Am I the only person who hated Rent?- Page 4

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:54pm

I had a friend that lived in the East Village in the 80's. Just to give you an idea of what it was like, he used to have a BB gun handy to shoot at the rats that crawled into his apartment.

[Chloe]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:55pm

But I don't think he was trying to write about illness. He was writing about dealing with life. Not always totally successfully, I would agree, but if he has led some of those unexposed, privileged audience members to be more open-minded and compassionate, that seems like a good thing.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 8:56pm

I do believe that theater, like most arts, is a really subjective matter. Someone can adore and worship something and someone may find the same thing terrible ! And that is why I don't like the term "Best", but I prefer the word "Favorite". But that's the beauty of theater, it is all about personal taste and what it means to each one individually, that's why our discussions are always so interesting ! I do fully respect everyone's opinion ! For me, RENT is truly magical and I absolutely love it !

Take care

[babygiraffeboots]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 9:12pm

It's all a personal opinion. I love Rent, it's my favorite show because it pretty much got me through an etremely difficult time in my life and on the other had there are people who hate it. There are people who absolutely adore Cats and I can't stand that show. I love Cole Porter and Rogers and Hammerstien just as much as I love new musicals. Others people only like classics and some only like new, original pieces. I know everything I said was obvious but it's just that I too often see people freaking out when someone doesn't agree with them.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 9:17pm

"He was writing about dealing with life."

...And THIS is why I warned on, like, page two of this thread that it is so important to understand the show's historical context before you judge it.

Larson was writing a show to expose people to a lifestyle with which they were unfamiliar. It's true that the predominant message of the show is a life mantra- "live this moment like your last"- but the fact remains that "Rent" was also intended to present issues like homosexuality and AIDS to an audience that was unaccustomed to it. THAT is why, like MargoChanning stated, the show is an inaccurate depiction of a real situation. Larson wasn't writing the show TO the demographic that the show depicts... he wasn't trying to preach to the converted... rather, he was writing the show FOR them. He was writing the show to make a larger audience aware of the situation that was unfolding in the East Village. THEREFORE, Larson was reluctant to shove the horrors of AIDS in the faces of this audience because it would turn them off... Mimi doesn't die at the end of the show because Larson realized that that might make his audience less receptive to the message that the show was trying to get across. He wanted his audience to leave the theatre with a sense of optimism, and I believe that he felt that Mimi's death just wouldn't convey that. Was this a mistake? I have my own opinion. And I KNOW that a lot about the show would have been tweaked had Larson lived longer. Anyway... I'm digressing...

Back to the point- Is the portrayal of the AIDS virus important in the grand scheme of what "Rent" tries to get across to the audience? It certainly WAS. Now that AIDS has been exposed to society, can the show be viewed as a simple lesson on how to "deal with life"? I guess. But I have a LOT less respect for the show in that form.

Updated On: 4/17/05 at 09:17 PM

[ThE nEw KiD]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 9:22pm

I think RENT is an amazing rock concert but if you really think about it, there's no real story. Nothing really happens...yes, it's La Boheme but still...no real story there either. It's really just a lot of artists bitching with kick ass music.

[sassypanz]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 9:37pm

Rent is very touching.

[Sargar]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 9:48pm

you have to wonder that if Rent did accurately depict what life was like at that time as Margo Channing described, would it have even made it to broadway. If anything, Rent exposed many people to certain things that they would've probably never experienced. My uncle died from AIDS in 1996, and some of the images of Angel are startlingly similar that it is hard to watch sometimes. The show is not perfect, and of course no show can really appeal to everyone, but it did a lot of great things for theater. It was one of the first shows to offer student rush tickets, which allowed so many struggling students and the like to experience and get into musical theater, which in my opinion is never a bad thing. Rent also touches upon being a young person in your twenties struggling to "make your dreams come true" or to even find out what that dream is, but trying to stay true to your craft and not "sell out" which is also something that many people can relate too.

Also, a frustrating aspect of Rent is the fact that it is so dependent on the performers. A bad actor/actress can completely change a person's experience of the show.

I wonder how or if the film version of Rent will touch upon the criticisms mentioned earlier. Supposedly it is going to be a much darker version of the stage production, which is supposed to be closer to Larson's original vision. Again, as many people had discussed, if Larson had not passed away he might have evolved the show, or would have been able to make the changes he wanted, especially after the show became such a hit.

Posted: 4/17/05 at 9:50pm

Can't say I hated it, as I never saw it. BUT, I CAN say that after trying to listen to the cast recording, I turned it off before it was done and KNEW I didn't want to see it. Does that count?

[justme2]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 10:01pm

I saw it in SF and didn't like the music in it. I didn't enjoy the lyrics or the arrangements of most of the pieces. The sets and acting were fine, and the subject matter was fine; it just didn't appeal to me musically.

That has nothing to do with knowing the "historical reference" of a show. Please, MOST shows have references to whatever part of history it is set in. There is nothing new in that, and no one need learn the historical references before attending a show.
Examples?

Showboat- interracial marriage in 1920's
Will Rogers Follies and Vaudeville in the 1910-1920's
City of Angels and the 1940's film noir era
Sweet Smell of Success -theater critisism in the 1950's
Thoroughly Modern Millie -Flappers/1920's era
How to Success in Bus...1950-60's business practices
Hair -1970's and the hippie movement

Cats....well, nevermind on that one.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/17/05 at 11:25pm

Look, I just want to be clear -- I KNOW many many people have an intense love and identification with this show and my post was not in any way trying to discourage that. I was simply trying to communicate the impression that I and many people that I knew at the time (who were living the lives depicted on the stage) had of the show when it was downtown. We knew that Larson didn't write this show for us and that's fine and was his right as an artist. It's a show that allows suburban kids to spend a couple of hours with (a safe version of) characters and situations they've likely never encountered before in their lives and that it resonates so strongly with so many proves that Larson got a lot of things right. It taps into a transgressive, rebellious, anarchic feeling that many teenagers and 20-somethings have to want to challenge authority and not conform with the mundane everyday society that they know and to change the world --THAT'S why the show is still running nine years later.

Perhaps it is unfair of me to wish that Larson had spent more time in the neighborhood during the time that he immortalized in the show. So many I knew at the time (including some of the squattors) were trying to change the world and challenge authority, through art and political action, who put their lives on the line with ACT-UP and Queer Nation and other groups, in an effort to save themselves and the people that they loved (I also participated in several demonstrations, incidentally). Despite formidable resistance from the government and police and much of the media and public at-large, ACT-UP did succeed in changing the FDA's pharmaceutical protocols which had held up promising drugs from making it to the general public sometimes for years at a time, making it possible for the life saving and sustaining AIDS cocktails to make it to the market YEARS earlier than they would have under the old status quo, saving countless thousands of lives in the process (I have friends who are STILL with us, who were on their deathbeds in the mid-90s, but were able to get out of those beds and carry on with their lives because of the AIDS cocktail).

The activism in the streets that was an integral part of life in the East Village in the 80s and 90s is nowhere to be seen in "Rent" and would have added incalculable dimension to the story had Larson been more tapped into the real scene occurring at the time -- and it would have made it into a much more dynamic and powerful show. It's lost opportunities like that that led so many in the neighborhood (many of whom were artists and musicians themselves) to reject the show.

At that time, the East Village wasn't made up of a bunch of "whining" (to use a term I've seen a couple of times in this thread), non-rent-paying, spoiled brats (there were a few and they were ignored), the general mood was not of a bunch of people partying until they died of AIDS, but the REAL ethos at that time was of determined, pro-active, dynamic, intensely political people, gay and straight who were going to make art that made an impact on the world and were willing to put their bodies on the line to change a corrupt, noncompassionate system that didn't care if they lived or died (eg, several ACT-UP members chained themselves together and closed the Lincoln Tunnel for several hours; others infiltrated the New York Stock Exchange and prevented trading from occurring for a couple of hours; some criticized those actions at the time, but the eventual upshot was, the group was eventually noticed, taken seriously, out of fear if nothing else, and the FDA DID change their protocols in response, saving lives).

I just point these things out as examples of what several in the neighborhood at the time, found missing from the show. Larsen didn't HAVE to include any of it, but had he done so, I think the show would be much stronger.

Look, more than me or anyone else, I'm sure Jonathan Larson himself is looking down from heaven frustrated, wishing he had had the time to finish his show. He ran out of time and that's a crime. We'll never know what his ultimate vision of "Rent" was going to be (I know he was revising, rewriting and editing up till the moment he died) or what else he would have brought to the musical theatre had he lived. The show that's on stage at the Nederlander has many fine moments, but, to me, just as many flaws. But, it's obviously connected on a deep and profound level with millions around the world and that alone is a tremendous legacy for a gifted talent that died too young.

Updated On: 4/18/05 at 11:25 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 1:14am

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

ashley, have you ever seen a show that WAS set in present times? Everything is set in the past. Is Rent really anymore dated than Hairspray or Chicago?

This is slightly OT, but some people have brought up the "cop-out" ending. I always thought the end with Mimi wasn't her actually coming back from her death of AIDS. They establish that she had a fever, Angel in the tunnel could have been a fever-induced hallucination. If they had a doctor come in a declare her dead, and then she came back to life- I could have considered it a cop-out. Besides, wouldn't Mimi actually dying in the end kind of defeat the purpose of having Angel in the show? If Mimi died as well, Angel's death wouldn't be as poignant.

Margo, thank you for posting. It's nice to see an intelligent argument of why you didn't like the show, as opposed to another "I hated it" and no explanation of why. I'm just wondering, did you like The Normal Heart's depiction of AIDS?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 1:59am

"The Normal Heart" was/is sort of at the other end of the spectrum in terms of dealing with the AIDS issue. Kramer was on the forefront of all of it as a founder of GMHC and ACT-UP so well knew of what he spoke (as such, if anything, Kramer knew too much about the activist position, while Larson knew not enough). I always felt, though, that "The Normal Heart" was more of an incendiary, polemical, didactic, political call-to-arms than an actual well-constructed "play" (his play "Destiny of Me" is a much more accomplished piece). It also is undermined a bit, I think, by Kramer's deep-seated desire to use the play to settle scores with his enemies of the time. Nonetheless, despite those flaws, the play was quite effective as "theatre" both in its original incarnation and the recent Public Theatre revival.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 2:05am

Thanks for your posts on this topic, Margo. I've printed them out so I can read them more closely and ponder my views on the issues you've raised at a greater length when I've more time. This is the first time anyone's posts have been so provocative and insightful to me that I've felt the need to do this. Thank you for that.

[BroadwayOpal]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 2:51am

I saw it about a year ago, and did not care for it. I was expecting more, considering how long it's been open and all the raves on the TV commercial. I just got over Taboo closing and could not understand how that was still open. My son saw it with me and liked Taboo better, so the age thing can't be it.

[broadway_star_tomorrow]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 2:52am

The play "Other People" by Christopher Shinn has some interesting discussions about RENT, and its effect on the surrounding society. It's good stuff.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 3:07am

Thanks Margo. I just finished reading "The Normal Heart" and "Destiny of Me" the other day, and found them both interesting because they seemed to make a point of being realistic and "in your face". And I completely understand what you mean about it being a call-to-arms; at some points, it almost made me feel bad about not doing more to help...even though I wasn't born yet when "The Normal Heart" came out.

[Katecab99]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 9:50am

i know i'm kind of late, but i know there are MANY people who have strongly disliked RENT. i've seen the show countless times, and each and every time that i'm there, there are always empty seats after the first act. some people just don't realize what they're getting into when they buy their ticket.

on a personal note, i have LOVED this show for all these years and continue to see it on a very regular basis.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 10:42am

I've seen Rent several times and the version I saw last Fall was easily the least inspirational.

I think these people and still exist in alphabet City and other cities even today.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 10:47am

I saw it with no back history except what the playbill offered. I appreciated it.

I'm not lumping the originator of this thread in with the people I'm going to talk about next, but I do know there is a certain conservative segment of the population that has a problem with a show because of the content. (Hey, the moral compass of the show is a cross dresser...that might bother some people of a certain background.) People have a right to see what they want to see and like what they like, but I do know generally intelligent, thoughtful people who arbritarily dismiss Rent as "the Gay Play." (including my mother...so be nice.)

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 10:50am

so, i'm getting the impression it's all the "older" people who don't like RENT. You have to be young and hip to enjoy it! >>>

I'm 36 and fairly conservative so I don't know how "young and hip" I am but I love the show.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 10:54am

I don't understand not liking a show because it takes place at a different time period.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 11:02am

This reminds me of a discussion I had with some folks I saw Miss Saigon with back in 2001 or so. They were all emotional about the "Dust of Life" and how we needed to do something for the war orphans. My feeling was, "yeah, it was touching but these war oprhans are either long since dead or in their mid to late 20's now." Show like Rent and Miss Saigon took place in their time and are thus connected to a certain topicality.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 11:10am

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. >>>

That's awful. That's just wrong. Just because one person gives an articulate and thoughtful analysis about why based on her experience the show Rent does ring ture with her, you feel ignorant because you enjoyed the show. Larson had his experience; this other poster had hers but your appreciation of the show is your honest and true reaction and you have every right to it. It's hip to be down on Rent now; whatever, don't let others take away your enjoyment of it.

Updated On: 4/18/05 at 11:10 AM

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/18/05 at 11:12am

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

Why?

Who are you to set that mandate?