Posted: 1/3/17 at 10:51am
Especially since that particular point isn't a plot hole.
Posted: 1/3/17 at 11:01am
Mister Matt said: "Especially since that particular point isn't a plot hole."
Virtually nothing mentioned in this thread is.
Rent is a show about New York. Any trenchant depiction of New York will include references that convey that we all see and hear things every day that we don't understand, and that don't make sense from our own perspective. Most of this thread is the equivalent of expressing frustration that we don't get the punch line of the convo we were eavesdropping on in the subway.
Posted: 1/3/17 at 11:09am
Mister Matt said: "Especially since that particular point isn't a plot hole.
Well, maybe not a plot hole.
Posted: 1/3/17 at 11:15am
I think my favorite is about the 9:30 PM meeting being too late for a support group. GAWD.
Posted: 1/3/17 at 9:38pm
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the "final" version of Rent that we're familiar with, the one that was on Broadway, wasn't really finished. As we know, Larson passed away during the Off-Broadway preview period, which is always a tumultuous time in the life of a show. I'd have to think that if Larson had lived, he would've made the necessary changes. Since he didn't, there were some adjustments and cuts made, but much of it remained unchanged. For example:
"It was pretty straightforward to know that what Jonathan would want would be for this show to go on. We all knew this show was unfinished. I feel like the show is still unfinished — the people who worked on it most closely know that most — and it certainly would have been different with Jonathan's continued participation." http://www.playbill.com/article/the-creation-of-rent-how-jonathan-larson-transformed-an-idea-into-a-groundbreaking-musical
Even reviews at the time pointed out that it was incomplete:
“Rent” was unfinished when Larson died. It goes flabby and maddeningly ambivalent toward the end, leaving so many loose ends that Michael Greifs production couldn’t possibly resolve them. http://variety.com/1996/legit/reviews/rent-4-1200444937/
Updated On: 1/3/17 at 09:38 PM
Posted: 1/4/17 at 12:46am
To name an example tying in with the above reply, I think at some point he would've reintroduced a few plot elements from the 1994 NYTW version to answer the oft-stated objection that these lazy "artists" could've just grown up and gotten a job. In that version, if memory serves, Roger had just lost a bar-tending gig, and Mark's mom's voice mail ended not with the revelation that Maureen was diving in the lady pond, but that Mark's dad had gotten a call from Chemical Bank, and they meant it when they'd told him he was cut off.
Add that salt from the shaker, and it's no longer a case of selfish pricks standing their ground over a naive promise their friend made in idealistic salad days, but two desperate people who thought their buddy would always be there for them and then caught them with this whole "look, I need the rent" song-and-dance at the worst possible time. After all, what job is hiring around the holidays that would give Mark or Roger a year's worth of rent before the clock tolled 12 on January 1?
Updated On: 1/4/17 at 12:46 AM
