The Official Raúl E. Esparza "Spread the Love" Thread, Part 3- Page 106

[misschung]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:14pm

I suppose this question is kinda moot, since nobody said anything, but -- was there any opportunity for....interaction with Raúl before or after the show?

humbug, you asked this a few pages back and I meant to answer you. We didn't see him at all before the show, and we spotted him afterward talking to some of the theater people, but didn't approach him to interrupt. We waited afterward, but he sort of disappeared and we didn't see him again

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:16pm

I saw a lot of people who looked like they were on some sort of Raúl scavenger hunt, heh. But yeah, like misschung said, we didn't see him... but we really didn't look very hard.

[misschung]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:19pm

lol, they totally looked that way. People were walking from one exit to the other so as not to miss him. Oh well

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:36pm

Thanks, misschung.

Ugh, I hate when people do that, I don't want to be within a thousand miles of that sort of thing. I'm hyper-sensitive about even the slightest appearance of stalkerishness (that can't possibly be a word!). I want to run from even the remote chance I might be seen as associated with people like that.

Sorry you didn't get to connect with him, but it was probably for the best.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:42pm

I kind of figured that if we ran into him at some point, great, and if not, whatever. It was a weird situation since as opposed to being one where you have one opportunity and then go off into your own world, we were in a fairly contained environment where almost everybody there was there for the same reason. I'm so bad at making sense today (I barely slept last night), but do you know what I mean? Being that we were seeing another show and spending two whole days on the campus, there was a decent chance I could have randomly bumped into him just walking down the street or something -- and with that possibility lingering, I didn't want to have made it look as though I was actively seeking him out, because I'm also often concerned with the way things can come off. When it's at a theater and everybody just goes home afterward, I think it's different.

Updated On: 8/21/07 at 08:42 PM

[jenna2]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:45pm

"I found it heartbreaking and sad and vaguely disturbing -- definitely a downer -- but I don't think I'd say it was disappointing"

I totally understand what you're saying emcee. When I first read the ending, I was like, "What the hell?" I think at the time I was really upset because that's not how I wanted the story to finish, but now I realize that I was likely more disappointed with how abruptly it ended. I think it says something about Rapp's writing though, that the last few pages can completely break your heart like that.

(Wow... really poorly written by me... It's been a LONG day...)

Updated On: 8/21/07 at 08:45 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/21/07 at 8:52pm

The book really got under my skin in this kind of... oddly delayed manner. While I was reading it, I was like, "okay, this is good... not great, but certainly not bad," and then once the love story really got on its feet, I felt myself much more drawn in -- especially within the last 150-200 pages or so. When I finished it, I wasn't really sure what I thought, but after letting it sit for a day or so, I simply could not stop thinking about it. I just find that he can grasp and describe even the most slippery facets of human emotion so beautifully and accurately, and that's what I find so captivating about his writing. He can perfectly describe feelings that... when you feel them, seem as though they are almost indescribable -- and yet he can pin them down and describe them so clearly that you just go, "yes, exactly!"

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 6:02pm

Sorry to bump into the conversation, but I was cruising around and found an older interview (Broadway.com Q&A) where he said he screen tested for the role of Mark in the film version of RENT with Justin Timberlake as Roger. I've never heard of this before, did anyone else out of curiosity?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 6:10pm

He talks about it in his second Chatterbox interview, too. That was when Spike Lee was still going to director -- a totally different incarnation of the film, with an earlier version of the screenplay (which was a much bigger departure from the libretto than the actual shooting script ended up being).

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 6:22pm

I like that earlier version, silly contrivances and all. Was Chbosky's original script the one that would have been used in Spike Lee's version? It's funny when Raul mentions on the Chatterbox that he heard Chris Columbus was going to be directing it, and Seth and Raul both think that's disastrous.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 6:36pm

Heh, yeah, and they both just like, snort.

That draft was definitely not without its problems, but it had a really great feel to it. Revised to a better state, that would have been a stunning movie.

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 6:46pm

Interesting, see I never knew that he tried out for it. What type of departures did the earlier script have versus what the film is now?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 6:49pm

Oh man, a LOT. Not necessarily in the main plot, but in terms of adding and filling things in, especially in terms of the characters' pasts and stuff. It's on the internet somewhere -- try to look for the April '04 draft by Steven Chbosky. It's around.

Updated On: 8/22/07 at 06:49 PM

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:01pm

Will do Was Spike Lee's version different as well? Or was it gritter like the stage version (comparing to the film)?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:03pm

I think he was going to use some version of that screenplay... I don't think he wrote his own. But that one was really gritty and dirty and yet... so unbelievably beautiful. My biggest problem with the film remains that... as an artistic medium, film has the ability to do things that the theater can't. You can show things on film that you can't on stage, or in different WAYS than you can on stage. You can, in some ways, do more. And Columbus didn't take advantage of that.

[Ariella]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:09pm

When I read that older screenplay, I didn't care for all of the departures and enhancements - some of them didn't feel "true" to whatever personal perceptions I had of the characters. But it was raw and captured some essence of Rent that wasn't as sterile as what appeared in the movie.

Wow, I don't think I'm making sense. But I got the Chatterbox in which Raul and Seth are talking about Columbus sometime while the movie was in production, and... It contributed to the general sense of worry.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:23pm

No, you made sense. There were a lot of specifics that rubbed me the wrong way, like the way they sang the title song in a club, but you're right -- it captured the essence so well.

[Craww]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:35pm

Hah, I think I'm the only one who thought that early draft of the Rent script had nearly 0 redeeming qualities. It's like his language was practically screaming "this is gonna be really really raw, you guys!!! I'm excited about this super cool R rating! How gritty!" There were a couple okay moments, but I found most of it literally pathetic.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:37pm

I'll have to search that out, I'd really love to read it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:41pm

I didn't even like a lot of the writing. It needed a LOT of work, but I think the beauty I found in it was... mostly in the imagery it seemed to generate. There were so many things you SAW with that screenplay that were things I always wished to see: Roger in rehab, whatever Mimi had been through before the time frame of the show, etc. I thought the flashback sequence in Another Day could have been beautiful -- emotional without feeling manipulative. One of the things I find so unique about Rent is that the characters have enough depth that it's very easy to imagine that their lives extend beyond the very small period of time we "spend" with them on stage -- and I loved that the old screenplay really capitalized on that and told previously untold parts of their stories.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:53pm

I think I liked that screenplay more simply by virtue of the fact that it took chances and tried to build on what we saw on stage rather than transplanting it directly to film. Of course, something can be riskier and still not good. But too-reverent adaptations bother me a little because it's a lost opportunity to show the material in a new way. I also liked the grittiness and felt like it was coming from a place I understood, even if I didn't like some of the specifics. I think the part that hooked me was the intro to that script. You're totally right about it being very much, "This is going to be SO EDGY!" and I think that that's pretty characteristic of Chbosky as a writer anyway. (I like Perks of Being a Wallflower quite a bit, but it's hugely pretentious.) Updated On: 8/22/07 at 07:53 PM

[Ariella]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 7:58pm

Yeah, I thought the characters became incredibly multi-dimensional (or at least had the potential to do so) in a way that the final screenplay never pursued. Another Day was an instance that came to mind for me, too. I recognize that the version that ended up as the movie tried (for the most part) to remain true to the show, but that protectiveness proved to be almost self-defeating at times. I agree that a certain amount of pretension automatically goes with conscious attempts to be gritty, but with work that screenplay might have become something a little less self-aware.

[Craww]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 8:23pm

Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of those books that I suppose I enjoyed while reading, but generally left a bad taste in my throat. So that probably had a bit to do with it. Probably should have been something between that draft and the final version. Also, all around, better.

I'm coming at it from the completely different perspective of the movie legitimately being my first exposure to the material. Some of the moments I'd want changed only in retrospect. Some of the more literal ones aren't necessarily moments I disliked the first times I saw it.

Still intriguing trying to imagine Raul Esparza singing that role.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 8:42pm

I can't imagine it at all. That would certainly be...different. Opposite Justin Timberlake, no less!

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 8/22/07 at 8:45pm

I wonder how they sounded together, that certainly would have made an interesting combo.