RENT scores PG13

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:11am

[liotte]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:14am

source?

[WickedJerseyGirl]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:22am

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=866820&dt=090905083032

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:24am

Sorry, posted before I was done typing...Friend/Hollywood Agent told me that the film was given a PG13 in its first screening for MPAA. Rating isn't final, but I don't expect a sudden bump to R.

I consider this a very smart move, considering that the core audience for the film are fans and teenagers.

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:28am

Any credence to the speculation that the language, etc. was cleaned up to secure this rating?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:30am

I dont think it really needed to be...you can get a lot and still get a PG13 rating these days.

[kasim]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 10:10am

out of couriosity but how does one figure that a musical that came out in 1996 and then on tour for a while has a core audience of teenagers?

I mean musicals arent exactly cheap to go to, so sure i am sure all the performing arts people in high schools love it. But i really dont see it much beyond that.

If anything i'd see it as a 20 somethings would love it. Heck ... i can relate to the movie a lot more now than if i was 13.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 10:12am

Benny: Dudes, I'm on my way.

Roger & Mark: Great. Fudge!

[kim1061]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 10:20am

ahahahaha

[Jon]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 11:40am

The 13 to 16 year olds who take drama clases at my theatre are all RENT fans - they can't wait for the movie!

Most of them never saw the show - but they all love the cast album and know all the lyrics to Seasons of Love.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 11:49am

All you have to do is scroll through the many RENT threads on BWW and look at the profiles of the core posters to see that the show has a large teenage following.

Most of the people my age I know who were the original "Rent Groupies" are looking forward to the film, but aren't expecting to see it over and over like many of the teens on here plan to do.

[loudasthehelliwant]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 11:54am

*doubts about Chris Columbus's ability come flooding in*

Drugs, "f.u.c.k.", strippers, AIDS... and a PG-13?

I mean, I know you can get away with a lot these days, but...

*was counting on it being "R"*

I mean, now I can go see it w/o my parents buying me a ticket, but stil...

I'm kinda disappointed, and worried that it's going to be too fluffy. :/

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 12:08pm

That's a really presumptuous statement. The film hasn't been seen by anyone here. As I said in the other thread, ratings are extremely subjective. The same people do not rate every film. As times change and societal standards change, film ratings will change. As I look at what is in RENT and what is in other PG-13 films, I don't quite see RENT as an R-rated film. Drug use is talked about, but not actually seen. Contact is out, so the only sex we see is kissing. The only questionable criteria is the language, and the ratings board is NEVER consistent. It's also based in part on who they are attracting. Who will the audience be? If they know who the primary audience is going to be, they are generally more lenient with the rating.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 12:08pm

Here's the thing that keeps me from going into the "disappointed" camp: we keep hearing that the screenplay is very close to the libretto, right? And the show as is - say it were filmed on stage and stuck on a movie screen - and THAT was Rent the movie. There's nothing in there that would make it R over PG-13 - or at least that's the sense I get. PG-13 is probably the rating with the widest spectrum of stuff tossed into it - you can have things that are just barely above PG, and then things that are one nude scene or one curse word away from being R. But if it's faithful to the show (and isn't that what we're clamoring for?) then there's no REASON for it to be R, logically. I get the feeling that you can have a perfectly gritty movie with a PG-13 rating. But honestly - the show has no *true* nudity (Idina's ass isn't that big of a deal), no actual sex, just kissing (and there's no sex in the movie - those original scenes are gone) and no ACTUAL depiction of drug use. I'd suspect that's the thing that might be different in the movie - maybe we'll see more active depiction of drug use, but if that's the only thing, then it wouldn't be enough to push it over to the R category.

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 12:08 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 12:19pm

Although I am also worried that the film will be "fluffy," I believe that a filmed version of the stage show would garner the same PG-13 rating (I was hoping the movie would be darker) The show does not include graphic depictions of any sexual acts, or drug use. The thematic elements of sexuality are all essential to the plot. Finally the language includes a few f-bombs and a gd or two, but nothing like the 50 or 60 in a typical R-rated movie.

Unless the movie had taken the subject matter to a darker place and gone more intently into the sexuality and drug issues, I would have considered an R rating an attempt by the MPAA to keep audiences away from the show.

[LoudIrishGirl]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 12:44pm

Personally I am glad it's not getting 'darker.' One of the great things about RENT to me is that it reaches a huge spectrum of ages, in a large part because it walks that dark content versus dark action line so well. I first really learned of AIDs from RENT, and as I got older I found out more and came to better appreciate the show because of it. Every time I come back to RENT I find it to be darker and more serious, and I don't think it needs to become any darker. It COULD, yes, and that would be interesting, I agree with you there, but it wouldn't be the same RENT that I fell in love with.

Don't get me wrong, I am slightly skeptical about Chris, but I think the OBC members wouldn't be praising a man who ruined or failed to achieve Jonathan's dream. I trust them, the Larson family, and therefore Chris (who has mainly done kiddie movies because he is good at them, not because he can't do other stuff).

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 12:58pm

I think my expectations are rooted in the music, I had listened to the cast recording for a very long time before I saw the show. I was in my twenties and it spoke to me. The show on stage has felt like a slightly whitewashed version of those emotions to me. I love to see it, it is emotional and beautiful, but it has never again been the kind of cathartic experience it could have been.

I agree with the Michael Bennett in the other thread, to make RENT a new Taxi Driver or Requiem for a Dream, is ridiculous. I think it is better to have it closer to the stage version, which as I said I believe is PG-13, unless they were going for a fundamental change.

Columbus ruined the first two Harry Potter movies to me, he took all the grit and darkness that is evident on the page and whitewashed it out. Home Alone, I just hate. I have confidence he can be adequate, and hope he is better than that. I can't imagine the Larson's or the Cast would say anyhting bad about him at this point though, even if he were Ed Wood bad.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:00pm

I'm glad it got the PG-13. There was nothing in the show that made me doubt for a moment that I could take me sister (who isn't 17) to see it. A PG-13 rating will probably boost the film's box office profit; sorry, I never bought the argument that people under 17 would generally find a way to see the film in theaters in spite of the rating. Even if most did, they would probably end up buying a ticket for another film and then sneaking into Rent - which wouldn't help its box office.

Also, Mommie Dearest - while impossible for me to take seriously - IS taken seriously by a lot of people, and includes liberal use of swear words, sexuality, and violence [toward children]. But... it was rated PG.
Updated On: 9/9/05 at 01:00 PM

[One Song Glory]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 3:35pm

Ha, now my friends won't have a reason not to see it.

[almostxfamous]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 3:47pm

Well, since they cut out Christmas Bells(I think), it's losing curses there, and in the script that I read, when Benny calls, that part doesn't happen with the "Benny!(sh*t)" thing. And I heard that in a PG-13 movie, you can only say f*ck once. So, we'll see.

[LaVieBoheme2]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 4:43pm

This makes me so upset. I'm going to miss Tango: Maureen's "F*CKing weird" and the "Great, F*CK" and I miss Contact (since they cut it all of the way... maybe for the rating), but mainly now I have to put up with all of the 10 year olds sitting befind me, squealing about Adam Pascal (or whoever they find attractive in the trailor).

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 4:54pm

Those of us over the age of 16 have had the same problem with squealing teenagers at every show Adam Pascal has been in -- why should it stop now?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 4:59pm

You CAN say the F-word in PG 13.

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 5:01pm

almostfamous is right...in order to get a PG-13 rating, a movie can only use the work f*ck once. I believe that sh*t can be used a couple of times, but once you go over the limit, it either becomes an R rating or they can cut them out.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 5:01pm

I just don't understand why some believe because they use the F word a few times in the show, and they have to use the word for the movie. No, there are so many other ways to get around using the F word. Instead of for example "F&ck it", "Screw it" would work better for a PG13 movie.