RENT: Why so much hate? — Page 3

CarlosAberto, reNt is the best movie ever can't wait to see it on stage and dvd .... reNt...

This thread poses so many interesting questions:

Not to mention the characters going "ohhh, we're so poor" because they chose to lead the "Bohemian life" and then exploiting actual homeless people for their art.

I thought the scene between Mark and the homeless woman addressed that irony rather brilliantly. Mark is obviously an idealist and his naive hypocrisy is highlighted as part of his journey.

I also think some of the derision you might hear about within the business is much of the "of course you were in Rent, wasn't EVERY b'way performer?"

That has less to do with Rent than every long-running show ever, especially those that ran longer than Rent.

They are all lazy, selfish, and expect something for nothing. They have a sense of self entitlement.

How so? Benny reneged on the deal he made with Mark and Roger not only threatening to kick them out if they don't start paying rent, but demanding back rent for the time they were told they could stay for free. The expectation was placed by Benny, not Mark and Roger. At that point, it becomes an issue of principles, not self-entitlement.

I never bought the love story. Lust and love are different.

But not mutually exclusive. At least, not in the case of my current relationship, which sounds like you might consider invalid for not following some preconceived timeline of events. Which love stories do you buy into? The sexless ones? Love at first sight, but no touchy-touchy? It's pretty clear that Roger and Mimi struggle with their feelings towards each other throughout the show until the end. Tom and Angel celebrate their attraction to each other, yet there is no mention of lust or sex.

And don't get me started on the whole 'back from the dead' thang.

Again, she was unconscious, not dead.

I didn't like what the show was glorifying (casual sex, sloth, being owed something).

At what point does Rent glorify sloth or being owed something? I didn't see laziness being celebrated anywhere and the only person claiming they were owed anything was Benny, which was the opposite of glorification. As for casual sex, Rent addresses sex (though not specifically casual sex), but doesn't really glorify it, but I can only assume you must really hate Hair.

The only real point of contention I see is Angel killing the dog, but that whole number is a direct reference to La Boheme where a parrot was killed instead of a dog. I don't think the show is any more about self-entitlement or laziness than Caroline, or Change is about schizophrenia because Caroline's appliances talk to her. The funny thing is, La Boheme is far less palatable in its story and characters' behavior (which were lightened quite a bit for Rent). Do opera lovers hate La Boheme for these reasons as well? I'm not an opera-phile or anything so I don't know if this is a common argument among them.

---

your own body tells you as you type!

I agree with the questions Mister Matt asks.

I wish this culture didn't clamp down so hard on admissions that lust and casual sex are fun and liberating things.

---

Lust is such a weird word.

Funny thing is, the one number about sex, Contact, explores a much broader range of emotions regarding sex ultimately ending with discomfort, awkwardness and resentment. Hardly what I'd call "glorification". And just in case we go there, I don't think Rent glorifies drug use, either.

---

And I think it encouraged people to try different approaches, I know there are people who hated Passing Strange, though I can't figure out why, but thank god they really tried something different. It was another show that stumbled but it was another show that tried.

I think there might be some level of embarrassment when some people look back and recall HOW enthusiASTIC they were about ReNT. It's not uncommon for people to back away from their first loves as they grow up. I myself may have been for a while something close to ashamed over how much I loved and thought about Godspell circa '72-'73 when I was 11. Do you want to know how hard it was to keep up to date on the doings of the cast on the first recording when there was no internet?

By the time of the off-bway REnT reboot it was nice to just see the show with the creative team trying to look at it with new eyes.

---

I think the structure of RENT is rather brilliant, in that the first act practically fetishizes one perfect night, and then, in comparison, the next year is a blur and off-kilter.

And Seasons of Love is a prologue for the narrative of the second act! I thought that was genius.

As for the comments on the commercialization of Rent, I do agree that the producers went off the rails later in the run, but I never felt that way about the show from the start. Nor could I find that a fault with the show itself. I chalk it up to the inherent hypocrisy of art and the post-mortem abandonment of an artist's intentions, which is pretty common. Not that I believe for a second Jonathan Larson never wanted a commercial Broadway hit. There wasn't much correlation between Mark's "sellout" and Rent's success. The devolution of the production was as much anti-Rent as the film and the London revival, Rent Remixed. I don't think any of that had to do with Larson, how the show was written, or originally staged and produced. It was a juggernaut of success, but it probably would have been whether Larson died or not. It was the right show at the right time which is how hits are usually created.

---

The show is about struggles, internal and external, and how these characters react to them in various ways. I find most of the objections towards the morality of the show take individual scenes completely out of context (like the ATM rewiring). Except maybe for the dog.

---

I still remember when the show opened and people were either generally confused by it or intrigued. The confused grew to hate it and the intrigued ended up seeing it a billion times.

One thing in common amongst those who don't care for it, is they feel it's an over-stylized, often rambly, over-idealistic piece. Maybe it never got on my nerves because I never did see it as a literal depiction of any group of real-life people but more as each character being a larger than life etching of a specific social theme. Rent's biggest problem lies in its naivete regarding HIV/AIDS. I wouldn't say it ruins the show, but it does mar its credibility, which is why I always viewed it as a reflection of the general misconception held by society about HIV/AIDS. The stigma it promotes is tiresome these days because you'd think we'd know better by now. I admit I cringe every time Mark announces how April left a note saying "We've got AIDS," and the resulting hopelessness.

I do like the show, though, despite its flaws. It works. And I enjoy its colorful (sometimes BAD) lyrics that must've been written while high on something. They reek of that mindset/state. Not that it's bad. That, along with the music, is a sort of guilty pleasure of mine. Larson is remarkable for giving each character conversational lyrics that are highly individualized. Plus I'm attracted to the quirky and odd and Rent delivers.

---

I don't understand what you mean about its naivete regarding HIV/AIDS.

---

At this point, I find Rent kind of like an ex I've parted amicably with. It's nice to catch up and revisit as friends, but the passionate, burning love isn't there anymore. The show still means a lot to me, and I do try to see it whenever it runs near where I am (barring student/youth productions), but it's not what it used to be for me, which is a bit sad, though some of that also comes with the excitement of being able to crack the shell on some of Larson's other work...

"Yeah, I didn't get that either. Feelings of depression and hopelessness associated with contracting HIV hadn't dissipated by 1996. A friend of mine died from AIDS in 1995 and another contemplated suicide when diagnosed with HIV in 2001."

Nobody *gets* AIDS. The thing April *got* was HIV, which later developed into AIDS. It may seem like a minor, negligible detail but it isn't. Especially in anything that also serves to educate. It's appalling the number of people today who still think one *catches* AIDS. This misinformation (generally speaking, not necessarily because of Rent) is responsible for recent cases that involve discrimination against HIV positive individuals by institutions that should know better. There is still that stigma of your typical AIDS victim bringing it upon his/herself due to their lack of morals. Rent only strengthens those messages. Sure, it portrays a hetero, HIV positive couple...who also just happen to be drug addicts and one of them is a loose go-go dancer who doesn't concern herself with possibly spreading it. Meanwhile all of those who are not gay or addicts are "clean."

The problem lies in its advancement of old stigmas and fear mongering. It's unsettling that the one Broadway musical that is said to "enlighten" us about HIV/AIDS ends up not doing anything of the sort. Exposing the issue is not the same thing as shedding light upon it. It even goes on to have it exposed via a group of people who are perceived as being grossly negligent and rebellious.

To me, the character of Angel redeems the piece and makes it work. I personally enjoy and am moved by the way the underdog ends up achieving depth and a wisdom by virtue of his outlook and approach to life. The contrast upon death in relation to the others is stunning and a poignant lesson that is universal unexpectedly comes out of the tragedy. The fact such a powerful effect is borne out of a character usually treated as a freak show plays a large role in how it affects me. I know I personally was moved not because "awwww, he died," but because I ended up feeling a genuine affection for the character and everything he is. It's rare to find in the portrayal of such people a humanity that takes precedence over the superficial things we focus on and that simple, but powerful lesson he left behind makes him linger. The effect is both haunting and enlightening and the most effective lessons have a way of staying with us.

It would have been a better piece had it done the same with HIV/AIDS. And in my opinion, should have ended at Angel's death.

---