RIP Jonathan-Rent lives on....- Page 4

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 1/26/08 at 11:46pm

Emcee, you make a lot of fair points. Due to the fact that I'm not a fan, naming a whole Broadway theatre after Larson just seems like too much. But the idea of an Off-Broadway theatre would not be so grandoise, I think.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/26/08 at 11:58pm

You don't have to not be a fan to think it's overkill, Anna. Plenty of admitted Rent fans have voiced their opinions against it, as well. I know how proud you are that you're not a fan, you've made that perfectly clear -- and that's fine, that's lovely, I don't fault you for your taste -- but is it really fair to insinuate that you think that's the ONLY reason why someone wouldn't be all for it?

Updated On: 1/27/08 at 11:58 PM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 12:01am

Not what I meant at all. I only assumed (Okay unfairly) that RENT fans would be all for it. I know that I would be all for it if I was a fan. I'm not rubbing anything in. I insinuated nothing.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 12:09am

Well, your post read like you were. And yes, that's an unfair assumption. Thank you. I'm sure if you were part of an often-ridiculed fanbase you would love to be the butt of everyone's generalizations, wouldn't you? Yup, we're all stupid, melodramatic walking hyperboles with no perspective on anything outside of our love for Rent. Every last one of us.

Personally? I don't really know what I think about it. I'd probably be fine with the decision either way, but I can't bother myself with taking a particular stance on the issue, because frankly, it's just not going to happen. I think it's silly for people to expect or motion for it because it's so far-fetched and unlikely. When like, JetBlue offers to buy the theater, that's when it'll be renamed. Money talks.

Updated On: 1/27/08 at 12:09 AM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 12:13am

"Yup, we're all stupid, melodramatic walking hyperboles. Every last one of us."

Not actually what I think, but I have met some crazy fans in my time. And I thought I was crazy about some the shows I enjoy. It's okay though. I approve of the crazies. Not that they need my approval. I support the lovin' of the theatre either way.
Naming the theatre after him would not change my life, but as you said, it's far-fetched.

But I do hope they clean that theatre. Nice and good.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 1:24am

As others have mentioned, many, many people deserve to have a theatre named after them before Jonathan Larson pops up on the list. Even so, theatres always renamed a few years later when the landlord sells it off or when it's renovated or when the owner just finds someone better to suck up to. If you want a gesture to honor Jonathan Larson's memory, pick something that's remotely plausible and will last longer than the "Cadillac Winter Garden".

And seriously, an eternal flame outside the Nederlander? It will turn into an eternal cigarette lighter for every bum below Time Square.

Updated On: 1/27/08 at 01:24 AM

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 1:29am

Updated On: 5/8/09 at 01:29 AM

[misschung]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 9:59am

While I applaud the subtle reference to the show, an eternal flame to me just screams Wicked.

Save that type of sentiment for Princess Diana and the victims of 9/11. Not for a show leaving a theater after 12 successful years.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 12:06pm

I have been reading this thread for a few days now and have had a number of things about the show running through my head. I do not consider myself a "renthead". I actually finally purchased the 2 DVD set of the movie on Friday. Probably because the news of the show's closing was in the back of my mind. I heard RENT before I saw it and by the time I did see it I knew it backwards and forwards! And the show met my every expectation. In my opinion, it is a materpiece and should be be in the category as a classic. It works and connects on so many levels. I think that along with Mr. Larson's personal story, the show broke ground. And nothing, for me, has come along like it until Caroline or Change and Spring Awakening. It is sad that Mr. Larson passed when he did, I have often wondered what he would have given us in the past 12 years theatrically. As far as remembering the show in some way, maybe a plaque in the theater would be nice. Or even something small on the wall outside of the theater to not only remember the show but all of the "Rentheads" who spent so much time in line for those cheaper seats. And as I mentioned in another thread, I think a very fitting tribute to Mr. Larson would be to have his picture projected onstage at the end of the final show. Just some random thoughts.

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 12:57pm

They should name it the Stephen Sondheim theater, not only does he deserve it but he was JL's idol.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 1:18pm

I don't think Stephen Sondheim would want a theatre named after him anytime soon.

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 1:28pm

thats probably very true, just saying he would deserve it.

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 5:41pm

This thread has gotten ridiculous. Some very rude comments and in turn misinformed people.

I actually forgot to think about Jonathan on the 25th, something I've been noted to do for a few years. I just don't find the need to have remember and "grieve" about it now. I'm sure, however, it is different (and rightfully so) for his family. I think with the show gone, the same will follow with others. We don't forget about their loss but we don't find the need to erect shrines outside the Nederlander or make threads like this. People aren't still putting up RIP threads for Michael Bennett, Ethel Merman, Jerome Kern, etc. on the days that died.

And I will defend the show and say that RENT did, in fact, change musical theatre. People on here say HAIR was a bigger hit. In fact, the composer of HAIR says it didn't change much. It was the first show with a full rock score, was hit for 4-5 years, closed and music theatre pretty much went back to what it did before the show came along. I frankly find the show to be a bit too much of a time capsule of a particualar culture and time in history. One that we now look back on and is full of so much misguided ideas of "free love" and social opression. And frankly, it's not all that well written. Today, RENT does seem to have become a 'period piece' with the refereces to dying in America at the end of the millenium and placing the film in 1989 only made that all the more potent. But I think the themes presented are more reveren than HAIR's and frankly not so camp. RENT certainly has its flaws in dramaturgy and writing, but it was, as Mr. Brantley said, a theatrical commet. It brought in a new audience to the theatre, like HAIR, but one that wasn't so culturally polarised. And this is a show that sold out in the Southern states.

RENT was the show that finally said that music theatre could be hip and contemporary and not as nostalgic in its value. Look at what has come from that. Better and stronger shows, yes. But RENT started it.

I think that changed music theatre a lot.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 6:05pm

Kevinoes,

I completely agree with you. The reception of this musical is and was amazing. Just look at all the media coverage of the closing notice. That doesn't happen for most shows.

I agree that Rent is not a perfect piece of theatre, but it is one that is part of the history of musical theatre. It brought youth to the theatre - several generations of youth. It brought a modern sound and modern problems to musical theatre. It brought diversity to the stage. And even now I believe the themes can be applied ANY time period. The references date it a bit, but I don't think that is the reason that it closing.

I've really never seen so many rude comments as those in the Rent threads. Do you dislike the show because of its rabid fanbase? If only other shows would have such a fan base... People in their 20's and 30's who saw the OBC and teens today still love the show. You can't say that about too many shows. Granted some might be overly enthusiastic, but AT LEAST they are sitting in a theatre. Something that is good for Broadway because eventually they will mature.

If nothing else- think about lotto/rush. Rent was one of the first (if not THE first) show to offer cheap tickets. Now EVERYONE does it, and it makes theatre accessible to so many people who wouldn't have had the opportunity to see shows on Broadway before.

Updated On: 1/27/08 at 06:05 PM

[JulianHookbucks]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 8:23pm

I saw the show on the 26th not realizing that it was the anniversary of Jonathan's death. I read it in the program before the show, but the show was a beautiful tribute to him. Full of beautiful emotion and love for the piece. The ending was especially powerful and Jonathan's message rang true to everyone in the theatre.

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 9:15pm

kevin, tons of people mourn John lennon's death every year. I'm not saying that the two are equal, I'm just saying the amount of years doesnt really have that much of an influence, that's all.

[jv92]

Posted: 1/29/08 at 4:55pm

Lennon was murdred without much reason and was a major national figure politically and musically. Larson was not. People SHOULD mourn the death of John Lennon.

[musicalmaster703]

Posted: 1/29/08 at 6:15pm

wow heated descussion