RENT the movie: One Year Later? Your thoughts...- Page 5

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:16pm

Oh, I think it's like... the "Kink Club," or something. I forgot about that one. I don't remember hearing explanations for script changes, only for post-production ones.

I don't know; I'm willing to believe that somewhere along the lines, there may have been an agenda. Somewhere. I definitely believe that the person I heard it all from had no reason to think it untrue. In some places, it probably is very true -- in others not. There are a million hypotheticals -- what people involved were led to believe versus what the studio's agenda was, if Columbus just... has cartoony standards and honestly thought he was making and R rated film or if it was all spin from him, etc -- but it certainly can't be as black and white as we're making it.

The suicide cut probably was a structural issue, not a ratings issue. Apparently, though, that tub was the same one Mimi sits on during Without You, and was supposed to create some kind of parallel, which I think would have worked well. People complain a lot about lack of emotion behind Roger -- especially people new to Rent at the time the film came out -- and I think it's probably because there's not enough background on him.

I agree that the riot being indoors was ridiculous. And as unrealistic as Out Tonight is, it's still one of my favorite scenes in the film. It just looks nice, ridiculous or not.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:59pm

Sorry to join in a little late, but I just wanted to add a few of my opinions.

I think the movie is good, not great not bad, and I agree with the people who said that Columbus does stay true to Larson's work. But, as many people have said there are just some things that are missing. One thing I find very important in Rent is the edge, passion, and pure roughness. That can be hard to accomplish in a movie and even hard to do on stage. Through the OBC recoding I am almost 100% positive that the OBC had all of those feelings. There are some scenes that are very lifeless in the movie (You'll See Boys, Another Day, and What You Own) that could have been better.

I also thought that Rosario was miscast. Her acting was pretty believable, but she looked to "clean" to me and her voice had no passion. Vocally the worst part of the movie was Without You, I really missed the passion and edge that Daphne Rubin- Vega brought to her performance. Another thing that I did not care for was the Take Me Or Leave Me scene. I think that Columbus lost all the intimacy form that scene. That is probably my favorite number in the theater because it is just the two of them singing their hearts out. He made it into some grand number that just did not work. And while Idina's vocals were really powerful and clear her Maureen also lost the edge during that number. I did think that Tracie Thomas was very good except during Take Me Or Leave Me. The thing that did it for me was the way se "read” the line "The straw that breaks my back" I got nothing during that one line and that ruined the number for me.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:25pm

If we're back to nitpickng head scratch-inducing choices, the one scene that's always driven me insane is Maureen and Joanne's commitment ceremony. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and is completely wrong and out of place. I can see wantng to address the issue of gay marriage, but you have to find a way to do that that doesn't bizarrely remove all of the characters from their squalid East Village surroundings. It's hard to imagine that the characters are struggling all that much if they can take the time out to attend an upscale engagement party.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 02:25 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:35pm

Emcee, you're right, I don't think it's completely black in white. I don't think there was some sort of PG-13 "agenda" (haha) all along and the cast, crew, and entire creative team new about it. But I certainly think the powers that be knew what audience they were creating this film for; I don't necessarily think the cast was clued in on that.

I don't think the suicide cut (can't believe I forgot that one) was a structural thing. It could have been added to the same "One Song Glory" montage that April's current death takes place in. It's a pretty huge thing, and I think it would have given Roger much higher stakes for what is really the essential character transformation for the movie. To me, small as it seems, that was one of the worst omissions.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:37pm

"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."

True but, the Cat Scratch Club is supposed to be more of a hole in the wall club. At least that's how I picture it.

[lovepuppy]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 3:35pm

>>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 agree with whoever else said it wasn't a bothersome issue. It's clearly arguable that she had an expensive drug habit and whatever way she chose to make a living--strip club, expensive or not--she was living in the heart of the place where the drugs are readily available to her.

>>It was a little cheesy when Roger is just standing there and he suddenly jumps up and breaks into song.

Comments like this always bug me. 1) In musicals, actors have been standing there (or sitting there, or talking there, etc) for decades, suddenly breaking into song. This was a movie version of just such a musical, and is not the first, and will not be the last, movie musical. So what, I say, so what? It's not life, it's a movie. Of a musical, which also isn't life, because...it's a musical. 2) Actors do what the director tells them to do, and this one clearly wanted Roger to be more sad, depressed and tortured internally, and not the explosive angry dude he is in the show. Adam has said in interviews that "it's (his) best performance as Roger, I'll tell you that." So the guy was happy with his work, which means his boss, the director, was happy with it first. Roger Ebert always says he goes easy on actors. That's why. They do what they're told in a movie.

I do (for once) agree with what MB said regarding the communication about the ultimate rating of the film. He knows people involved in the production, and I don't. But Columbus says in the commentary, with complete conviction and awareness, that they had to cut or augment certain scenes "in order to get the PG-13 rating." Sounds like that's what was intended, based on his discussion right there before our eyes on the DVD.

As for Em's contention that there may have been a lack of communication between the studio's intention and what studio execs told the cast and other folks in the filmmaking process, you're young, Em, and very knowledgeable and articulate, but baby, corporate bigwigs lie to their cogs in the wheel ALL the time. It's totally possible that though your sources are valid, they could have been told one thing while the studio intended to do another. Like lots of people on this board, I'm a creative person in a creative field, but radio has been corporatized for years now, and certain things like what I said above exist. And suck. But that's the way it is. "Corporate America. Welcome."

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 03:35 PM

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 3:47pm

"In musicals, actors have been standing there (or sitting there, or talking there, etc) for decades, suddenly breaking into song. This was a movie version of just such a musical, and is not the first, and will not be the last, movie musical. So what, I say, so what? It's not life, it's a movie. Of a musical, which also isn't life, because...it's a musical"

I know in movie musicals people just break out into song but, it just looked strange when Pascal did it.

[landryjames2]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 4:01pm

The movie could have been much more gritty and edgy and still received a PG 13. As is generally agreed upon, the direction by Chris Columbus was just pathetic. I am happy that he assembled most of the original cast(for posterity sake only as most of them had no idea how to act for the screen), which probably would not have happened in another director's hands.

All in all--I actually thorougly enjoyed the movie, and find it extremely entertaining. This does not take away from very poor major directorial choices such as Cat Scratch Club, the engagement party at the ritzy county club(come on), and the Sante Fe Christian rock music video that was thrown in there (as an homage to Michael W. Smith perhaps? Kidding).

Rent is one of those movies that I love, but if I had to write an official review, it would be be highly negative (for reasons stated above).

Oh, and Michael Bennett--I am in love with you and have been for quite some time, and this fact is confirmed every time you post. (My other two favorites are Margo Channing and Best12bars. I know that no one really cares who my personal favorite posters are, but I just had to throw it out there....)

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 5:58pm

are people forgeting this is a musical?

Who cares if the kat scratch club was unrealistic ,who cares if some people think the loft was to big,who cares if some of the acting was a bit shakey etc ITS A MUSICAL

I love rent and the stage show is great but its hardly realistic because of its musical roots.

Rent the film was fine ,columbus did a fine job with it and kept it simple.

As for spike lee directing it -ARE YOU DRUNK

That would have been bloody awfull,the man does not get anything what has nothing to do with the color of peoples skin.

His films get worse and worse each year.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 6:44pm

Who cares if the kat scratch club was unrealistic ,who cares if some people think the loft was to big,who cares if some of the acting was a bit shakey etc ITS A MUSICAL"

That was one of the most frighteningly ignorant statements I've ever read on this message board. You have GOT to be kidding me.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 7:22pm

oh please

I have worked in musicals for many years inc rent and the fact is that all musicals are done with a pinch of salt(for that matter so are most movies)

Rent pressnts an example of things that were happening during the period it dipicted ,it issnt an acurate account by any means but does it well

What im sayoing is rent's meaning is a lot bigger than the size of a loft or a club that may or may not have been around at the time etc.

As for acting in musical films,90 percent of the time the acting will always be a bit shakey(the tripple threat doesnt mean they are amazing at everything and in musical terms the acting seems to come last).

[Ariella]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 7:27pm

Musicals have always been incredibly difficult to transfer to fim, and Rent proves no exception. So much of the show involves connection to the audience (e.g. the manner in which "Seasons of Love" and "I'll Cover You rep." are sung out in an unstaged format), and that integral element is automatically lost during a transfer. Considering the success of the stage show, I think performers and studio execs alike thought that would be enough to carry the movie, and as a result disregarded the finer elements/details of the story that are necessary to preserving its integrity.

As for the performers, I think they did their best given the circumstances. In that respect, I honestly didn't think Adam Pascal was bad (that's not personal loyalty talking, I swear). He isn't experienced in acting before the camera especially in an emotional role, and with the eliminations already discussed such as the facts of April's death, Roger isn't given the background to make his actions justifiable or plausible.

Songanddanceman, I disagree. Justifying the lack of reality in the Rent movie BECAUSE it's a musical doesn't work. The lifestyles and experiences of the characters onstage are intended to convey realism, which is one of the reasons why it elicits such a response from the audience. And that's why the glossed-up nature of the movie is detrimental to the gritty, honest story it's trying to tell.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 7:31pm

Songanddanceman, your comments are pretty depressing. You must be thinking of musical comedy, not something that at least tries to be legitimate. The simple fact that they sing in Rent should have no effect on how seriously the creative team, the actors, or the audience should take the piece. Music doesn't excuse anything; the music is there not to lessen integrity, but to add layers to the drama. Any work of art--especially something with heavy material--should be approached with care and at least some integrity. Rent is not Singin' in the Rain; it's a completely different breed of musicals. Frankly, anyone working on Rent with your attitude that any aspect of it doesn't matter is sure to create a real clunker.

And like anything that is dramatic; acting should come first. Singing and dancing is secondary, because this is not a concert nor a dance show; it is, essentially, a drama with music. A great singer or dancer who can't act is boring as hell in a musical. In musical terms acting comes last? Tell that to Patti LuPone, Bernadette Peters, Raul Esparza...and I could go on. I'd much rather see a great actor who can pull off a song than a pretty voice with nothing more to offer.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 07:31 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 7:33pm

im not saying rent doesnt do a good job as it does,but its not that real to start out with.

Its a small look at the topics ,not a documentery.

I also dont think the film was over glossy,i thought they captured it quite well,the look of New York at the time was pretty spot on.And the lighting in the film was done great,it was intresting to watch the switch of lighting and color to represent the seasons and situation's.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 7:36pm

"im not saying rent doesnt do a good job as it does,but its not that real to start out with."

There's a big difference between taking some liberties to create a coherent story and half-assed film-making.

Also, your grammar makes it very difficult for me to take you seriously.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 8:15pm

i dont really give a damn about my grammar and neither should you.

Im not insulting Rent i love the show and the film ,i just think people are looking at it a bit to closely

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 8:18pm

BroadwayGirl, wasn't it Columbus who said it was a structural thing? I think his excuse was that it didn't fit in the timing of the montage, which I didn't buy, because he could've made it fit. That was the official reason that he gave, if I remember correctly, but there are a lot of other possible explanations, some that make more sense than others.

lovepuppy, yes, I get that. And I accept it. That's what I'm realizing from what other people are saying in the thread: that one person's truth in this process is not always the real -- or everyone else's -- truth. I'm not claiming to know exactly what happened. I was and had been since the time of the film's release been repeating what was told to me on very, very good authority -- I had no reason to believe it untrue at ANY point on the grapevine. But perhaps that's the case. That's showbiz.

(PS, yeah, I'm young [but hopefully pretty knowledgeable]. But don't compliment someone for the intelligence they possess at her age and then talk down to her in the same breath. I don't take kindly to condescension, nor does it make your compliment look like much of one at all. Tell me what you have to say -- I am perfectly willing to learn -- but if you really think I'm so smart for my age, don't talk to me like I'm a child when doing so.)

Songanddanceman, your contention that because musicals are meant to be taken with a grain of salt, anything including poor performances is excusable is... well, incredibly ignorant. By those standards, no wonder so many people write musicals off as stupid.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 08:18 PM

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 8:23pm

when I first saw the movie, loved it and thought it was a masterpiece

after a few repeated viewings, I currently loathe and make fun of it

sorry, but in my opinion, the only good parts were Rosario and Tracie

the original Broadway cast members were just too old for the movie!

[B3TA07]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 8:34pm

Still don't like it that much.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 8:55pm

"i dont really give a damn about my grammar and neither should you."

Well, that speaks for itself.

"Im not insulting Rent i love the show and the film ,i just think people are looking at it a bit to closely"

Looking at it too closely? Is there such a thing in art? If you're an artist of any kind--a singer, a dancer, an actor, a director--I'd certainly hope you wouldn't think "Hmm, I'm not quite sure of that note; oh well, moving on," or "I don't quite have that step, but I can't get too hung up on the details. Oh well," or "I'm not really sure of the intent of that line, but I'll just make it SOUND natural," or "I know this doesn't make dramatic sense, but I just can't think of anything else to do with this scene right now." I would think any artist worth his salt would have a little more dedication; so what do you mean "looking at it too closely"? I'm not saying it's the end of the world that the Cat Scratch Club is too "nice"-looking, but it makes it look as though he went with the first idea that came to mind without thinking about it, and things do start to add up.

As Emcee said, your lowered standards are a big reason why people dismiss musicals as petty.
Updated On: 1/2/07 at 08:55 PM

[Shiloh]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 10:13pm

I loved the Dvd extras the Jonathan Larson part and the Chris Columbus commentery. They didn't get into why Daphne Rubin-Vega and Fredi Walker were not in the film. why it the actors choice or another reason. Thomas and Dawson were both excellent.

[lovepuppy]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 10:45pm

>>The lifestyles and experiences of the characters onstage are intended to convey realism, which is one of the reasons why it elicits such a response from the audience.


Actually, not it's not. It's intended to convey a *dramatization* of what was once real. It's art imitating life, not life imitating life. That's basically--I think--what songanddanceman is saying. So, while I'm a stickler for spelling and grammar and he had a few aggressive moments there, I agree with his (or anyone's ) general comments that there's a bit too much nit-picky criticism on some of these issues.

BroadwayGirl got upset at his views that 'acting usually comes last' in terms of musical theatre. She feels acting *shouldn't* come last, and that's arguably true. What he said was it in fact often *does* come last, whether it should or not. Forgiveable or not, that's the way, the majority of the time, in entertainment today. You're entitled to your opinions and experiences, and so is he. Columbus is an artist in his own right, and people have the right not to agree with his choices (hey, that's what makes it art), but they're his to make notheless, so he did. And for a guy who's had experience dealing with multi-million dollar movie budgets, I seriously doubt that he didn't give any little part of this process serious thought. Too damn expensive not to. (Except Anna Deveare Smith's wardrobe, which he admitted he humorously later didn't like. BFD.) Again, there's that 'corporate America' thing rearing its ugly head.

Emcee, no condescension here, just being frank. So--just like you asked, after the fact, I said what I had to say. So, no need to be defensive; it's not like you, so maybe you're just having a day. You know what you know and you're young; neither of those facts can change the other. It simply means that you'll use that to become even more knowledgeable in your field 10 years from now, when you're closer to the age I am now. (And by then, you'll be saying to kids your age, as my father says, "I've forgotten more than you know." Cute. But you get the idea.) You had some good contacts on this movie and lots of people on the board were interested in hearing the info through you. But one of many things we creative folks learn as we grow older is, there's always going to be someone who's more talented or you, or less talented than you, someone who will know more and know less, than you, etc. Young people who know that and know how to react, instead of crying "condescension," is what makes them more of an adult, sooner. I was just simply stating what is, in my other post.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 10:45 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:03pm

"Actually, not it's not. It's intended to convey a *dramatization* of what was once real."

Do you know what realism is? I'm not saying that Rent is straight up realism, but almosy any play is a dramatization of "what was once real," as you say. Really, what modern realism implies is more colloquial language, and actions that complicate the words and so on and so forth, but "realism" as a theatrical term doesn't imply that it is real life. Rent, I would say, partially falls into that category.

But the point is...the standards for Rent should not be any different from those for the most serious theatre out there.

"Columbus is an artist in his own right, and people have the right not to agree with his choices, but they're his to make notheless, so he did."
Whether or not he's an "artist" is certainly debatable, and I think the general complaint is that the decisions WERE his to make to begin with, because some people do not think he was capable of making meaningful creative decisions.

lovepuppy, to be perfectly frank, I'm not Emcee, but everything about the tone of your post that Emcee was referring to WAS a bit condescending. I also think the fact that you try to say that maybe she read it that way because she might be "having a day" is also condescending. I'm certainly not having a day, and I would have no reason to get defensive, but I'm sure if you re-read your post, since you are so much older and wiser, you'd be able to see how your tone could come across as condescending.


Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:03 PM

[lovepuppy]

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

Well, sorry you feel that way. Emcee and I have interacted privately in the past and it was an enjoyable experience, so if she remembers (I don't log on that often), then she'd know the difference and understand that, as I value some of the things she has to say, I'd like to think she values my input just as well. Her choice; it's unnecessary to see it it played out here. (And G-d forbid we get accused of thread-jacking now.) But you getting defensive over an issue that has nothing to do with you and then trying to condescend to *me* isn't the best proof that you guys are grown-ups. Eh, I'm not about to get into a pissing match with a kid. Have a lovely evening, enjoy your ranting.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:27 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:29pm

Thank you, BroadwayGirl. And no, lovepuppy I'm not having a day. Yes, I remember out many very pleasant interactions, which is part of the reason why I was surprised and offended. Nor am I just "crying condescension" because I have nothing better to fall back on. So much easier to do that than to assume your post actually came across that way, right? Bottom line: I feel you're talking to me like I'm a child. And instead of acknowledging that, what do you do? You do it some more. I read a certain tone in your post and refuted it as I saw fit. I just felt it unnecessary to one moment tell me you think I'm smart, but because I'm young, say "but baby..." That's all. Like I said, I value the information I can learn from discussions like this. I felt it condescending to tell me you thought I was smart and then turn around and talk to me like I'm an idiot. If you think I'm smart, talk to me as though you think I'm smart, you know? The post could've had the same content without its tone, from which I took offense. I'm not "crying condescension" like playing a get out of jail free card and I didn't say I thought the post was condescending because I don't like being proven wrong (why would I if I say and demonstrate willingness to learn). Accusing me of that in itself is just as condescending, really, because you're telling me I'm just playing the card because I'm young and can't handle the truth, rather than realizing that hey, what you said may have come across one way or another. Clearly, I'm not the only one who saw it, either. All I'm sayin.

This is off-topic, fairly inconsequential and probably not worth the threadjack, so if you really didn't mean it, then fine, it was a miscommunication. But I don't appreciate the indication that I made it up what I felt about your tone or that because I'm nice most of the time, if I dislike the way someone says something, there must be something off with me. I'm sorry, but past interaction doesn't exactly excuse someone from screwing up. I think it's ridiculous to say that if I remembered it, I would know you weren't being condescending when the tone is just glaring a reader in the face. If it reads, how would I just know?

Back to the actual topic, I don't think I mentioned that I watched the film about a week ago for the first time in six months, or so. The odd thing was that for some reason, I really wanted to watch it, but I had no idea why. It was the night I had seen Dreamgirls, and when I got home, I put Rent on. I think I was just feeling nostalgic, but now it's become one of those things that I'll want to see and just pop on in the background. I enjoyed watching it because I just let it be what it was, but it did kind of sadden me that it's lost so much of its intensity for me. There were a lot of moments that I didn't even truly watch; I just let them pass me by.

And jumping a little bit, to add to what BroadwayGirl said about realism: when used theatrically, is still dramatization. It's a certain type. Theater by definition (in most cases) is a dramatization. I read something once that called for a very imaginative spark in the theater, because it needed to be more interesting than reality -- who wants to go into a theater to watch true real life when you can look out your window and watch it without actually going anywhere or spending any money?

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 11:29 PM