The RENT movie trailer appears to be homophobic — Page 6

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but oh well.

I don't think anybody intended to say that Angel and Collin's relationship was unimportant or anything, they were merely saying that the Mimi - Roger relationship was the core relationship in the play / film and therefore got more screen time. That is a FACT. That is the truth about RENT, whereas there are other relationships in it, the Mimi-Roger one is the driving force, the main relationship in the story. Not to say that the other relationships are less important or anything, but they are the secondary relationships. Accept it. It's not homophobic, it's part of the stories structure. To argue otherwise ignores the point of the film that Love comes in all ways, shapes, forms, genders, and that it DOESN"T MATTER. Love is Love.

Now onto the trailer...or more specifically as several people mentioned TEASER TRAILER. One thing I absolutely hate about most trailers is that they give away the best parts of the film. The good jokes, the best shots, the most poignant moments. When I then see the film, nothing feels new because of the over-revealing trailer. I am GLAD they didn't show any of the Collins-Angel kisses, because those are beautiful moments in the film that I would rather experience while watching the movie.

And I highly DOUBT that anyone involved with this film would be callous enough to seriously downplay the homosexuality in the movie merely for the sake of marketing. Just look at all the precautions that Columbus and others took to make sure this film was done well, honoring Jonathan's memory. The REASON for what was in or not in the trailer is most definitly complex.

Didn't shoot it yet. Didn't want to give away too much. Bad angle, didn't work with the rest of the stuff going into the trailer. etc. Yes, some of it was marketing and trying to get as many people to come see the movie (THAT"S THE SINGULAR POINT OF A TRAILER, NOT TO PERSERVE THE IDEALS OF THE FILM, BUT TO GET PEOPLE TO COME AND WATCH IT). This trailer DID try to preserve the ideals of the film, however, while still trying to get people to come watch it. Bravo to the makers for that. (I personally think this is one of the best trailers I've ever seen)

Arguing that this trailer is homophobic ignores the many PAINFUL fights that the makers of this film went through to keep it true to the play. True to Love and Larson and the Story. How DARE you be so rude as to assume that those people don't care. That they don't realize the importance of the homosexual parts of this film. Columbus added (or tried to) same-sex-marriage into this film (as we know a very contraversial topic). Don't say he doesn't care about the homosexual issues in this film. Don't.

Reading this thread, I couldn't help but hope that nobody involved with the film reads BWW and finds this thread. It's like they've spent years making the perfect cake for your birthday and you've taken one look at it and sneezed ontop of it.

How. Rude.

---

Updated On: 8/11/05 at 02:29 PM

I hated the trailer. And not because it may or may not be homophobic, but because the film looks like a Hallmark television movie.

---

I'm sorry, Bull**** we are being fed. It is not a wise financial decision to show 2 men kissing in a trailer for a major motion picture. Regardless of whether that is the reason they don't show it, doesn't negate the fact that business wise, it would be a bad decision, that is not some bull****. It's simply economics. Alienate a few potential consumers as possible. Basic. the way to do that in this case is not show the man love because the people who know about the show will know it's in the movie and the one's who don't won't see (months before the movie comes out) it is in there.

---

In response to the bs...

A few years ago i bought a movie poster that starred one of my favorite actresses, Miss Dorothy Dandridge. I hadn't seen the posterbefore I purchased it, and when the order came in, i looked at it and saw this white woman with blonde hair on the poster. I thought "Who the hell is this woman? I spent 300 bucks for this poster and the only female star is not even on the poster???"
Well, when I got home, i looked at the picture more clearly. The white woman with blonde hair was indeed Dorothy Dandridge. Why was she white with blonde hair??? Because that was the only way they were going to get a mainstream audience to see this film. Just as they had cut out her "Chatanooga Choo Cho" and other black numbers when the movies were shown in the South.
So, as for the business, they have every right not to shove homosexuality down people's throats...but lure them in, and then let the audience react after they have given the film/producers their money. This is how mind's get changed.

---

Who cares if two guys kiss? There's nothing wrong with love...

---

Justice,

PHILADELPHIA? Don't get me started! In the wake of the vastly superior LONGTIME COMPANION (which showed VERY hot kisses between men...it was sexy without being dirty), I can't understand how Demme could whitewash that relationship. Supposedly, a very intimate scene between the two of them in bed was excised from the final cut because people 'couldn't handle it'.

The reason Mimi and Roger are the center of RENT is because they are the ones that have the largest character arcs. However, the importance of the gay male relationship in this piece cannot be overstated simply because it is the ideal. It is the relationship all the other relationships in the play strive to be. The lesson, if you will, is taught by Collins and Angel.

And let me assure you, as someone in the business (not as an actor, but on the other side), I've heard a CEO say, in reference to a program on the history of sex, 'Everything is fine, but make no mention of homosexuality'. I left the company shortly thereafter.

---

I'm so pleased that some of you feel that showing two men romantically kiss is tantamount to SHOVING HOMOSEXUALITY DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS. RARGHHHHHHHHH!

---

I understand where you are coming from but i feel your statement is completely unfounded. As a gay man i understand what you mean, but the whole show is not about gay men. If it queer as folk the musical and they werent showing men i would understand your outrage but just because gay men have identified with this show not only because of the story line but because of the man who brought it to us and what it has meant to all of us. So they are not going to sell tickets by showing men kissing. Just like chicago had to cut out some things in order to be accepted by the conservative masses so will rent. I have no doubt about that. That is just something we have to accept. Theatre audiences are 100 times more accepting than American Cinema audiences.

---

Well, then, Justice, why have you spent so much time on it?

And, I can not believe that your Dandridge example is being used to justify whitewashed advertising. Was it right then for movies to promote her movie that way? Is it right now??

I know I know--get em in the seats and then educate them. Well I agree with that--but be careful what lines we tread down.

---

I'm not saying it's right.
But serously, who do you think controls all this?
Gay people????
I think not.
In this business, despite the many gay actors and actresses, we are still a minority.
So, stand outside with picket signs and let them hear you...otherwise, get over it. It's really NOT that big a deal.

---

Robbie: By no means am I alluding to anything with the "lack" of homosexual images in the trailer. I am mearly stating that be proud of what they do have in it because every little tiny bit is a great step for gay rights!

---

jrb_actor

Note how the libido liberals think that gay men are only acceptable so long as they don't show affection in public or in movies for that matter. Of course, if its two women, they applaud and cheer.

As for RENT, I understand that it's not about homosexuality. But it includes the love that two men have for each other. The RENT trailer avoids this in a quite disgraceful way that I'm not going to stand for. The libido liberals are looking for every excuse in the book to justify the exclusion, and I'm not going to let them get away with it.

Gymman,

No, that is not the way it goes. Throwing up one's hands and saying that the trailer's marginalization of gay men is justifiable on the basis of the existence of homophobia is just as bad as homophobia itself. It isn't to be tolerated in any way, shape or form.