RENT Movie, set in 1985? — Page 2

What I don't get is why Cloumbus even put the gay marriage thing in there. He talks as though he's making some big statement for it when he barely even addresses the issue. If anything all it does is make the context for "Take Me or Leave Me" slightly more humorous.

Updated On: 12/1/04 at 06:40 PM

Well, I doubt that that "subplot" would even bring about that reaction. The Angel-Collins relationship is not like that at all.

LOL, well if the early buzz is bad, their protests will be for naught because only the most devoted fans will bother to see it. It's sort of like all the hoopla over Alexander. How funny was it to see all of the summer posts on IMDB about eunuchs and homosexuality, and now most people are just talking about what a disaster the film is?

"Well, I doubt that that "subplot" would even bring about that reaction. The Angel-Collins relationship is not like that at all."
People will find whatever messages in a film they want. God help us.

This is ri-doculous.

"livin' in America...at the, um, close to the end but not really, of the millenium??"

No. In 1985, the only person anyone knew of with AIDS was Rock Hudson, it was very much ONLY a gay disease in the public perception. To say nothing of so many other pop culture references. I don't buy this--typo, preliminary script dicking around, whatever...there is NO WAY. Rent is inherently a work from the mid '90s. In the 80s noone even muttered the word millenium, AZT didn't exist, and...um, hello, CYBER? Virtual Reality? ATM Code? No one even called them ATMs in 1985 for heaven's sake, this is so not even happening, I don't buy it for a second. Whether it's in the script or not. The story would have to be FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED.

i guess i killed this thread.

This may seem random but someone earlier talked about who we'd like to see direct the film - my vote goes to Sam Mendes. BRILLIANT!

---

Yeah, I wrote a letter to the Arts editor in my local paper about some guy who did the same thing (he actually referred to the show as being on par with -I kid you not- "a junior high school production").

I say they're going to use Maureen and Joanne as their examples.

---

Well I still see winoes peeing on stoops. In 2004. Some things are a constant.

I think it's absurd that any changes would be made to the broadway production...well there have to be some...but changing the timeframe. I won't support the film if it doesn't reflect the composers vision.

---

I think it could work for Collins and Angel if it had to work at all.

I can understand Larson taking some artistic license with time in terms of the world of that neighborhood being combined with the technological/health/state of the world of the mid-90s to create the "milieu" of RENT.

HOWEVER--I have a real problem with a film adaptation scrapping the clearly-defined world of the play. For the reasons I mentioned before--AIDS, the Internet, et al, the story is fundamentally altered and CAN NOT work at any point before when Larsen actually wrote/workshopped it. Until the early 90s, it was still called "the vax" and words like cyber and virtual-reality simply didn't exist in the common vernacular. And, as I mentioned, in 1985 AIDS was a TOTALLY different beast. These are elements which simply don't work in a mid-80s RENT. Period.

Otherwise, it becomes another adaptation of La Boeheme, and not of RENT.

Updated On: 12/2/04 at 04:53 PM

Thanks Tiff, word up, yo

Hope you've recovered from the worst date in the history of the western world!!

"And the Life Cafe had already started its journey toward being yuppie-fied."

That's an interesting point. Is this the restaurant that the screenplay called "upscale"? And if so, does that indicate that Columbus thinking of the Life Cafe as it was more recently?