Jon Larson Death

[fromthecity]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 8:49pm

Odd question, but was anybody here aware of RENT (or alive) when Jonathan Larson died. I'm just curious whether, in the Bway / NY community, if it was a big deal yet even though it was still just in workshops and not yet a main piece of known theater, or if it wasn't too big of news until the show transfered.

[ILuv2shop531]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 8:52pm

I was 5 when it happened (seventeen now) so I wouldn't exactly know obviously but I would think it was bigger news to the theater community at first. Now a days though if you mention RENT people know about it right off the bat though.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 8:57pm

He died the day before it opened Off B'way. I would have doubted too many folks knew who he was. Just the hard core theater goers like us.

Like so many artists, not truly appreciated until they are gone.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 8:57pm

It wasn't in workshops anymore. It was about to open off-Broadway. That's the same as a workshop.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 9:30pm

I wouldn't say that it was a huge deal in the theater communinty because he was not well known. It was reported in the news for two reasons: 1) he died just as the show was opening and possibly giving him a huge introduction into NY theater and 2) the hospital mis-diagnosed him and sent him home when he was desperately sick.

It became a bigger deal when the show announced it was moving to Broadway and when a woman filed a lawsuit saying she helped him write the show.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 9:58pm

That woman was Lynn Thomson, hired by the New York Theater Workshop to work on the book with Larson as a dramaturg. She helped him overhaul the show before his death. She wanted to be given a percentage of Rent's royalties as a co-author, but for various reasons, including Larson's billing and other evidence of his intent to be the sole author, she lost.

Interestingly, I don't think the court ever reached the question of whether she'd made an independently copyrightable contribution to the show, which would have been a massive deal for the relationships of playwrights and dramaturgs everywhere.

Posted: 12/15/08 at 9:29am

I agree. That show wasn't a big deal at all until it announced a transfer to Broadway and the story came out about Larsen's death. I don't think the show would have been nearly the hit it was if he hadn't died. Quite frankly, it's just not that good. It deserved a much better film adaptation than it got. BUT, there was lots of buzz about it when it opened on Broadway and everyone acted like it was the second coming and was going to change the musical theater world. It wasn't and it didn't.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 11:23am

With all due respect, his name was Jonathan Larson -- NOT Jon Larson.

I remember the entire hoopla that surrounded RENT from the beginning and it all started when a long praising article appeared in a Sunday issue of The New York Times. This was immediately after the show's Off-Broadway debut and not only did the article explain Jonathan Larson's history and recent death but it created an electrifying buzz about this new show that you had to have been around to fully understand how incredible it was around that time. This buzz brought attention to this little show, which no one could get tickets for. Shortly after the show ended its run, it was announced it was transferring to Broadway. I remember all of this was a huge big deal so no... the show didn't gain attention AFTER it arrived on Broadway.

For those who were also around, we remember it was during its Off-Broadway run AND all due to that article in the Sunday New York Times that brought huge attention to the show. By the time RENT arrived on Broadway, it was a highly anticipated show and the media covered its arrival extensively BEFORE it even opened. Just check the dates on all those cover stories and articles in countless magazines from that time frame.

THIS buzz the show had Off-Broadway is what prompted producers to invest in it AND bring it to Broadway. It wasn't just a simple 'Off-Broadway to Broadway' transfer of some rock musical. I compare this scenario to what A CHORUS LINE experienced back in 1975 when it debuted Off-Broadway at the Public Theatre's Newman Theatre. That buzz brought in investors and then transferred the show to Broadway.

Much talk also surrounded the cast recording BEFORE it was released. Was it going to be a 2-disc recording capturing the show as performed or was it going to be truncated to a single-disc? To this day, no other cast recording has ever matched the anticipation of waiting for the release date to arrive for the Original Broadway Cast Recording of RENT. I remember leaving work at lunch break and running to the Borders by my job to get the recording on its release date. By 1pm they were almost sold-out of it.


THEATER
'Rent' Is Due On Broadway
By CARLA KOEHL AND LUCY HOWARD | NEWSWEEK
From the Newsweek magazine issue dated Mar 18, 1996

AN OFF-BROADWAY ROCK musical about HIV-positive artists, transvestites and outcasts? Not a show you'd expect people without nose rings to line up for. But "Rent" has become such a hot ticket that even the glitterati can't get into the show's 150-seat theater in New York. Miranda Richardson, Veronica Webb, Patti LuPone, Tommy Tune and Woody Allen can't get tickets. Mikhail Baryshnikov, Harrison Ford, William Morris guru Arnold Rifkin, Miramax's Harvey Weinstein and producer Peter Guber had to stew on the waiting list before getting in. At least the "Rent" line will be shorter next month: it's slated to move to a 1,200-seat Broadway house in April, just in time for the Tony deadline.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 12:12pm

Rent's popularity was due to media blitz. Before the show opened, they were papering the house. You could get a ticket for $3. It was freezing that winter and nobody wanted to traipse to the East Village in January (a normally slow time for theater in New York).

There is no way that Rent can be compared to A Chorus Line. ACL really was a masterpiece. Rent was a mediocre show that built a fangurl following.

[galadriel_freak]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 1:14pm

I didn't follow NY theater much growing up and I don't remember quite how or why I got the recording for christmas in 96 (I think it was a buzz at my dance studio). I fell in love with the show just with the recording (it took me a few years to finally be able to see it on tour). I didn't know 'the history of RENT', or the buzz it had in NY or Jonathan Larson. So while I will admit, the timing and tragedy of his death have followed the show, I will not agree with the fact that it was a major reason of the show's success.

From experiences of seeing the show and also at the movie theater to watch the cinecast. I will tell you that there are plenty of people who still don't know about Jonathan or else they think it's some crazy story of him 'dying from AIDS' as one girl behind me said with confidence.

I will also admit it is a show that is either 'love it' or 'hate it'. I have no problem if people don't like it, or even hate it. But please don't assume that all the fans are screaming dumb fangirls. They do exist and they make the rest of us at times ashamed to be fans. But please don't ever think to lump us all together.

[Paul W. Thompson]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 12:23am

Here is the New York Times obituary for him, from January 26, 1996:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E7D71F39F935A15752C0A960958260


And here is that big Sunday article, from February 11, 1996:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E2DB1539F932A25751C0A960958260

I hope these links work!

[Winston3]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 1:22am

I would strongly disagree that Rent is a fangirl type show. Yes, in its later years it did get a fan girl following. But, keep in mind that most of the fangirls that it did get were ones who couldn't even tell you the name of the person who wrote the show in the first place. There were people who were so touched by the show that they were willing to camp out for lengthy periods of time on 41st street just to be able to see the show.

I do not agree that the show only made the move to Broadway or that it sold out at the New York Theatre Workshop just because of his death. As it was stated earlier in this thread there were articles about the show that were written before he died.

[Winston3]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 1:22am

I would strongly disagree that Rent is a fangirl type show. Yes, in its later years it did get a fan girl following. But, keep in mind that most of the fangirls that it did get were ones who couldn't even tell you the name of the person who wrote the show in the first place. There were people who were so touched by the show that they were willing to camp out for lengthy periods of time on 41st street just to be able to see the show.

I do not agree that the show only made the move to Broadway or that it sold out at the New York Theatre Workshop just because of his death. As it was stated earlier in this thread there were articles about the show that were written before he died.

[iamchanging9]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 2:38am

I would have to strongly disagree that the reason Rent was such a success was because the hype surrounding Larson's death. It was a piece of theatre that will always be regarded as a show that defined a generation.
And to those who call it a "fangirl" show: can you name some other "fangirl" shows that have won a Pulitzer prize?
Sure it did become extremely popular over time, but why wouldn't a show that was so different and so poignant become popular? It didn't run for 12 years because it was a "fluffy" musical.
Rent changed broadway forever. Without Rent there wouldn't be Spring Awakening, Passing Strange, Bare, In the Heights, Rock of Ages, etc.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 2:50am

Rent changed broadway forever. Without Rent there wouldn't be Spring Awakening, Passing Strange, Bare, In the Heights, Rock of Ages, etc.


- And um without HAIR, there wouldn't have been a RENT.

[iamchanging9]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 2:55am

and without bye bye birdie there wouldn't be a hair.

who cares? i was just making a point that without rent many recent musicals wouldn't exist.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 9:58am

Let me explain my definition of a fangurl musical. To me it's one where they start doing stunt casting (i.e. Joey Fatone). The show stops being about the subject matter and starts being about the star in it.

It would be as if Ann-Margaret played Cassie in A Chorus Line circa 1979. The show would no longer be about dancers at an audition but about seeing Ann-Margaret.

Rent turned into a musical about how many times a person could win the lottery and see their 35th performance of it.

Updated On: 12/17/08 at 09:58 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 10:03am

Yes, in its later years it did get a fan girl following.

No, it had a fangirl following from the start.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:41am

Gothampc -- if you're going to use her as a reference point, at least get her name right. Her name is ANN-MARGRET not Ann-Margaret. A real fan would know this.

By the way... its BARBRA Streisand and not Barbara Streisand.

[Winston3]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:46am

Gothampc, You make it sound like Rent was a fangirl musical from the get go. It wasn't. I feel like Rent can and should be compared to other shows like A Chorus Line because it did help shape the current state of Broadway. You make it sound like it is just some fluffy work that really didn't do much for theatre when in fact your incorrect.

This reminds me of a thread that Too Darn Hot created awhile back where he said that just because he personally didn't find Rent to be groundbreaking in anyway it deserves to be bashed to shreads.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 12:12pm

"I feel like Rent can and should be compared to other shows like A Chorus Line because it did help shape the current state of Broadway."

I saw Rent twice with the original cast. I'm not saying it wasn't worthy of honor, I'm saying it really wasn't as ground breaking as many try to make it out to be. It doesn't add much to the musical canon. You have to understand that in A Chorus Line when Paul steps forward and talks about being molested, that was huge. It wasn't done in Broadway musicals. It was a bold choice.

[Winston3]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 12:26pm

I strongly disagree. If Rent wasn't groundbreaking or didn't bring something new to the table then it wouldn't have won the Pulitzer. I feel that Rent did bring something new to to the table by offering a well written show that was reflecting what was going on at the time. It also reached out to younger audiences that Broadway almost competely forgot about and offering them a way to see the show for cheap.

[antonijan]

Posted: 1/6/09 at 2:44pm

I'd choose Rent over ACL any time of day...

[Manny2]

Posted: 1/6/09 at 11:06pm

This seems like the perfect place to ask this: does anyone have any links or pics or any remnant at all from the RENT boutique at Bloomingdales? I've always heard about it, but never physically seen it, and I'd just like to see how exactly it is that Bloomingdales portrays RENT.

My two cents on the discussion at hand: it was something refreshing at a time when broadway consisted of tired West-End shows and horrible musicals, like "big." It was famous because it got buzz. It got buzz because celebrities went to watch it at least once a week at one point. The fact that it was new and "sexy" also adds on. I think it's a good show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess.