RENT is confirmed to be selectively homophobic — Page 9

Since Art2 tried to bring up a somewhat dead post to reinforce what he said, I'll do the same, just to piss him off:

"There are independent observers (eg Tray Butler of the Washington Blade) who are making the same sorts of comments as I have been since day one. Now go back to school and learn the meaning of "independent" and "objective"."

Independent: Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant
Objective: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

I'll assume that these are the definitions you wanted, correct Art? Well, unless I'm mistaken, the Blade is a gay newspaper that likes to cry 'anti-gay' when it gets the smallest chance. So, this author is influenced by an editor, nullifying you 'independent' point, and if it's being written for a very pro-gay paper, they ARE influenced by emotions and personal pedjudices, also nullifying your use of the word 'objective'.

This movie breaks the gay stereotype molds; the gay male sex fiends and the lesbian truck drivers. It introduces a fiesty sexy lesbian relationship (which is essencially the same as the stage show) and an emotional gay male relationship. Before you cry "They changed the Joanne/Maureen storyline with the marriage!", they did change it a little bit--this actually made it less sexual and more emotional, not 'sexing it up'. Do you honestly think marriage is sexy?

The song 'I'll Cover You' on the RENT Movie Soundtrack proves to me all that I need--it will be a pure, emotional gay-male relationship. Just the fact that a song that powerful is still in there between two gay males is enough to show me that the movie will portray the relationship accurately. Honestly, I would like the movie less if they 'sexed' up the Angel/Collins couple. It would ruin the sweetness, the innocsence.

But, going back to the 'America likes hot lesbians' discussion, I have to admit that it's true. This country is run by straight males, and as one myself, I have to say, I'd rather whach two women going at it than two men, but that's just because I don't like penis. If they're just kissing, I'll care no more for it than I would a heterosexual kiss. However, the movie in fact nullified this point for Art2, as these straight males will not like the idea that they're getting married...They'll get mad about it. It's still gay marriage and thus still a no-no in American society.

Angel and Collins only kiss once in the stage version as well. Why on earth would they need to add another one?

I doubt Sony or Columbus added more female/female kisses than were in the stage version.

---

it's futile.

He hasn't seen either the stage production or the film and his entire argument is based on one writer.

Come back Art2 when you have seen either for yourself and you want to spew your opinions.

---

DAMN! Girls you're all pretty.

Now...I may have missed some things as there are 200 posts here and I'm not reading them all.

But...I think the truth lies somewhere in between these arguments. If Art2 were a little less combative in making his case, perhaps he'd have the opportunity to see both sides of the story. In addition to that, if everyone were able to hold their judgment entirely until they've seen both the play and the movie, that would help as well.

First off, let me say, I am NOT a fan of the film. I thought it trivialized a lot of what, at one point was not only evocative, but downright vital. I think the direction was pretty close to non-existent and I agree with a lot of what the BLADE had to say about the film.

Now when it comes to the "sexing up" of the female relationship, and dumbing down the gay male relationship...it's a tough call. In a lot of obvious ways, they did indeed flesh-out Maureen and Joanne's relationship. In the show, the fight kind of comes out of nowhere and they needed to motivate it for the film. Setting it at a commitment ceremony was one of the only interesting new ideas added to the film.

When it comes to Collins and Angel, it remains to be the only stable relationship in the movie. However....and this is a BIG however, they did indeed take a lot of the sensuality out of the film overall. "Take Me," the number in the musical that occurs just before Angel's memorial service is no longer there. Despite the fact that it's a song about someone dying, it is quite clearly the hottest, sexiest number in the musical. I was disappointed at the cutting of this because it offers up so many incredibly stirring visual images that could have made this more than a whitewashed 80's AIDS Flashback.

I can see both sides of the story here. I do see it as an attempt to make RENT PG-13. And I do believe compromises were made to make the film a little more palettable to the red states. However, I don't see it as an outright attempt to be homophobic. Sometimes it's a lot more effective to open the door a crack and let someone peek in, than blow it open and make them stare.

Waste of Bandwitdth.

I still think Art is undercover and is truly a homophobe, doing this just to piss everyone off and undermine the cause of gay rights in general.

Art, come on now, admit it, you're a Christian Conservative operative, right?

luvtheemcee...pardon me, im just joining in here, but what exactly do you mean?

Are you saying that the film makers expected the film to get an R rating and were pleasantly surprised by the PG-13?

If that's so, why were things like that death sequence with most everyone nearly naked cut?

I'm saying two separate things.

I *believe* that it was decided that Contact wouldn't be in the film very, very early in the process. I don't want to say it wasn't rehearsed/filmed, because I'm not 100% sure, but if you've seen the number on stage, you can see why it wouldn't work, in my opinion. It's not exactly realistic, and like I said, IS very theatrical. The translation would've been awkward. When the time came for the film to be rated, Contact had been out for a long time, so it wasn't even an issue.

And yes. The filmmakers and the actors were very, very surprised by the rating. They expected for the film to be rated R, almost without question, which is why I'd assume that wanting a lower rating is *not* the reason Contact wasn't in the film. In the death sequence on stage, nobody's naked. It just doesn't seem like something that'd work logically on film, though.

ETA -- Foa, the rating was *not* expected. That means when Contact was cut, that wasn't the reason or intention.

---

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 11:08 PM

Contact was never intended to be in the film. It's a theatrical scene and would make no sense on film. Chris Columbus was expecting an R and was pleasantly surprised by the rating. And it got the rating with all of the now cut material on it.

---

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 11:12 PM

"If that's so, why were things like that death sequence with most everyone nearly naked cut?"

What on earth are you talking about? No one is naked in Contact, they're completely clothed and sitting under a sheet, moving it with their hands. That's hardly the erotic scene you're claiming was cut.

And FOAnatic, Contact wasn't cut to avoid an R rating. Contact was never filmed in the first place because they couldn't figure out how to make it work for film.

For the record, the only thing that was "cut" to give it a a PG-13 was a fraction of a second of a needle going into Mimi's arm. It had nothing to do with sex, hetero or homo.

---

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 11:14 PM

But not with ratings in mind.

---

First off...I'm not agreeing with Art2, merely stating that he does have a valid argument. Everyone's argument is a VALID argument. But the bottom line is...we weren't in the hundreds of meetings and script consultations and ratings discussions so no one here KNOWS what happened at all. The fact that I have an opinion on what I think MIGHT have happened is purely speculation and I admit it to be.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The fact that everyone is all up in arms about something they don't actually KNOW about is a little crazy. let's be friends.

Also...I never said that CONTACT was naked, I said it was "nearly naked," and it's clear onstage that simulated nudity was it's intent. I also disagree that it's too theatrical. They somehow found a way to make "Seasons of Love" work, and it's one of the most theatrical scenes in the show...not to mention "Tango Maureen."

Where the movie fails in my opinion is it's ultimate translation from stage to screen. It would seem that there were a lot of cooks all saying that something different would work. This is all an assumption on my part, I admit. But, after seeing the film, it seems like some things were attempted theatrically and some were turned into this attempt at realism. When the bottom line is, outside Chelsea, no one REALLY walks down the street singing duets, and people do not break into song fights at their commitment ceremonies. It felt to me as if the "theatricality" of the show was avoided as opposed to being embraced.

This is just my opinion and as we all know, opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one and they usually stink.

why do people keep feeding this person who has a point-of-view that has been disproven? just let it go, let the person talk out of their a*s, etc.