BroadwayGirl107 on the RENT film. (With spoilers)- Page 3

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 11:52pm

I noticed the details like the subway cars too. It only bothered me Michael, in the sense that, as you say, it was sloppy art direction. Odd when so much expense and effort went into making sure that the cars on the street were all period. Did Western Props just not have a red subway car that day?

They certainly didn't need to say it was 1989. That added nothing but concrete distraction.

One thing that I thought they should have kept was the spoken prologue. We got one line of it -- the "December 24th, 9 PM" but it would have been insightful and visually interesting to have gone through with the whole "Close on Roger..." A friend of mine wasn't really clear that he was a recovering junkie. And we all seem to feel that cutting April's suicide was a mistake. Even that mention of it as is in the prologue would have sufficed without showing it. I also think it would have helped pacing -- I actually thought the song "Rent" came a hair too quick after SOL. Not enough was set up by those first couple of minutes.

How old ARE you EverythingisRENT?
Updated On: 11/13/05 at 11:52 PM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 11:58pm

"I think when you're filming a movie things should be carefully thought out so things like that don't happen."

I agree, BroadwayGirl. This is true for any mass-distributed product... Updated On: 11/14/05 at 11:58 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 11:58pm

About the idea to use the end of the decade in relation to the "end of the millennium," the same time frame was used in Angels in America -- the play is subtitled "Millennium Approaches," and it's BEFORE 1989. I think that's fine. It's certainly close enough.

I was expecting a year not to be mentioned, which was how the Thelma and Louise thing was usually passed off. Either way, I don't think it matter *all* that much, because I doubt too many people are going to pick it up, save for people who may know the lyrics before hand and have actually paid attention to when Thelma and Louise was released.

As far as this push to post more positive thoughts, if it's what I think it is, I really, really hope you're mistaking honest curiousity for some desire to influence. Be fair.

Updated On: 1/22/06 at 11:58 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 11:59pm

I completely agree, Michael Bennett. And what you said about the spoken prologue and the fact that "Rent" came rather quick without much setting it up was somewhere in my...uh...14.5 pages of thoughts on this film.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 11:59pm

I haven't seen the movie yet so I'm probably not qualified to have an opinion, but I think that it IS important to name a year, actually. We know when it was set because we've been following the making of the film and we've been told. But for the rest of the moviegoing audience, how else are they supposed to place this story in context? Even we have to be told that it's not taking place in 1996. Knowing that it's set in 1989 explains so much about the story... AZT and the emergence of the AIDS pandemic, even the fashions that the characters are wearing. Without knowing the year that it's set in, wouldn't that be sort of awkward? I suppose that they didn't have to pick a specific year, but "Sometime in the late '80s/early '90s" would seem a little weird to tell an audience.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:01am

I still think we'd have been fine with an idea of a general period, because the truth is that no matter what exact year was chosen, SOME discrepancy would exist, whether it be availability of AZT, the way a building looked, or Thelma and Louise.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:03am

Evelyn...exactly. I just think it shows a lack of dedication to your craft when something is "thrown together."

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:11am

I really don't think it was "thrown together," you guys. Why would they "THROW TOGETHER" something they're so happy to do? I'm going out on a limb here since I didn't see the movie yet... but I think that if it suffers from anything it all, it suffers from... overeagerness. The people behind the production of this movie were obviously extremely happy and excited to be doing this.

These minor mistakes are probably what they missed through the rush of it all. Maybe some time would have helped it, but I really don't think it sounds like that big a deal, to tell you the truth. Also, since Columbus and everyone else involved have an extreme love for the source material, I think they were attempting to preserve as much of the original stage show as possible. If they thought it could work on screen--and in their minds, it did--they kept it.

Sloppy? No. I really don't think so.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:13am

The specificity of the year is an interesting issue. In watching Rent on Broadway, I always thought Mimi was a figure from another time (mid '80s) whereas Maureen "looked" perfectably viable for the 21st century even though the character is modeled after a performance artist most famous in the late '70s/early '80s. My friend and I (the same one with whom I'm seeing the film on the 23rd) never agreed on when it was set.

As to MJohnson's claim that a person or people had been trying to make him alter his review... I can vouch for him. I received similar PMs that also referenced an attempt to make MJohnson edit his post. The sad thing is that I think reception to the film on here would be much better if we were all just left to talk amongst ourselves.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:14am

Well, I agree that just specifying a general timeframe would clear up the problems with the events and places and referenced in the story... but that detracts so much from the realism of the story, which is what they're going for. "Place: East Village of NYC. Time: Presumably sometime between 1987-1993ish." We are supposed to connect with these characters on a very intimate level, and that's just not as easy to do if you can't even give a specific date to what's going on in their lives. Besides, I've never seen just a general timeframe given in a movie that's set less than 100 years in the past. I feel like it's important to give the audience some information about the setting, and naming a year that might cause problems with one or two pop-culture references is still the best way to go about that.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:18am

Sweetestsiren, I think they could've said the date, not said the year, and left the year up to implications. I think it's okay to just have it assumed that it's "somewhere between" a certain period of two or three years, etc, if only to avoid this jumping of conclusions and picking out silly little things. I think the time *period* is pretty obvious in the movie, whether they had said it was 1989 or not, but some member of the powers that be thought the date necessary. I don't really think it'll be a point of major criticism, though.

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:18 AM

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:22am

i want to state that i never meant to say i felt the film was thrown together; i just mean on a normal film you usually have six months to a year of postproduction, which rent by the very nature of its release date did not have time for. little things they may have noticed before it was too late, or didn't have the time to fix -- maybed getting a red car would have taken that extra day they didn't have, etc. i just think with a little more time we'd get a reason for the cutting of goodbye love that isn't "i didn't think it worked", but rather "it just didn't work" -- sounds similar, but actually two different things.

thanks for backing me up, evelyn, btw. i felt bad about posting that but i also stand behind my belief that this board is here for people to voice any and all comments, be they positive or negative, without interference from the artists in question. if i want to talk about the screening of the producers i'm going to next week, should i not out of fear of nathan lane PM'ing me? posting my opinion on here i look forward to doing precisely because i'm *not* going to have mr. lane PM'ing me -- what i'm going to have is a thoughtful and incisive discussion with people like me who care about art and theatre and film, and who are not going to feel the need to defend their work, but discuss their differing opinions (and maybe defend those, too).

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:22am

I definitely see where you're coming from, Emcee. It's just that I, as someone who's representative of the 21-and-under audience of this movie, don't really remember that much about the fashions or political issues of the early '90s. I think the film would just LOOK awkward to a lot of the younger people seeing it if no information was given about the year. Does that make sense?

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:22am

I entirely agree with you on that point, Emcee. I think that would have been the best solution. But as you said...I wouldn't expect it to be a major point of criticism either.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:25am

MJohnson, maybe you're misconstruing the intent behind those PMs. I honestly think that... perhaps the person in question was just curious to see your point of view. Did this person ever overtly order you to change your post?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:29am

Well, I certainly think that the general point of being "watched" is an interesting one -- and I suppose it true that even if they SAY they want constructive discourse, it's the nature of people to freak out a bit, and think that they're "being required" to censor or change what they say.

I don't know what to say to that, other than that the assumption is kind of unfortunate.

Anyway, the time frame. Yeah. I don't think people will concentrate too heavily on it. It's just a frame of reference, and I don't suspect that critics or anything will sit there the whole time and be like "it's 1989. It's 1989. It must BE 1989."

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:32am

no, of COURSE they did not order me to change anything. that was my own doing. they didn't even hint that i HAD to. they just asked me to. and that was enough to make me change stuff, and in rethinking that the past couple days, it made me uncomfortable. that was all i was trying to say: even if he doesn't mean to influence people, he does, by the very nature of PMing. i am not suggesting in the slightest bit that he did anything wrong, however getting a PM from the actor in the movie i just wrote about was definitely not a comfortable thing for me, nor do i feel it was particularily without motive. he didn't ask me to discuss why i felt what i felt in a PM with him -- he asked me to post it on the board. that's where i thought it drew the line.

anyway, i don't want to hijack this thread with thoughts such as these. i'm sure mr. rapp is a very nice guy, and he's definitely talented. i just wanted to see the movie in my own little seat in my own little darkened theatre, come back here and talk to everyone about it, without getting one of the lead actors writing me. is that so wrong? i like this board because i feel it is (generally) safe -- a really cool discourse with people about art. i didn't get any PMs from people who *weren't* in the movie asking me to change stuff about my review, even when i got PMs from people who disagreed. that's all.

M

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:32am

I'm positive that he isn't misconstruing the intent.

There were at least four of us who were PMed. I was told (not quite "ordered" but close to it) to say more positive things. No two ways of looking at it... the PM was about my negativity and included a direct statement about how I "need" to be more balanced. There were also some funny criticisms of my character given that, when I was being optimistic about the film's Oscar chances here and on other forums, I was PMed by the same person with warm remarks. Others have reported similar PMs.

Also, I was told in one of the PMs that MJohnson was asked (by the person PMing) to edit his review so that it would be more positive.
Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:32 AM

[zzannahk]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:33am

i've seen a lot of comments, including my own, deleted too

all of munks comments are gone
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=874998&dt=111305080652

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:33 AM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:38am

The blog responses are another issue. I wouldn't know much about that given that the one time I posted on there was to tell Chris Columbus how hot he is (and he is!).

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:41am

Munk deleted that himself. Long story.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:42am

Honestly, Evelyn, I think you do need to be more balanced. And I think you need to see the movie before you start with the sharp criticisms.

However, I doubt you'll see it any differently by now, anyway. If you go in with the intention of only seeing the negative .... well, that's what you'll get out of it.

[zzannahk]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:42am

why not have admin delete the whole thread then, it's very confusing

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:45am

...Long story?

That doesn't really cut it for me. The review was extremely negative, with a few positive points mentioned a few posts later, and I thought that it was very odd that he would retract his thoughts so suddenly and not offer an explanation as to how his perspective had changed.

It all seems a bit worrisome...
Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:45 AM

[zzannahk]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:46am

totally random question, are there confidentiality agreements at these screenings for those that arent media??