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

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.

---

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

"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.

"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.

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.

---

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).

---

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

"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.

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

Still don't like it that much.

---

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.

"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

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