I am coming out of my Sony-imposed exile to defend my good name against the false and specious charges made against me. I have never asked anyone outright to alter his or her review.
Here is the context of the whole interaction:
I wrote a pm to MJohnson, responding to points he had raised in his (quite negative) review, and saying I was sorry that he had been disappointed in the film. His review seemed dismissive to me at the time, and perhaps I should not have, but I decided that I would take a moment to stand up a little bit for this project that I so believe in, and I wrote to him wanting to engage in a conversation. I did not ask him to change his mind about the film, nor his review. In the pm, I also shared with him that everyone in my life who had seen the film, including people who had not ever seen the show, had been uniformly impressed and moved by it. And before the cynics out there tell me, "Well, of course they're going to say that, because they're your friends," I can only say that is presumptuous of you. You do not know my friends, and if you think they would lie to me about something as important as this, then you are disrespecting them and me. They are my friends precisely because they have always been honest with me. There are plenty of projects I've done over the years about which they have been less than thrilled, and they have had no problem telling me so.
Anyway, in response to my message, MJohnson wrote to me that he didn't hate the film as much as it seemed in his public review, and in fact included many things he'd liked about the film. In response, I then said, well, maybe he could have possibly thought about putting more of those positive things in his review, to represent more fully his experience. I wondered why someone would post something so negative publicly and then turn around and privately have many more positive things to say.
I did not ask him to change his review; I did not try to suppress his reaction to the film; I engaged him in a conversation about his reaction.
I have long held the belief that there should be less of a separation between artists and audiences, since we're all people traveling along on this planet together, and we really do need one another to exist. There are no performing arts without an audience, and there is no audience without someone performing. In any of my postings and conversations with people in this forum and elsewhere, I am often advocating on behalf of things I believe in, but I am not attempting to *force* anyone to change their opinions. I am taking a strong stand on behalf of a choice in some cases, trying to provide insight and context about my work in others, and challenging cynical assumptions and diatribes in yet others.
But since now some of those private conversations have been made public, and misrepesented, to boot, I felt very strongly that I needed to make sure that what I actually said was known. Here is the quote from my pm that seems to be the statement that was most misinterpreted: "Thanks for your response [to my response]. Maybe you could have tempered your review with more of the positive things you said to me in your private message, then? If you look at the text of both, you'll see you are a lot more specific about what you don't like in your public review, and a lot more specific about what you do like in your message to me."
Notice that the question is rhetorical, referring to something that *had already taken place* -- there's that use of the phrase "maybe you could have." I was just very struck by the enormous difference in tone in MJohnson's pm to me than in his public posting, and I pointed it out to him. That is all.
For whatever it's worth, I have *ALWAYS* known that there are plenty of people out there who have *NEVER* loved or even *liked* Rent. I am fine with that. I accept that. I would be crazy if I didn't. I would prefer it, of course, if everyone loved it as much as I and so many other people in the world have for all of these years, because on some level I feel like those who don't are missing out on a profound experience -- again, *this is my opinion* -- but I would never presume to think that Rent -- or anything else -- is for *everyone.*
I also believe that artists should have the right and opportunity to engage their critics in dialogue about their critcs' responses to their work, and vice versa. There ought to be more opportunities for the exchanging of ideas.
I am not deluded enough, nor have I ever been deluded enough, to think that Rent is or has ever been perfect, either onstage or onscreen. You can check the record on that, by the way; I have in more than one interview over the years acknowledged that it's flawed.
But I would always rather see a piece of theatre or read a book or watch a film that is flawed and messy and imperfect -- but pulses with life and ideas and immediacy -- than see something that is merely well-constructed and clever, and has little or no emotional content. That's my taste, and I recognize that not everyone shares that taste. But I will stand up for what I believe in as much as anyone else, and my doing so on behalf of the film version of Rent -- here on Broadway World or at the junket I just completed or in the interviews I've given over the years or in the q&a's I've participated in -- should not be seen as the result of me being some for-hire shill for the studio or make you think that I am blind to the fact that there are people who disagree with my opinions; rather, I think I've demonstrated over the past 11 years that I have always fiercely believed in and advocated for Jonathan Larson's stunningly beautiful (IN MY OPINION) work of art. I would consider it a matter of compromising my own integrity to stand idly by while something I loved was maligned. Again, my standing up for it may or may not change anyone's mind about it. But at least there's a possibility of dialogue.
One more point: I feel fairly certain the movie version of Rent will get a mixed response, as has been made clear on these boards. However, I take enormous exception to anyone on here or anywhere characterizing those people who do love the film -- and they are many of them that I have encountered over the past couple of weeks, believe me -- as being anything other than honest in their response. You might notice that those same people on these boards who are the first to discredit a rave are the first to trumpet and propagate a pan. Why would one point of view automatically have any more validity than the other? There will certainly be disagreement; that's a given. But it's unfair to attempt to discredit the character of someone who is raving, especially if there's no such standard held up to someone who is panning.
I hope I have been heard as clearly as I am trying to express myself. And now that I've re-entered this public conversation I'll stick around, but please do not allow my presence here to alter the honesty of your responses to the film. I'm a grown up; I can take it if you don't like it. I just didn't see the same film you did, is all.
Thanks --
Anthony
