RENT SCREENING review (11/8/05)- Page 4

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 1:58pm

Well to each his own. I'm not saying that Tarantino's films aren't enjoyable at any level, just that him working with Rent (or something like it) would be... interesting... given... the way he dealt with homosexuality and race in Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, even the celebrated Jackie Brown.

People have been talking about Tarantino's politics for eleven years. Apparently Denzel Washington is particularly concerned with them.

Just do a google search of Tarantino and race or Tarantino and homosexuality. Better yet, do google groups. I'm far from the first person to realize that he isn't exactly the most gay or black-friendly director.
Updated On: 11/9/05 at 01:58 PM

[Kass983]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:08pm

I'm actually aware of all that. I personally hated Pulp Fiction and that makes me rare, in my circle of friends anyway. He's not someone I'd want to go shoot the sh** with, ya know?

For the purposes of direction alone though, I think RENT would not have done badly with him at the helm. He's a gritty director; it's gritty story with emotion and song. He couldn't have done it alone, no way. And of course, there are other directors out there whose names I don't even know that are probably better. He came to mind and I mentioned him, that's all.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:14pm

"He couldn't have done it alone, no way."

That's a good point. It sort of makes me wonder whether another question worth asking is... who could have written a great screenplay for Rent?

Chris Columbus has directed some very entertaining films but, in most cases, he didn't take the main writing credit for them. (True, Chbosky is being credited now, but he knows as well as I do that the version of Rent we're seeing in movie theaters is barely his.)

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:16pm

"the way he dealt with homosexuality and race in Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, even the celebrated Jackie Brown."

I just don't know if I would consider what occurs in PF to be "homosexuality"

I find the way he deals with race to be interesting and so do the black actors in his films, it seems.


"People have been talking about Tarantino's politics for eleven years. Apparently Denzel Washington is particularly concerned with them."

Considering Denzel is the same guy who allegedly told Will Smith not to kiss a man onscreen, I'm a bit leery of his own politics.


"Just do a google search of Tarantino and race or Tarantino and homosexuality. Better yet, do google groups. I'm far from the first person to realize that he isn't exactly the most gay or black-friendly director."

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of people misinterpret him.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:23pm

LOL. Wow, this thread is going in another direction - albeit one that's interesting and worthwhile.

MrMidwest, I don't think Denzel's opposition to Tarantino should be taken with a grain of salt just because he (Denzel) is homophobic or was at least concerned in the early '90s about the impact that being gay or gay-friendly on the screen could have on a black actor's career. You don't have to be a friend of every oppressed group to recognize that one isn't getting the treatment it deserves. Thousands of other people share Denzel's opinion that Pulp Fiction was offensive to African-Americans. I'm a bisexual African-American who happens to think that the n-word was used way too much in that film and that the scene with the anal rape and murder could've been edited out (God what a long film!). Still, I could be straight and German but think the same thing.

IMO: Just because an actor is in a film doesn't mean s/he agrees with its politics. Do you really think that because Hattie McDaniel played a maid all of her life, she thought African-American women should never rise above that station?

Perhaps we should start a thread on the OT board about Tarantino. You think people misinterpret him, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but I disagree and feel that I have valid reasons for my dissent.

There was actually another thread on this topic last spring.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 02:23 PM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:31pm

"You don't have to be a friend of every oppressed group to recognize that one isn't getting the treatment it deserves."

Perhaps, but it still makes me question him.

Also, he's been in films by Spike Lee, who is a director many people feel brings up race and creates tension when it doesn't need to be brought up. It's sort of like the other side of the coin of Tarantino I guess.


"IMO: Just because an actor is in a film doesn't mean s/he agrees with its politics. Do you really think that because Hattie McDaniel played a maid all of her life, she thought African-American women should never rise above that station?"

I kind of knew you were going to ask me that I certainly don't think that Hattie McDaniel thought that, but that was a different time when there were a lot less roles for black actors. I think obviously, judging from the interviews I've seen from actors like Pam Grier and Samuel L. Jackson that they find the roles they have played in Tarantino films to be good roles.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:33pm

"It's sort of like the other side of the coin of Tarantino I guess."

True to an extent. People do see it that way. Of course, it can be argued that neither director would be especially sensitive to the gay characters in Rent (at least not without a lot of nudging).

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:36pm

It's possible that they wouldn't be, I'm not sure.

I can certainly see how some people might be offended by some of the characters in Tarantino's films, and I certainly wouldnt want his representations of the black community to be the only ones in cinema if it came down to it, but I do think he's an interesting filmmaker.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:45pm

"That's a good point. It sort of makes me wonder whether another question worth asking is... who could have written a great screenplay for Rent?"

Me. *snicker*

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:46pm

Was the staging of Another Day that is present in the movie the way it's always been in the script?

If so, I wish I had complained about it earlier.

[twotrey]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:44pm

>>> to just take the movie for what it is. <<<

And that's why I say I do enjoy the film as a document of the music and the performances and the scenes that *do* work. But if I look at it as a self-contained drama, it doesn't quite work.

As far as the screening on the 11th, assuming it's the one in NYC? I'll be there (yes, as much as this movie frustrates me, seeing it a third time in two weeks) as it's the official press junket screening (junket is on the 12th), so obviously no adjustments will be made after that. This is quite plainly the final cut as the Tuesday screening here was for Academy and other awards voting groups, and the 11th is for the media interviewers. I'm assuming whatever they get from the cards from the seatfillers is being used as research for how they'll handle the homestretch of the marketing.

I've been planning to grill Columbus on the obviously last-minute cuts at the junket, so we'll see how exactly he spins an excuse.
Updated On: 11/9/05 at 03:44 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:48pm

Well, Trey I do agree, though I did see AMPAS screenings of ALEXANDER last year a couple of weeks before it opened, and it was a different cut then what ended up in multiplexes. So, directors do continue to tinker -- voters or not - last minute.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:49pm

"I've been planning to grill Columbus on the obviously last-minute cuts at the junket, so we'll see how exactly he spins an excuse."

LOL.

GRILL him?

Like you would DEMAND to know why these changes were made?

[twotrey]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:55pm

Well, I'll ask firmly but gently. We'll see how satisfactory his excuse is.

Interesting about ALEXANDER, but that is Stone after all, who likes to tinker. Something tells me Columbus isn't one of those fastidious types.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:55pm

Just tackle him and wrestle him to the ground.

I would. :-P

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:58pm

Didn't Columbus edit the film during a vacation in Europe?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:59pm

I heard he edited it between watching LOST and Fantasia's screentest for DREAMGIRLS.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 6:01pm

From TalkinBroadway (read closely for multiple perspectives):

Saw RENT screening in London tonight/possible spoilers


Posted by: DenDen 05:56 pm EST 11/09/05

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was a Bafta screening that was scheduled when the film was set to open in the UK before end of 2005. An email went out today that the UK release has been pushed back to early 2006 making it uneligable for voting this year. However, they did the screening as planned.

I wish that I could say I loved it but it was, simply put, a bad movie.

I have adored the musical since seeing the original cast in 1996 and have been to see it onstage more times than I can count. Therefore, I was truly rooting for it to work, but it just doesn't.

The cast is stellar from start to finish and you can't fault them. The biggest problem was the direction and the lack of concept that would transition this peice so that it worked on the big screen. There seems to be little imagination in regards to the screenplay. What bits were newly created fell flat and seemed out of place, most notably "Tango Maureen". However, some things did work wonders and without spoiling anything I think you will be wowed by "One Song Glory" and at least the first verse of "Out Tonight". "Without You" is nicely done as well.

Fans of the show will be mixed on this. Folks that are seeing it fresh without knowledge of the show may get quite baffled and bored despite the brilliant score and the wonderful performances.

For once my partner and I agreed on a film. He enjoyed it for the sake of seeing those performances but we were both quite disappointed that it just didn't work for us.

Comments were mixed leaving the theatre. Some loved it, others felt it didn't engage you enough and lacked real emotion. Curious as to what the critics will think but I won't be crossing my finders or holding my breath on this one.

Despite what I thought of it I hope it does extremely well and isn't the death of the movie musical that I felt a good chunk of the movie could be.

Let's hope PRODUCERS and DREAMGIRLS have better imaginations behind them and know how to truly adapt those respective shows to film better than RENT managed to.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 7:02pm

Not looking good at this moment which is a pity, but this was always a hard sell ( The rentheads were always going to love it )

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 7:45pm

I find this review distressing. I had such high hopes for this movie. I'll still be in attendance for the first show on 11/23 though.

[WickedRentLuv]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 7:51pm

I still have high hopes for this movie. I've seen a couple positive reviews from other Rentheads, and that's enough for me.

[Broadway Style]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 8:30pm

"If this film is mediocre or just plain bad, then no one person involved in it should be exclusively to blame."

Well, I plan to blame Chris. You need imagination to write a screenplay(even if it is an adaptation) and direct.

[Theaterlover2]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 10:53pm

OH man. I hate this. I hate that I'm sitting here thinking I might not like this movie. GAH. I can't read any more depressing news for a while.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 11:14pm

Back to the directors thing, I think that Tarantino would have been a horrible choice to direct this film. Not because his movies are bad, on the contrary, but his movies are Tarantino films. The movie version of Rent would've become a Tarantino film, and not the Rent that we love. Yeah, he's got the edgy thing going, but he's edgy in a, "This movie will be all about me and what innovative movies I make" kind of way.

I at first thought that Columbus was a horrible directing choice--I mean, how do you make the first two Harry Potter movies drab and devoid of magic? On the other hand, his problem is that he tends to be TOO faithful to his source material. For the Harry Potter franchise, that seemed to zap the life right out of the story (thank goodness for Cuaron directing the third one). Columbus wasn't concerned with making a good movie, he was concerned with making a faithful adaptation of the book.

...But for Rent, I think that his slavishness to the source material will be a benefit. We're all so attatched to/possessive of this musical, and even slight changes tend not to be well-recieved. This isn't a vehicle for him to further his own career (as it would be for a director like Tarantino), he's making this movie because he is honestly passionate about the story. I've seen some people say that they think that he might have gone overboard and been too faithful to the staging of the play, but you can't really have it both ways. I would still MUCH rather have had someone who's going to leave the majority of the material untouched and not add really obvious, jarring personal touches and changes to the material.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 11:19pm

Columbus justifies his decision in cutting "Goodbye Love" by saying that he learned his lesson making HARRY POTTER about being too faithful to the source material. I'd call the deletion a drastic cut and seeing as how he says the song was "too emotional" for him a jarring personal touch to boot.
Updated On: 11/9/05 at 11:19 PM