Ohk, I'm just going to come straight out and say I'm completely disappointed with the screenplay. I think the script loses everything that Jonathan Larson's brilliant ROCK OPERA stood for. It butchers every one of the themes, characters, and songs. This is exactly why I was afraid of ever having a "Rent" movie.
First of all, "Rent" is a rock opera, so all of the lines, except for certain scenes and monologues, are meant to be sung. Making dialogue from song lyrics I think is the lamest thing. Especially when the lines still rhyme. Come on, every person who knows "Rent" was hearing the melodies of the now spoken dialogue when reading the screenplay. I mean some of the scenes are nice, like the hospital scene. But that's about it. I think it loses so much when the music is cut.
Which brings me to my next point. Why are so many crucial songs cut?! WHY IS "HALLOWEEN" CUT?!?!?! And most of "Goodbye Love" also, why?! "Christmas Bells" definitely is important, too. And don't you think it would be a really cool film sequence? I also miss the "Tune Up"s and the "Voice Mail"s. Those little snipets make it so much more interesting. I feel "You'll See" is important because it shows Benny's side, the only time the audience can relate to him. I also miss "Happy New Year" and "We're Okay," the latter shows Joanne outside of the core group, which I think should be shown. I just don't understand why the score is chopped up. Why would a sung-through movie be any less believable? I mean, they already are breaking out into song, which is not something bohemians or anyone else does on a regular basis, unless you're a musical theatre person. And look, the sung-through method worked for "Evita" and it's being done in the upcoming "The Phantom of the Opera." So why can't they just leave it sung-through? It works. But the whole dream sequence for "Tango: Maureen"? Ohk, it works, but then again it's been done before. And much too recently.
Another thing I don't understand is the character changes. Most of the characters (save Roger and Mimi) seem utterly pointless now. Maureen is now dull and not needed for the second half of the film. Benny is not important at all and doesn't advance the plot at all. Joanne's also pretty much useless. I would say that to a degree, Collins and Angel's characters are somewhat diminished unnecessarily. And wait, I thought Mimi was the reason for Roger getting out of his apartment, not Mark and company. O, and WHY ISN'T MARK THE OMNISCIENT NARRATOR?!?! That was the whole point of his character! He was on the inside but not, looking in but staying on the outside. And Mark is the reason why all of the characters are connected, he is the link between the other seven people, and they cut this entire point out. This is shown through "Halloween," which is unfortunately cut (why o why?).
Which would then make one wonder, what ever happened to "one magic night"?!?! The first act of "Rent" shows how so much can happen in one night, how lives can change in the blink of an eye, and the second shows how fast it can all come crashing down in the course of the year. I know that in a movie, there is no intermission to split these two sections, but that's where the good screenwriter comes in and makes that transition smooth. And making the action of the first act covered in about three days or so is NOT the answer!
And why is "Rent" now set in the mid-1980's? Although no specific year is indicated in the show, it is clear that the action takes place in the mid-1990's. Society and AIDS in the 1980's are so different than in the 1990's. For example, AZT was far less accessible in the 1980's (anyone read or see "Angels in America"?). Also, the wardrobe and style of music is definitely 90's. The music is not 80's at all.
Jonathan Larson's "Rent" was meant to be controversial, but not political. The inclusion of gay marriage is totally wrong and not the in the style of the show. Although homosexuality is a theme in "Rent," it is understood to be accepted from the very beginning of the show. Pushing gay marriage is the total wrong direction and will make many many people very angry. With the same-sex couples, I feel the idea of being married is inferred without actually showing it. And would gay marriage fit in the 1980's? Don't get me wrong, gay marriage is a wonderful thing, but just not in "Rent."
I believe Chris Columbus made some poor decisions in this draft of the script. It loses many of Larson's original and obvious intentions. I honestly can't see why he was chosen to direct and supervise the production over someone like, say, Baz Luhrman. At least Baz has successfuly directed a movie musical ("Moulin Rouge") and a modernization of a classic ("Romeo + Juliet"), and he's also directed a stage version of "Rent"'s source ("La Boheme"). Now that I think about it, Luhrman would be perfect for "Rent." Why o why is Chris Columbus doing everything to potentially ruin my favorite musical?
Please don't think that I'm writing this just because I'm a purist and complete Renthead. Although I am a purist and a Renthead, I feel that sticking more closely to the script would not only make Jonathan Larson proud, but it would still make a good movie. See, it seems that Chris Columbus wants to stick to the show but make it different, but I feel that with "Rent," it's either one or the other. Either you make it almost exactly like the show or you make it completely different. This version of the script is somewhere in between. It will make purists angry for not being like the show enough. It's also not different enough to have its own artistic value, like the movies of "Chicago" and "Cabaret." Columbus should make up his mind, and he should decide to lean towards the first scenario, making the movie more like that show.
Ultimately, if this is the script that will be filmed, the movie will be mediocre at best. It won't please the musical theatre buffs and it won't please the movie critics. It's only in between. It's really not going to catch anyone's eye. And that's a shame because I think a "Rent" movie has the potential of being really great. But not this "Rent" movie.
And that just plain sucks.
~Steven
Updated On: 11/26/04 at 03:51 AM
)
