Rent Closing Rumors/Marketing - From an Old Renthead- Page 4

[Becky]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 8:56pm

Declan Bennett = fantastic.

Agreed!! I will definitely be making a trip up to NY in the fall.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 11:33pm

broadwaygirl,

Please do not make assumptions about me. I am not complacent. I know the show, and many of the actors very well. I've seen it in dozens of cities, with hundreds of different actors over the past 11 years. I am myself now a working actor. I've seen probably every show which has been on a stage in NYC over the past ten years. I'm not a fanatic blind, narrow-minded Renthead. In answer to your question, I not only think that people are still moved by the show, I KNOW it! I know how my friends who have been in the show recently receive hundreds of letters telling them exactly that!

I think if all people are taking from the show is 'whiny young adults who didn't want to pay their rent', then they haven't paid attention. If they fail to see the story of friendships, relationships, family, the social issues of homelessness and discrimination, the plague that is AIDS, then, honestly, I feel sorry for them. As Becky said, even now, after 100+ viewings, I'm still moved by the story, the issues examined, the music, and the audience's reaction (although I admit I could do without many of the newer Rentheads and their terrible theatre ettiquette). Do I think it's a perfect show? No, but then not many shows are if they're examined in the way Rent has been, simply by virtue of it having been around for so long and been seen all around the world.

I think that people who think it's a 'washed up joke' are the ones with the problem, not the show itself. It has always been popular with a small percentage of the theatre community to denigrate the show, since the very beginning. And again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was complacent with people feeling that way. I have no control over how people feel about that or any other show. I have no desire to have such control. The show has succeeded on its merits for this long, and the tours continue to do well, after 11 long years. When it will close is anyone's guess but it's not likely to be within the next year.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 11:52pm

If you want a discussion, BroadwayGirl, by all means. You say the Rent production team is not doing what they should and the show is suffering because of it. What do you think they should be doing that they're not? What specific changes would you make to fix Rent? Not just "replace everyone"- what specific qualities would you be looking for in replacements? What do you think are the correct interpretations of each of the characters that the actors you've seen seem to be getting wrong?

You also keep alluding to people not getting "the message", but what do you personally believe the message to be? Have you considered that not everyone believes the message to be the same as you? Why do you think your interpretation of Rent is the ideal that should be achieved and everyone else's interpretation (or belief of what is important or acceptable in Rent) isn't?

I look forward to reading your response to my questions after the months of hinting to your master concept of Rent without detailed explanation. Maybe then I can more clearly understand your position.

Updated On: 7/25/07 at 11:52 PM

Posted: 7/24/07 at 11:58pm

BroadwayGirl, as I alluded to in an earlier post (and as I know I've mentioned to you personally before), I really do understand your general sentiments regarding the producers' neglect for the show, and I agree with them to a certain extent. However, have you ever seen Christopher J. Hanke, Tim Howar, Tamyra Gray... even Jamie Lee Kirchner, Troy Horne, and Nicolette Hart? I understand that you might not want to spend money on something you're not sure is going to be a quality product, because there have been times where Rent certainly hasn't been performed with integrity in the past, but in that case, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to post multiple times about how the Rent bigwigs should "wipe the slate clean" of literally every single person involved with the show if you haven't seen it in its current incarnation. I certainly don't feel like every single person involved with Rent as of today is amazing, including some of the people I just mentioned, but I also feel that having seen the show within the last few months, I'm making informed criticisms when posting about the current state of Rent online.

If you have seen Rent recently, I apologize, but if not, it just doesn't strike me as completely correct to post overarching, definitive judgments about the current cast based on performers who left the show months ago. Updated On: 7/25/07 at 11:58 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 5:22pm

Bump so BroadwayGirl can respond to our questions.

Updated On: 7/25/07 at 05:22 PM

[Annas_Priest]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 5:30pm

Okay, I Saw Harley in RENT, With A Big Group of Acting and Voice Majors from the Governors School for the Art's and Humanitys. And We agreed his acting and voice where the most phenominal we had ever seen! We Loved Declane Too

So you guys can just shut up! Yalled would critize ANYONE who came into RENT no matter HOW good they where!!

You Know Why?? Because that what tired old Queens Do!!

THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING!!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 6:01pm

Yikes.

erinrebecca, I wasn't trying to make judgments about you, but you mentioned the people who you know who you brought to see the show, and noted their reactions. While that's all very well that it's still hitting some people (I never doubted that it was), I think just because these few people are finding it satisfactory, does not mean that the show is being performed to it's potential. Assuming that it is, or citing your friends as evidence of it seems like complacency to me.

And don't you think seeing the show that many times and knowing people in it really has an effect on how you're viewing the way the show is being performed? If you're seeing it for the hundredth time, you know the story and its meanings, and it's much easier for you to see where a specific actor might fail instead of the libretto. Or perhaps you won't even notice the actor didn't quite get that character's arch or find that moment because you know what the subtext and bigger ideas are already anyway.

As far as the rest of your post, I somewhat agree, but I’m not talking about the show itself so much as the conclusions people come to about the show given the performances they see. For example, it isn’t very difficult for me to see why someone would come to a conclusion like "they're just whiny artists who need to grow up," if said theatre-goer saw Matt Caplan as Mark, for example, since Mark is such an important character in making some very important commentary apparent. So, the question is, is it REALLY their problem? Did they REALLY not pay attention? Or did somebody on stage not do his job?

orange, way to avoid answering my questions. I don't have a "master plan." Dealing with an entire production of a Broadway show is never something handled by ONE person. That being said, I have my standards. If I were (ha) producer of the show, I'd get Greif in there and have him fix some of the shortcomings I mentioned I saw in my previous post. I'd have him talk with new cast members about the show, its themes, the political environment it comes from, and the specific need for their characters and their respective journeys in the show for the show's central themes. I'd have him in there giving notes to Maureens who go for cheap laughs instead of character; I'd have him in there making sure people weren't merely following blocking but moving with purpose. If they weren't working together as a company, I'd probably have them improvise things to find connections and presence. And if they weren’t capable of putting any of these things into their work, I’m not sure I’d still want them to have the job.

Believe it or not, while I'm sure I have my own ideas about the show and the way I'd perform particular characters, that's not what I'm asking to see on stage. I just think each character has an essential arch and a particular purpose in the story, else why would Larson have them there (or if you want to go a step further, why would Puccini have put them there, and why would Larson keep them?)? I don't believe in "correct" interpretations, but I believe in interpretations that support, complicate, and add life to the writing and fit in with the director's vision. The performance of any given role needs to, in some way, relate to that overall driving point. When an actor doesn’t make that connection, then I would say they’re not actually playing their character.

As far as the messages, I think we'd all probably agree that the driving point is this "No Day But Today" message, but there are a lot of components that go into it, and when I say that the messages failed to come across when I've seen it, I mean that certain components that make the main point stronger, often go neglected. The thing is, I do think one could still GET the message without these components, but the social and political commentary of the show, I think, is often neglected save the most accessible messages about love. But that very aspect of the show is not quite as meaningful if there isn't attention paid to things dealing with how New York City is basically forcing out its creative class with real estate prices, how being able to pay the bills either means taking creative jobs that go against what you stand for or getting "normal" jobs that don't permit you the time to express yourself, how--if that isn't enough--our bodies are even beginning to betray us now, and the idea of having comfort money is too tempting for the well-off to want to help. Allof this works to make the point that in this day and age, it feels damn near impossible to live life and let ourselves love instead of walking through it or worrying about whether or not you'll be able eat or even be alive come tomorrow.
I don't think it's so much about what *I* think the specific, most important strand of that overall message is—that’s for the audience to decide. I just think each aspect needs to be there if we want to call the piece Rent and if we want to piece to reach out to as many people as it can.

That’s the long answer, but in short, I have no “ideal” other than to include all that Larson put there. And it certainly isn’t MY concept; it’s merely what I see in Greif’s conception.

I know it’s all subjective, but I think the tendency is to cling to the parts we connect most with and take the rest for granted. Which is why I point at complacency, and I think it's fine to feel that way in theory, but there's value in recognizing that.

Siamese, I wouldn’t actually want them to wipe the slate clean; that’s one of those stupid, moment of frustration, over-simplified solutions I came up with to anything but a simple problem.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 6:20pm

What "tired old queens" are to be found here? The demographic of this thread, mostly due to the ongoing discussion of orange, broadway, and erin all seem like younger, adult women.

Plus, who was whining about replacements by this point?