ljay, I hate to get into this argument yet again (and to break the lovely streak of netspeak...) but while I'm not denying that Rent is losing a lot of its spark, Chicago did the same years ago, too. Just as Rent has lost something, Chicago has lost its artistic spark, in my humble opinion. What I don't understand about the point you consistently try to make is that when you say "look what all of these stars are doing for Chicago!" you hold that yes, they're keeping the show's money flow up and they're getting butts in the seats -- but really, what are they doing for the show's energy and artistic integrity if frankly, many of them suck? Chicago may get more big stars than Rent does, and it may in the end make more money, but it's really no better off, if that's all it can say for itself, especially if your argument that Rent has "lost its spark," and Chicago hasn't -- money doesn't equal energyon stage. It doesn't equal magic. Rent isn't even selling that badly, so the argument holds even less water. Sure, Usher is getting people to buy tickets. But is he really making it as good a show as it was ten years ago? I sure as hell hope not, because if he is, what a slam to the people who starred in it when it was actually Tony-worthy.
I'm sorry, but latent bias doesn't exempt your beloved show from the fate of age. Everyone knows that you think it's a better show, and I grant you that opinion -- it doesn't matter which is better -- but that doesn't make believable the argument that it's still in great shape and isn't suffering from the exact same things.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 10/6/06 at 06:45 PM
