Is RENT 100% Larson? — Page 2

"Female To Female" was a pair of songs in Act One where Maureen and Joanne were setting up in the lot and Maureen was freaking out because she left some of the cables she needed at home and was forgetting her lines, etc. and being a general bitch to Joanne. This gets Joanne out of the scene, Mark stumbles by, and he and Maureen sang "Over It" (later Mark would sing this with Joanne, which transitions to the Tango).

The song that was so horrible that TMOLM replaced was called "Love Of My Life" which had such great lines as "You're the Yankees to my Dodgers/You're the Postman with a gun to my Roy Rogers", "I can never get through to your head/And for you I have cried and I've bled/You're a wonk and a snob but in bed/You're the love of my life", and the infamous "Out of bed we just quibble and bicker and fight over nonsense like who wears the dildo tonight." Copies of LoML surfaced a few years ago in the fandom when someone got ahold of the audition tapes that were given to potential cast in the OOBC.

Wait- I thought I had it, but I just got confused again. There was an original workshop in 1994 at NYTW? And then in 1996 there was an off-Broadway run also at NYTW? Then Jonathan Larson died just before dress rehearsals of the 1996 Off-Broadway run? And then the show transfered to Broadway.

Was the cast the same in the very first workshop? Probably not, right?

---

The image I have added is from the poster art promoting the workshop in 1994.

A friend of mine actually saw the Workshop after having Jonathan wait on him at Moondance Diner in NYC where he was working at the time.

The cast at the 1994 NYTW Workshop version of Rent was different than the 1996 NYTW run. The 1996 cast was the OBC.

The 1994 cast was:

Anthony Rapp as Mark
Tony Hoylen as Roger
Daphne Rubin-Vega as Mimi
Pat Briggs as Collins
Mark Setlock as Angel
Shelley Dickinson as Joanne
Saran Knowlton as Maureen
Michael Potts as Benny
Erin Hill as Blockbuster Rep

Ensemble:
Gilles Chiasson, Deidre Boddie-Henderson, Sheila Kay Davis, John Lathan, Jesse Sinclair Lenat

Updated On: 10/9/05 at 10:52 AM

That 'Splatter' song is kinda creepy. "If I slid the bars back/hurled my body through the cracked glass on some crackhead's cardboard bed/Maureen could kick my frozen frame/and shout my name and then drop dead!"

I don't get it.

---

I think Schulman had an excellent case. The similarities she points out are far too specific to be coincidental.

Lawsuits have been won on much less evidence. PJ, Why do you say she was smart not to sue?

---

FindingNamo, I'm with you.

PalJoey, I've read what she wrote and I don't think she's worthy of my respect.

---

PalJoey, I read Stagestruck because I was interested in what her arguments were. I stand by my previous statements.

---

What percentage of the show would you say is Sondheim? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Sondheim help Larson with some rewrites in the music?

---

Sondheim was a mentor to Larson but no, he did not help with re-writes.

I find it pointless.

Larson died the night after the first preview.
There were no productinos between 94 and 96 (both of which are radically different because he changed them greatly).
This was a chick was indeed the dramaturg, but she did not come up with the story (as she claimed).

That's that.

"This was a chick was indeed the dramaturg, but she did not come up with the story (as she claimed)."

The "chick's" name was Lynn Thomson, and she did not claim that; she claimed that she made significant contributions to the version that was eventually staged at NYTW and, of course, later moved to Broadway (which she did; she didn't claim that she did all of the work or even the majority of it, but that she helped contribute changes that overhauled the '94 draft of the show into something producible, something that the judge acknowledged in his court decision).

Sarah Schulman is the one who claims Larson took elements of her novel People in Trouble and used them in Rent.

I haven't read People in Trouble yet (it's on the to-read list; just need to get back to the library that I know has it), but I did read Stagestruck last year. For those unfamiliar, it's essentially a triptych; the first part outlines her case and recounts her struggle to get her story on the matter heard by the media, the second part discusses the role of Rent in comparison to works by Larson's gay and ethnically diverse contemporaries, and the third part talks about the role of homosexuality and AIDS in advertising and the consequences of particular marketing strategies towards certain markets (keep in mind that this was also published ten years ago, so that last section is dated, but it's also interesting cultural criticism).

Schulman's tone in the first part of the book (the one that deals with Rent) is unfortunate -- at times, it's as if she's trying to word it like a gossip column, which was a poor choice on her part. I think that she makes some interesting points, but again, her tone really doesn't help her and makes her occasionally irritating (especially, I imagine, if the reader is already predisposed not to believe her). One of the things that still sticks out to me about the first part is a story she was told by Michael Korie, who was sitting next to Larson at some sort of awards dinner (sorry, can't remember exact details at this point) and talking with him; when Larson told Korie about the show he was working on, Korie said that it sounded like Schulman's novel, and Larson said yes, he had read it, and that he was using it. There are some things like that she identifies that are, at the very least, quite curious. I have a feeling, though, that her arguments register better if you've read her novel. (Whether or not that's true, I'll find out when I read People in Trouble.)

Honestly, I think the book is worth reading for the second part, regardless of how you feel about Schulman; it's fascinating to read comparisons with works that were/are contemporaneous with Rent and discussions of themes within those works, and for me it helped articulate some of the things about Rent that have bothered me (at least, this is what the little mini-review I wrote for myself a year ago after I read the book claims).

Updated On: 1/2/09 at 12:25 AM

"The article talked about how someone at NYTW did bring the book to Larson's attention one day while Larson was doing some work there and the guy talked about how Larson's reaction was a " huh that's interesting" type approach to the novel rather then anything major."

Do you know who the person was? Because in addition to the story Korie related to Schulman, Linda Chapman (who works at NYTW, so it might be her you're thinking of) has gone on record saying that she gave Larson a copy of the novel to read (though Chapman also says that this was some time after the major elements of the musical had been established and drafted, so she doesn't believe it's plagiarized; FWIW, she also has a long-standing professional relationship with Schulman). I think it's safe to say that Larson was definitely aware of the novel (at the very least); we'll just never know exactly when it happened and/or to what extent he was, since it's all hearsay and memory at this point.

(I just think this whole thing is fascinating.)

Updated On: 1/1/09 at 01:30 AM

I love Sarah Schulmann's writing and STAGESTRUCK is one of the most inspiring pieces of writing I have ever read. I think it really did change the way I see things when I read it in a Queer Theory course that I took during my undergrad. Unfortunately, it also made me feel so much disregard for RENT which was a show that I used to enjoy. After reading STAGESTRUCK, I developed an animosity against the show.
I also read PEOPLE IN TROUBLE and I must say that I side with Schulmann in the argument, although TROUBLE is far more political, revolutionary, and interesting than RENT could hope to be.
We'll never really know the true though.

---