Jonathan Larson wouldn't want RENT as it is today... — Page 3

I haven’t seen the show in years so I have no idea about the current state of the production and performances compared to the original Broadway cast. However, there's more dialogue in the movie than in the show. Much of what was sung through in the show is spoken in the movie. The movie was dumbed down so that mindless moviegoers could more easily follow the story. The singing was also more enunciated. That, and close-ups, helped to make the lyrics easier to understand. I know you say that you're not comparing the show to the movie, but if you've only seen the movie (multiple times) and have never seen the show before now, then what are you comparing it to and what the basis for your opinion that Jonathan Larson wouldn't be happy with the show as it’s being presented today?

---

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:49 PM

*edit* this isn't in response to Queen Emcee's post above. That was posted while I was writing this.

And one last thing for you, Miss Emcee.

You always seem to have such angst against Chicago. But the other revival of another legendary K&E show (Cabaret) you were a HUGE supporter of.

But have you not realized those producers of Cabaret used the same cheap tricks of stunt casting also? Cabaret had a long list of stunt casted stars. I would almost bet there were more stunted Sallys in that revival then stunted Roxies on Broadway.

And thank you, but the Weisslers never had to result to John Stamos.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:57 PM

Honey, PLEASE. Your points don't make any sense. I don't have "angst" about Chicago, but the fact is that the show never did anything for me. I disapprove of certain things about the way the production is handled, and I probably seem "angsty" about it because one of its biggest supporters here feels the need to support it by dumbing down another show. I recognize that it is a good, solid and very historic piece of theater, some of the acting was great, and I love the score, but... I just didn't love it. I can't believe you're imply that just because I fell in love with Cabaret, I shouldn't dislike Chicago, or that to like one K&E show means I cannot DARE dislike another. I happen to think Cabaret is a much better show, and that the revival was a better production than is the current production of Cabaret; it moved me a lot. I'm sorry to say Chicago didn't do the same thing for me, because I did want to like it. I realize that Cabaret used a lot of stunt casting, but they didn't do it nearly as often. I don't support blind stunt casting simply for celebrity factor under ANY circumstances, and if I had been an active part of this community during the height of it in Cabaret, I would have spoken out against it back then, too. Chicago has stunt-cast far more roles than just Roxie, obviously.

No, the Weisslers haven't had to resort to John Stamos, but they have done way, way worse. Hello, Melanie Griffith? At least Stamos had some redeeming qualities.

---

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 02:06 PM

Regarding Mel Griffith. She actually did get good reviews. I'm not doubting she stunk. But the reality is, a lot of critics DID like her in the role.

and MB, your last post makes some great points. I just can't convey my feelings that well. Thankfully someone can convey the similar feelings/thoughts I have on the Chicago revival.

I'm sure Mr. Larson would be happily collecting his checks and living in style.

And I'm sure many of you want to believe otherwise.

---

This is my favorite show, but I would have to agree with you. I think the producers need to come in with the director and just clean-up the show. They need to tighten things and refocus everyone's energy. I think the problem is most of the people are with RENT for more than a year or two, so they get bored in the part and there for get unfocused and goof off on stage - which totally looses the entire meaning of the piece. While I think more about the show, some of it does come off a bit whiny though. My brother use to complain that the song "RENT" was all whiny and why wouldn't they just pay the f---ing rent already and stop complaining - which is sort of true.

Capn, how was Christopher J. Hanke's Mark?

I think that sort of think is definitely very important, both in critical consideration and in performance; but when looking at someone who was as bad as she was, I have to wonder... how far is too far, you know? I mean, people went to laugh and see just HOW bad she was. It got butts in seats, but yikes.

---

"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."

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but personally, I don't wish for any show to CLOSE because of the many people involved who would be out of work. BUT...it is the actor's JOB to keep a performance fresh 8 shows a week. It is the reason they are given a PAYCHECK. It is indeed live theatre for which the audience PAYS to attend and it is the responsibility of the actors to give the best performance they can. And it is the responsibility of the director, stage managers and producers to monitor the level of performance. When the show starts to resemble a machine, as they often do in long runs, it is not the fault of the audience. It is the fault of the staff and cast for no longer caring to deliver a quality show if people are continuing to buy tickets. If they themselves treat the show as a machine, then they deserve to be treated that way.

When I get paid for performing 8 shows a week and you purchase a ticket to the show, you can voice your opinion about my performance. Given the price of tickets for a Broadway show, every single audience member has purchased the right to voice their opinions on the performances they have invested to see. And just for the record, I have seen actors having off nights who perform 8 shows a week who do not toss away their lines, rush through the dialogue or deviate from the core of their characters. And it's not like the cast has been performing the show for its entire run. Some of them have been doing it for a while, but that is what they chose to do, so I'm not all that sympathetic to the 8-shows-a-week-is-so-hard defense considering 1) it is exactly what is expected of them and 2) all the other shows with the same performance schedule, most of which I've seen have given far superior performances. Not to mention the previous Rent casts that were able to adhere to the schedule and deliver a better show. If it was an "off-night", then 90% of the cast must have been on the same cycle and few of them remembered what the show was about and/or that a paying audience was attending.

---

Mister Matt, I agree with every word you said. The show as it is and has been for the past several years is rather embarassing. It seems like nobody is doing their job--producers, directors, actors, musicians. Everything is like a machine; I just see no heart or care put into anything that goes up there. I can't speak for Mr. Larson, but if *I* had written the show, I'd be heartbroken at how little care the piece is being given, and how the performers and the fan base has seemed to lose sight of the wonderful piece it COULD be.

I can't stand when I refer back to the magic that was in the show with the original cast, and people use the excuse that the "past can't be re-created." When Will Chase stepped in as Roger for a month at the end of last year, he proved that it's just about understanding the piece and doing your job--not re-creating the past.
That being said, I do not want to see the show close. I want to see the powers that be put some effort into what they do, because there are plenty of people who would in their position.

I've been seeing the show for 8 years, and the Broadway/touring productions are a far cry from what they used to be. Anyone who as access to the "opening night" video should watch and compare. It is a totally different show. If they want to keep this show alive and well for the next few years they need to completely recast it and Mr. Greif needs to do some extensive rehearsals with the cast.

I think a lot of Rent fans mix up the idea of one HAVING money and making money off of art you love with selling out and becoming a rich bastard because you made money...

The irony is that these are the same people who scream about how "little" Broadway actors get paid.

---