Current Rent Tour- Page 2

[dmwnc1959]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 7:16am

BenjaminNicholas2 said: "Last time I saw it, it was a joke of a tour. Very, very non-eq feeling."

Would you say that was, in the past 90 days? Year? How often, if at all, do they do cast changes? 

 

GoblinKing2 said: “I told her to go in with low expectations because it was non equity.l

bwaylvsong said: “That's silly- in this day and age, the only difference between young Equity and non-Equity performers is that the non-Eqs haven't lucked into getting union membership yet. The only difference would be when age comes into play, as it's harder to find older actors who are not yet in the union. But for anyone who would be in "Rent," it's all about luck/connections."

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve always wondered if people go into a non-equity performance with the pre-determined mindset to not like the show, have exceedingly lower expectations, or that of “prove to me that you’re worth my time”, and STILL come out of the performance no matter how good it was not liking the show just because it was non-equity?

My first show ever was a play by Pittsburgh Stages at the University of Pittsburgh called “The Dog in the Manger”, and I loved it. I didn’t know then what Equity, non-Equity, and just student actors were. It was the reason that I turned to Broadway National Tours for more of this new art form I had been exposed to. It was the reason for my new addiction to Broadway shows. 

I hope to go into RENT with a more open mind than those who proclaim non-Equity as a lesser ability. I’m sure there are some Equity actors out there who can’t act their way out of a wet paper bag in some of your opinions?

 

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 07:16 AM

[sbflyfan]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 12:31pm

^ Exactly. It's almost as if people assume non-equity means non-talented.

I've seen some really excellent non-equity tours. 

After seeing the equity version, I went out of my way to see the non-equity "Peter and the Starcatcher" tour, and was absolutely charmed by the performances.  In a few other threads, I've seen people bash the "Ghost" tour as particularly bad for some reason, but I thought it was quite a technically impressive production, considering it was playing a few nights here and there in cities.

I saw a bus-and-truck "Seven Brides For Seven Brothers" tour a few years ago, and while the physical production was a bit lacking, the performers themselves were excellent. I actually felt bad that there wasn't a program or even a photocopied handout listing their names. They basically performed anonymously that night.

I follow the theatre world closely, and I know which tours are equity and which aren't, and what that means.  Perhaps I'm just easily pleased, but 9 out of 10 times I leave every show I see feeling glad I attended. I'm not cut out to be a critic.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 12:50pm

^ Me either. I’ve come to accept that I’m more fanboy than critic. The theater world is big enough for (and needs) both.

[GoblinKing2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 1:26pm

dmwnc1959 said: "BenjaminNicholas2 said: "Last time I saw it, it was a joke of a tour. Very, very non-eq feeling."

GoblinKing2 said: “I told her to go in with low expectations because it was non equity.

bwaylvsong said:“That's silly- in this day and age, the only difference between young Equity and non-Equity performers is that the non-Eqs haven't lucked into getting union membership yet. The only difference would be when age comes into play, as it's harder to find older actors who are not yet in the union. But for anyone who would be in "Rent," it's all about luck/connections."

As I mentioned earlier, I’vealways wondered if people go into anon-equity performance with the pre-determined mindset to not like the show, have exceedingly lower expectations, or that of “prove to me that you’re worth my time”, and STILL come out of the performance no matter how good it wasnot liking the show just because it was non-equity?

I hope to go into RENT with a more open mind than those who proclaim non-Equity as a lesser ability. I’m sure there are some Equity actors out there who can’t act their way out of a wet paper bag in some of your opinions?
"

OK - little perspective here.  I didn't mean to imply that non equity automatically = lesser talented or that union = always better.  I know better than that (although admittedly it did read exactly like that).  And without veering off into a discussion of labor relations in America and abuses by both sides - I grew up in a blue collar union household (not entertainment related), and my perspective has always been that non union = employer trying to screw BOTH union and non-union people by not wanting to pay living wages and taking advantage of people who desperately want to work.  So, I've always had a slanted, perhaps simplistic, perspective.

I just should have simply said my daughter is someone whose opinion I trust when it comes to musicals and she liked the current touring version of Rent, so I'll accept her judgment that it was good.

 

 

 

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 01:26 PM

[dmrockon092]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 7:45pm

I saw the show in Cleveland last night. I had understudies for Roger and Mimi. Roger was played by Trevor Bunce and he was incredible. I loved Jasmine Easler as Joanne, too.

For lovers of Rent, this was a shot of nostalgia and adrenaline. It's identical to the original production, with maybe some new choreo at times. There is nothing like seeing this show live, and seeing how it still is so powerful and beautiful. CLE is having the lottery too which is nice.

[dmwnc1959]

Posted: 4/1/18 at 9:19pm

Watched the Sunday, April 1st 1pm matinee performance of the “RENT 20th Anniversary Tour” in Pittsburgh and quite enjoyed it. Having never seen in person any Broadway version, watched on YouTube the 2008 Live Performance three times, listened to the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack countless times over the past couple of weeks, and knowing this was non-Equity, I went into this with an open mind.

I particularly enjoyed Logan Farine as Roger. He had the most energy of anyone on the stage, and sang the best vocals consistently IMHO. 

Speaking of vocals, well sung were: “I’ll Cover You”, “Tango Maureen” (with great enthusiasm), “Seasons of Love”, and the vocals and interactions between Mark (Sammy Ferber) and Roger in “Rent”. And I enjoyed the “La Vie Bohème” scene quite a bit with all the cast. I was slightly disappointed in Angel’s (Aaron Alcaraz) version of “Today 4 U”, it was not as over the top energetic as the 2008 version I had watched on YouTube, but it was a huge crowd pleaser none the less.

A lot of the songs were all done quite well, but what I didn’t care for was the “house band” that I assume travels with them. LOUD. They (it looked like there were three of them) were stationed under and around the elevated platform where the cast sings “Life Support”, the keyboardist taking up a position nearly on stage in open view. Several times he got so into the music his thrusting head and hair became a distraction. And I assume a band is suppose to compliment the vocals in this musical, not drown them out. At times the cast were competing for my attention (and lost), and had I not already known the lyrics, I’d never had known what they were singing. 

The entire performance wasn’t perfect. There seemed to be missed interactions at times, “connections”, in songs between Mimi (Paola Hernandez) and Roger, and Joanne (Jasmine Easler) and Maureen (Lyndie Moe). I never got that between Angel and Tom Collins (Josh Walker). They seemed to honestly connect to each other and it was enjoyable to watch.

I had a front row balcony seat about 3/4 of the way to the right with a clear view of the entire set. At the end of the show cheers and a rousing standing ovation greeted the cast twice at initial bow and second "curtain call". 

Overall a very enjoyable show.





 





 



 

Updated On: 4/1/18 at 09:19 PM