Jonathan Larson wouldn't want RENT as it is today... — Page 2

It'd be better off now being licensed to regional theatres and schools.

Be careful what you wish for...

In another 20 years, we'll have to listen to everyone tell us how the revival of RENT can't compare to the "life changing experience" of seeing the original.

Exactly. I've thought about that a lot lately with all the hype surrounding the ACL revival. Say what you want about Rent, but it was clearly the Chorus Line of a generation. And when the original production is dead and buried and a revival pops up years later, everyone--even top critics whose predecessors despised Rent, but who themselves grew up on it--will reminisce about how incredible and powerful the original production was, no matter when during its run they saw it. I don't think that praise is undeserved (It's a flawed show but a great one, and receives far more petty criticism than it should get), but it is interesting to ponder, isn't it...

Anyway, back to CapnHook, I understand where many of your thoughts are coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. I saw the show twice this past summer, and each time I marveled at how much better it was than I remembered (or even than I expected it to be, at this point in the run). Personally, I think the dinosaur has some juice left and it will be a sad day when such a great show finally does close and gives up the Nederlander to what will probably be much less thoughtful fare. Where were you sitting, by the way? That seems to have an effect on peoples' enjoyment of the show.

---

Exactly what I was saying. Thanks everyone.

You know, a revival, or in the case of RENT, shows much later in the run, can not compete with someone's inflated/elaborated memory of a show.

I strongly agree.

Wow.

I saw Tim when he first came into the show and I liked him, (I'm really picky about my Rogers, too) but now pretty much everyone I hear from who has seen it lately haaates him. I wonder what happened.

From a standpoint that is one completely of emotional attachment, I don't know what I'll do when the show finally closes. Not because I'll be one of those insane fangirls like, collapsed on 41st street in hysterics, but because no matter when, it'll be too soon to say goodbye and a very, very great loss. But at the same time, I've been saying for years that the producers need to go in and do a clean-up like what was done with Les Miz. That show is dying, and it is not by fault of the material. I've been wanting to go back for months, but I can't, because I know I'll be disappointed. Nothing will ever touch what I saw the last time I was in the Nederlander, but it should at least try to, and I know it won't.

---

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 11:08 AM

I hate threads like these....if you think a show should close, don't go see it and let fans of the show continue to enjoy it as long as we can. I haven't see nthe show in a good six months, but it's never in as bad a shape as people make it out to be in reviews.

---

wow, i didnt know the show was in such bad shape
having only seen it live on stage 1 time this past March, i guess i never really saw how its declined over the years
i personally thought Tim was a good Roger- he yelled a lot, but i still really liked his interpretation

i know the film and the stage show are much different, but i really preferred the cast i saw in the show better than the OBC members in the movie. i just thought they were more into their roles, and captured more of a "spirit", as you might say

yeah
id also be sad if it closed...not bawling sad, but...sad, none the less

"if you think a show should close, don't go see it and let fans of the show continue to enjoy it as long as we can."

Well, I am a fan of the show, which is why I hated it so much the last time I saw it. If only the cast, director and producers were fans of the show, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad. And I, for one, am not going to see it. But I'm certainly not preventing anyone from seeing anything they wish to see. I make my remarks and state my opinions, but I can't stop anyone from buying a ticket.

"but it's never in as bad a shape as people make it out to be in reviews. "

Unless you have seen every performance since it opened, and can view each and every performance completely objectively, you are in NO position to make such a statement. It certainly was in bad shape when I saw it, and I had many performances over a 9-year period from which to compare. But like I said, maybe you've just never seen a good production of it. It's really sad to think that so many people may have never seen the show performed well. Or even with the same feeling and intent. When I saw the last time, characters' attitudes and personalities had been changed. It didn't even tell the same story. Same lyrics and notes, yes, but not the same characters any more. Over the Moon was played strictly for laughs and Maureen was just a dingbat, Angel appeared as if he really didn't give a crap about anything other than getting it over with and hitting the bar, Mimi was a gangsta thug who mysteriously lapsed into a British accent every other sentence, Roger was wimpy, whiny and completely forgettable, Mark was a bitchy a@@hole for almost the entire time he was on stage, Benny was...was...apparently forgettable. Only Tom and Joanne were worth watching. Sorry if you can't believe the show could ever be bad, but it can and it was. And this is coming from a fan of the show before there was even a cast recording available (I saw it three times the summer of 1996 just to try and remember the music).

SDav - I would like to believe you, but I've heard so few positive remarks about the show in the last several years to believe that it could be anything close to what it once was. And yes, even after 1997, there were some decent casts and the touring casts were good as well for a few years.

---

"It was like a bunch of friends performing for friends."

That's exactly how I felt about it as well. That's what I meant by my "college drama department amateur hour" analogy. Friends performing for friends and so everyone act like it's all just so awesome, even if it's not.

---

Whlie I do disagree with wishing a show would close simply because you do not like it, I place a lot of blame for what is going wrong at the Nederlander on the cast; they are lazy. I also blame a lot of it on the creative team, because this material deserves better attention and more care. Any show does, really. Don't pass it off on the material; it is not the material's fault by any measure. Call it period, but it is not dated. It's still making money, so people must still be loving it, therefore, they can still relate to it. That's not dated, to me.

It should not be allowed to continue as it is JUST because it makes money, nor should it close because it's a mess. It needs to be kept up better.

---

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 12:36 PM

I saw the show the for third time this summer on Broadway, and I felt like I was seeing it for the first time. I've never seen acting like this before, and the chemistry between the characters was unlike anything I have ever seen before. I'm an actor and have seen a lot of acting, and this specific performance just really moved me.

Jonathan Larson should be proud of his masterpiece.

Or Kander and Ebb wouldn't want Chicago as it is?

- Oh and Skittles darling. K&E were very invovled with the revival years after it opened. After a few years, Some who played Roxie and Velma would perform a split harmony in MY OWN BEST FRIEND. Once K&E revisited the show one night, they immediately had the harmony removed from the show because it wasn't what they had written.

And I'd imagine Kander is still very proud of the revival, and I'm sure he'll be invovled with the 10th anniversary.

Plus Walter Bobbie and Ann Reinking still come back to help direct and choreograph. The show is not a sloppy mess. You make me laugh with your bashing. But when was the last time you've seen the show? How do you know how tired it is?

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:25 PM