RENT is not a "Watershed" musical...

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 3:29pm

Let's take this debate away from the Worst Musical thread and into here.

For those who don't understand, a "watershed" musical is a musical that alters and affects the shape/form of musical theatre (or Broadway). Obviously not the greatest definition but an example would be SHOW BOAT or OKLAHOMA! or even CABARET.

So, is RENT a revolutionary "watershed" musical? I say... hell no! It's overrated and didn't change the future path of Broadway musicals.

Thoughts?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 3:41pm

Rent merged rock and musical theater in a way that hadn't been done in decades -- arguably since Hair. So I suppose you can argue that Rent itself didn't do anything that hadn't been done before; but if you're going to say that, you should at the very least acknowledge that it picked up on something that had been dropped for a while. In doing so, it opened the door for lots of smaller, less "traditional" shows to come to Broadway and be part of an ultimately highly commercial endeavor: things like Spring Awakening, Avenue Q, [title of show], In The Heights, Passing Strange... they're all direct descendants of Rent. If Rent hadn't come along, something else probably would have, at one point or another, opened that door. But it was Rent.

(But I know, not liking it translates into not being able to objectively see the historical importance.)

Updated On: 8/17/08 at 03:41 PM

[JP2]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 3:45pm

luvtheEmcee, I completely agree.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 3:57pm

see, I disagree.

firstly I can be objective... I used to be a huge RENT fan (not ashamed to admit). But once I passed this phase I was able to see the glaring flaws and mediocre value.

I understand what you're getting at Emcee - but RENT was not the first to merge rock and musical theatre. that's my point. it was HAIR. HAIR was a "watershed" musical because it was the first to do it.

There have been a lot of 'rock shows' between the time of HAIR and RENT. So I disagree on that end.

Also... you insist that RENT opened the gate for much smaller low-budget successful musicals. In my opinion, I believe it was the smaller commercial musicals (such as SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE in '95 and SHE LOVES ME in '94) that were responsible for this.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:01pm

She Loves Me was not successful at all in 1994. How did that open any doors?

I agree with Emcee, by the way. I'm not a fan of Rent at all, but I'll certainly acknowledge its place in theatrical history.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:13pm

but RENT was not the first to merge rock and musical theatre. that's my point. it was HAIR. HAIR was a "watershed" musical because it was the first to do it.

Did you even read my post? What did I say? Did I say that Rent was the first? I said almost the same thing you did. I said Rent did something that, arguably, hadn't been done since Hair. I did not say it was the first. I mentioned Hair in my post. So why are you explaining to me something that I used to make my point?

There were rock shows between Hair of Rent, yes. But none of them took off to the phenomenal success that Rent did. It brought it back into the spotlight, and as I said, in doing so, paved the way for other shows to follow on its heels. Its success has allowed for many of the shows that came after it. Look at the kind of stuff that was dominant in the mid-to-late 80's and early 90's -- the big mega-musicals. And then look at Rent, and similar stuff that has (in many cases, put on by the same producers) come after it. Huge difference.

And I think you can see the flaws and still recognize it as an important piece in the canon. I do love it, but I certainly don't think it's perfect.

Also... you insist that RENT opened the gate for much smaller low-budget successful musicals. In my opinion, I believe it was the smaller commercial musicals (such as SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE in '95 and SHE LOVES ME in '94) that were responsible for this.

I'm sorry if I implied that I thought it was only Rent that's responsible. I think it'd be foolish to "insist," as you put it, that one thing, and one thing only, was behind a significant artistic and commercial shift. Trends come out of a combination of factors. I am not insisting that Rent was the only factor -- I am suggesting, in response to the question you posed, that it is one of them. A major one.

It seems you aren't used to interacting with educated Rent fans. Not all of us who like the show live and breathe the idea that Rent is the be all, end all, greatest thing on the planet and plug our ears to any inklings otherwise. If you want to have a productive discourse, it might help not to be quite so judgmental in your tone.

Updated On: 8/17/08 at 04:13 PM

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:23pm

"She Loves Me was not successful at all in 1994. How did that open any doors?"

It was VERY successful in 1993. It was a huge artistic and popular success in it's non-profit run, so much so it transfered to a larger theater. It also was Rounabout's first musical and (for better or for worse) lead to many more Roundabout commercial transfers of musical revivals.

On topic, Rent seems more like a cultural anomaly... it did bring new audiences to theater and encouraged producers to "find the next Rent"... so in that way it influenced Broadway... but artistically there aren't many shows that couldn't exsist without Rent. Rent's cultural impact seems more on par with Wicked than say A Chorus Line, Showboat, Company, Oklahoma... etc.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:25pm

Rent tapped into an audience that many thought unreachable. For the first time in years teenagers were seeing a show not because their parents were going or the chorus was having a class trip. They went because Rent was for them. It also surpassed the success of any rock musical before it even without the benefit of the radio play that Hair and Jesus Christ Superstar had. People were responding to what was happening on the stage, not a familiar tune. I understand the statement about Hair being the "watershed" rock musical, and I agree with that. But Rent changed Broadway itself.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:30pm

Emcee...right there with you.

I actually dislike RENT with a fiery passion....the reasons why are unimportant here.

Another important thing that you MUST give credit to Rent for: Bringing throngs of young people back to Broadway! Nothing can overestimate how important that is!

[Weez]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:34pm

RENT is watershed because of audience impact rather than the show itself. Wasn't it the first show to offer lotto, after dealing with people queueing up all night to buy cheap tickets?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:36pm

Also, to be clearer for TDH: It's not a "watershed" in the way you're using it -- in the same way as Oklahoma!, Cabaret, Hair, etc. But it's still important and influential.

And agreed with the audience/demographics factors. Also very important.

Updated On: 8/17/08 at 04:36 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:39pm

I always thought Rent was very much like Rocky Horror Picture Show (the movie) Not very good, but managed to find a cult audience. Rent was lucky to in the right place at the right time . Having it's creator die after dress rehearsal, added to the romantic mythology of it. I have often wondered if Larsen hadn't died, would it still be running?

[Weez]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:39pm

Emcee, what I'm currently feeling must be the internet equivalent of one of your mates getting their waist-length brown hair cropped off and bleached platinum blonde. Does that make sense?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:43pm

Hehe, not quite!

I don't feel like I'm having that done to me, if that's what you mean! (The reality of having that done to my hair actually makes me more squirmy than someone crucifying Rent!) I don't really take offense to people not liking the show, to each his own; I just think it's silly (and frustrating) when people allow their personal taste to stand in the way of historical objectivity.

[Weez]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 4:59pm

It was more reference to your avatar actually. It's taking me longer than usual to register that it's you posting.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 5:08pm

OH! I thought you meant watching this thread was the equivalent of seeing someone having that done, hah. And I was like "... do I seem that upset?"

But yes, Bobby is on a brief hiatus. He will be back soon.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 5:38pm

I must say that I am one who finds Rent to be watershed. Not only did it tap into a new audience market of teenagers who actually wanted to go to the theatre on their own. It talked about things that were culturally relevant that were going on. I can't think of a musical since Hair that has done that.


I find that the people who say that it hasn't done much for musical theatre are just blind to what it has actually done. You don't have to be the biggest fan of Rent to understand how it became part of musical history. Hell, I am not the biggest Hair fan out there but I can understand why that show was groundbreaking.

Also, Rent was groundbreaking in its own right. It was the first show out there that talked about homosexuality as if it was no big deal. Prior to Rent you never saw a drag queen on Broadway interacting with the rest of the characters as if it was no big deal.

Rent was the first show to offer any sort of Rush or lotto. It started with the rush line and then changed to the lotto format. Other shows started to follow with general rushes, student rushes and lottos.

I also feel that people who say that Rent only made it to Broadway because of Larson's death tend not to let Rent stand on its own merits. I don't think that Rent sold out in its early years just because of Larson's death.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 5:41pm

If you think RENT was the first show to have a drag queen, you have A LOT of research to do.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 5:44pm

I know it wasn't the first. I do realize that La Cage aux Follis came out way before Rent did.

I was talking more about the way that it dealt with homosexuality. It showed everyone interacting and being friends with everyone regardless of their sexual identity.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 6:13pm

Hair did that... the "tribe" treats everyone the same regardless of race or sexuality. Free love.

RENT is just a direct descendant of Hair. RENT didn't do anything Hair didn't, except outrun it (though Hair's run is nothing to sneeze at, particularly for its time and the nature of the show). Hell, they BOTH even had mediocre movies adaptations!
RENT was the 90's answer to Hair.


But RENT isn't the first musical to deal with its subject matter. William Finn tackled AIDS years before with Falsettoland. And March of the Falsettos, written ten years before RENT, dealt with a more complicated facet of homosexuality. Despite being stylized, Finn's Falsettos is a lot more emotional and realistic than RENT.

RENT expanded on themes brought up in earlier shows- Hair, Falsettos, etc.

It revolutionized the marketing aspect of theatre. But the artistic aspect? Not so much.

[Gobstopper]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:01pm

It may not be the first to deal with those "edgy themes, but it was the first to deal with those themes and become a wild financial success.

Additionally, it really did change the course of Broadway if you consider what was making money at the time. Rent was set against Phantom, Cats, Beauty & The Beast, etc. And it was the antithesis of all those popular shows, yet it still became an enormous success.

[commasplice]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:05pm

"She Loves Me was not successful at all in 1994. How did that open any doors?"

In addition to what KJ said: If She Loves Me had not done well, Roundabout would not have done any more musicals (according to an interview on XM with someone who worked at Roundabout at the time. I'd give you a name, but I cannot remember for the life of me, I'm sorry). Considering all of the musicals Roundabout has produced since then, I would say it was extremely important for that reason.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:17pm

"Also, Rent was groundbreaking in its own right. It was the first show out there that talked about homosexuality as if it was no big deal. Prior to Rent you never saw a drag queen on Broadway interacting with the rest of the characters as if it was no big deal."

Nope. Not even close. Just recently, revivals of The Ritz and A Chorus Line should have made clear this is not the case.


kmc

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:23pm

"... firstly I can be objective... I used to be a huge RENT fan (not ashamed to admit)..."

There's nothing like a vocal reformed [fill in the blank, smoker, drinker, RENT fan, you name it] to plump up the ranks of insufferable zealots.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:30pm

Emcee - our dear friend, Winston, is the exact reason why I question its significance. It's hard not to when I have RENT Heads calling it "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary"

it really wasn't. it just received more attention because of the mainstream factor.

Emcee... you, on the other hand, bring up great points and I do agree with you to a small extent.

Winston - your examples are exactly why I believe it's NOT a watershed musical. it was NOT the first musical to deal with aids or homosexuality, and it was NOT the first musical with a drag queen. it was also NOT the first musical to bring teens to the theatre.

Jesus Christ Superstar and Hair did a great job at doing it, first. The whole controversial "rock show" found that young edgy audience. RENT was not the first to do anything you have claimed, Winston.