BroadwayGirl107 on the RENT film. (With spoilers)- Page 4

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:47am

I think I understand why Munk retracted it.

The first time he saw the film, he went in with an analytical, critical mind. He prepared himself to watch for the negative. Thus, he came out thinking about the negative points.

The second time he saw the film, he knew exactly what to expect. He sat back and enjoyed it and appreciated it for what it was. And he evidently had a great time, as he mentioned in Emcee's thread.

I hope Munk posts as well to confirm this.

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:47 AM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:48am

Yeah, munk's complete 180 of an opinion is just bizarre. It kind of...diminished his credibility.

I hope he had that sort of 180 about Idina. Hahaaa.

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:50am

yes, but i would think even after re-seeing the movie, you would keep BOTH your new and old opinions alive, no? i mean isn't it more fascinating to read a negative review, and then hear that on second viewing it got better? deleting seemed strange just cause of that.

and there weren't confidentiality agreements at my screening; usually those are just for movies WAY before release, and even then, i don't think they exist. maybe with something like narnia or something.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:52am

I think he deleted it because he realized it was a moot point. Or maybe he realized he was missing the real point of the film entirely.

But I really dislike speaking for other people (especially when they're not present), though, so.... I would prefer not to keep speaking in this vein.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:53am

"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."

You're entitled to that opinion and have expressed it about a gazillion times, I think. But the issue here is that someone involved with the film is attempting to control the reviews. Not cool.

It would probably be hard for me to enjoy ANY film if its director or one of its actors had been personally attacking me for over a year. If you can't see that, then perhaps you need to be more balanced in your opinions too.

There's really no reason for you to turn this thread to me anyway. Have I said anything here that is illegitimate? No. Here are some other questions to get you thinking: Why is it that I or anyone else needs to have a balanced opinion of THIS film or, for that matter, any film? Would it be okay if I were to bash a film you dislike, so long as my review of the film "Rent" illuminates its positive aspects? Would you be upset if I really loved something you didn't love? Is it unnatural to purely dislike something? Just wondering. I am sure I will like aspects of this film at the very least; by searching this board, you will probably find more than one post in which I say that.

Finally, quite a bit of what's being discussed here does NOT require having seen the whole film. We're talking about an anachronism that's been evident for a long time, not the film as a whole.


Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:53 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:53am

Well, I was with Munk, but it's not my opinion to tell. He just, in simplest terms, saw things very differently. I think he should explain it when he's ready, though.

I didn't hear anything about a confidentiality agreement, either.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:09am

My point is, Evelyn, that you're not restricting the discussion to simple anachronisms. I've read your posts on other threads. You are insisting, REINFORCING THE OPINION, even, that this movie is a piece of crap. Completely unfounded, since you have not seen the material yet. But when you go in...

That is what you will get. You have such a narrow view of it all, and you like hell if you change your mind.

(Keep in mind that I am not looking down upon anyone who disliked the movie after viewing it. That is legitimate.)

Personal attacks? Look, MJohnson didn't claim they were personal attacks or that he was ordered to do anything. You are leaping to the extreme. To put it bluntly, you're intimidated and freaked out that someone of a 'higher power,' so to speak, is addressing you on these issues and you angrily defend yourself without stepping back to see the situation in its entirety. You focus on what COULD be read as 'personal attacks' and twist it to sound worse than it actually is. Perhaps, PERHAPS, he doesn't want such an IMPASSIONED, OBVIOUSLY UNFOUNDEDLY BIASED AGAINST THE MATERIAL response--and instead, wants a reasonable, well-explained opinion. But you can't do that, because again, and I repeat, you have not seen the film.

Hell, I can understand where he's coming from if he wants you to edit your posts. You really have no right to bash something you haven't seen yet.

I'm not sure if you simply like to start conflicts and rejoice in them, or if you truly think that these people are out to get you and throw up your walls at the first sign of dissention. Take a deep breath, calm down, and step back. Try to take a more neutral approach to things instead of jumping to anger and defense.

And for the record, I did not express that 'unbalanced' opinion a gazillion times. In fact, that was pretty much the first time I pointed it out, I believe. You're exaggerating.

ETA - Just to add with a clear mind, though no one's reading this anymore, I really wouldn't be angry if you disagreed with me as long as you had well-founded, educated reasons for it. I don't feel you can do this until you've viewed the film in its entirety.

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 01:09 AM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:13am

I think your whole post above is more appropriate for a PM. But, given who you have in your icon, I suspect that it would be beneath even you to seriously entertain the questions you raise. You don't like the way I've talked about the film - though I didn't say ONCE in this thread that it was a "piece of crap." In fact I'm not sure I spoke of it that harshly elsewhere.

I don't know why I'm even bothering with you. Just know that you don't represent a majority voice on my posts. Or so I've been told.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:15am

You didn't SAY it was a 'piece of crap.' But that is the impression you give with your attitude.

I love how you believe my Anthony Rapp icon is a legitimate refute.

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 01:15 AM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:33am

sorry wrong thread..:)

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 01:33 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:35am

Well, great. So much for belief in keeping issues private.

[twotrey]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:36am

>>>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."<<<

Well, given how mixed and rather polarized the official reviews will be, I think the whole Thelma & Louise anachronism will be brought up in more than a few reviews.

Going way back to "Over the Moon"--I thought it was only OK in the film, and part of the reason was how Idina performed a lot of it in kind of a nasally novelty voice. I like how on the OBCR and when she was in the show how she really *SANG* it, and that whole idea of her being really impassioned and serious about the cause followed, however naive and wrongheaded her actual approach was. While her performance in the film on the whole didn't give the "in on the joke" vibe I've gotten from other live Maureens in the past, there are certain areas, like the voice (the way she says "fuel oil" particularly comes to mind--damn, I'm getting *way* specific here; guess it comes with seeing the flick three times already), where it does come off as a bit knowingly jokey.

Should I be insulted that after I posted comments similar to MJohnson's in his thread that I didn't get a PM...?

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:38am

Did i read this right, that one of the actors in "Rent" sent PM's asking people not to be negitave in there reviews of his film?
========================================
Specifically, we were asked to privilege the positive comments over the negative ones if we had negative comments.

It's wrong - but I can accept that some people here are too invested in the hysteria surrounding Rent to understand why. It's funny to think of it as a private v. public issue because what we're discussing here is someone privately trying to control a public forum. Rules no longer apply.

[Whiteboy Spice]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:39am

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

[Marquise]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:54am

It's quite sad that false accusations had to be made against Anthony Rapp. Truly sad.







Updated On: 11/14/05 at 01:54 AM

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 1:55am

Sigh.

Welcome back from exile, in any case....

[defying_gravity2]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:00am

Thank you for finally clearing this whole thing up. I was getting a little tired of people thinking that you were asking people to change their reviews, or to only post positive ones. That's ridiculous. To me, a good review is one that is insightful and illustrates the high points of the film, as well as the low points, with plenty of evidence to back up both. I think the fact that this turned into such an ordeal is sad. The fact that people would spread rumors like this is rather pathetic. Now that this is all cleared up, welcome back! We missed you!

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:00am

Perhaps you should tell Jose that private messages should remain private..

Anyway, it is always easier to have things read with negative reviews, sadly.

Welcome back from exile and the like.

(The ironic thing is I just got out of exile, too. But that's another thread called, "AHHHHHHHHH".)
Updated On: 11/14/05 at 02:00 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:03am

*cheer!*

And welcome back.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:04am

Oh dear -- this thread is so going to end up in the New York Post...congratulations BroadwayGirl!

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:05am

No, MB, that only happens when composers fight.

When actors fight it ends up on that sleezey "Enquirer"
Updated On: 11/14/05 at 02:05 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:09am

Welcome back and THANK YOU for that post.

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:17am

i just hope people actually read what i posted; i think you'll find what i was arguing was that it made me uncomfortable, not that it was wrong.

still, somehow i find my voice being silenced by an accusation i didn't warrant.

here's a direct quote to refresh everyone's memory: << 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. >>

i also stated previously that i think mr. rapp is talented, and i'm sure a nice guy. he did not try to suppress me in any way. he just asked me to temper my negative review with positive things i thought, which i did. i was just trying to air my uncomfortability in feeling like i was pushed into an audience member/artist conversation that i didn't ask to be in.

Michael

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:23am

Michael, I apologize. I don't think I sucked you in at all... Well, I mentioned you once to say that you HADN'T said you were personally attacked.

Again. I'm sorry.

[Whiteboy Spice]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:23am

I want to publicly apologize for leaving MJohnson -- or anyone else with whom I have pmed -- feeling pushed into a conversation they didn't ask to engage in. I sincerely never intended to intimidate anyone or make them feel uncomfortable with expressing themselves -- I was just on a Sony-imposed moratorium, and was itching to engage in the public conversations about the film but couldn't. It was perhaps unfair of me to not be able to be patient until the moratorium could be lifted.

I will from now on respond publicly in such cases, but -- AGAIN -- please do not let my presence on these boards influence your opinions -- or your expressions thereof -- about the film version of Rent. Perhaps some would disagree with me, but I would suggest that I am as free to participate in these conversations about the merits -- or lack thereof -- of Rent as anyone else.

But once again, I sincerely apologize.

Anthony