New "Remixed" Rent for London

[Glory]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 10:32am

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/110045.html

The fact that it' is going to be completly different kind of worries me. But I want to see what they're up to.

[Actinggbugg474]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 10:39am

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=943504&dt=36

[Tom148502]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 10:40am

Same old story. The guy aparently doesn't have an idea in his head for a new show so he screws around with someone else's material.

[mallardo]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 10:49am

What a terrible idea. Did the Larson estate sanction this?

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 11:01am

and the attacks start.

I personally would be looking foward to a reworking of this show, just out of interest's sake. It will never replace the original, so we don't have to worry about that happening. The OB production is preserved forever in the hearts and minds of millions of people. Art is ever changing, people, it can't become stagnant. let's move on, and try different things.

[ICEcreamAssassin]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 11:23am

hmm sounds like an interesting idea. and I agree with pippin on this one. Art moves forward and changes with the time its in. I would think the larson estate would agree to this. The broadway prod is still on and doing reasonably well, but a "remixed" show could breathe some new life into it thus securing a long run. or it could be a complete disaster who knows.

still very intriguing

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 12:31pm

I like the way they describe their new take on the show as being "contemporary", like the original production is so terribly terribly dated.

If the Brits do to RENT what they did to GLASS MENAGERIE and OKLAHOMA, it should be worth a few laughs if nothing else.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 12:51pm

I think it sounds thrilling. Remixing the show is merely changing the orchestrations--which most revivals do.

I think there are other rock musicals out there that could benefit from remixing/modernizing the sound--Jesus Christ Superstar for sure.

And Rent is 10 years old--the sound of pop music has changed since then. I think it's a great idea.

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 12:51pm

It should be interesting. And I hope we get a chance to at least hear what they are doing with it.

I don't know why, but his statement -

“When Rent was first produced, Jonathan tragically died at the point when it would have been tightened up. We’ve edited it a lot, taken it down to its core, down to core relationships and issues".

- bothers me a bit. As if he knew what Larson had in mind at the time. And how does he know the show was not tightened up by the director after Mr. Larson died? It is fine to update it if he wants but as stated, we will always have the original. My thought also is that theatre "transforms" you. The show is set in the early 90's (correct?) and I think one should be ready to be taken back to that time. Why update it to "pacify" the kids who look at music differently. This is not an old album of songs, it is a multi award winning Broadway show. It depicts a certain time, style of music and lifestyle, etc. When I see a show set in the past, present, future or fantasy world, I let it take me there. I am also worried about what they will cut.

But again, it will be interesting to hear what they will do with it. And this is Mr. Baker's first outing as a Director. I see he is was Kylie Minogue's former creative director so we have an idea what this show may look like. Just my random thoughts.

Updated On: 8/3/07 at 12:51 PM

[Weez]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 12:53pm

As I have mentioned on the thread on the West End board, I won't be casting any final judgement without seeing the show, and I most likely will be going to see the show.

But nothing about that article has cheered me. Not even the fact my first favourite show is getting a revival. I am very very nervous, and hope enormously that my nerves prove to be unfounded.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 12:58pm

As for cuts, I'm not sure I am eager about that part--but let's see how it goes.

I think the stage version is set in the 90s--the film in the 80s.

[Weez]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 1:11pm

The show is set in a generic late-'80s/early-'90s timeframe. The movie did decide on a specific year but that's not striiictly canon. Uh, whenever the "rent riots" were (late '80s, I believe; Google is not too forthcoming this evening), that's a good whenabouts for the stage version.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 1:19pm

it could be really cool, or a disaster! but I'd love to see it!

and hopefully it'll get a recording...for those who (sadly) can't make it to London as they wish...

[Shawk]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 1:24pm

Oliver Thornton as Mark? Hm.

[AngusN]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 3:30pm

Ouch! This is badly cast. Leon Lopez? Siobhan Donaghey? Please! Siobhan is a failed singer, who rather foolishly quit one of the most successful female bands in the UK. She ahs attempted to resurrect her career on numerous occasions and failed miserably. Leon Lopez? Well, an ex-soap star, turned reality flopstar. The future of this show does not look bright.

[Rymes_With_Witch]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 3:51pm

I don't know if they are going to do this or not, but if you change the time period of the show (the whole span of late 80's early 90's) its going to affect the whole show; specifically the issue of AIDS. This was such a huge issue in that time period and setting it NOW would definitely lessen the severity of the situation. Although of course AIDS is still an issue we deal with today, it was not something people necessarily thought they could live long lives with. Medicine was not what it is now. And the stigma of AIDS made you a social pariah; especially if you were gay. The piece is historic in a sense. This is why we don't set Oklahoma! in present day. Ya know?

Additionally, RENT was my favorite show when I was younger, and, after having seen what commercialism and capitalism has done to it...I'd rather see it close than become something unidentifiable as Jonathan Larson's vision.

[Tsao5]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 4:12pm

Yeah, the casting is a bit odd. Thorton as Mark? I saw him as Enjolras when he was in Les Miz and could not......COULD NOT........believe he was cast based on his vocals. Yes, he is easy on the eyes but NOT the ears.

When people re-invent things.........I am still recovering from Jesus Christ Superstar in space....I am NOT kidding....took place on a space station........they tend to NOT click SO well with large audiences (Cabaret was maybe an exception at studio 54 and Sweeney Todd and the usual "What local can we place Godspell in?" regional productions are sometimes interesting). Can anyone think of a time when a show had been drastically changed and found an audience?

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 4:12pm

Hey Roscoe, the Oklahoma! revival was good...

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 4:39pm

"Can anyone think of a time when a show had been drastically changed and found an audience? "

People do it all the time with Shakespeare and the Greek classics and operas. It has to be done in a smart way--not just for a gimmick. There has to be a reason why you change the setting--something that you want to say.

Apparently there was a brilliant production of Evita set in a 3 ring circus. It might sound kooky, but clearly they had a great vision and pulled it off.

Some shows lend themselves to this better than others. I think Rent is in the category that can. But it's not as if they are setting Rent in space or post-apocalyptic America.

Updated On: 8/3/07 at 04:39 PM

[Craww]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 4:51pm

But it's not as if they are setting Rent in space or post-apocalyptic America.

...yeah, but my friend and I have been wanting post-apocalyptic Rent for a while now. That would be awesome.
Basically, it was this foreign DVD cover of the movie that put the concept of post-apocalyptic Rent in my head.

[mrkringas]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 5:18pm

Christ Oli Thornton is more camp than Adam Rickett on stage!

Although he is fit and playing opposite Luke Evans' Rodger makes a very sexy combination.

I'm keeping an open mind on this one. Although I can do without the condescending comments about wondering what the "Brits" will do to it! You don't hear us all ranting about what the "Yanks" did to The Office or countless remakes

[Craww]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 5:53pm

You don't hear us all ranting about what the "Yanks" did to The Office or countless remakes

Hah! That's a joke, right? Yeah you do.

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 5:57pm

Same old story. The guy aparently doesn't have an idea in his head for a new show so he screws around with someone else's material.

And yet there are shows like Cabaret which never use the same exact book and songs from production to production. Like I said on the other thread about this, I just don't get what the big deal is.

[James885]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 6:08pm

It'll be interesting to see Rent done and differently. I'm curious to see how this turns out. Isn't the whole point of mounting a revival to do the same show in a different and innovative way? I don't see why people are upset about it.

Maybe it's just cause Rent has a lot of hardcore fans who have seen the show and the original staging and production design so many times that they have gotten protective over it and don't want to see it changed. But I think it would be interesting to see Rent staged without the minimalist set and different costumes.

Updated On: 8/3/07 at 06:08 PM

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 7:04pm

Did Larson Estate sanction this?

No, those crazy londoners are doing it behind Larson Estate's back.

OF COURSE THEY KNOW!

Finally a fresh approach to this spec of broadway nostalgia.

CRAZY! You guys get all nuts when someone does something THE SAME
and you get nuttier when they do something different.