An Objective Review of "RENT"

A few things to note before you read my review of the film version of RENT:

1. I had/have never seen the stage version.
2. I have never listened to the entire score all the way through; have heard bits and pieces over the years, but it never captivated my attention to want to listen to it.

Those two things being said, I felt as if I could give an honest, objective standpoint to the movie. I hope the RENT fanatics out there don't kill me over this; This is simply my point of view, and it's as different as everyone's varying points of view on this movie, as well as others.

I think the film was very well done - for this type of musical, and this style of story. However, it was the story itself that left me rather cold and uninterested. Most of the movie, I felt myself staring at the screen, with my mouth slightly ajar, but not from wonder of brilliance from what I was seeing, but more from "Oooooooooooooooooooook - what am I supposed to be feeling now?" Nothing really touched me. Something tells me (and my instincts are NEVER wrong!) that this show works much better on stage, and gives you more emotional wallop for your buck, seeing it live. And, by no means, is there anything wrong with that. I just felt myself "not caring."

Why do we care about these characters? They all punish themselves by making stupid mistakes, for which most of them seem to show very little to no regret or remorse. As great as Idina Menzel's vocals are - who gives a rat's ass about Maureen? She's a slut, her character is a user, and has no purpose, other than to show off her great body, and the fact that she can belt for Jesus. And frankly (here's where I'm sure the hate mail will come), why do we care about Roger? Does he have a job? He sings "How we gonna pay rent?", when my thought was "Well, I don't know, Roger - how ARE you gonna pay rent, since you have no job, and all you do is sit around, playing guitar, and flirting with the heroin addict below you?" I'm sure I'm taking this all too literally, but movies (and musicals) make you think. If there's no element of reality, then it's nothing but fluff. RENT is certainly not fluff. But it raised a lot of questions in my mind as to why we (the audience) should care and be involoved with fairly soul-less characters.

THAT being said, I thought there were some excellent performances. Anthony Rapp as Mark was delightful. Handsome, great voice, very much into his part - his character, I cared about, and wanted to know more about. Wilson Jermaine Heredia and Jesse L. Martin as Angel & Collins (respectively) were very sweet. Their story was on the border of "touching" for me, but you didn't see it "grow." It didn't go anywhere. Angel has this big heart, and he finds Collins in an alley, beaten up, takes him home, and then all of a sudden - they're a couple, happy, and dancing on Christmas day together. Which, frankly, is what happens in many relationships (not the whole dancing in drag on Christmas day thing - lol). But again - we care because.....?

As Mimi, I thought Rosario Dawson was quite good. I've read lots of negative comments about her voice. As someone with an extensive background in voice and vocal training, I thought for her character, and the part she had to sing, she was excellent. So she doesn't have the big brassy belt of her original Broadway counterpart - she hit the notes, sang it well, and put as much emotion as possible into the part as humanly possible. Again, what I have a problem with is the character - we often here Mimi described as "a prostitute with a heart of gold." Well, um...if you're a prostitute and a heroin addict...sorry, I wouldn't want to get involved with you, no matter how hot you are.

Tracie Thomas - very good - great voice. I actually kind of felt sorry for her character - the long suffering lover who just wants a commitment, and all she gets is slutty, ass-showing Idina.

By the way - did anyone else really want to see Idina rise up on that bike when she rode in, and rip of her helmet, and sing "So if you care to find me...." - lol - sorry. The thought made me giggle.

Other things I thought - was there really that much turmoil, angst, etc. in New York in 1989-90? Of course, I wasn't living there at the time, and maybe there was...but it just seemed like the portrayal of the Village made it seem very dark, dirty - not a nice place to be during that time.

On the music end of the spectrum - frankly, the music doesn't do much for me. There were a few "goosebump" moments - especially "No Day But Today" - very touching, and the harmonies were beautiful. But I didn't find it very memorable. A few of the songs remain in your head if you've heard them over the years, such as "Take Me For What I Am", and "America (What You Own)". Other then that, I didn't leave humming anything.

I also felt the anthem of the show, "Seasons of Love" - again - it probably works MUCH better on stage. Putting it at the beginning of the movie, with them all on stage - when it was over, I thought to myself "Um...what was that about?"

I'm sure this review has come off sounding very negative. But it really isn't, I promise you. I did enjoy the movie - but I do not think it's one of the finest cinematic achievements of the last century, nor do I feel it's a musical that translates to the screen well. Mr. Columbus did an admirable job in his first musical-directing debut, with the material he had to work with. He had a top-notch cast, and made it work as best he could. It's the material itself that just never captured my spirit.

I do hope the movie does well, and that RENT fanatics enjoy their baby finally being brought to the big screen. And, with it being the holiday season, this movie does speak to the heart about family, caring for others, and enjoying life to the fullest. La Vie Boheme indeed.

I have no problem with your review because, as with all reviews, it's a matter of opinion. I take some issue with the title of the thread which suggests to me that all other reviews of RENT are not objective and I also see no need to create a new thread for this "Objective" review while there has been an ongoing review thread. I guess that that thread is just for the non-objective reviews.

Review Thread

---

Updated On: 11/29/05 at 10:27 AM

"Other things I thought - was there really that much turmoil, angst, etc. in New York in 1989-90? Of course, I wasn't living there at the time, and maybe there was...but it just seemed like the portrayal of the Village made it seem very dark, dirty - not a nice place to be during that time."

While I definitely wasn't living here at the time, from what I have heard the East Village certainly wasn't anywhere you wanted to be to feel safe.

Part of the reason I started my own thread was because there are 400 billion pages of RENT reviews already, and I feared mine getting lost in the mix. Most people print "OMGILOVERENT!" as a review, and I had a lot more detailed things to say. That's all. Nothing against the "Rent movie post" :)

Also forgive me for the misspelling of Tracie's last name. It is THOMS, not Thomas.

I liked reading your review because everyone I know who saw it and loved it also loved the show, so it's good to know what other people think of the movie.

I have one issue with what you said, though. You asked why we are supposed to sympathize with Roger not being able to pay his rent when he just sits around all day and plays with his guitar.

The reason they're so mad about paying their rent is because Benny, their former friend, bought their building and promised them they could live rent-free so that they could have time to work on their music or film. They are angry because now, suddenly, he is demanding they pay two years' worth of rent or he will evict them.

If someone told me I didn't have to pay rent, I'd probably quit my job, too. Especially if I was going through year-long a heroin withdrawal. I think it's perfectly reasonable for Roger not to have a job.

---

I think it also depends upon how long Roger's actually been OUT of rehab. In one of the earlier screenplays, one of the first scenes was Mark going to pick him up, so when the story began, he had literally just gotten out. I mean, if he's been out of rehab for like a week, of course he hasn't got a job.

My mother says she thinks he's pathetic, and wanted to tell all of them that they should suck it up and get jobs.

---

Most of them do have jobs. Mimi works, Collins works when he can, Joanne works, even Mark gets a job later when he needs. Angel plays drums on the street, but apparently, he makes a pretty good living doing that. Maureen doesn't work as far as we know, she just lives off Joanne. I think the reason I love Maureen so much is that, in any other character, her actions would be reprehensible. But Maureen is just so lovable that you can't help but want to forgive her. You know that one guy who has a horrible reputation for cheating, but girls can't help but fall for him or they think they can change him? She's like that. She's like the Colin Farrell of Alphabet City.

Anyway, I was just pointing out that the reason Roger doesn't have a job is not that he's lazy. I didn't know about the scene in the early screenplay. That's interesting. But either way, I feel like he has no reason to work if Benny promised him free rent.

---

At 23, seeing the original cast, I still was like, 'Um...STARBUCKS is hiring.' But the show was full of such incredible talent and energy that I'd forgive anything.

But at 31, I finally realized something about RENT. If one of my best friends married up and came to me saying, 'Ya know, if we clean up the neighborhood a bit, we could build our own music/film production studios where we'd get paid to do the work we're dying to do', that person would NOT be the villian in my life. He'd be the hero.

---

You lost me at "my instincts are NEVER wrong."

Please tell me you are kidding.

---

Whew ... but considering you thought highly enough of your review that it needed its own thread, I was left to wonder ...

(generally used to indicate sarcasm ... )

---

I agree with others about objectivity. I'm beginning to think that, while objectivity is a goal to strive for in courtrooms and sports arenas, there really is no such thing when it comes to art and entertainment. Something either grabs you or it doesn't. If it does, whatever flaws it has can be somewhat (or completely) overlooked. If it doesn't, they're pretty much all you're left with.

This seems to apply to Rent in spades. I don't remember the last time I've seen such extremely divided reviews.

I enjoyed the film more than I thought I would though I have to admit I did share some of your same reactions and everyone can't love everything. I do not, however, think your review is objective. You say you can't care about someone who is an addict or "slutty" which is too bad because so much drama is based on human frailty. People don't always behave in the smartest, most responsible way and to say we can't care about them because they make bad decisions is kind of sad. Also, many people here probably don't remember what it was like in the period of the mid-80s to the mid-90s. At the time I was living a sort of Bohemian life, but in Los Angeles, and it was devastating as people were dying all around you all the time, some lingered on and suffered, others went quickly, but many of us were in a kind of shock. When they are your friends and loved ones it makes it harder to judge them for being and addict or "slutty."

---

freeadmission, I thought you've said you haven't even seen this show. So how can you echo what Jason has said when you have very little to base the opinion on?

"I just find most of the characters to have a "woe is me, the great artist" complex and I see it as an excuse for being lazy. I mean, come on, how many auditioning waitresses to you think there are in NYC alone? Whatever."

That quote right there says it. I think if you see this show and you get it, you see that it's not a "woe is me, the great artist" complex. It's about people who may live that way for a while before realizing just how precious it is to simply LIVE.