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

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 9:13am

I'M not a rent fan, but Dakin has a point i saw "A Chorus Line" on Broadway in 1988 after hearing for years what a great show it was, i could not wait.

What i saw that night in August 1988, was the worst show ever, done by a cast who did not want to be there ( have since seen with a great cast )

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 9:13am

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.

[MimiLovesRoger]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 9:51am

aw. that sucks. i'm sorry it was awful.
i'm (hopefully) seeing the tour of rent in november (it will be my first time as well).

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 10:26am

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.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 10:33am

Tim Howar sounds like a Cher impersonator.

But I actually, and I've seen the show 19 times, found the current cast to be exceptional. For someone who's never seen the show live before, you certainly have a great idea of what it should be.

The show has always been full of riffing and vocals. The current Mimi, Mark, Angel, Collins and Joanne are always wonderful. Maureen has seen better days but pulls it off. And the Roger is a near-disaster. But it happens to every show.

Let's stop using Jonathan as an argument. Stop saying what he would and wouldn't want. No one knows.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 10:33 AM

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 10:51am

I strongly agree.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 10:53am

Well, I've seen Rent several times both on Broadway and on tour since the summer of 1996 and the last time I saw the Broadway production in the summer of 2005, I was embarrassed by what I saw. I think the only way people could defend what the show has turned into are those who have never seen it performed well. My boyfiend was so excited to finally see Rent live for the first time and especially the Broadway production. He was so incredibly disappointed and we were both sorry we wasted out money on it. It was clear the show is in desperate need of a clean sweep. It appears it has been lacking in direction for a long time. The story was secondary to the singing style, the characterizations were non-existent. The stunt casting of Mel B was completely unwarranted, both in her performing ability and her "celebrity" status. It was like watching a college drama department amateur hour performing their favorite scenes from Rent (which I have also had to sit through, so I use the analogy seriously). I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume how Jonathan Larson would feel about it, but I do know the show has derailed so far off the tracks it may not be salvageable and I do discourage friends of mine from seeing it on Broadway despite how much I loved the original production. And until the producers decide to actually take pride in their show again, I will continue discouraging people from seeing it.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:00am

Wow.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:05am

"3) Did they ever sing the notes as Larson had written them? I totally get interpreting a song and making it your own - and there have been so many actors in these roles - and I understand them wanting to make them different - but COME ON! They've been re-written! If I had never of heard the music before, I wouldn't have known Larson's brilliance."

keep in mind the music was reorchestrated notably for the film, so if you are comparing the 2 yes the music has been rewritten, but not for the current stage cast.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:08am

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

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:15am

Mister Matt--you are a better judge than I am since you've seen the show several times over so many years, but I also saw the Broadway production in June 2005. Though I'm not lucky enough to be able to compare that cast to the OBC, I can compare it to the casts I saw in July 2006...and it definitely improved from 2005 to 2006. I saw the show twice within a few days this July, and between those performances a number of the cast members were shuffled around. Still, at both performances the ensemble was very "on" and inhabited their roles more fully and with more energy than I had seen in June 2005. Even the notoriously out-of-it Matt Caplan put more into his performance (this was during his final weeks, and I was actually so surprised that I liked his performance that he's the reason I saw it again after only a few days). I'd give the Broadway production another chance--it won't be up to OBC standards, but I doubt any full cast has been since 1996/1997. I do think you'd find it in better shape than you did in June 2005.

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:16am

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.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:17am

Capnhook - I totally agree. I also think he would have **** a brick when he saw people like Drew Lachey and Joey Fatone in it.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:18am

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

[ashley0139]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:35am

I saw the show in March of '05 and, while it wasn't perfect, the energy was tangible. And again when I saw the less-than-perfect tour cast this June. The show is just full of that energy. That said, can't they bring in Michael Greif to tighten up a show that desperately needs it? I really think he could do wonders for it and give it a whole new life. Is that so hard to do?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:41am

"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.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:45am

EverythingIsRENT - Now I wouldn't know if I wanted RENT to close if I hadn't seen the show, right? Or would you like me to form an opinion without seeing it?

I sat in dead center of row N. By the way, a couple in front of me left at intermission. I heard them complaining about Roger on the way out.

And to whoever said I was using Larson in my argument - I'm not. I don't ARGUE that Larson wouldn't like RENT as it stands today, I merely *think* that he wouldn't. From all the documentaries and readings I've seen/read on Larson and the creation of RENT, it seems to me like he would be disappointed with what I saw last night.

Know what it was like, now that I think about it? It was like a bunch of friends performing for friends. Much of the cast knew the Rent Heads when they went in through the stage door inside the lobby. The ushers even knew the Heads. One of the girls ran up to the usher and jumped on him - he caught her, and she kissed his cheek. Nothing wrong with this great community - but it shouldn't affect the actors like it did. Seems like they don't care about the people in the audience who haven't seen the show, since the majority seems to have seen it already.

Other thoughts I forgot to include:

- The set is AMAZING! Kudos to the designer!
- Props and costumes also brilliant!
- I was taken aback to see that the musicians were older in age! Didn't match everything else, but it doesn't matter since they didn't distract.
- It's unfortunate that the projector has some of the cast members who weren't in the show, such as Frenchie Davis. A problem that can't really be fixed, I guess...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:55am

"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.

[broadwayguy4]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:27pm

All of you people wishing for any show to close on Broadway obviously don't know or care about the many people that become unemployed when a decision like that is made. Maybe you saw these actors having an off night. It's live theatre, not a machine and people are human. You try making that dated material seem fresh 8 performances a week and see how YOU fare.

I'm not the biggest fan of Rent but as long as it makes money it should run and give jobs in a market that have few jobs available to begin with.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:36pm

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

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:05pm

Shows change when they move from off-Broadway to Broadway, and Rent is no exception. Also, shows in long runs tend to change as well.

I often compare Rent to Hair. When they first began, both shows had a rebellious and angry quality to them. As time moves on, the show becomes a safe (almost pleasurable) way to view that angry world. The audience no longer joins in the anger but just observes it.

[starvingartist.]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:10pm

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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:15pm

And Chicago is NOT in good shape compared to what it was 10 years ago.
-- That is such an AWFUL argument.

No show is in opening night shape ten years into its run. Chicago is in healthy shape today.

Plain and simple, RENT is becoming period. CHICAGO is timeless.

Chicago is still going strong, and I belive it will outlast RENT. Plus Chicago is doing a hell of a lot more for their 10th Anniversary than RENT. From the show with dozens of stars, to the new box set.
Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:15 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:25pm

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:32pm

So this time your show is exempt from faults that plague Rent because both of its creators lived long enough to stay involved and one of them is still alive to continue to do so? That's insensitive.

I find the constant driving comparison to be a little bit ridiculous already, because other than personal stigma, there is really very little to compare, that the argument at this point holds SO little water; and each show's anniversary celebration speaks volumes for the past ten years. Chicago's will be a celebration of stardom and celebrity. Rent's was a celebration of the original -- it wasn't about glitz and glamor, but about the love poured into that piece. Packing in as many big stars who have done the show as you possibly can to boost your ever-growing celebrity factor doesn't speak those things, to me. And that's fine, if that's not what it's about, but stop pretending the two are really in direct competition for being "better," or whatever. Other than your personal vindication over the fans, what's the point?

I wish people would recognize the difference between "period" and "dated." Chicago is period, and so is Rent. It has period references and things that very distinctly are of another time. Timeless means not dated, if dated is to be taken with negative connotation -- dated means that there's nothing in it for contemporary audiences to relate to, which I think is true of neither. Timeless opposes dated, positives and negatives. Contemporary opposes period, relatively objective terms. You mixed the two, saying that Rent is period and Chicago is timeless. If both speak to generations past when they take place, they are both timeless. To the people who think that Rent IS dated, how can you say that people aren't still connecting with this show? I don't think it's chronological placement, but an age thing, frankly.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:32 PM