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

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.

---

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

"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

Rent is very touching.

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?

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

"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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---