New Rent "For Your Consideration" Poster- Page 2

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:23pm

Guys, that's only one of several existing posters. The rest of the cast is surely featured on one or another. There used to be a bunch for sale on eBay. If there still are, you can view them there. A few weeks ago, there were quite a few that had Adam, Anthony and Taye on them.

My mother said something interesting about Adam's acting. She has a friend who is a big, big Johnny Depp fan, and because of it is very picky about her actors. But because of this, she's got a good eye for good acting. She and my mom were discussing Rent, and my mom said that to her, Anthony WAS Mark. He was that good, in her opinion. So my mom's friend asked if she didn't feel that way about Adam -- about his immersion in his character. My mom's response was that she wanted to shake him and tell him to get off his ass and go get a job. Her friends response: "then he did a good job, didn't he?" Granted that I don't think you're necessarily supposed to want to slap Roger upside the head and tell him to stop whining -- as opposed to feeling bad for how broken he is -- but it's an interesting anecdote, I think.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 06:23 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:29pm

That, to me, means he did not get enough sympathy from her. Which is not a good thing.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:38pm

Does anyone know if Rosario Dawson is being pushed for the Best Supporting Actress category as well? She'd have a lot more chances to be nominated in that category.

[Dramatic_Irony]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:45pm

I think that Anthony, Jesse, Rosario, Wilson, and Tracie all did absolutely top-notch jobs. Idina and Taye were good as well, although they didn't really stand out for me (not really Taye's fault), and I wasn't at all impressed with Adam, acting-wise. He was good, but I think he was the weakest link.

Anthony and Jesse are definitely award-winning in my book- Jesse being absolutely heartbreakingly *real* and Anthony with such a tremendous stage presence. I really wish those two would get nods.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:45pm

Very few things get sympathy from my mother. She's too cynical to tap into anything that calls for sympathy. She felt that "get off your ass and get a job" for *all* of the characters. But, I guess the basic meaning of it was that he made her feel *something*.

And BroadwayGirl107, I think I've said this to you a number of times, but this always comes down to the fact that we see what we want to see. You don't much like Adam's acting, so you read that statement negatively. I think more highly of his acting, and I read it positively. We see what we want to see.

ETA -- so far as any awards, I believe that Adam, Anthony and Rosario were/are to be considered the leads.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 06:45 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:55pm

"For your consideration"
Who do they think they're kidding?

[matjomae]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:59pm

Can anyone explain to me exactly why they didn't enjoy Adam's performance? I for one throughly enjoyed his acting; I felt that Adam poured a lot of emotion into the character and it showed on screen. I haven't read many reviews of the movie, but the ones I have read haven't picked on a certain individual, so what are critics saying about his performance?

I thought Anthony, Jesse and Wilson, as well as Adam, all did a spectular job. I also enjoyed Taye, Tracie, Idina but I wasn't horribly drawn to them when they were onscreen.

My one peeve was Rosario. I wasn't impressed with her vocal ability. The movie was a musicial, and thus any award she would receive would be rewarding her singing ability as well as her acting ability, and I just don't think it was earned. I give her credit as an actress for taking on the role, but in my opinion her performance seemed to be lacking something, and thus I got a bit bored with her.

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 6:59pm

I think having an ensemble cast category is an amazing idea.

I wish they had it for LOTR.

Its also funny that this turned into a thread about individual acting in the movie.. we're talking about an ensemble. Now, if youre going to make a "For Your Concideration" poster representing your ensemble, you need the WHOLE ensemble...showcasing 4 of the 8 is a bunch of crap.

I also think it's unfair to say that Taye was the weakest link as far as acting. Benny's character is so underdeveloped in the movie that in my opinion placing the blame on Taye is being a bit harsh. He worked with what he had.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 06:59 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 7:08pm

I think a lot of people feel like they're "supposed" to make negative comments about Adam. In some cases, it's like if you think he's a good actor, you're an idiot without functional eyeballs, or something. I just get the vibe sometimes that it's almost some sort of "it" thing to bash the guy, because you don't want to be looked at as a blithering idiot with poor taste and poor judgement, but also because it's what the cool kids are doing.

I'm not referring to anyone here in particular, but I've noticed it. Just around. And I think that's true for a lot of the bigger names in the Broadway community. You've gotta be on the other side, and hate them, in order not to be a sheep, or something.

Matjomae, some of the reviews said things like that he was stiff, or boring... that he lacked charisma, or expression of emotion. The usual.

Anyway, Taye has the least to work with, for what it's worth. His role, to me, is subordinate to the others.

I think ensemble is something they have a shot at. It's a *true* ensemble piece.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 07:08 PM

[boxers7]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 7:19pm

So what award is this for? SAG Awards are the only ones I can think of with a best ensemble category and those nominations have already been announced.

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 7:20pm

I agree. Bennys character in the musical is a bit underdeveloped as well, and I agree that Rent is truly an ensemble cast.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 7:27pm

"Can anyone explain to me exactly why they didn't enjoy Adam's performance?"

Oh, quite easily. I thought he was not the least bit guilty, I felt he didn't use the anger of the character as a way to hide his own feelings. I never, not even for a moment, felt like he has just been through rehab, that his girlfriend had died from AIDS, that HE had AIDS, and that ANY of this was bothering him.

I think Roger needs to be extremely guilty, and he needs to have a lot of fire and anger, but we also need to know that it's coming from a place of pain. From a fear of connecting with another person with AIDS because he might suffer the pain of losing ANOTHER person to the disease. From a fear of being sucked back into the world of drugs.

And I think that fear needs to almost shut him down, so at the beginning of the story he's alive but barely living. His mind is so caught in the negative, he can't find the positive things in life. And we NEED to see him go through this huge transformation in the end to being a loving person who has learned in his heart the value of life, even when things seem bad. It's through Roger that we learn the most important message of the show.

So, to me, Pascal did not show any of that. He was just...there. Was he natural? Yes. I never really felt he was being flat out phony, but there's far more to acting than simply being natural. It's doing your job in order to enhance the effectiveness of the entire piece, and with Roger especially, that's incredibly important.

He was fabulous in the Original Broadway Cast. Fabulous. Raw, passionate, and he captured something very tortured about Roger. Despite some lack of specifity and refinement, he certainly was onto something very powerful.

In the film, I felt opposite. I felt he did just fine with being natural and specific. He was much less "I'm ANGRY *yells*", but the rest of it? Not even remotely there. I'd rather have that raw passion than a static, boring character.


Updated On: 1/15/06 at 07:27 PM

[xrent_headx]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 7:37pm

Me like.

[musicmaniac77]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 7:52pm

I have to completely agree with what broadwaygirl said about adam. for me anthony, wilson, and jesse were the best actors. taye was not good or bad. again, he worked with what he had. i thought rosario did an amazing job and i went into the theatre NOT wanting to like her. i am a huge idina fan so maybe i'm bias. overall i thought she did a good job but her singing was better than her acting. "take me or leave me" kicked some serious ass.

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:01pm

I think I have said before that Adam has never been my most favorite Roger. That said, I think comparing the two Adam's (OBCR and MOVIE) To me, I feel Adam has grown as an actor. Listening to the movie recording before I even watched the movie, I got more out of the recording emotionally from him,then I did listening to the OBCR.

I agree, his voice was more raw and edgy in the OBCR, but he wore his emotions on his sleeve. "I'm angry *YELLS*"

In the movie, he layered Roger and I think supressing his emotions was more effective for *his* interpretation that just acting on impulses. I DID feel he had inner demons, I did feel that he had *something* eating him up inside merely because he didn't react quite so abruptly.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:06pm

Well, that's what I felt he DIDN'T do at all. Instead of wearing his emotions on his sleeve, he didn't seem to have any at all. There were no layers or undertones. The line "I don't want to talk about it." after Mark approaches him the day after "Another Day," comes to mind as a perfect example.

Speaking of "Another Day," there's another good example.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:12pm

I think something that's really important to consider about Adam is that he always has -- and still does -- act best through music. It was true when he first did Rent, and though the distinction is far, far more subtle now, it's still very true. That's where his passion is, and that's what he does extremely well. When he did Rent on stage, the rawness and the passion was there in full-force *when he sang* but his acting in a lot of the dialogue, to me, was awkward, and looked and felt very uncomfortable and mechanical.

He's grown as an actor. In so, so many ways. And his learning curve as an actor over the past ten years has had a vast impact on the way he interpreted this character. I don't think he was any less passionate when taking his subtler approach in the film than he was when he was burning with anger on stage. It's just a different interpretation. I'll admit that I like my Rogers to err on the angry side, but I found nothing *wrong* with the way he decided to do it this time around. Instead of abrubt, heated reactions, he reacted very little to things -- like he was numb to feeling. He felt very natural, even when he wasn't singing, and that, to me, is a huge achievement for him. The bottom line is that it works for some people, and doesn't for others. Neither side is right or wrong; he didn't do anything wrong. It's only wrong in terms of subjectivity.

The change in vocals isn't only to be blamed on his growth as an actor. When he did Rent on stage, he'd come from singing and "beating the sh*t out of [his] voice" with a heavy rock band. He was used to singing gigs *maybe* once every three or four weeks, and then had to start singing a pop-rock Broadway score eight times a week. Now, he's used to that. Obviously. The tone of his voice on the OBCR is way throatier. He sounds a lot more relaxed now, I think. I don't get the people who think he sounds worse now.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 08:12 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:22pm

Well, I don't think for the purpose of the piece that his interpretation worked at all. That's the problem. There is a certain "numb" quality to Roger, but it's more complex than that. In order for the performance to be most effective, the audience has to be able to feel that pain and learn the show's message through Roger. If he's just...there, there's nothing *dramatic* about that.

And take "Another Day" for example. Isn't Roger out of control exploding with anger there? "Control your temper"? I think, for the purposes of higher stakes and more powerful drama that Roger needs to use anger as a cover for his fear.

I don't think anger is the undertone. I think the undertone that needs to be there is that Roger is falling for Mimi, Roger WANTS to live, but he's fearful. And the anger is what's coming out to deflect that. He's kind of stuck in his own prison.

Playing simply numb is static and boring, and it lacks that undertone. The show's message relies on that transformation, and the more heightened the drama in the beginning for Roger, the more powerful the transformation of this character and the more powerful the show (or...movie).
Updated On: 1/15/06 at 08:22 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:26pm

That's what I keep saying: it didn't work for YOU. We all know that. YOU didn't feel that for him. You said it yourself; you don't think anger is an undertone, but rather it should be Roger's overt character trait. And that's fine -- that's why Adam's performance on film didn't work for you. But that's you. Simply, that's not to say that it doesn't work at all on some level for other people. I really wonder if this debate is worth having yet again...

He displayed temper with her. Not as explosive as it could've been, but he certainly wasn't like "okay, see ya." Perhaps some of what you're rerferring to as not being dramatic enough all goes back around to the notion of what's *too* dramatic on film, with the nature of close-ups and all of that stuff I've said ad nauseum -- all stuff that frankly, I don't feel like repeating again.

I think all of these "supposed to be's" are a little bit idealistic, based on what you've got a tendency to favor and what you're used to. Of course there are lines to be drawn as far as a "right" interpretation of a character goes, but it's entirely a matter of personal preference how much surface anger Roger is "supposed" to show versus how numb is he "supposed" to be, etc. There's no formula for how it "has" to be -- within reason, of course; Roger can't clown around and act like a fool, but there's no set level of over anger that he's "supposed" to display, etc, just like there's no set amount of emotional shutdown and inaccessibility he's "supposed" to display.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 08:26 PM

[Jimbo2]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:27pm

Cool poster-I like it!
Rent

[kas]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 8:44pm

i love adam and idina, but i would have thought that jesse would be a frontrunner. people seem to have really liked rosario too.

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 9:31pm

"I'll admit that I like my Rogers to err on the angry side, but I found nothing *wrong* with the way he decided to do it this time around. Instead of abrubt, heated reactions, he reacted very little to things -- like he was numb to feeling. He felt very natural, even when he wasn't singing, and that, to me, is a huge achievement for him. The bottom line is that it works for some people, and doesn't for others. Neither side is right or wrong; he didn't do anything wrong. It's only wrong in terms of subjectivity. "

You put what I was trying to get at in the right words. I also like Rogers to walk the raging line (Jeremy Kushnier, for example, Christian Mena as another)

What you have to also look at is how it may come across on screen as opposed to a stage. I also disagree with the comment someone made about Adam losing his vocals? I couldn't disagree more. What I found especially appealing were the inflections in his vocals, especially in Goodbye Love (even more specifically in the pieces that were left out of the movie) I think I was most upset by that cut BECAUSE of the way I felt listening to it. That doesn't just go for Adam, it goes for Anthony as well. I was so excited to see it specifically because I was so pleased with the acting, and I was merely listening.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 9:34pm

I was about to make a post echoing the sentiment of Emcee's last post earlier, but opted to head to Barnes & Noble instead. Too many people are trying to objectify something that is inherently a subjective matter. Are there downright bad actors? Sure. Are there very obvious character qualities that Roger should not have? Sure -- a smiley and happy Roger just wouldn't work, period. However, there are certain gray areas that people aren't taking into account with these performances. Like Emcee said, it's obvious that BroadwayGirl thinks the show is the "most effective" when there's an overt quality of anger and rage to Roger. Others don't. There isn't a definitive answer as to how precisely Roger should be.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to preface every one of his or her posts with "in my opinion...", but when you're expressing such vehement feelings about a certain topic, I think it's also necessary to take a step back and realize that your opinion of how a character should be played is not the only valid one. Just because the character wasn't played to your specific requirements of Roger, it doesn't mean that it was an inherently bad performance. All it means is that it didn't meet your personal specifications of what Roger should be.

This is all coming from someone who likes Adam, but a) doesn't think he's an absolutely wonderful actor and b) would have liked to have seen a little more outward emotion from him in the film as well. However, I'm not claiming that I know what the perfect Roger would act like. Updated On: 1/15/06 at 09:34 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 9:42pm

However, I'm not claiming that I know what the perfect Roger would act like.

There you go. THE perfect Roger? No such thing. My perfect Roger, if I could describe him down to his finernails, wouldn't be the same as yours, or anybody else's. It's all. so. subjective. That's why this is silly, arguing this in a way that's not simply sharing opinions and ideas, but in a way that's so "right versus wrong." That's just not constructive.

Updated On: 1/15/06 at 09:42 PM

[Broadway Style]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 10:07pm

Wow, I am seriously one of the most critical people about acting and I absolutely enjoyed Adam's performance. Not wild about the movie but I thought Adam transitioned really well to screen and there was a sense of honesty in his Roger that I found lacking in a few of the other characters. I tend to agree with luvtheemcee here--I feel like people are just bashing him because "he's not an actor" and "hasn't been trained."