Plot holes in Rent?

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 11:15am

Just because I love Rent does not mean that I can't admit there are flaws. There are plenty and I would never deny them. HOWEVER... a lot of people say that one of its flaws is the "plot holes" Now in my loving this musical for several years and seeing it quite a few times in the last two, I really can't seem to find any missing facts or whatever else constitutes as a plothole. If someone could fill me in that would be great, thanks.

(i hope no one reads this as spiteful, I'm genuinely curious because I've heard this said many times)

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 11:41am

Well, this one is nothing major, but Mark tells Roger he's going to help Maureen, then shows up again with Collins and Angel in the next scene, then goes to help Joanne. I mean, it's plausible he could have ran into Collins or something and forgotten about Maureen's protest, but no one ever acknowledges it, and with the lot being right next door, it seemed weird.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 11:46am

There are lots of plot holes in RENT if you have never seen it before and you can't hear dialogue or lyrics over screaming RENT-HEADS. I love RENT but have friends who walked out of it due to the screaming audiences or the sometimes incomprehensible lyrics if the music is too loud.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 11:47am

Hm. I always thought he just ran into them, stopped for a bit, and then headed over to the lot. I mean, he's going to help out rather begrudgingly, so I can't imagine he'd be in any particular rush to get there.

I think a lot of the things that get referred to as plot holes are things that are very difficult to pick up if you don't know the show forwards and backwards. Like, how do Angel and Mimi know each other? Their initial interaction is so brief and so subtle that it can easily, to the naked eye, get lost in everything else that's going on in the title number.

But, then there are of course small inconsistencies that are actually there, too.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 11:54am

My favorite plot hole is the time line, especially how long it takes the characters to completely fall in love with each other.

If the show begins at 9PM and Maureen's performance is at midnight, it takes the two couples only THREE hours to find each other on the street, light candles, go home, dress in drag, put on latex pants (and who goes ouuut tonight on Christmas Eve anyway?), go to a life support meeting, go shopping and fall completely for each other - wow, talk about not losing any time. I don't really think they would have had time to even change so many times, but anyway.

I also love how the first act happens in a three or four hour span and the second a whole year!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 12:06pm

(and who goes ouuut tonight on Christmas Eve anyway?)

Junkie bohemian squatters?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 12:10pm

Jews?

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 12:36pm

haha good points guys, I wasn't denying they were theere but I'm glad you pointed them out good to know.

The timeline thing is definitely true. as for mark coming back I guess I assumed he ran into them I never really though of that though Emcee, I don't think he's going begrudingly because he thought Maureen would be there, not Joanne.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 12:39pm

It could have to do with the way I've seen actors read that line, but "okay, alright, I'll go!" always seems like it's said with an internal "ugh, FINE" sigh. She's obviously just calling him for help, and he's going to go because he's a nice person, not because he particularly WANTS to be her techie b*tch.

[somebear]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 2:14pm

I know this is related to the movie...but as it was approaching I was afraid that they were going to set a year to it. I don't know why, but it was like I knew they would mess it up. So, they set the year...89-90. Ugh.

Blatant reference inconsistency: Thelma and Louise in Today For You. That movie came out in 1991.

More subtle reference inconsistency: Yellow rental truck being packed in with fertilizer and fuel oil...reference to either the first WTC bombing (1993) or OKC bombing (1995). I can't think of bombings happening before these times with a Ryder truck that would be so recognizable.

Very subtle reference: Not in movie, but anyone who knows the stage version "We're Okay" reference to Newt's lesbian sister...she came out in November of 1994.

Based on all of this, I always assumed that, being the newness of Candace Gingrich's out status in the show and the time of year in the show, that the first part takes place X-mas eve 1994 and ending x-mas eve 1995. Is this logical?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 2:17pm

Those aren't plot holes, they're just glaring anachronisms. There are a bunch in the movie.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 2:42pm

Double post.

Updated On: 12/19/07 at 02:42 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 2:43pm

Believe it or not, whenever I watch the movie, by the time the anachronisms start, I've completely forgotten that the movie begins in 1989 and ends in 1990.

Then I see the Twin Towers. But then I forget what year the movie takes place in again.

[somebear]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 2:47pm

I try to...but it is the first line of the movie and my teeth start grinding and i can't stop thinking about it. I am a Quality Assurance person by trade, so I am conditioned to obsess about such things. I know, not a plot hole, but it bugs me.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 12/19/07 at 3:12pm

Some of the holes exist because ... Larson died before the show opened. And rather than bring in another author, they decided to freeze the show as is. They knew they had something exciting enough (for the time) that they would be overlooked.