RENT: Why so much hate?

Let me get my personal feelings aside and out of the way: I am very attached to the production and love it. Anyway, I was wondering from a mostly objective (but also from a subjective)perspective why RENT the musical gets so much criticism from the theatre community, and by theatre community I mean those who are well-seasoned in performance art/musicals. Not the majority of the youth or population really that has only seen or listened to a handful of musicals in general and therefore love the production's catchy tunes. I'm really curious about this.

I don't have a problem with RENT. It's one of my favorite musicals.

I just hate that it came back off broadway
Finally this piece gets to rest!

or so we hope

I think had Larson lived, RENT would have had a nice Off-Broadway run and garnered some attention. THEN the next show of his would have been the big one, the more mature one, and perhaps the one where he worked with a collaborator.

But instead, he died, the show got overhyped, mostly because of his unfortunate passing and greed and garnered an annoying group of fans, not to mention a bad movie. Then some moron came on BWW proclaiming he deserved to have the Nederlander named after him, and a small square on 41st St. devoted to him.

And that is why I do not care for RENT.

It's really not a bad show. It's flawed, but it is decent. I think what's really become the problem is the obsessive, rabid fan base who insist it's the best thing they've ever seen and are prepared to shout anyone down who may disagree with them.

Other issues with it are that it really doesn't say much. It was a bit late to the game in terms of having any real influence or having something provocative or insightful to say about AIDS. A much better theatrical piece if that's what one is interested in would be The Normal Heart, as an example.

---

jv92- Though I'm not a huge fan of RENT for its numerous pacing/plot problems, I think it manages to succeed with its gay characters because it's not a "gay musical." Obviously I'm not saying the other shows you mentioned are less important because they make a lot of their show about the issues surrounding being gay, but I do appreciate that RENT has gay characters whose main conflicts aren't about their sexuality.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a fan of any of the iterations of LA BOHEME. Yes, Puccini's music is stunning, but there's very little real plot or action. Characters just stand around and sing about being poor, sick and in love. (And in the Puccini, I think there's an aesthetic war going on between the naturalistic text and the operatic score.)

I probably wouldn't care about RENT one way or another if it hadn't been so over-hyped after Larson's death. But I agree with jv92 that the exaggerated praise made the show seem overbearing.

That said, when I actually saw the national tour, I didn't mind the time I spent in the theater. And I loved Neal Patrick Harris.

(Edited to correct typo.)

Updated On: 7/23/12 at 06:51 PM

"I'm curious as to what the differences in Angel, Maureen, and Mark's characterization compared to the original cast"

Angel's a bit underwritten, but the comedy's been played up more with the role over the years, vs. the inherent kindness/sweetness.

Maureen went from edgy performance artist to dumb blonde. This was a fairly early change, and pretty much got locked in after the Canadian tour in 99, though Sherie Renee Scott definitely went this way during her time in the role as well.

Mark also went a bit more comedic vs. the entirely detached loner.

One of the things that made me sad about the show as it ran over the years is that the show got so bland with the same cast members coming in and out for the last few years. In the early years (96-99 or so), the various casts, replacements, swings, etc. were encouraged to make the roles their own, and one could see a very different show between NYC and the first two tours (first tour was grittier, second very poppy), let alone variety with the various swings.

A lot of people on this thread are saying that it's flawed, that it's incomplete, that it has character and plot problems. But very few are saying WHY, which is what the OP was asking for. So what are all these problems? I don't doubt that they exist, I'm just curious what you all think.

A lot of people on this thread are saying that it's flawed, that it's incomplete, that it has character and plot problems. But very few are saying WHY, which is what the OP was asking for. So what are all these problems? I don't doubt that they exist, I'm just curious what you all think.

I thought the OP was asking why RENT attracts such strong feelings from its detractors, not why we think the show is flawed.

I think the simple answer is that the negative responses are directly proportional to the exaggerated praise afforded an undeveloped show because its author died.

Yes, RENT has flaws. There are shows running now on Broadway that also have flaws.

If Jonathan Larson had lived would he have made changes? Perhaps. It is possible. We will never know.

Did his death create an interest in the show? Yes. Was his death, the primary reason the show moved to Broadway. In my opinion, no. If an author's death is a sure way of moving a show to Broadway, then heaven help authors.

On the other hand, no show runs for 12 years because an author died. There are reasons why RENT was and continues to be popular. RENT come along at a time when people were talking about musicals with falling chandeliers, a helicopter, singing feline and junk on a turnable. RENT is a musical about people.
It's score is not Euro-trash.

RENT is not a musical about AIDS. Yes, AIDS is part of the fabric of the show. RENT is about people trying to connect. RENT is about family/community. RENT is about young people finding their way in the world. In my opinion, these are the primary reasons why the show was a success, why it touched people and why it will be continue to be performed.

"For me, the pacing is really weird. The first act takes place in three hours, and then the second act jumps around for nine months."

That is pure La Boheme, the template for RENT. One magical 24 hours with unlikely loves at first sight for act one. One year of ups and downs and downs over the next year in act two. That's sort of the point.

There is almost no Equity production I didn't see in the Broadway years. Original cast, first national tour, second national tour, "It's Us, Anthony and Adam! So long, Tour" and even the Off-Broadway revival right before the cast changes. You know, people either like something or they don't. I myself have gotten sick to death of something talked about ad nauseum (WICK-KED, a show I saw the week in opened and I can't recall anything about it, but that doesn't stop me from mocking the license to print money they turned it into). And when the Off Broadway run of RENT was announced I was a bit put out by the honesty of the producer saying it was his duty to "exploit" the title. I mean, clearly he took it seriously.

But what it always came back to when I went to see it was the show. A simple telling of story that bears very little resemblance to reality in the East Village at any time, but which entirely focusses on the most important thing in life: connecting. Only connect.

---

Updated On: 7/23/12 at 11:24 PM

Well "over-hyped" is about as subjective as "extravagant", so don't expect everyone's math to equal yours. What was so extravagant about Rent? It was cleverly staged, but it didn't have an abundance of sets, costumes or special effects. It wasn't a spectacle or heavy on choreography. What is your basis for comparison? A Chorus Line (another show that was not as successful internationally as in the US and yielded a flop film)?

No, what I'm saying is that it was promoted as the show it wasn't. For a show that is not subtle about standing against selling out and the importance of being true to your creative convictions, the way it was over hyped, the desperate marketing, the out place B-list celebrities, etc. was all wrong. And over hyped is certainly not subjective when it comes to ReNt - I mean, Alessandrini was not wrong with was happening back in the 90's when writing his spot on parody.

So, international productions are the equivalent of commercial exploitation? Or to maintain artistic integrity, should a show not be produced anywhere outside its original forum? It flopped in the West End, but has had MANY international productions (nearly all of them limited engagements like most international productions) in over 40 countries performed in 24 languages and producing 15 cast recordings. Of course, none of the productions ran as long as Broadway, but most American hit musicals don't.

No, what I'm saying is that it was a product of its place and time. I'm not questioning the artistic integrity of international productions, but pointing out that it really doesn't work as a franchise product that you can exploit past what it intended to be originally.

---