RENT the movie: One Year Later? Your thoughts... — Page 4

Prior to seeing the movie, I had never seen the stage show, aside from the tour once when I was younger. I had the OBCR, and loved the music, but didn't know much about the story or history of the show. I agree with those of you who said that the montages really worked. To me, they were some of the best parts of the movie, and I wish there were more of them. I think part of the reason why the movie has something missing is because we don't get to see a lot of the things left to the imagination when you see the show on stage. I absolutely loved the movie the first time I saw it, but after reading reviews and the story behind the show, I started picking out things I disliked and analyzing it to the point where I couldn't enjoy it. I focused on things such as why Mimi's hair wasn't wildy curly or why Roger didn't have his guitar while singing "Your Eyes". It's only now that I see maybe those small points didn't matter as much as I had thought. I recently watched the movie for the first time in months and found that I did enjoy it. I think a part of the reason it still evokes such emotions from people is because of the cast, who really do make it believable that they're a family.

I think another good thing about the movie is that it opened up so many people to Rent. It may have suffered losses at the Box Office, but last year as a freshman in college, I don't think that there was one room in my hall that didn't have the soundtrack playing at some point. It was almost Rent overkill. I'd hardly consider myself a "Renthead", but I told almost everyone I knew to go see the film. Most of the people I dragged with me to theaters really did enjoy it, and in some cases, the movie was their closest exposure to theatre. I think the positive thing that happened was that it did spread the message, even if it may not have been perfect or completely true to what Larson may have envisioned. It's definitely flawed, but I'm passed the point of picking it apart and instead can like it for what it is.

if one more person says that some of the issues Rent deals with are dated i will scream.

That was one of the most stupid arse remarks i remember some critics saying.

The issues arent dated,been someone who has been affected by some of the issues this raises it drives me mad

HIV,Poverty,day to day struggle ,finding your voice in an insane world are things that people still struggle with,people are just to blind to see them as we we are to busy sorting every other countrys problems out.

Its odd i only really heard american reviews say that the issues were dated,press here in the UK diddnt really say that and seemed to understand(even if they diddnt like the film) that theese issues are still very relevent.

strange that the country its set in seems to think them issues are dated

---

I think that with all the hype prior to the movie with the Rent blogs, and the TV appearances and anything rent-movie related, I (as probably a lot of other people) were excited for it to come and wanted it to be amazing and do well.

I saw the movie a few times in theatres and made all of my friends see it, and I bought the DVD and the soundtrack the day it came out. I would have probably raved about it even if it was just the cast making animal noises for two hours.

But I think that now that all of the excitement towards the movie coming out is gone, I think it could have been so much better. I'm disapointed with how the movie turned out becuase it had so much potential to be amazing and it's just not.

I do love Tango: Maureen, and I think the soundtrack has more energy than the cast recording. Other than that, I really think that so many choices made in the movie are just not right.

When I first saw the RENT movie in theatres....I loved it so much, thought it was the greatest thing to ever happen...then when I saw the play..(which I really wanted to see before, but ended up seeing it after actually in April) I immediately fell in love with it and ditched loving the movie so much. I felt the movie didn't include some of the best songs of the play, that is just my opinon though. Like honestly, Christmas Bells and Happy New Year are probably my 2 favorite songs of Rent besides La Vie Boheme, and so I really wish they could've been in the movie, but besides that I have to give props to the movie. I mean it really did open up a lot of people to RENT and also broadway as well.

Me, for one, liked Broadway and had seen about 2 shows before the movie of Rent came out, but seeing this movie and getting exposed to Rent made me love broadway so much more and appreciate more of it just from first wanting to see this movie then wanting to go see the show then wanting to see other shows on Broadway. It was like a chain reaction for me I guess I could call it and I think the movie really "sparked" the whole broadway love for me, even though I did like it in somewhat of a way before. The only reason I say now though that after seeing the show I love it more is because I think with really any show, seeing it live is just an amazing feeling and it's like the action of the show and the emotions of it are right there in front of you at the very moment not taped. So, its nothing big against the movie I have. Colombus did do a pretty good job on it and credit to him for some of the choices he did make that made the movie not all that bad. I mean Rosario Dawson- good choice for Mimi....Tango Maureen was a really good scene..and Without was done very well also.

---

I'm not sure that I can answer your question as far as who I'd have preferred to see direct, but I have to say that I'm not crazy about Columbus's work on the Harry Potter films. While they were obviously critical and audience smashes, I experience some of the same problems with this work in those movies that I did in Rent. No one's calling him a hack in any sense of the word, and I think that he has produced good (great?) films in the past.

Apologies in advance for this digression from the topic of the thread. The two Harry Potter films that Columbus directed are markedly less pleasing from a visual standpoint than the latter two, which were handled by other directors. Again, his style is very straightforward and some of the scenes actually (ironically?) come off as a little stagey. His films lack the depth and contrast of, say, Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban, and I can't help but get a feeling of visual flatness from them. He delivered extremely faithful, serviceable adaptations of the revered novels, but I never find myself returning to his two. A lot of this is going to be based on personal opinion -- a lot of people hated the later HP films because they're less faithful (and undoubtedly many people would hate seeing a less faithful Rent, though I don't think I'm among them), but Columbus's films didn't convey the magic of Rowling's world as successfully as the other directors' have. It's impressive that he took a chance with Rent, and I don't dislike the final product, but...again, it would've been interesting for someone else to try their hand.

All of this is probably going to come across as my wanting a flashier, more technically impressive version of Rent, but that's not it at all. My ideal for the film would've been more daringly adapted version overall, but even in its current form, I'm sure I would enjoy it much more if it were presented differently. On the other hand, I think that it's fascinating to read reviews such as b12b's that indicate that Larson would have been thrilled with Columbus's film (thank you for your perspective, by the way).

The problem RENT had, and what kept it from being made for so many years, was balancing the cost of a movie musical (and the huge amount spent on the film rights) with the material, which if served properly, really constituted an R rating.

I agree completely with a lot of general complaints about the final movie - particularly that the world of the East Village, drug use, and AIDS comes across as something of a sanitized Lifetime movie. Heck, I've seen primetime t.v. shows with more grit than Columbus's vision.

The problem was - and this is one of the reasons the Spike Lee version was canned - is that there is no way a film studio was going to greenlight RENT as an R rated movie musical, knowing full well that the target audience for the film was teenage girls and young women.

And they were right. Look at the average response to this thread. I maintain that Sony knew exactly what they were doing when they hired Chris Columbus, who in no way, had ever shown a gift for edgy cinema, but sure knew his way around a suburban multiplex.

Probably if the studio had been gutsier and weren't so scared of the R rating, a film of RENT could have been made that would have been a more succesful product (both artistically, and ironically financially) - but frankly, I'm not sure who would have directed it.

The list of directors offered the project over the years is long - Spike Lee, Baz Luhrmann, Martin Scorcese, Darin Aronofsky, etc. Nobody wanted to do it.

Sony probably should have just waited. While I agree that the subject matter in RENT isn't dated, it isn't exactly relevent either. And like DREAMGIRLS, the movie of RENT exposed a lot of flaws in the source material that really would have been needed to be fixed in order to be a "great" movie.

Columbus's biggest flaw (in addition to a shocking lack of technical aspects: close ups, camera shots, etc) was simply making a movie specifically for the fans of the play. It was like the movie of RENT was one big group-think: there was input from Columbus, Larson's family, the original cast, the fans on message boards. Whats that idea about too many cooks in the kitchen?...

I know this has been answered previously, but this was brought up in conversation between friends a few weeks ago and I could not recall the answer:

If they truly were anticipating the R rating, why were a few of the f-bombs, april's suicide, and the shots of mimi shooting up removed?

---

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:16 AM

Emcee-- that's just a point we will have to agree to disagree on. We both know people involved with the movie (though different people in different aspects!) and I will maintain that whatever outward motives were expressed (perhaps quite genuinely) the powers that be always knew this was going to be a PG 13 movie...

The rating has been issue numero uno since day one, and I promise you a big part of the reason Spike Lee jumped ship. The studios simply wouldn't greenlight his vision of the script because it was too intense.

MB -- Causes me to wonder who was told the truth by the powers that be -- and if the studio perhaps lied to people actually involved. Yikes. I'd sooner imagine it a lack of proper communication within the ranks than a lie to the public, but who knows?

Anyway, which version of the screenplay was Spike Lee going to use, Chbosky's? I can never keep them straight, but there's one from April of '04 that's absolutely gorgeous.

---

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:25 AM

"if people don't like what Columbus did, who would you have preferred to direct, and how would you illustrate what would have been different than what was done?"

Spike Lee, Sam Mendes, Baz Luhrman...and basically anyone else who's a grittier film-maker, and, well, more of a director. He had no vision. Anyone with a vision would have worked. And your defense of him is flimsy at best; it doesn't matter how many other family "blockbusters" he made, he didn't have what it takes to make this film--a very, very different film.

If I sum up his flaws, its a wide range of general points. He didn't understand the material, he didn't take the time to fix the flaws or plan things out (pretty clear by the omission of "Goodbye Love" and Halloween"), he was far too used to making family films, he made the film for a suburban teenage audience when the original show as intended for New Yorkers in the village, and frankly, as I said earlier, from all his interviews, it seemed like her wanted to be the dictator-director rather than a collaborator (or, like Michael Bennett said, he surrounded himself with people who were into his same "group think," so there was no push and pull to make interesting collaborative choices).

"Nothing done during the process of filming the movie shied away from a potential R rating."

I would love to believe that, and I did for a while, Emcee. But from changing little things like "Clit Club" to...whatever it was makes me think they were trying to inch their way to a PG-13 rating. Honestly, I haven't seen the movie in so long, I can't cite specific examples; I do remember noting other moments where Maureen's language was changed to be kosher in a laughable way. It was things like not showing a needle go into someone' skin, etc. Its not a huge deal, but that and the marketing make it very difficult for them to hide that they were making a movie for MTV's kids.

"Also, what makes Adam's and Idina's acting "bad" compared to the rest of the cast, or compared to people who you think are "good" actors by today's standards?"
Well, to start, people on this site just like to pick on the two of them because they are two of the most talked about, most adored performers on the site and their fans tend to be young females, which obviously makes the performers less talented. Or something like that. Personally, while I loved Adam in the original cast, I hated him in the movie because whatever was going on inside of him--IF anything at all--simply didn't resonate out. It was like he was so inside himself the whole movie and putting up these covers the character would have in the situations without anything strong enough brewed up inside of him. It's like nothing was at stake for Roger. That's the gist of it.

As for Idina, I don't know why people had such a problem with her besides her phoned-in, self-aware "Over the Moon." Other than that, I thought she was good--to me, she and Wilson were the best of the bunch.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:42 AM

"It has its flaws such as making the Cat Scratch Club business suit attire. If Mimi were dancing in that nice of a club she wouldn't be living in a crappy apartment like that."

to be fair, Mimi also has a very expensive drug habit. She chould very well have been making great money by normal standards, but the bulk of that went to support her bad habit. That part didn't bother me at all.

---

What I found even sillier than the Cat Scrath Club was that "Maureen is protesting losing her performance space," and then, cut to "Over the Moon," she's performing inside, not at the lot, with lighting and a set that could have payed SOMEbody's Rent for a FEW months.