Casting for RENT — Page 3

"If you're going to compare that performance to a regular one, then you should also be comparing it to a regular one of the OBC..."

I did not see Monday night's performance. The revelation everyone is comign to as a result of Monday night is one I came to years ago with having NOTHING to compare the show to. In fact, it was until I saw a crappy, deteriorating "visual representation" of the OBC that I realized what kind of life this show DOES have when given the treatment in DESERVES. The only reason I saw the show for a second time was because Will Chase, who I knew from experience WAS a passionate, talented actor who'd bring life to the show was cast.

"but you can't compare what those original 15 had, the history with the show, the bonding, the excitement of taking a show which started as a small job with slim possibilities and seeing it move to the huge hit that it was on Broadway, with the experience that ANY cast has had since then"

No, you can't. But good actors and tight direction and musical direction CAN bring it DAMN close.

"They're not doing it because of the history of Rent, they're doing it to earn a living doing what they love to do."
Many actors would argue with that statement and say that the passion for your work should be your number one concern, not so much your paycheck. Acting is storytelling and entertainment, and if the actors are not investing enough into what has been called a "life-changing" piece to make it "life-changing" frankly, as an actor myself, I don't think they're doing their jobs.

"I've suggested this to people before but I think that if you folks are seriously unhappy with the show as it is currently being performed, there's an easy solution. Stay home! Sometimes people see the show TOO often and it loses something when that is the case. Probably 95% or more of the audience on any given night are seeing it for the first time, and the last, and I'd be willing to bet that most of those people enjoy the show. "

That's the problem. "Stay home!" is a rather sad solution. "Stay home" should not be the solution. The solution should be to give the piece the treatment it deserves. And like I mentioned, I've seen the show twice, the first time being almost three years ago exactly, and I hated it. There was ONE good person in that cast (Caren Lyn Manuel). Imagine watching a story in which the storytellers themselves do not want to, do not care to, can not understand how to tell YOU the story. How is one to enjoy that? And no, I didn't walk out thinking they were slackers, rather, it gave off the impression that the show itself was just lacking in all sorts of ways. Now, do I think every teenager who walks out of the show is going to react the way I did? No. But I'll bet ANYTHING the effect on them will not be as deep or profound as it can be and has been for many others UNLESS something is done.

Instead of figuring that the people going in may not have standards, why not aim to go beyond their standards and blow them away? Would Larson have wanted any less? And why would any actor want any less? Why would any fan of the show SETTLE for less?

Updated On: 4/28/06 at 03:43 PM

I think the trouble was that *unless* it was played as more directly comic than the original intent was for it to be, audience weren't "getting" it and weren't laughing -- they didn't think Maureen was funny unless she was playing for laughs, which, to me, is the fault of the actress. You're supposed to laugh at her because she takes herself so seriously.

That bugs me, too.

---

This bugs me in a lot of scenes. I don't think any of it should be played for laughs, it should come naturally without the actors forcing it. Over The Moon should be funny because Maureen takes herself so seriously, but in truth is really horrible. The bag lady part shouldn't be funny, and that whole spitting thing or whatever that Frenchie does is just obnoxious. Matt bugged me in Tango Maureen because he was trying to hard to get the audience to laugh, and it's not necessary. And also, my personal opinion is that when Maureen is talking about Angel being "So much more original then any of us" at his funeral should never be funny, yet it is always laughed at.

Updated On: 4/28/06 at 04:27 PM

Well, like I said, it's just my personal opinion. I can see why you find it funny, but, it was always just sad to me.

Broadwaygirl, I'm glad you enjoyed Will. I did, too. I also enjoyed him when he was originally with the show, and in his other shows, all of which I've seen. I respect your opinion, as I do everyone's, but I have to say that of all the performances of the show that I've seen, I can think of probably less than five which I didn't actually enjoy. Maybe I've been lucky, but I think it's more than that. I, too, am an actor, just finishing my junior year at Tisch, so I'm often looking at a show from a different perspective than others may be. I try not to let this influence my viewing of a show too much, though. I think it's a mistake to go into a show, any show, and analyze every small detail.

I tend to do this more often with shows I see once or twice than I do with shows I see more often, funnily enough. As I said in one of my previous posts, I'm not disputing the possibility that there could be some better cast choices out there right now. I think many of us who have loved the show for ten years have favorites who we would love to return, or other actors in the Broadway community who we would love to see onstage at the Neder.

For longrunning shows like this, it's not all that common to inject the cast with a majority of brand new talent. When it's been done at Rent, it has met with mixed results, and I think that this is often the reason why there is so much 'recycling' in the show. That, and the fact that there are literally hundreds of former castmembers floating around. With a talent pool like that, one which doesn't require a huge amount of rehearsal time, people whose work ethic and performance standards you know, it's not unusual or unreasonable that they're brought back.

I think that there's the possibility that a new Mark will bring about a big change in the show for those who are tired of Matt. The role is pivotal in terms of the effect it has on the rest of the cast and also on the audience's perception of the show. I'm anxious to hear what they finally decide, and hopeful that they'll make the decision which I hope they will!

I didn't mean to imply that passion didn't exist in current castmembers. It certainly does, and the people I know in the cast feel blessed with the opportunity to play their roles. They ARE earning a living, however, and that was my point. They're thankful to be in the show but they're not in the show because of the history, or story, or their love for it, they're in it because it pays them well, in doing what they love to do. That doesn't mean that they aren't passionate about their craft.

My comment that some fans should "stay home" was directed at those who don't want to risk ruining their fond memories of Monday night with a lesser performance by the current cast. Too often fans of the show go to see it FAR too often. I know many who are posting reviews on a weekly basis, and sometimes more than that! When you see any show that often, it's going to lose its magic, regardless of the performances onstage. Too much of ANYthing isn't good. I also never suggested that the majority of people in the seats at the Neder had lesser expectations, simply that they are seeing it in a fresh and new light and don't view the show with the critical eye that frequent fans do.

I don't think it's ALWAYS true that seeing shows over and over gets tiring, and you tend to think the cast is getting worse. It may be for most people, but there are a few who that is simply not the case. The one show I've seen "over and over" seems to be getting better with each viewing.

---

I think rent needs a fresh new cast and bring some new life to the show.

I didn't even cry the last time I saw rent..that makes me sad.

---