RENT did what?!

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:19am

In this podcast (or online audio interviews) original cast members, producers, staff, fans, and family members of the show’s creator, Jonathan Larson, will reminisce about the project’s long and heartbreaking journey from the mind of a creative genius to the force that helped redefine theater.

Which force helped redefine theater?!

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:35am

Like HAIR before it.
And Michael John LaChiusa after it.

HAHAHA.
Ehhh...you know it's true!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:50am

You know, I'm a huge RENT fan, but I'm sorta of realizing its aftermath. It seems like it might have hurt Broadway because now I feel like every show has to have some sort of screaming or high belting in it. which fits some shows, but def. doesn't fit them all. I dunno, maybe its not that bad. I just feel like too many shows are trying to be the next RENT.

[CupcakeJanie]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:51am

Hmm RentBoy- you mean like Brooklyn?

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:59am

Well, I'm just in awe when I read that it helped redefine anything...unless of course, you put it in matters of hype and screaming.

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 2:29am

I think it was profoundly moving, and really gave a lot of people new outlooks on life and love, but as far as reshaping theatre...I can see arguments from both sides, but I'm leaning to the no.

The major influence it had was having more shows with pop/rock scores, and having more of a freedom on Broadway to address so many different issues, but MANY other shows have had similar influences, Rent was a co-contributor.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 2:42am

Well, not even, how many pop / rock scores that were obviously RENT inspired do we have?
And most of the themes in RENT, if not all, have been in Broadway musicals before.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 2:45am

RentBoy, I would say that Rent isn't what caused Broadway to start having those kinds of voices/songs. American Idol is more likely the culprit as has been written about in the New York Times among other publications.

And, Rent was considered the 4th landmark musical when it came out (Oklahoma!, Hair, and A Chorus Line being the first 3). That may or may not be the thinking today about Rent.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 6:51am

If you can't see that RENT redefined, or at least helped redefine modern theatre, you must be blind.

[exedore]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 7:17am

Love it or hate it, RENT is responsible for bringing a *lot* of people to the theatre - especially young twentysomethings who had written off musicals as tacky, British spectacles. For a lot of people in that age group (or younger), it was something that was attractive to that sort of person and got many people who had been staying away from Broadway to come back.

[Jon]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 7:50am

I'd say the "screeching high belt" trend goes back to LES MIZ. At least in RENT, the musical style fits the period. In shows like LES MIZ, JECKYLL & HYDE, and LITTLE WOMEN, you have pop/rock vocals in shows set 100 to 200 years ago.

Posted: 3/22/06 at 11:13am

Rent in 1996 was fresh and contemporary. Broadway hadn't had a rock musical that was also socially relevant. Yes, there's still starving artists/AIDS/etc.etc. today, but the way Larson wrote about it was very specific to the mentality of the time (i.e., "dying in America/at the end of the millenium", and the references to the changing artistic landscape, such as converting their humble loft to a cyber studio).

Add to that, Rent is the rare example of a show that 1)has gotten millions of people of a generation interested in theatre and 2)is actually good and well-written.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 11:16am

Jon--what does it matter that Les Miz or any of those shows has music that is not period? Opera never cared about matching period to music style. And, Shakespeare wasn't concerned about period either. One communicates in the language of the people regardless of location and time of the work's setting.

[Pippin]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 11:33am

I don't remember who wrote about this, but in the "Floyd Collins" jacket, in the foward, whoever wrote it, at the time of the writing said that at the time everyone looked to rent as to the show that changed the direction of musical theatre. he said that in a few years, people will look back and see that it was really Floyd that changed the landscape.

rent will be remembered as a wonderful musical, but I think 25 years from now, you will find it on the list of "rock musicals" along with Tommy, Hair, and JCS, and nothing else. Not to say it wasn't groundbreaking at the time, as was hair when it arrived. but look at hair now. it is a period piece with threads of relevance to today, but it is so grounded in it's time period that it's considered nothing but novelty today.

[Jon]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:02pm

I'd love to hear how "Floyd Collins" has changed the landscape of musical theatre!

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 3:37pm

If you can't see that RENT redefined, or at least helped redefine modern theatre, you must be blind.

Please, give me examples of all theatre after RENT that was obviously redefined by it.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 3:40pm

BKLYN was a carbon copy.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 4:00pm

Lol, with all due respect, I doubt Brooklyn is an example of the redefinition of theatre to anyone.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 4:28pm

I'm not about to say Rent wasn't great or that it didn't interest/inspire a lot of theatregoers.

The foreword to Floyd Collins was written by John Guare, and what he said was that the writers of tomorrow would look back on Floyd Collins as the work that changed the way they looked at musical theatre and what they hoped to contribute to it. That's not the same thing as changing the landscape of theatre, per se, but I do think Floyd has made a contribution to the theatre that is totally separate from Rent's. Having seen them both in '96, I, for one, was moved by Floyd Collins more than by Rent, and it continues to exercise a certain power over my thoughts about musical theatre.

Larson was a big splash and his influence was almost immediate. I think Guettel's contribution will take longer to sink in. I don't think it will be any less important as time goes by, however.

[RENTingFAME]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 4:58pm

ummm... wow.

Well I understand I don't have much credibility, since I have RENT in my name, but I do think RENT did influence theatre even if it didn't redefine it. (I agree with the American Idol culprit of all the screaming/belting.) People said it was the next Hair, and I don't know anything about Hair other than I've listened to the soundtrack a few times, but I don't think RENT is like anything.

[Kass983]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 5:06pm

I think that RENT did what Wicked is currently doing, but in a more socially signifant way. Wicked is fun and catchy, it introduces people to an artform they previously had not given much thought to. That can only be a good thing.

As far as RENT goes, when there is a cure for AIDS, perhaps RENT will develop a quaintness that tells of another life and time. I don't pretend to be as theatre savvy as most of you, but I can see that RENT was unique for its time, told a story to song that is still unsavory by some people's standards, and by its success, helped later productions deviate from the accepted norms of theatre.

Perhaps it wasn't the second coming, but it did have an impact, IMO.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 5:21pm

I don't think you can say a show redefined theatre based solely on attempts to copy it (as some have done in this thread, citing BKLYN). By that logic, Mamma Mia was a revolutionary work of art!

Hair was huge in its day, but its effect on the artform was brief. Despite numerous attempts to copy it, none of the other rock musicals or events had even a small share of its success. Company and A Little Night Music weren't a fraction as successful, but there's no doubting that they have served to educate later generations of writers.

I'd ask this question: which shows do people like Michael John LaChiusa, Jason Robert Brown, Adam Guettel, David Yazbek and Stephen Flaherty count among their influences? Which shows do John Rando, John Doyle, or even Jack O'Brien consider brilliant works? Those are the works that redefine the theatre, because it is the creators who bring us what comes next.

[Pippin]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 12:44pm

thank you for that, ourtime. I knew it was something along those lines.

[MyDreamsRecurring]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 12:55pm

"And most of the themes in RENT, if not all, have been in Broadway musicals before."

yes, but its like what harvey fierstein said about la cage aux folles- there had obviously been broadway shows about homosexuality before, but they weren't nearly as popular or successful

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 1:36pm

"Hair was huge in its day, but its effect on the artform was brief. Despite numerous attempts to copy it, none of the other rock musicals or events had even a small share of its success."

Hair's effect was quite far from brief. It was the first show with a true rock sound to become a major hit and its success led the way for dozens of rock musicals since (some that were more successful than Hair itself) -- from Jesus Christ Superstar to Godspell to Pippin to Tommy to Dreamgirls to Rent. Hair is one of the most influential shows and scores ever written.


"I don't think you can say a show redefined theatre based solely on attempts to copy it (as some have done in this thread, citing BKLYN)."

But that's what influential means. And no, Mammia Mia isn't a work of art, but it is the most INFLUENTIAL shows of the past decade. Because of its massive worldwide success (over a billion dollars of ticket sales), Broadway producers have been frantically running around pursuing to the rights to the rock/pop/r&b music catalogue of every known and not-so-known artist of the past 50 years. Mamma Mia is directly responsible for DOZENS of shows that have played here or in the West End or are in development (Jersey Boys, Look of Love, Lennon, All Shook Up, Good Vibrations, Hot Feet, Ring of Fire, Our House, We Will Rock You, The Times They Are A-Changin', The Wall etc....). Now, has Mamma Mia's influence been a good thing for theatre? That's another question entirely.