Brandon Victor Dixon, Vanessa Hudgens, Keala Settle, Jordan Fisher Set for Fox's Rent Live! — Page 4

Miles2Go2 said: "rjm516 said: "I agree with the doubt about a nonwhite Mark. His whole dramatic arc is realizing that his privilege shelters him from the problems of his friends that he exploits for his 'art'. Maybe they'll have his family support/money be more prominent and make him more of a poverty tourist than a white savior, but that vibe of his is important."

As I stated above, I have my own concerns about Fisher as Mark, but not because he is African American. Why doesanyoneassume that an African American character couldn’t come from a life of privilege?"

I think you're confusing racial privilege with economic privilege. Mark's family is implied if not outright stated to be middle class/well off, same as Joanne's and (at the time of the show) Benny. They absolutely have that privilege no matter what their skin colour is. No one is saying that an African American character can't be wealthy or from a middle class family.

What people are saying is that the experience of being a black Jewish man in American is very different than the experience of being a white Jewish man. Especially in a show that is heavily about marginalization. People are saying it changes the vibe of the character and the subtext around him.

People seem to forget that you can't cast people who are currently working on other shows, because they are committed to those shows. Talking about Ben Platt, people from Riverdale, Liz Gillies, etc. was fine for dream casting - but a lot of this comes down to availability - and who's actually free for the month of January to rehearse and prepare for this thing.

As for worries about Mark being Jewish and re-cast as black...they are re-writing/adapting this for the live tv musical format - and can make changes to adjust. Or maybe the casting was made for adjustments already made to the script/book.

Updated On: 10/30/18 at 05:27 PM

"Angel kills a dog for money. Angel... KILLS DOGS for MONEY.... and we're supposed to cry when Angel dies? Yeah, no.

They kill Benny's dog, Benny basically says they can live in their big ass warehouse apartment for free as long as their [sic] not a$$h01es only to be treated like an a$$h01e, and I wish the show ended with all the leads besides Benny dropping dead."

Either you're joking or you're not familiar with the show because none of that is correct.

---

A woman paid Angel to play the drums, hoping the dog would jump out the window. Angel doesn't murder the dog and "they" certainly didn't kill his dog because only Angel was there.

Benny used to live with Mark and Roger. After he left, there was an agreement that Mark and Roger could stay for free. Benny announces that they suddenly have to not only start paying rent, but all back rent immediately. Then Benny leverages this new information to extort his friends so he can benefit (of course, issues of societal morality and artistic integrity are wrapped up in this as well, which are integral to each character's decisions and attitudes that you've somehow seemed to have...forgotten?). They didn't "owe" Benny the rent because they weren't being charged rent and there was no agreement to pay rent.

"Benny pays for Mimi's rehab and THAT'S THE THANKS HE GETS?!"

What "thanks" are you talking about? You're all over the place.

---

"There's this song called Today 4 U where Angel is pretty gleeful about killing the dog.
Angel performed an act and was paid by a woman to drive a dog to suicide. That's... like... the entire song."

I already explained precisely what happens in the song. Your editorial doesn't change the actual event.

"Benny needed to keep the empty lot because why? Because Maureen did wittle shows there?"

Nope. You really should read the libretto.

"he asks Mark and Roger to talk to Maureen about not doing it and they basically say, 'fvck you, Benny.'"

That's a very creative attempt at provactive reduction, but wildly inaccurate.

"Benny pays for Mimi's rehab and the thanks he gets if being painted the villain of the piece when really the villain is Mark, Roger, Angel, Collins, and Maureen."

LOL. If you're trying to sound like Trump, then you've succeeded! Congratulations! Perhaps we should call his fiance Melania.

---

Aw... you earned it!

---

Mister Matt said: "A woman paid Angel to play the drums, hoping the dog would jump out the window. Angel doesn't murder the dog and "they" certainly didn't kill his dog because only Angel was there."

As Sondheimite pointed out, Angel doesn't exactly seem remorseful that those actions led to the death of the dog. Since the very first time I saw the show - which I actually love - I thought this was a bizarre and misguided way to introduce Angel, whom we're presumably supposed to find quite lovable.

Something very similar is true about Whistle Down The Wind (at least as recorded in the London version) - a character we're later expected to regard as quite noble is introduced in a scene where he's drowning a bag of kittens. What on earth were these people thinking?

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 08:15 AM

As Sondheimite pointed out, Angel doesn't exactly seem remorseful that those actions led to the death of the dog. Since the very first time I saw the show - which I actually love - I thought this was a bizarre and misguided way to introduce Angel, whom we're presumably supposed to find quite lovable.

First of all, the whole dog thing was created to mirror the Schaunard/parrot story in La Boheme, in which Schaunard directly murders a parrot simply because he's tired of his job (he was hired to play the violin until the death of the parrot and kills the parrot after three days).

Second of all, the dog is described as being so disruptive, it has kept the neighbor awake for year. Benny later laughs and admits he always hated the dog.

Third, Angel is detailing the rather bizarre request that provided the money to pay for the gifts she bought for Tom's friends. She's lovable because of everything else she does in the show. The story is a bit of macabre humor deliberately told in a humorous way that is a direct nod to the source material. Ignoring everything else about the character because of this tale is a rather extremist view. I mean, good Lord, musical theatre is littered with complex characters of questionable morality that we embrace do varying degrees simply because the book and score guide us with a roadmap of the characters' flaws and qualities: the Phantom? Billy in Carousel? The King in King & I? Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady? The Witch in Into the Woods? Sally Bowles in Cabaret? Sweeney Todd? Miss Mona? Georges Seurat? Evan frickin' Hansen (oh, the tears of devotion for this one)? Alexander Hamilton? Everyone in Follies? Do we really need to demand remorse for what is obviously intended to be a relatively light comic number without actual major relevance to the plot? One could even say the death of the dog foreshadows and balances the death of Angel, if they really needed some literary analysis to justify the character, though I feel it's ridiculously unnecessary as Angel actually comes across far more realistic and human when not painted with a golden brush of altruism.

Something very similar is true about Whistle Down The Wind (at least as recorded in the London version) - a character we're later expected to regard as quite noble is introduced in a scene where he's drowning a bag of kittens. What on earth were these people thinking?

To me, it signaled the period and setting (where it was not an uncommon act) as well as the characters themselves. The father is doing what he considers to be practical for an impoverished family in a small town and we're introduced to the charitable nature of the children (who save the kittens) that ultimately drives the entire plot. But to be fair, Whistle Down the Wind was not a well-written show by any means. Unsettled Scores is Lloyd Webber's most tedious and poorly structured ballad to date.

---

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 10:12 AM

^
"signaling an emphasis on social-media stars, reality-show favorites, and singers, rather than more traditional celebrity star power. Which is not surprising for a TV phenomenon that lives and dies by the live-tweet."

Is this supposed to be encouraging?

---

Nope! Wrong again!

---

Mister Matt said: "Nope! Wrong again!"

---

Sondheimite said: "The re-writing/re-adapting of this is going to be limited to four letter words being removed and contact probably being cut. They aren't re-writing Mark's character or any piece of the show."

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "re-writing" Mark's character or any piece of the show. I think it's very possible that there may be some contextual changes around Mark's character, given the casting, that could be addressed directly or indirectly to tweaks to the script. It seems like you seem to believe that outside of being edited for content, nothing will change - but I don't think that's guaranteed whatsoever. Changes will have to made to accommodate the casting, the "live" musical staging, the language and content for network TV, the run-time, etc.

I wouldn't imagine any drastic departures but I also don't think they will be treating everything like holy canon either.