RENT SCREENING review (11/8/05)

Sufficient spoilers within. No, seriously.

First off, no one was more primed to have mixed feelings about the film version than my group this evening. One of us was very familiar with the original production (and was very excited for the film), one of us was intimately familiar (and probably known to this board), and the third had never seen the show nor even heard the music. In fact, this third person (let’s call him David) was dreading going. He hates musicals, hated what little he heard about Rent, etc.

The lights went down on a pretty packed screening room in Los Angeles, and the film began. Opening with Seasons of Love, which I had already heard about, was I thought an iffy choice when I had first heard about it. However, I was actually quite moved and suddenly got excited.

And yet, that excitement did not last. Though there are plenty of good moments and some great sequences (the title song, for instance), and some better than expected performances, the film quite simply does not work.

Right after the I’ll Cover You (Reprise), two people to my right walked out. They were not easily-offendable blue hairs; in fact, they were a pretty young and cool couple. When the end credits began, I turned to see there had been other walkouts throughout the movie. It is with a heavy heart that I write this: I truly believe this film is a missed opportunity.

Don’t get me wrong: our third person, David-unfamiliar-with-the-show-hates-musicals, actually found himself blown away by the “first act”. But once the fade to black after La Vie Boheme was over, he deemed the rest of the movie “an F”. And he was maddened, because he loved the first act so much, especially since he had not expected to. He actually said "I thought this could win Best Picture until the second half". And this is someone who, up until this moment, had Capote and The Squid And The Whale as his favorite movies of the year. I.E. -- he's not easy to win over with this type of material.

There is one huge, gaping flaw that even Mr. Uninitated noticed: with the (apparently recent) removal of “Goodbye Love”, the plot just makes. no. sense. You do not know why Roger leaves – the fight between he and Mark is gone. You do not understand the level of deception on Mimi’s part in her decision to go with Benny; her escalating sickness; her battle with drugs – her confrontation with Roger is gone. You also lose the impact of Angel’s death, as it stands now, because it HAS no impact on the other characters – the culmination of everyone’s building rage, resentment, hostility, and unmanageable relationships is gone. I seriously hope someone involved with the film is reading this, because “Goodbye Love” has seriously got to go back in between now and November 23. This isn’t just a case of a “renthead” having problems with cuts -- like I said, we had someone with us who had never seen the show – and they were quite confused and needed me to play the full track in the car afterwards for clarity. Cut “Christmas Bells” – I get it. Cut “Halloween” – I get it. But cutting Goodbye Love is a serious wound the film does not and cannot recover from. I had seen the show numerous times, and even *I* was confused by the plot with the removal of this sequence. Why is Mimi suddenly missing? When did she break up with Benny? Etc.

Lastly, Tracie Thoms does walk away with the film, as I had originally heard. Every time the camera finds her, even if the scene doesn’t warrant it, she is immersed and present. You, sadly, cannot say the same for any of the other actors. Even Jesse Martin does not cry in the Reprise. Anyone familiar with the original production will know how powerful his ultimate show of emotion was – and here, though he sings with conviction and grace, the tears are not present, though everyone else is crying. Was it a directorial choice? Also, as much as I love the original cast, I felt somehow a lot of them got marginalized: Wilson Heredia, who I was sure would be a shoo-in for an Oscar (nomination) much as he was for the Tony, seems barely in the film. Though he is acting his heart out, the character just seems disposable. "Take Me Or Leave Me", an undisputed high point (or one of them, at least), is scripted and shot and choreographed in such a way that it simply is anachronistic for the time period, and worse, just plain clumsy.

So, a mixed bag. A lot of good stuff to start, but with diminishing returns. “What You Own” had me and my guests laughing inappropriately – especially since Roger now embarks for Santa Fe and returns all in the space of sixty seconds (with Goodbye Love gone, that is). More than that, however; it was the first moment in the movie where I realized how depressed I was that this wasn't hit out of the park.

With a heavy heart,

Michael

Michael -- Thanks for the first detailed review that I can look at and say -- this, without any bias, I can buy. Though I haven't seen the film yet, even hearing about some of the major cuts -- "Goodbye Love" -- any mention of April's suicide -- has just left me confused and exasperated. Because as much as I want to love this film, these gaping holes in narration and character motive seem not only foolhearted but desperate, last minute attempts by the director, the studio - somebody to make something come together which clearly isn't working. It's heartbreaking.

Apparently not Emcee. The bathtub scene was filmed but not used, according to a cast member. I guess the audience is left to believe that she died of AIDS -- not quite the same.

Its an interesting arguement Emcee, because sure Roger would feel guilt if he somehow passed on the AIDS virus to her (they do after all share needles) but apparently the problem is that the film isn't even clear on that. (I remember the earlier Chbosky draft made it clear that Roger was the AIDS carrier). In the original play, April's suicide (IMO) serves two purposes -- a clear motive for Roger's depression and a grim reminder that once upon a time, a positive HIV test was a death sentence -- a death so horrible that people killed themselves rather then have to deal with it.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 03:13 AM

I always thought it implied that she killed herself BECAUSE she found out she had AIDS, and that Roger certainly has guilt on some level -- guilt *on top of* his sadness that he's lost her. That's so much deeper. I never thought it mattered much HOW he passed it to her, if we're to assume that's the case... which I suppose we are, since he must assume it enough to feel such guilt. That culpability is a huge part of his pain. I suppose that even if the movie plays it in a way that she died of AIDS that Roger gave her, he still feels guilt, but to have her bring it on herself, as you said, is far more devastating. I think -- and want to believe -- that it could work one way as much as the other, and that I'm just too attached to the way it was originally written, but... I don't know anymore. I can't differentiate between whether I'm just feeling sadness that crucial things are not the same, or if I'm truly worried that they won't work out somehow.

---

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 03:19 AM

In response to KuhnKrazy, and not to be callous about it, but I simply thought Tony winner + flashy supporting role + terminal illness + drag queen = Oscar fodder. I didn't think he'd necessarily deserve it. Frankly, with most of the Oscars, who does?

about the crying or lack there of, in all of my creative writing craft courses and big emphasis is placed on not showing tears, but making the audience cry instead. this tends to be a less melodramatic and less contrived way of getting the audience to react

---

it is reviews like this that make me question the casts little "we saw it and it's true to larson's blah blah blah"

---

Michael,

I believe we were at the same screening (at the MGM screening room?). This was my second time seeing the film as I had first seen it last week at the Recording Academy screening at DGA. I had quite the same reaction you did the first time I saw it, and I went to see it again to see if my original reaction held... and it did. In fact, the things that bugged me the first time bugged me more the second though the things I did like were all the more stronger, such as Tracie Thoms.

I discussed the suicide issue someplace (either here or at another board), and I do agree it's a huge loss. It also goes a long way toward explaining his hesitation with Mimi; at first if he grows too close, he can infect and then lose her; then later when she in essence is also killing herself, albeit slowly, with the drug use. Now it's like he's sad 'cause she died of AIDS, which is understandable but doesn't *quite* explain why he is the way he is.

In a way it's just a reflection of how Columbus generally finds ways to soften the blow of the whole thing--cutting "Halloween" and the last part of "Goodbye Love" so we never get a sense of how fargone and lost these people are after the loss of Angel, not to mention how the circle truly shatters with the one other "rock" of a relationship aside from Collins/Angel--Mark/Roger--broken. It robs a lot of power from the end of "What You Own," as now the big reunion is more of a "hi, I missed you" than a more powerful "I forgive you/We do need each other" on top of that. Actually you can see the plothole in how Anthony and Adam play the reunion on the rooftop, with their facial expressions and their initial hesitation before finally coming together, not to mention the way Adam nods when he first sings "I'm not alone."

On second view I was able to determine exactly where I felt Columbus first dropped the ball and then things never quite recovered: in the middle of "Another Day," when Mimi is not only out of Roger's apartment but out of the building by the middle of the song. Before this moment, the movie is actually pretty solid; "Seasons" makes for a good credit sequence; "Rent" gets the film proper taking off like a rocket, and the energy carries through "You'll See" and "Glory" and "Candle" and "Tango: Maureen" and "Out Tonight" (go Rosario) and the *beginning* of "Another Day." I can understand wanting to open up numbers for the big screen, but "Another Day" is one number that you should definitely *not* want to open up, as the big thing about it is being stuck in the apartment with these two people, as their argument escalates, as Roger's anger builds and Mimi's frustration reaches the breaking point. The claustrophobia leads to an increasing sense of discomfort until the two finally reach their limits and are up in each other's faces, Roger with the "who do you think you are..." and Mimi with the "there's only now..." For the climax of the song now have Roger up on the fire escape and Mimi singing to him from the street doesn't have quite the same effect, nor does it make any sense. After all, Roger's already thrown her out. Why should he continue to yell? And let's not forget the lyric "little girl, hey/The door is that way" doesn't fit since she's already gone through the door--of the whole damn building.

Then that leads to the botched "Will I?" At face value lyrically the song can be taken as being rather syrupy, yet on stage it never comes off that way, as it's shown how ironically not only do the core characters but the whole of the city share these feelings of isolation and alienation. Columbus goes the easy sappy route and makes the song treacly by making it a Life Support bonding chant.

And it never quite recovers from there despite some signs of life here and there, like "La Vie Boheme." I love the slow motion pan over the group in their happiest moment before the "viva la vie boheme," as it almost foretells doom to come, but Columbus never commits to the darkness of the second half, as evidenced by the "Goodbye Love" cut. It's also rather bothersome that one thing that always bugged me about the show, the lack of clarity with the Mimi/Benny relationship, is even more vague in the film. Columbus did do a good job of fleshing out the Mark/Maureen/Joanne triangle, but Roger/Mimi/Benny is barely there.

I can go on (and it seems I already have, heh), but I won't. I can't say I didn't enjoy the film. But the thing is, I enjoy it more as a document of Larson's music and these performances than as a stand-alone film and self-contained dramatic piece.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 07:36 AM

I feel like cutting and pasting this review into the Rentblog comments. Not like they'd ever post it, but someone reads that crap.

I too would like "Goodbye, Love" BACK.

---

LeaGirl, I was thinking the same thing. MJohnson, you should think about that.

---

I have to admit, I'm finding myself a little worried by these reviews. And at the same time, I can't help but think that if everyone involved in this project had the best of intentions, if they really wanted to do justice to Jonathan Larson's work, then it can't really be a failure. Sometimes you try, and things don't work. But whether or not this movie gets great reviews, or Oscars, or anything like that, so much love and care went into this, and I for one am grateful just for the opportunity to see it.

That said, I'm still excited. I've loved movies that got bad reviews....I just can't see a reason why I won't love this film.

---

Hmmmmmmmmm.

I would be surprised by any last minute additions. I think the people behind the film are content to say that as long as some people like it, it's a success.