false statements. There are--and I must admit they're very few--sweet moments between Maureen and Joanne. To say that the only people who have true love are the straight people is just plain silly because Collins and Angel represent the ideal relationship before Angel dies. They are the ones who do not fight, who are completely in love, who show the purest, truest love for one another. And heck, Mark, the straight guy, is dumped by his girl for a woman. "The gay people with AIDS" don't die...ONE gay person with AIDS dies, the other lives. And while the central characters are straight, Angel and Collins seem to be portrayed as the most "heroic" of the group...though I think heroic is not a word that could be used to describe any of the characters in the show.

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 08:01 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:02pm

I'm pretty sure I responded to that post in the other thread as well, but I'm too lazy to go find it.

But I do agree about Angel not being a transsexual. It always bugs me when people claim so adamently that he is, because there's nothing within the text of the show that supports that.

ETA: JerseyGirl, that's exactly why I have such issues with Sarah Schulman.

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 08:02 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:09pm

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=864405&boardname=bway

That's the original thread from which I quoted myself. It was a long and often maddening thread, but for a while, several of us had a good discussion going.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:11pm

That thread introduced Art2 to everyone, I think.

There were some great conversations, misunderstandings and clarifications on the thread, and a couple of others running around the same time.

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:15pm

I believe it was the third or fourth (or twentieth) thread art had posted on the topic. While his tenacity could be tedious, and his approach not always the wisest, I did feel like he raised issues pertaining to the show that I had always struggled with as well. I was glad there was a chance to have a positive discussion about these issues, without it all being about "libido liberals" or "you're just stupid, art2" etc.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:21pm

I'm not a Renthead, but I love the show because it was my first Broadway show on a trip to NYC 9 1/2 years ago (Tony weekend, and I saw 4 shows that trip!) All I really remember about the show (at that time) was that I was sobbing by the end of it. At the curtain call, I had tears running down my cheeks, and a cast member (who will remain nameless) saw this and smiled at me (I had an awesome seat!). No show has ever drawn that much emotion from me (except maybe Schindler's List, in a different way). The more I listened to the cast album, the more I realized that it wasn't perfect---but it didn't have to be. It just has to move you, in some way. And it moved me.
It also made me want to go to NYC as often as possible to see shows! Not bad for a (now) middle-aged Republican!

[Becky]

Posted: 11/7/05 at 8:26pm

followers of this show defend it to death, unwilling or unable to see the flaws and discuss them

Some of us don't dwell on the flaws, but that doesn't mean we don't see or recognize that they are there. There have been some very healthy discussions on this very topic.

It makes me INSANE that they kill off the gay transexual dying of AIDS but let the crack-using hetero love interest come back from the dead

As some have said, Angel's death makes more of an impact than Mimi's would have. I'm much more understanding of that than your "why did the homo have to die" comment. As for Mimi? She could have passed away 2 minutes after the end of the show for all we know. It's not like she was magically cured and lived forever. Unless the theory about the magic blue pants is true


And why do so few people discuss the uncomfortable similarities between the show and Sarah Shulman's novel PEOPLE IN TOURBLE?

This has been discussed *so* many times over the years, and it always turns into a lose/lose debate. Minds never change - those that think Sarah was right stand by it - and those that don't agree with her stand just as firm. I've read about this extensively and I have my own opinions about it, but Sarah completely lost me when I read that she admittedly didn't recognize the similarities herself (they had to be pointed out to her.) Not to mention the law wasn't on her side. Period. Whatever side you fall on, the legal aspect of it can't be argued. **And, if I give Sarah the benefit of the doubt and buy into everything that she claims, it still has very little impact on why the book/score/staging was successful.