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

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 12:07pm

I pretty much fell in love with RENT right in November when I started watching the trailers and listening to music clips and so on. However, when I went to see the movie, I did not enjoy myself, simply because I couldn't understand what was going on.

So, technically, I have to like the movie better a year later since I understand it now. But here is my two cents on the whole production:

1) I agree with Amazon.com's statement that RENT works better now as a fantasy to living life on the edge, since most of the issues are now a bit dated. But no, Mr. Columbus can't have that. He has to prove to everyone that he isn't just family fun - he can be gritty too! Isn't that just deliciously ironic?

2) It would seem that I am in the minority of people who agree with the makers in not putting the now "alternate ending" in the movie. Let's face it, the reason that ending is emotional to everyone who sees it (including me) is because it's a gimmick - it bookends for no real reason. Also, it really does make it seem as though everything is going to be okay when Angel comes back to sing with everyone - the movie didn't really happen, you don't have to feel anymore!

3) However, I am in the majority of people who agree that they SHOULD NOT have taken "Goodbye Love" and "Halloween" out of the movie.

4) As much as I like the original cast, I could not believe they were in their twenties.

NOW TO THE POSITIVES!

5) The orchestrations of the songs are much superior to the Broadway orchestrations.

6) The actors did convey their characters very, very well - you could tell they really loved each other and had been a group for many, many years.

7) Rosario Dawson was the best of the bunch. She conveyed her character perfectly and, unlike the others, I could believe she was really young.

"Without You" was done absolutely perfectly. It was the only time I actually cried during the whole movie.

So, in conclusion, I do like the movie better a year later, even with its mountain of flaws.

[sweetdisaster]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 12:13pm

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.

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 1:44pm

as my username might suggest, I adore RENT. It is and always will be my favorite show of all time. I can't tell you all the emotions I went through last November anticipating this movie. I read all the negativity, but I didn't care. I went in ready to love this movie because it's RENT. And after going to the premier at the Ziggfeld, I adored it. Saw the movie 5 times in the theatre and bought the dvd the day it came out. While I understand the minor quibles people have wit hthe movie, I can't say I love it any less today. It still affects me in ways o other movie does, and nothing can ever change that.

I think it;s interesting a few of you expressed how you liked the earlier drafts much better than the final product, because I read those early scripos and I DESPISE them. They weren't RENT, not to me at least. Sure, Columbus could have done things different ,but at this point I still just love the movie for what it is and I am so grateful we have this amazing music and these fantastic performaces preserved.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 3:53pm

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

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 5:57pm

I didn't like the film when it was released. I thought it was silly and sanitized and had nothing to do with life in New York City. I've seen it a couple of times since then on cable, and find nothing to change my views.

Come on people. At the beginning of the movie, Collins is being chased by a bunch of thugs, and, like any intelligent New Yorker, he runs right into a convenient dark alley so the thugs can beat the living daylights out of him. How can I take a movie seriously that contains idiocy like that?

And it has been said, but I will say it again: no self-respecting East Village musician of that period would have worn their hair the way Adam Pascal wears it in the film. Those golden Farrah Fawcett locks are absolutely ridiculous.

Oddly, though, the fact that the cast is by and large 15 years too old for their roles bothers me less and less.

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 9:52pm

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.

[domesticMagenta]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:33am

All I have to say about Rent the movie:

1. Seasons of Love is the most annoyingly misquoted song EVER. There are more lyrics than "525600 minutes." Some people don't understand that.
2. Working in a movie theater in rural Virginia, where the reaction to Rent was pretty much "OMG OMG GAY PEOPLE WE DON'T APRROVE AND THEY DESERVE AIDS FOR BEING SINNERS," I think Rent was the most annoying movie ever, mostly because of the "WE WISH WE WERE RENTHEADS BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD SEASONS OF LOVE AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BE SMARTER THAN THE GIRL SELLING TICKETS EVEN THOUGH SHE'S SEEN THE SHOW" audiences.

On it's own merit? The movie did a fairly good job with the essence of the play, deus ex machina and all. :)

(Long-time lurker, first post, woo?)

[Broadwayfan120791]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:30am

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.

[lovepuppy]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:46am

Just a couple of quickie things to add after not logging on for a few days and catching up on posts:

To the person who criticized Columbus by saying "how could they possibly afford that apartment," well, it's clear from the beginning of the movie that they didn't HAVE to afford it because Benny gave it to them rent-free. After Mark gets his Buzzline check, he pays Benny. Frankly I don't even think that portion happened in the show. Plus, like Anthony said in the commentary, some spaces were made to be larger simply to accomodate the nearly 50 crew people. And anyway, most movies and even TV shows have sets that are larger than most of the average person's living space, so, pardon my French, but BFD. That's not something special that only affects this movie.

Also, I'm genuinely interested in hearing thoughts on a question I posed last week: 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? I would disagree with people calling a 20-year filmmaker a hack. I say any guy who can create blockbusters like the "Harry Potter" series, in which he clearly has to have practical knowledge of and experience with all kinds of technical SFX (for which he proved box-office success, btw) can scale back for, in the most simplistic terms, a human story with some songs in it. He didn't reinvent the wheel, and as has already been discussed, this certainly isn't the first stage show to be made into a film. Changes have to be made. A lot of bitching but not many solutions have been posted, here. (Spike Lee's name has been floated time and again but the dude passed on the project years ago, let's move on with your other ideas if you have them.)

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? I'm sure experience in front of a camera makes a difference, but it's not like they were looking straight at it going "is this thing on?" or something. Just asking. Thanks.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 02:46 AM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 6:27am

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).

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 10:28am

Also, what makes Adam's and Idina's acting "bad" compared to the rest of the cast

I thought they were fine, actually, and that Thoms was the worst actor of the bunch. Inexplicably, I found her performance to be the most "stagey."

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 10:38am

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?...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:12am

I hate to bring up the old argument, I really do, but the fact that some people keep contesting old points that they've been told aren't true many, many times -- ignoring all explanations (or perhaps just not believing them) -- grates on me.

Nothing done during the process of filming the movie shied away from a potential R rating. All plans during that time were based on the assumption that the film would end up rated R. They weren't scared of it. How could they be if that's what they planned? If I remember correctly, the ratings people basically had a short list of very minor things that if changed in post-production (mostly miniscule cuts that viewers wouldn't notice unless alerted to them -- like a missing "f*ck"), would allow the film to cross over into PG-13 territory. Enough of those changes were made to make it so. But that's not the same as actually making a movie with plans for it to be PG-13 from the start.

I know this topic has come up endless times and every time been contested in the same way, but you (and others) keep insisting that the studio was afraid of getting an R rating and wanted the film to get a PG-13 to expand its audience, etc. Simply untrue. I promise; the source of that information, while opinionated about subjectivity would not -- now or then -- bullsh*t me about objective facts.

Anyway, one of my main sticking points in terms of the film that could have been is that I would've liked to see what Spike Lee would have done with it. I do agree with you that if another director had tackled the same material, it could have been "edgy" enough, for lack of a better term, to end up constituting an R.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:12 AM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:16am

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

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:18am

"This lot is full of artists."

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:19am

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.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:22am

Colleen: I just edited my post above to be clearer, but several of those very minor cuts were language, hence the loss of "f*ck" here and there. Needles actually going into skin were another; again, if I remember correctly, the agreement was that needles could be shown, but if they went into the skin, that wasn't okay in the land of PG-13. They were all filmed in anticipation of and R, and then taken away after the fact. April's suicide was also filmed; it's one thing that I'm still upset isn't in the film, honestly. I don't know the "official" explanation for its disappearance, but it presumably had something to do with excessive cinematic melodrama within the imagery of a dead body in a tub.

So yes, Columbus made concessions in order to get the PG-13 once the option was offered to him, but he filmed the movie in its entirety under the assumption that it was doubtlessly R material.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:22 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:25am

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

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:27am

I watch the movie last might for the first time in about 6 or 7 months. 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. I found some of Pascals' acting bad(he isn't to great of an actor anyway). It was a little cheesy when Roger is just standing there and he suddenly jumps up and breaks into song. I don't understand why they added all those scenes. I didn't feel most of them were necessary. I think cutting Goodbye Love was a huge mistake. That song should be in there to make more of the plot make sense.The film has its flaws but I still like it.
Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:27 AM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:42am

"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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:42am

I've seen one version of Chbosky's script on the internet - there may be others - but the one I saw was an early draft and not exactly what Lee was planning on filming. (Like Columbus, Lee is not someone to not give his input into the final shooting script).

I don't want to start a bunch of silly conspiracy ideas saying that Columbus *knew* this was going to be a PG-13 movie and that cast members were lied to about the possibility for a gritty R rated version - but simply put -

Studios know, by and large, what the rating is going to be on a film when it is greenlit. Its a consideration in budget, casting, advertising - everything.

The kinds of cuts we are talking about that were supposed to indiciate that everyone thought this was going to be an "R rated film" - April's suicide, needles, a couple of f-bombs are so minor and so borderline, they aren't really worth discussing. They were trims filmed, in my opinion, as "maybes" - maybe we can get this through the ratings board and still get a PG 13.

The kinds of things that guarantee an R rating (and certainly Chbosky's first draft would have guaranteed that) - excessive language, full nudity, graphic drug use - were never part of Columbus's shooting script and never would have been greenlit by Sony.

The ramifications of whether a film is going to get an "R" verses a "PG 13" are so monumental to the bottom line - no film made by a major studio is going to be greenlit without a fairly clear indication of what the final rating will be. There are in fact dozens of people whose sole job is to gover every script in development and indicate exactly how, why and where the rating is going to fall.

If Columbus believed he was making an R rated film - his script would have been different. Plain and simple.


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

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:50am

"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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:54am

In terms of the realism of the piece:

1. There are lots of East Village lofts as big as Mark and Roger's apartment. Particularly in the 80s/90s when most of the buildings were abandoned.

2. The problem with Mimi dancing in an upscale club isn't the problem. The fact that that club would have existed on Avenue A in 1989 is one of the silliest things ever put on film.

3. Heroin in the 80s in the East Village was super cheap. Its why it was such an epidemic.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:57am

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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:05pm

That is a good point, BroadwayGirl. The inspiration for the junk structure (integral to the original Broadway design and payed homage to in Maureen's performance art piece in the film) was an outdoor, standing structure in a performance art space on 2nd Street (now gone of course).

The way the number was filmed makes little sense, particularly as the police breakup is supposed to instigate a STREET riot...