Reidel: "RENT" to be revived off-B'way next June — Page 2

Maybe Orange - but I think there still may be a large enough fan base for the show internationally that might pay for the experience of seeing it in New York. Thee production could do well in a small theatre. And who knows, perhaps it will be good and actually sell some seats to us jaded New Yorkers!

My only problem is it is so soon, I don't know how people are going to feel about a new production. I mean, people are going to walk in expecting to see the token Mark sweater, the Mimi outfit, the big trash tree. If it's a new production, they might be a little weary about it all.

"I mean, people are going to walk in expecting to see the token Mark sweater"

My first thought was 'If I have to see that goddamned sweater and scarf ONE MORE TIME, I'll kick a baby!'

"It's clearly a money-grubbing venture"

And the problem is what, exactly? It's a profitable product with name brand recognition -- why not put on a low cost production Off-Brodway? As for attracting a tween audience, don't be so dismissive of that reality. A colleague of mine took his 13 year-old niece before it closed. He was shocked by how many tweens and teens there were in the audience.

If anyone is in contact with the producers, tell 'em I'll put in for the capitalization costs. Dollars to donuts, this thing will be a money tree.

Oh that would be awesome! Do the REMIXED version.

---

In all seriousness (or is it seriousity? Neither sounds precisely right), will they be using the original orchestrations, the MTI orchestrations, the film orchestrations or the Hollywood Bowl orchestrations?

I wish they would cast people who would have been the right age in the mid-late 80s (when the piece seems to be set, although I know they say it's the early 90s):

Mimi - Tonya Pinkins
Roger - Harry Groener
Mark - Lonny Price
Maureen - Liz Callaway
Joanne - Jasmine Guy
Collins - Hinton Battle
Angel - BD Wong
Bennie - Chuck Cooper

Well whether its profitable or not is based entirely on the running costs to mount and run it off Broadway.

If they can come up with a formula in which the production can break even selling 2/3 of a 500 seat house it could make money (and if we assume that RENT also with a cast of nobodys was able to sell 50% of a 1100 seat theatre two years ago, it seems likely thats within the realm of possibility - at least from a head-count standpoint).

Keep in mind the union costs are much, much less for Off Broadway productions. It will cost a fraction to actually run the show week to week that it did at the Nederlander.

I also personally don't think money is necessarily the sole incentive behind bringing this back. I truly believe that, dated warts and all, for the original creative and producing forces behind the show, they continue to believe in the message of what RENT stands for. In that sense the show really is also like HAIR. You could argue that they should get on with it, but really - why should they?

I think thats at least part of the reason RENT actually played so much longer on Broadway than was really necessary from a numbers standpoint.

Updated On: 11/5/10 at 04:51 PM

The problem with money grubbing ventures: the lack of artistry and integrity. This is a show that will get an audience whether is sucks OR is wonderful. There are too many people that believe the hype that this changed their lives -- and while it might not have an incredibly long run, it is being brought back for no reason but to bilk money from suckers. They have no REASON to re-visit this show EXCEPT for money.

(I'm certainly all for successful theater, and of course, producers need to believe in the possibility of financial success -- but the choice to BEGIN, should be an artistic one.)

---

I kind of agree with drama. We just did the show here in Denver over the summer and people were more excited about it than the big touring show that was in town. I think it will always draw an audience even without the tourists.

---

I meant to comment on that, I don't go along with the "hype" comment. This show struck a chord with a lot of people. It didn't change my life, but struck a very personal chord with me.

---

I truly believe that, dated warts and all, for the original creative and producing forces behind the show, they continue to believe in the message of what RENT stands for. In that sense the show really is also like HAIR. You could argue that they should get on with it, but really - why should they?

You really can't compare this to Hair. Hair had is moment and didn't come back until almost 40 years after. It had dignity.

ReNt is like a cold that just won't go away.

The only message I see here is that the show worked wonders as it was originally conceived. Not with the stunt casting, nor with the original stars who are twice the age of the characters but still pathetically yell of not being able to make money, nor with an awful movie with the lead singing on top of a mountain like in an 80's video, nor in a vomitable "Remixed" version.

If they truly belived in what the show stands for, they would have let it be LONG time ago.

And like Peter Griffin said: "I thought you wanted to do a good show. If you want to do a bad show, why don't we just do ReNt?"

---