Am I the only person who hated Rent?- Page 3

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:13pm

Here is the thing that confuses me.... i got the cd and LOVED IT....the i saw the show adn was sooooo thoroughly unimpressed .... so i am thinking that maybe it was the cast because i only liked a couple of people in it.....

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:16pm

I did not hate it. I have seen shows that are much worse, but I have also seen many that are better. It was certainly the best show of the 1995/96 season and deserved the Tony.

But... I think the show was embalmed when Larson died. Had he lived, I am sure he would have made a lot of changes (improvements) to the show between its first preview and off-Broadway opening and probably more changes before it arrived on Broadway. As it stands it is a less-than-perfect show (though still very creative and the work of a talented writer) that has been given instant classic status because of the tragic circumstances surrounding it.

Also, the original cast (like the first CHORUS LINE cast) brought a special resonance to the piece that no replacement cast can hope to equal.

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:19pm

maybethistime wrote:

"Aside from a few select songs, I cannot stand RENT at all. It sounds like an excuse for mediocre actors to scream at the top of their lungs."

Much like Patti Lupone did in "Evita"?!

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:19pm

It's an okay show. It is definitely hugely overrated. The original cast was great, and every incarnation since has paled in comparison, which is to be expected.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:35pm

I'm someone who lived in the East Village from 1991 to 2001. My friends were mostly actors, musicians, artists, performance artists, waiters, bartenders and students. I knew many of the drug dealers, drag queens, hustlers, prostitutes, homeless people and the folks that lived in the squats on 13th (by the way the squats were still around in the mid-90s, as were the crackhouses on 6th and 7th, Tompkins was closed and the urban renewal with the high priced condos hadn't quite started yet -- the East Village was still very bohemian and gritty with a thriving music and performance artist scene). A large percentage of all of the above were living with AIDS at the time, many of whom have died since (my friends and I spent literally hundred of hours during the 90s on the 14th floor of St. Vincent's -- the AIDS wing). In short, I intimately knew the world depicted in "Rent" -- better, I think, than Larson did.

I say that because I remember going to see "Rent" when it was still at New York Theatre Workshop with a large group of friends and one of the main reactions all of us had was how "suburban" a view of the East Village it was, as if it had been written by someone who'd only read about it and not really spent any time there (regardless of what the actual reality was, that's how "Rent" seemed to us). These self-consciously "edgy" noncomformists on stage reminded us of the trust fund babies who used to hang out on Avenue A pretending to be homeless and begging for change and only received ridicule from most of the real neighborhood denizens. The whole show was as if Disney had decided to come up with an Alphabet City theme park, or something.

The music was bland, dated middle-of-the-road pop and guitar rock -- the type that we all remembered from AM radio as kids in the 70s -- not at all reflective of the punk/alternative East Village music scene that was happening in the 80s and 90s that was heavily influenced by CBGBs (the Ramones, Lou Reed, the New York Dolls, Talking Heads, and Blondie all came out of neighborhood clubs like CBs, Pyramid, Brownies, Mercury Lounge etc....). To our ears, "Rent" sounded like a lot of second-rate Elton John and Linda Rondstadt -- the stuff our parents liked; the kind of pop/rock music that people who don't really like REAL contemporary pop/rock music listened to.

[For a show that WAS embraced by the neighborhood and was truly reflective musically of the downtown scene (and the cast album ended up on every jukebox in every bar in the neighborhood -- "Rent" never made even one), check out "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" which began being developed over at Squeezebox in the Meatpacking district shortly after "Rent" opened on Broadway -- a weekly Friday night crosstown jaunt for East Villagers, who made up most of the crowd (John Mitchell and Steve Trask were regulars and I remember them trying out "Hedwig" material for the audience there).]

We'd known about "Rent" since its early workshops and had had friends in it at various times (neighborhood regular Blake Burba was the lighting designer and went with the show to Broadway; my friend Dee was the "Seasons of Love" soloist during the first workshop -- Grief told me he replaced her because she looked just too young for the role). So we all went prepared to love it. We didn't. The book was a mess, the staging amateurish and with the exception of one or two numbers, the music unimpressive. The final straw was "La Vie Boheme." Witnessing life in the East Village reduced down to a corny, lame jingle that sounded like something out of a soft drink commercial was just too much for most of the people I was with. At intermission, a half dozen friends of mine, having held it in out of respect for the actors, collectively burst out laughing at what they had just seen and decided to flee the theatre, never to return.

I stayed for Act II (Act One had been a mess, but there was a song or two that I thought worked and wanted to see what happened). Again, for the second act, I thought a couple of songs worked and/or showed promise, but it struck me that the whole thing needed another draft or two. And then, there was that appalling finale where Mimi awakes from the dead or whatever which I and the couple of people left in the audience whom I knew found incredibly offensive. Having lost dozens of friends in just a few years to AIDS, we knew all too well that that just doesn't ever happen. That ending was cheap, a cop-out and an insult to all those truly suffering with the disesase.

I went back and the show again shortly before it opened on Broadway (thanks to a comp from a friend in the production) and had more or less the same reaction. I don't hate the show, but think that only about half of it works. Unfortunately, Larson's not around to fix it, so I'll always have a very lukewarm feeling about it.

Updated On: 4/18/05 at 05:35 PM

[TGIF]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:47pm

Margo, thanks for your words on the subject. Out of curiosity, what songs did you like?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 5:53pm

Off the top of my head -- it's been YEARS since I've listened to it -- I thought that "Will I?" and "Take Me or Leave Me" were very effective. I'd have to listen to the cast album to remember others.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:04pm

Margo, it was very interesting to hear what you had to say about the subject. I think a lot of people (including me) don't understand what real life would have been there and then and the true grit of the place and obviously it gives us a different view of the show. I appreciate you telling us what you thought of it though. I personally loved the show, but now I feel like it makes me sound ignorant.

Updated On: 4/17/05 at 06:04 PM

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:12pm

Margo, your post made me cry

[Chloe]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:14pm

I'm not at all familiar with the East Village scene myself, but am perfectly willing to accept Margo's word for what it was like, and how RENT does not reflect that world very well. However, is that really what matters? Does anyone care how much the Paris of La Boheme is or is not like the real Paris of its time?

From what I've read, Jonathan Larson wasn't really part of the East Village scene himself, but it does make a good setting for a retelling of La Boheme, so maybe that's why he chose it. I don't think the spirit of what he was trying to say is dependent on getting a particular time and place just right, or on using its particular musical language, though I can see how someone who had lived in that world might find RENT hard to take.

The important thing is that this musical does seem to reach a lot of people, many of them suburban teenagers, as it happens. I would never argue that it's a perfect piece of art, but I do feel it transcends its time and place.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:40pm

"You can "get" what the show is trying to do and still think it doesn't do a very good job of it."

I never said that you couldn't. I know people who do. But those people would never reduce the show to "an excuse" for untalented people to scream at each other.

Updated On: 4/17/05 at 06:40 PM

[Thenardier]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:50pm

I love Rent, but don't think it is the end all of shows. As far as it being dated - think of it as being a part of NYC cultural history...

[ashley0139]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:53pm

Well, as for the dated thing (to add to Thenardier)... have you ever seen a show that wasn't set in the present times?

[DefyGravity23]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:54pm

I don't really like Rent either...then again I've never actually seen it, so maybe I'd love it if I saw it. But I don't really like the music at all. I don't know why. I just don't...except for perhaps "Seasons of Love" which I liked at first but am kind of sick of now. And it's not because I'm "old" because I'm 17.

[Kelliexo90]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 6:54pm

I didn't really want to read all of this post, so forgive me if it has already been said, but when the original poster said it was "dated". That may be true, but many shows aren't taken out of their original context as time goes on. I might be completely off, but taking that out of when it took place seems like it would be taking something like Chicago out of the Roaring 20's... it just wouldn't make sense.

[Cassie2]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 7:48pm

I think Rent is just one of those things that you like or you dislike...Much like Cats, some people don't get it and their like "wtf...", and belive that Cats is a black mark on Broadway. Other people still don't get it but love it because, they just do. Then their are people who have read the poems, understand the choreography and take something away from the show. While the lines don't seem to be so divided on RENT I believe that you have to relate to it a certain amount to understand.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 7:50pm

Please refrain from comparing "Rent" to "Cats" in any sense, ever.

[Cassie2]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 7:53pm

I wan't comparing Rent to Cats I was comparing how with any show, you get people on very opposite sides of the spectrum. I also saw Cats last night and the songs are so stuck in my head I can't see straight...It was just an example, don't get your knickers in a knot.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:08pm

Did not hate it just did not care for it. I wondered what all the hopla was all about . On scale of 1 to 10 , we both gave in a 7.5

[aliceripleysnumber1]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:15pm

I don't know why there are so many comments about it being "dated". So what? It is supposed to take place in the early to mid 90's. What's wrong with watching a show that takes place in a different time? There is still a powerful message.

[Loppy]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:22pm

A few things....

-The "dated" quality. I think that "Rent" is in the unique position of being a show that transformed from being in "the present" to "period piece" within the time frame of its initial Broadway run. It was considered to take place in "the present", I believe, pretty much until the line "living in America at the end of the millennium" forced it to change its perspective. And because of that, it will naturally have a sort of awkward balance. I don't think that being a period piece detracts from the show. In fact, I like it better as such. But I do think that it's very tricky to take the leap from present to past within an original production. I'm sure that when this closes and local productions take place, this will be less of a concern because the idea that it's a period piece will be automatic.

-The authenticity. I agree with a lot of what MargoChanning said here. Although I've never lived in the Village, I always thought that the portrayal of the experience was very "suburbanized". It's like what the upper-middle class kids visualize and idealize the Village lifestyle to be. The show has always sort of reminded me of the "hippy" kids in college who have Grateful Dead stickers on their Ford Explorers. I think that this show has ALWAYS appealed greatly to upper middle class kids between 14-21 because it's a harmless glimpse into an experience that they'd like to embrace. It's just gritty enough for them to believe that it's "real", but just harmless enough to remain safe.

-The Portrayal of AIDS. Ridiculous. I know that not everyone goes to the theatre for a slap of reality. But to see healthy, beautiful people in the advanced stages of AIDS dancing on tables is offensive to the thousands of people living with the virus. If you're going to use AIDS to tell a story, then tell the damn story. And the ending is a cop-out.

-The whines. I think they whine too much. But then, I don't like whiney people in general, so I guess that doesn't mean too much. Someone once debated with me that the whiney characters were actually more authentic because people that age do tend to be pretty damn whiney (and he falls into that "whiney" demographic so i guess he should know). He's probably right. But personally, it got on my nerves.

I don't hate this show, but I would never consider it to be great theatre. I felt this way in 1996 when I first heard the cast recording. I felt this way in 1997 when I first saw the show. I felt this way in 1999 when I revisited it (and left at intermission). And I feel this way now. It has its moments. It has its flaws. It was lucky enough to generate a healthy buzz early on. The death of Larson put that buzz over the top (and earned it a Tony that otherwise would have probably gone to a different show). And it's ability to speak to a specific demographic has kept it on Broadway long past its prime.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:25pm

"(and he falls into that "whiney" demographic so i guess he should know)"

Bite. Me.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:26pm

Umm... I think everyone is agreeing with the whole "not being dated" thing at the moment. It was just the original poster who commented about how he/she thought the show was dated.

[Chloe]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:39pm

"to see healthy, beautiful people in the advanced stages of AIDS dancing on tables is offensive to the thousands of people living with the virus"

And almost as crazy as hearing supposedly tubercular people singing opera. I really don't see why it should be offensive. Those kinds of liberties are taken in shows, and I'm not sure anyone was supposed to be at an advanced stage at the time of La Vie Boheme anyway.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:44pm

Did you even READ MargoChanning's post? THAT'S why it's offensive. It's offensive that Larson was gearing this show towards an audience that hadn't been exposed to the effects of the epidemic first-hand and that the glimpse that they got was watered-down. There was no depiction of the ILLNESS except for a brief three minutes during "Without You".

I don't necessarily think that Loppy's disdain was geared towards the dancing on the tabletop specifically; on the contrary, I think that it's important to see these people having a great time together... it adds to the energy of the show, increases the contrast between the first and second acts, and enhances the "family among peers" feeling that permeates the story. Her discontent was rooted in the fact that the opposite, horrifying (and equally real) side of the card is never shown to the audience.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I have several problems with "Rent" (as much as a love it), and this is one of them. I also mentioned that I sort of understand Larson's logic behind NOT including the material... but I don't agree with the choice.

Updated On: 4/17/05 at 08:44 PM