Posted: 12/1/16 at 2:47pm
Within the next decade, it'll become a bona fide period piece, much like how Bye Bye Birdie or Death of a Salesman were contemporary when they premiered but were period pieces in their revivals. Would it be a good idea to bring RENT back to Broadway? Would it still have an audience?
Posted: 12/1/16 at 2:52pm
It's an interesting question. I'm pressed to think of Company, which is certainly written as a period piece, but contains messages and themes that make total sense for contemporary audiences. You could make the same case for Rent, I guess, but I think it's deeply of its period and will be seen as extremely anachronistic if revived. Just my two cents.
Posted: 12/1/16 at 2:59pm
My two cents--I feel like we need to set Rent to the side for at least 15-20 years before a revival will be truly effective. The 2011 off-Broadway revival was way too soon after the closing of the original, and now there's this 20th anniversary tour going around the country. Yes, it's a revolutionary piece with a great message that should not be forgotten, but if a new production pops up every few years, then a Broadway revival won't seem like a period piece--it'll seem stale and outdated, the same ole same ole, like some people complain about Phantom, since it's been a constant presence for 30 years.
Posted: 12/1/16 at 3:35pm
I agree with both of the above. When I saw the title I thought of HAIR, where with 40 years of distance we can appreciate the period music and can see the parallels of 70s tensions (Vietnam, race relations) to today. Rent, if properly done, could have that appeal in 15-20 years, but I agree it would look forced and dated today, especially if the revival doesn't have a new approach like the off-Broadway "revival" didn't.
Posted: 12/1/16 at 5:23pm
I could see a revival working in another 5 years or so. I feel like they would follow the trend of re-staging the original...which I'm not opposed to, as long as the cast is fantastic.
