AIDS in the Rent film...

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 11:07am

Any word on whether Columbus followed the Chbosky screenplay by depicting Angel and Mimi with so-called full blown AIDS? Did either performer lose weight during production (as opposed to just before it)? And can I anticipate seeing Mimi sing Finale B with some visual evidence that she has been near death? I wonder if these issues of representation were even considered.

[almostxfamous]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 11:21am

Well, if he didn't depict them with full-blown AIDS, he wouldn't really be following the musical's storyline like he said he was going to. And if he's using Chbosky's screenplay, he would use the depiction described in the screenplay.

They're keeping the news of the movie very hush hush, but I would assume that is true.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 11:22am

That would be interesting. Having see the show a few times, I've said before that I have never seen a prettier bunch of intravenous drug users with AIDS/HIV. I love the show, and appreciate why people might not coming to see a musical if it's full of lipodystrophic, Kaposi's sarcoma-ed, Candida ridden, AIDS-related demented characters. I don't agree with that per se, but understand its necessity. It is a little dramatically suspect to beautify something that is inherently not so wonderful ("Look, we're all dying smack addicts, but it's SO fun!"). The closest we get to a true representation of what it's like to be ill is Mimi's 'pale' make-up for the finale.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 11:26am

Well on stage, everything is stylized. There wouldn't really be the expectation for the characters to look emaciated as they would need to, to convincingly play dying AIDS patients on film...

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 11:43am

I just remembered arguing with Anthony Rapp over decisions being made for the film. It appeared that a lot of things hadn't been taken into account, and the people involved with the film were resistant to suggestions that such things be considered. Reading David Poland's Oscar columns (in which he repeatedly discounts Rent) and following the negative discussions of the project on Oscarwatch just left me wondering whether I should bother defending it - especially knowing how many important issues wouldn't have been considered by the cast and crew had they not been raised on Internet message boards.

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 2:41pm

thats very true.. but I guess theres nothing we can do about it now. Filming is already done, all we can do is just wait until November and hope for the best. I think that with this movie they could have made an awarness for AIDS and really made people understand the importance of not doing heroine and unprotected sex since there really arent movies out there on AIDS, but whatever we can't change anything. Now we play the waiting game.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 2:43pm

I am just very excited for the film to come out.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 2:59pm

In Falsettos, you can tell Whizzer has AIDS because he has the nicer pajamas.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:02pm

We shall see

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 03:02 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:23pm

Remember that not everyone who dies of AIDS-related complications ends up emaciated and legion-covered at the end. It depends on the opportunistic infections the person gets. A couple of friends of mine who died of pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) never lost a pound (one was 250+ pounds at the time of his death -- the same weight he'd always been) and never got KS so they had no legions. A couple of other friends died of brain cancer once the virus managed to get past the brain stem -- one suddenly became forgetful of names and couldn't recognize people he had known for years; he checked into a hospital and was dead two weeks later. Others die of pancreatitis, kidney, liver or other major organ failure and a variety of cancers.

There are roughly 30 AIDS-indicator diseases/conditions that are the most frequent causes of death to those infected and several of them result in neither legions nor weight loss.

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 03:23 PM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:44pm

Margo is (of course) right. I just question whether a film with four HIV+ characters - be it this one or another - would just use the "anyone could get the disease and still people wouldn't be able to tell" excuse to not make the actors deglam. Then again, the image of someone with lesions belting out a tune may be one that people who already disdain the movie musical genre find absurd.
Updated On: 7/29/05 at 03:44 PM

[jczelyph]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 4:43pm

Margo makes an interesting point, and is entirely correct that not everyone who dies of AIDS ends up covered in lesions or emaciated. It might have been misleading of me to suggest that every HIV positive person will go on to be lipodystrophic, infected with PCP or Candida or develop Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). I share the opinion of evelynNesbit, who says, "I just question whether a film with four HIV+ characters - be it this one or another - would just use the "anyone could get the disease and still people wouldn't be able to tell" excuse to not make the actors deglam." On a very idealistic level, the movie could have been used as a safe sex, anti-drug advertisement, however that's probably pushing it a bit far, and might not even be appropriate in a movie musical.

Some research has yielded scant evidence for the incidence of HIV-related illness. Here's what I have found on two diseases I mentioned earlier (these not being the only visible or cosmetic manifestations of HIV/AIDS by any means):

Lipodystrophy occurs in up to 60% percent of patients who are HIV positive. In patients on protease inhibitor drugs, it occurs in 13%. It is prevalent in 4% of untreated HIV positive patients.

Kaposi's Sarcoma occurs in up to 15% of HIV positive homosexual males, and up to 2% of other HIV positive groups. It is an aggressive illness with high mortality, especially in the HIV-related form.

I just thought I'd throw some facts into the mix, but my main point is that amongst a group of HIV positive drug users, I would expect one of them to look more ill than they are ever portrayed as being (although who knows what the movie will show us...). It is obviously difficult to work out the likelihood of anyone contracting a certain illness (not least in this case because these characters aren't real - haha) but I think it's important to note that however gruelling the show is, it's still a bit fantastical in its portrayal of a cruel illness and a harrowing addiction.

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 04:43 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 5:11pm

Once again...Thank you Margo!

And I do agree with xM3L24x. This could be a very good film to bring about awareness...again. MTV, VH1 and BET have been really addressing safe sex and AIDS. For me, one thing that I was afraid of when I first saw the show was that I would leave really depressed. Especially having lost a lot of friends to AIDS. To my suprise, I came out of the theatre uplifted. And I think what makes this show so great is that it addresses some very serious issues but doesn't preach or clobber you over the head with messages. After the show was over, I came out being thankful for the life I have (Had at the time) led so far and optimistic about the future. The messages in the show, as in your face as they are, were still subtle but strong to me. And I hope that Chris Columbus is able to capture this on film. (Not sure if I worded all of that the way I wanted to. But it was a bit hard to put into words!)

[jczelyph]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 5:14pm

I totally agree, uncageg! I love how it isn't preachy (cf. Lennon) and energises me. Even if the ending is terribly schlocky and a bit of a cop-out. I still love that little hand twitch.