RENT movie garners exactly zero Golden Globe nods! — Page 20

ha, BSo, do you remember the fake Nathan Lane?

---

NathanLane?

I don't, no.

I remember the fake Norbert Leo Butz...

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 01:35 AM

*bang*

---

"However, this thread has long surpassed any sort of respectful discussion about the art and has essentially become an attempt to celebrate what you are choosing to deem as a failure. "

I am not choosing to deem anything a failure. It IS a failure. And there is nothing despicable about heated conversation. Now go and have another cookie and stop being such a bitch.

---

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 01:38 AM

RENT cast doesn't know how to darn socks!
"Posted On:12/14/05 at 01:33 AM


Colleen's sudden illness is HIGH camp.

I almost want to take a skillet and 'tap' her on the head with it just to see her eyes spin around while she clutches her stomach. "

That may be the funniest thing I have ever read on BWW -- sorry Colleen -- you know I love you -- but your outrage is entering the valley of the dolls just a little...

>>>I am not choosing to deem anything a failure. It IS a failure.

And this is exactly where your overwhelming arrogance has completely overshadowed any argument you're attempting to make.

This film hasn't been a financial success but many, many, MANY people would consider this film to be a success in other ways. I wouldn't even consider this film a critical failure as critically it was so completely split.

In your opinion it was a failure. EVERYONE is quite aware of that, but you're not the be all end all, so it's time to stop belittling those who found some successes in this project.

---

Colleen -- your point is well taken, but by the same token, you can't be defensive when people look at the box office gross and the critics tallys and say -- this film is a failure, when those are the very barometers the industry uses to gauge success...

Movies and Musicals just don't mix.

Neither do AIDS and Musicals.

But Witches and Musicals - a perfect match!

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 01:46 AM

>>>>But Witches and Musicals - a perfect match!

Almost as perfect as dancing cats.

---

>>>>colleen,
The movie is about to slip from top 10 and it is not even Christmas. It is about to enter what is refered to as "the second run".. Thats when the screen numbers go down and it gets moved to the small and second run houses. There is no interest in the film in Europe. None. Read the trades girl. And to tell you the truth.. the critical response was more slanted to the negative. It is not my opinion. These are facts.<<<<

I can't say at all that I disagree with this. I have seen and understand the overall reception of this film. I guess I am just not quite as quick to drop the f-bomb on any piece of artisitc output. It's so subjective, and though it may be a failure according to industry standards there are always going to be people somewhere who are able to find successes in it and are going to jump on the defensive when the "failure" word is thrown around. Simply out of respect for those persons, I think this whole discussion could have been approached differently.

Granted, it's all semantics, but it's amazing how greatly semantics can impact the outcome of a discussion.

And, I have now discovered that forming coherent sentences at this hour is quite impossible.

To bed I go.

---

Once more for good measure:

*headdesk*

Goodnight.

---

--I can't say at all that I disagree with this. I have seen and understand the overall reception of this film. I guess I am just not quite as quick to drop the f-bomb on any piece of artisitc output. It's so subjective, and though it may be a failure according to industry standards there are always going to be people somewhere who are able to find successes in it and are going to jump on the defensive when the "failure" word is thrown around. Simply out of respect for those persons, I think this whole discussion could have been approached differently.--

I wasn't going to post because I did enough damage without meaning to the first time out, but I felt this was the most succint point yet. Yes, the film is not a success. Neither critically nor commercially. But yes, like any piece of art, there are going to still be people who love it, and not just a small amount of people, either. I may not have liked Good Night and Good Luck, but tons of people do. And I have to understand *why* they do, even if I don't agree with it. Sure, in private conversations I may feel like I'm right and they're wrong -- but that isn't factually correct, it's just opinion.

That said, I am still depressed and dismayed over the film of Rent. I do believe that in time perhaps Mr. Rapp and others involved with it can see how perhaps not all the right choices were made, but I hope they still see that some of them were. I do believe Chris Columbus was the de facto wrong director for the material, but I can understand how his passion and drive made that maybe not seem the case initally. Everyone deserves a second or third or fourth chance, and I could concede the point that Columbus' passion for the material came across like maybe this was the film to show his true artistry. However, I think ultimately this was sadly not the case.

As I PM'd to two people tonight, I watched the film again the other day and just saw the film, away from all the hype (my own and others, positive and negative) for what it is: messy. It truly doesn't work, except in beautiful moments. Any flaws one ascribes to the stage show were not evened out in the film, they were amplified. Even if one doesn't love the film of Chicago, there isn't a laughable moment in it, and in Rent (the film) there are plenty. Even if one doesn't love Phantom, you can't say there isn't a consistent tone to Schumacher's approach -- he at least went for it (and in my opinion, failed). Columbus simply was the wrong director for the material. The actors are not miscast, it's not their fault. But just because someone reveres the source material does not make them the best director for it. I hope the actors can see in time that their contribution to the film is not in question (they should all be supremly happy) but it is their leader they should question; he is a mistake they should learn from. Anything that doesn't work in Adam Pascal's performance (his hair, the red rocks thing) is because Columbus wanted it so -- not Mr. Pascal. The sidelining of Angel as a character was not Wilson Heredia's problem, but Columbus' choice. Every misstep in the film (like another day being filmed with five stories of building between the duet-ers even as Roger sings "the door is that way") is Chris Columbus' choice. Even the color of the clothes is a director's ultimate choice, as is the screenplay. The same exact actors, writer and creative team under the stewardship of a different director might have actually made a wonderful movie. That is what breaks my heart.

Still, as I've always said, I find I return to the near miss movies, or the abject failures, more than I care to return to the perfect ones. I look forward to watching Rent for years to come, even if only to dream about what could have been.

Michael

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 03:43 AM

Michael- Although I don't quite agree with you, thank you so much for posting your opinion in a polite manner. Bravo for that.

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 04:34 AM