RENT is not a "Watershed" musical...- Page 3

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 11:47am

I didn't say the character's i said there was something in there which affected everyone.

That could be knowing someone who has died from Aids or dealing with living with HIV yourselves, maybe poverty, struggling to be accepted, dealing with Death, Dealing with Life etc etc etc

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 1:11pm

such vauge innane themes.

doesn't EVERYONE technically deal with life? I mean.... I get what you're saying but stick to the whole homosexuality/poverty/AIDS theme. the other themes are common in almost every show and don't hold much significance.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 1:20pm

Once again TDH. Your doing an AMAZING job of proving my point.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 1:20pm

But it does for a younger generation, hence it's 11 year run

[AdamIsGodImJesus]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 2:31pm

"doesn't EVERYONE technically deal with life? I mean.... I get what you're saying but stick to the whole homosexuality/poverty/AIDS theme. the other themes are common in almost every show and don't hold much significance."

But dude, what are you trying to prove? In every piece of art in th world, every theme has been discussed before. Spring Awakening took people by surprise by it's themes, but was that the first time that people were discussed sex, homosexuality, botched abortions or masturbated on stage? Probably not. But it still sticks with people, and that's what's important. If the art sticks with people and moves people, then it becomes a landmark.

Everything is always going to be a version of something else.

[Jon]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 3:13pm

Roundabout's SHE LOVES ME was a FLOP. The commercial transfer LOST MONEY.

The only Roundabout musical to make a profit was CABARET.

110 in the Shade lost money. Assassins lost money. Pacific Overtures lost money. Sunday in the Park lost money.

Why do they keep doing musicals, then?

Because they are a non-profit theatre company. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY. They receive corporate funding, government grants, and individual donations to cover their losses.

For a typical non-profit theatre, ticket sales only account for 50% of income.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 3:31pm

Well, this thread has pretty much disintegrated into "I hate Rent, so it is awful, overated, and a waste of time" or "I love Rent, so it is the most important piece of art ever created" Either reactions are extreme and ridiculous. People have a tendency to confuse their own personal opinions with facts.

Rent is what it is. When it opened back in 1996, it was hailed as groundbreaking, refreshing, authentic, and of the moment. Now it is familiar and comfortable. Who knows what people will see it as 10 years from now.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 3:58pm

Updated On: 5/2/09 at 03:58 PM

[jrb]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:09pm

We're also forgetting that there is a key difference in definition between "watershed" and "ground-breaking".
The former implies a division between two phases or periods (in this case, time) while the latter implies literally the breaking of new ground or the creation of something utterly new.
Very few pieces of art actually break new ground.

If we go by strict definition, then Rent is most definitely a watershed piece. It brought about (or at least marked) a reinvigoration of broadway via a new, younger crowd. It changed the demographic by giving ownership of the broadway musical to younger people. And even if you don't credit it with bringing about the specific change, you can at least see that it stood as a representation of that change for a great many people.

This in-and-of-itself is major and deserves a mark in history. Watershed pieces indicate subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle changes in theater's movement. That shouldn't be discounted.

However, to say that it is ground-breaking isn't true - again, by definition.

Rent is based on various sources (Scenes de la Vie de Boheme, La Boheme, and La Vie Boheme) all of which dealt with very controversial subjects, for the time. Those stories were written in the 1800s and dealt with illness, poverty, art, and a lifestyle that was considered controvertial at the time.
Rent is merely an updated version of these very stories and themes. This, by definition, takes it out of the running for being ground-breaking, at least with regards to subject matter. That leaves us with its music and while I realize it was "new" as compared to other shows on b-way, it was by no means ground-breaking in the greater scheme of things. Contemporary music in a musical is a well-worn concept.

Likewise, Spring Awakening, which is considered by some to be "ground-breaking" is based on a book written in 1891. So, the only thing that could be considered ground-breaking in the show is the music, which is really just a new rock musical.

Again, none of this lessens Rent's impact...it just makes the concession that Rent was not anything substantially new.
But it was new for those who were being exposed to those themes for the first time.

I really like Rent, myself. I had the original cast recording sent to my place the day it was released. I was one of the kids who listened to it until I had every note memorized. This piece meant the world to me but it wasn't anything shockingly new. It was just a fresh take on an old theme and it spoke to me.

[andrewcomp]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:28pm

RENT. Oh RENT, what to say? It was honestly what got me into musicals and Broadway. Is it still my favorite show? Not my absolute favorite, but it still has a place "in my heart". It got me into what kind of stuff I am into today.

As a whole, RENT affected my life, and I think that's why it's different and some consider it a "watershed" musical. Yes, I can go see Legally Blonde, or Hairspray, or Wicked, or any other show for that matter, but how many could I walk out of and go "You know, that really changed my perspective of things" Or "You know, that really did touch, I'm going to remember it for a long time to come."

And if you want to get specific with what I'm talking about, I can see alot of generic storylines, all of them relativley the same from an outline.

Legally Blonde: Girl is underestimated and kicks ass.
Hairspray: Unpopular girl get's the popular boy in the end.
Wicked: Popular and not popular are BFFs.

But RENT? I don't see many storylines where the drug addicted stripper chases after the hot rocker guy who lives with his best jewish friend who just got dumped by his grilfriend for another woman, while every one of them struggle to make ends meat (maybe not Joanne, they don't really get into it.)

I'd say it was quite original, although yes it was based off of La Boheme, JL still made it original. That's my opinion. And yes, RENT does have it's flaws. Every show does. But in my opinion, RENT's positives make up for it's flaws.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:35pm

while every one of them struggle to make ends meat (maybe not Joanne, they don't really get into it.)

What kind of meat? Chicken? Hamburger?

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:37pm

Updated On: 5/2/09 at 04:37 PM

[andrewcomp]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:46pm

Emcee, please, it's a figure of speach, and if you're going to be a smartass to someone on your side, next time I won't bother trying to point out why I think you're right.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:52pm

We're also forgetting that there is a key difference in definition between "watershed" and "ground-breaking".
The former implies a division between two phases or periods (in this case, time) while the latter implies literally the breaking of new ground or the creation of something utterly new.
Very few pieces of art actually break new ground.

This is taking semantics to extremes. Using your definition of ground-breaking, the only things that are ground-breaking are the first of things. Star Wars wouldn't be ground-breaking because it is a movie and movies already existed. It is science-fiction, but science fiction wasn't a new concept. And yet, there are few who would argue that Star Wars was ground-breaking.
I am not comparing Rent to Star Wars. I am just saying that we are talking about art, and attempting to apply strict definitions to such a subjective topic is kind of pointless.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:55pm

Lighten up, I was just making a joke!

[JRybka]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:04pm

I think he was trying to make a funny 'cause you spelled meet... MEAT.. as in like Hamburger Meat not the other kind of meet...


I loved Rent when it first came out. Many of my friends were dying of AIDS... It was a musical that spoke to me due to the fact that kids (as they were supposed to be) were getting AIDS. Yes, there are many other groundbreaking plays (and musicals) about AIDS and HIV but they were all middle aged gays (like I am now) and it always ended in death. Someone in the play died....Falsettos, Angels in America, Longtime Companion just to name a few....

This was the first big musical to deal with HIV as an every person's illness. Man, Woman, Boy, Girl...
My mother who is in her 70s loved Rent for the fact that she could relate to the whole "Will I?" number about being alone and losing dignity.

I think that it was ahead of its time and was at the time something that stretched the boundaries of Broadway.

Now 11 years later many people (like lemmings) and all rushed to the next best thing bashing RENT along the way, calling it a little truffle that at one time was mildly amusing but now is just tired.

Remember when CATS opened? So many people where on the CATS band wagon.. then years went by... Now and forever.... and it became a joke in many theater persons eye when we flocked to the new and the different....

For years we have done this.... Dreamgirls, Evita, Cats, Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon, Rent, Wicked, Spring Awakening, Spamalot.... All shows that have been adored and then pushed aside when the lemmings find something else.

As much as I was touched by Rent and loved the show I sometimes wonder just how popular it might have become had Jonathan Larson not been killed.

Just my two cents worth... You can bash if you must. I can handle it.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:06pm

Updated On: 5/2/09 at 05:06 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:07pm

Apparently! I didn't anticipate it would be such a curve ball. :/

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:07pm

If RENT is watershed for it's getting young people into theatres then we would have to give the same honor to that of shows like Wicked and Cats both of which, at the time , tapped into a younger audiance. If that's the only requirement to be watershed then there are ALOT more then we thought. All three shows have now had their spawns: Wicked most likley helped to give birth to Legally Bolonde and Cats gave rise to a host of lavish spectacles.

Many other shows have had lines down the street for things like The Producers, but why is RENT special?

I have no great love nor hate for them piece, but I'm not sure, asside from updating the look of broadway and have been popular, that it has changed the way broadway works.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:15pm

One of the reasons I didn't care for Rent was it's Hallmark Card treatment of AIDS. After having a couple friends and a partner die of the disease I found the show's ending trite and warm and fuzzy. People didn't come back to sing a reprise.
it marketed a feel good epidemic.

[jrb]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:24pm

Well, in a sense that was my point. Being original isn't always necessary for art. Much of what we consider to be quality isn't ground-breaking and that fact shouldn't matter.
As for definitions..."ground-breaking" pretty clearly defines itself without any help. I don't think semantics play into it all that much. How else can you read into "ground-breaking"? You are literally breaking new ground and thus doing something completely new.

As for Star Wars - I don't think that the inovation in that piece was ever meant to be derived from its being a movie in and of itself...or a science fiction movie, for that matter. Making a movie will obviously never be considered ground-breaking by itself. The time for that passed when the first film was made.
It was innovations in special affects, the use of epic story telling in outerspace, the use of episodic story telling in a major movie in the way that star wars did it, and even the reassertion of classical scoring that made it ground-breaking. Those had never been done to that scale in film before. They redefined the landscape and thus the movie was ground-breaking. You're right though...this doesn't tie into Rents. It's just that I would consider Star Wars ground breaking while I would not consider Rent to be so.

My point is...Well Duh! Rent might not be brand new, but that doesn't make it any less important. Your argument for semantics kind of goes along with what I was saying. Very little is brand new and that's quite alright as long as innovation in presentation continues.

[JRybka]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:27pm

SNAFU~ Many people did not like the "hallmark" treatment of her coming back from the brink of death but it is never stated that she died in that scene from AIDS. It never says.. She's dead and then she comes back.... She could have slipped out of consciousness....heard his song and then came back... That is quite possible.

Yes AIDS is not a "feel good" epidemic and we will never know exactly what Jonathan's feeling where about this (due to his untimely death) but I have to say that It did not bother me she regained consciousness.

[JRybka]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:28pm

on an aside note... am I totally lame that I have never seen any of the Star Wars movies?

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:31pm

Updated On: 5/2/09 at 05:31 PM

[Jon]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 5:32pm

Maybe Andrewcomp actually thought the expression was "Making ends MEAT."