The Official Adam Pascal Love Thread, part eleven- Page 23

[Chloe]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 6:53pm

Here's something I came across just now. Maybe this was in that Chbosky script that was posted online, but I don't feel like looking it up right now - anyway, there was some interim version in which Another Day was used for flashbacks rather than Glory. This is how the poster described the scene:

"You better go you know the fire's out anwyay" Tompkins Square Park. Roger sees a dealer over April's shoulder.
"I should tell you. I should tell you" Roger shooting up with his band.
"We'd do another dance" Roger and April making love.

"There is no future. There is no past." Mimi arguing with her father. Her father, beligerantly drunk, slaps her. Hard. She cries.
"Or life is yours to miss. No other road." Mimi leaves home with her suitcase.

"Take your needle. Take your fancy prayer." Roger is *beep* up on heroin with April begging him to stop. Crying. He ignores her.
"Never ever gonna start." Roger finds April in the bathroom.

"Only tonight. We must let go." Mimi walking around the East Village. Lost. She gets pulled into an alleyway by a man in the shadows.
"No other course. No other way." Mimi cries as the man pins her against a wall and rapes her.

The song continues in the apartment, both screaming at each other. Letting their "baggage" fly. The best part is they share the same frame, making the song intense. To quote the screenplay "the same fears. The same desires." The only flashes from here on out are quick cuts to the support group on "I can't control" "I trust my soul" and a "No day but today."

Considerably more hardcore than the version we ended up with, maybe too much so, but it might have been quite effective.

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 7:26pm

Yes, I agree. It might have shown more of each of their lives/past..but maybe a little too much so. (This is the movie version you are talking about, right?) If that was used rather than the flashbacks in Glory, they wouldn't have been as true to the show. It also would have been too much.

Thanks for that Chloe. It's interesting.

EDIT: Welcome!

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 07:26 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 7:29pm

I'm pretty sure that's the Chbosky screenplay... or one of them. I think it's the April '04 draft, the only one of his that I read in its entirety, because it looks very familiar.

It's gorgeous, I think. It was one of my favorite parts of the screenplay. I thought it was perfect, because you would have SEEN all of the baggage they're throwing at each other at that point, and you would have really gotten to feel how painful it was, in a way Columbus just didn't nail. I think it would've been infinitely more effective than what he did, honestly. That gave me chills to read the first time I saw it, and it still does now. I think those are the little things that still tick me off about the film; the things that bugged me were always little, but most of it has faded in the time that's passed. This is the kind of thing that still bugs me, though; the movie was our only chance to see a lot of the things that aren't or can't be shown on stage, and in not showing a lot of things that could have been extremely dirty, gritty and powerful, Columbus blew our only chance ever to see them. Now we never will.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 07:29 PM

[Chloe]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 7:54pm

I'm starting to agree with you, Emcee. I also think it would have been good to show Roger as an addict. It would have made his reluctance to get involved with Mimi so much more visceral.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:00pm

Another Day is my favorite song in the show. When I see Rent, that scene has the ability to make or break the show for me, depending on the actors' performance. If I judged the movie to that same standard, then it failed.

I read the Chbosky script a few months before the OBC casting was announced, as well as the Columbus script- as it was as of September 2005. There were parts of both that I liked and didn't like. The whole subplot about Roger working in the pawnshop and giving Mimi the watch was one part of Chbosky's that I didn't like. I remember there was a huge thread on CB comparing and contrasting the two. For the most part, I personally wanted the script to be as true to the show as possible, as well as enhancing the story in ways that weren't possible onstage. While they succeeded in some aspects, like Maureen's performance and the riot, other parts weren't as good as they should have been in comparison. I get chills when I see Another Day onstage but the movie just didn't do it for me. I wish it had. This was their one shot and they kind of F*CKed it up. Both the show and the cast deserved better.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:00 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:01pm

I loved the movie, but, you know, I wanted to see April's death. I wanted to see Roger shooting up and subsequently in withdrawl. I wanted needles and sex and illness. It wasn't dirty enough. My mom said she thought Roger was whiny and pouty, and I think it's because knowing nothing about these characters left her very much in the dark. I very, very firmly believe that you need to be completely aware of Roger's baggage, and what he's gone through. He's not just some whiny bum who thinks his life sucks.

[Ariella]

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

I agree. I think leaving April's death open-ended took away a lot of the potency. Finding someone dead in the bathroom is far more shocking than watching them waste away. The way the movie portrayed it, you barely got the impression that Roger was even an addict except for the references in Light My Candle. They could have given Roger so much more depth.

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:13pm

I understand what each of your are saying, and when I look at it from your points of view, I am starting to agree. The movie should have been more dirty and showed more of Roger's baggage [just as Em said] but then again, it wouldn't have gotten the PG-13 rating which was very important to Chris and others. I don't view Roger in the movie as a whiny bum. I think you get the sense that he has had a troubled life and going through some rough times (which is all the story is really supossed to do). It doesn't completely give his past away to you (as in the show), and it keeps you guessing in a way. Yes, Roger could have been a little more suffering as a character, such as showing April's death.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:13 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

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

April's suicide being gone was one thing I never accepted about the film. I remember when I found out, and I overreacted, but that's one thing I can't forgive Columbus for omitting. I remember asking Anthony about it after someone here posted about it. He hadn't seen the movie at that point, but he had some explanations to offer for why, and how the points of Roger's survival guilt, so to speak, might still work their way into the story; but I just felt they all weren't strong enough, when all was said and done.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:23 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:25pm

Alex, the PG-13 wasn't important to anybody. They fully expected the film to get an R rating, and filmed it assuming that's what it would be. There were very few miniscule changes made, because it was pretty much on the line. So when the MPAA was making the decision, it was only THEN that Columbus chose to push it over the edge into PG-13. Most of the stuff is really minor detail, though. It doesn't impact the story at. all.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:30pm

I just think if they were making this movie and sending it out into the world where so many people were to have their first exposure to the material and story, they should have gone all out. Looking back, I really am dissapointed, unfortunately.

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:32pm

You're right. But they thought it was important for teenagers to see. (The message, love, acceptance, etc.)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:35pm

I would assume that's why, upon realizing that very little had to change, Columbus decided to go and make the changes to push it down a notch. But they didn't go into the filming assuming they were making a PG-13 movie. All throughout, Columbus was noted saying that this would be his first R-rated movie, and so forth.

I think what happened was that they adapted the material for film, but they didn't make an "enhanced" film version, per se; in other words, it was a process of how they could make what existed on stage work FOR film. They took the stage version and made a film version, and I think that in some ways, they were almost too focused on staying true to the show, for example, in that there was almost no "new" material. There was a lot more that they could have done, but I think they had to make a very important decision between ultimately almost total truth to the stage show, and making the best possible movie they could have made.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:35 PM

[broadwaystar2b]

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

If I remember correctly, the MPAA basically told Columbus that if he took out some shots of needles being injected that he'd have a PG-13. I don't remember if it was in reference to Mimi or Roger, but since it was minor enough to cut, it was a good marketing move at the time to broaden the age range of the people who could see the film.

I still enjoy the film, especially seeing the cast's wonderful work, but I like everyone else have my issues with it.

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

[Ariella]

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

True. Some people I know got exposed to Rent through the movie, and they definitely wouldn't have gotten around to seeing it if it was R. But even if it was R, the MPAA was just gonna rate it for nitpicky things, right? Columbus mentioned minor details like taking out shots of a needle. He probably wouldn't have captured the edge we were talking about anyway.

Have a good week everyone... I've got to pack up all my school junk now.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:38pm

Right. But the fact that it ended up PG-13 means little. It's that the movie was filmed with intention of an R rating and *still* left out the April suicide scene, the shooting up, etc.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:39pm

He had to remove shots of needles actually *entering* the skin, and a few instances of "****." But you would never know they had been in the script unless someone told you.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:41pm

It's the details that still get to me personally.
I think something as simple as leaving the original ending in would have made the film stronger.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:43pm

I definitely agree about April's suicide being the omission that I was more disappointed about (aside from "Goodbye Love," which, though I can in some detached way see what they were saying about it messing up the pacing, is absolutely the emotional climax of the story for me). One of my favorite/the most chilling lines in Rent is Mark's "Close on Roger: his girlfriend April left a note saying 'We've got AIDS.' before slitting her wrists in the bathroom." It's one of the lines I remember most vividly from the first time I saw the show, because it frames the AIDS issue of the times so well in that AIDS was such a death sentence anyway that people wouuld rather kill themselves than live through it. The emotional impact of that is also, I think, so defining to Roger's character.

I sometimes wonder what the consensus would have been if they had veered more from the stage show. In some sense, I think it would have made for a better movie from a cinematic standpoint, but I think that a lot of fans would be disappointed that it wasn't as faithful. There's probably no way to please everyone. Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:43 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:46pm

The alternate ending on the DVD, star2b?

I sometimes wonder what the consensus would have been if they had veered more from the stage show. In some sense, I think it would have made for a better movie from a cinematic standpoint, but I think that a lot of fans would be disappointed that it wasn't as faithful. There's probably no way to please everyone.

Exactly. People would've been pissed off no matter what happened, so like I said before, I think it came down to the fundamental decision about just HOW closely they felt they should stick to the stage show. And if they picked the highest possible level of faithfulness, this is what we got. In retrospect, I may have been happier with a full-on cinematic masterpiece BASED on the stage show, not a film version, to get into semantics. I think there's a lot more you can do on film that you can't do on stage (and vice versa, obviously), and that given that fact, they could have taken greater advantage of what film provides that theater doesn't. There was a bit of concern with heading too far over into melodrama, but it's a matter of correctly finagling the media, I think.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:46 PM

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:49pm

Yes, the alternate ending with everyone singing on stage again.

There are several other thing I could say, but there are several other topics out in cyberspace about it, that I won't even bother.

I just feel that without that bookending the film, the opening sequence is completely random and out of place.

A simple detail like that could have made a huge difference.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 08:49 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:51pm

Hmm. I thought the alternate ending was beautiful, and really emotional, and I also agree with what you said about bookending, and it bringing the opening scene full circle. But on the other hand, think they made the right choice, because the alternate ending is so very stagey. For people who are seeing this as a film entity and don't know the stage version, it hought that was important.

[Chloe]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 8:53pm

You've all made a lot of good points. So many what ifs. Aside from considerations of filmmaking, I think what it comes down to is that Columbus loved and identified with the softer side of the show that was probably also closest to Jonathan Larson's sensibility. That's why we read about how Michael Grief and the producers had to push him to get a bit grittier and more realistic sometimes. It's too bad Columbus didn't allow himself to be more influenced by Chbosky's grittier take.

[broadwaystar2b]

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

On a lighter note guys, I think I may be able to see Adam in January!!

[Chloe]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 9:05pm

Great - the Virginia show, I assume?