Rent's Legacy & Reputation Today

Rent was obviously a big success at the time of it's release and had a huge fan following(I have heard it described as the Hamilton of it's era)- but from what I understand, people aren't that supportive of the show anymore. Why is this? Is it dated? Was it shoved down our throats? Did the film's poor reception translate into alienating viewers who could have been fans of the work as a whole? Did it just wear out it's welcome and should not have run as long as it did? Tell me your thoughts.

Updated On: 6/8/25 at 07:23 AM

BwayLB said: "Rent cant be that dated because of its racially diverse characters and themes of hope and dreams. But the music has changed Broadway forever."

This.

I'm not sure who you're speaking of when you say people aren't supportive (not being snarky or anything) because everyone I know still enjoys the show and sees it as revolutionary. I think if a revival was announced 2 or 3 years from now, people would go crazy because it's so iconic.

I will say, the recent tour wasnt that good. The Cast seemed thrown together and kind of felt like a high school production. I think that may have left a bad taste with a lot of people but I think the love is still there.

BwayLB said: "I enjoy it and I saw the recent tour. The cast wasn’t all that bad"

I just felt "meh" about it personally. I felt more emotional seeing the movie and the final performance that was recorded on youtube than seeing it live

This should cover that ground and more

7thbighero said: "This should cover that ground and more"

I came to this thread just to share Lindsay Ellis's video essay about rent. She covers all the issues I have with this show and then some. For me, personally, it down to the fact that most characters in Rent are inherently ****ty people who are very selfish, not at all self-aware, and their brand of liberatarism is deeply exclusionary. They are a bunch of Rand Pauls wearing the skin of Ru Paul.

I agree with HogansHero. When I saw it for the first time, it was on the excellent first equity tour through Tulsa. At that time, I had probably seen only a handful or less of touring productions and I had never been to New York. I wasn’t always sure about how I felt about certain elements. I was thrown off my equilibrium a bit. (Isn’t that what art is sometimes required to do?) I wasn’t sure what to think or feel about what I was seeing. I remember walking out maybe slightly disappointed despite the incredible cast. However, in the years since it has grown and grown in my estimation of it. I even love (sacrilege, I know) the movie (although I didn’t like it either the first time I watched it at the theater as I kept comparing it to the stage version; I appreciated it much more on DVD in the comfort of my home; for a awhile it was my go-to NYE or NYD DVD to watch every year).

I had the opportunity to watch the 20th anniversary tour in January this year as I was working in Madison, WI when it came through. I agree that some of the cast were better than others. Aaron Alcaraz was fabulous as Angel. There may still be elements that are not perfect, but almost any work of art is going to be flawed. The more you view a show, the more these flaws may become apparent. But I found it completely relevent. When I saw it the first time, my friends were sick, but hadn’t started dying. Now they’re all gone. I was bawling like a baby when (spoiler alert) Angel died when I saw it this year.

Rent deserves its reputation as a groundbreaking work of art. I don’t think I’m quite ready for a Broadway revival. It should be revived with the care and thoughtful consideration it deserves. Maybe a 30th anniversary production.

Updated On: 8/11/18 at 11:09 AM

7thbighero said: "This should cover that ground and more"

She seems to be faulting the show more for what’s it’s not about (AIDS activism) than what it is (the day to day struggle of people affected by AIDS). There are some valid criticism laced throughout but I find it unfair to judge a show for not being about what one thinks it should be about or for something it’s not even trying to be. It’s like being mad that Thoroughly Modern Millie isn’t more about the impending stock market crash.

BobbyBubby said: "I like many things about Rent, but it has always irked me that it doesn’t state the difference between HIV and AIDS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing in the piece that differentiates between the two."

True, those are 2 very different things.

This is what makes the show very outdated in my opinion, because basically (in the Western world) nobody with HIV develops AIDS anymore due to the big steps in research and medication. It's a chronic disease now, not the death sentence as it is portrayed in Rent. I know the story takes place in that time but it irks me. The story is about friendship and personal dealing with problems, not really about how society sees them or stigma or society, but the show itself gives off a message that doesn't match with the current situation regarding the subject, so in a way it keeps a very negative outdated stigma alive.

But indeed, the lack of differentiation beween those 2 things, combined with the fact that the characters are ***holes and selfish (The scenes about the characters complaining when their parents call or want to bring a christmas gift always bothered me), make the show feel outdated and makes that I can't give it my sympathy.

Updated On: 8/11/18 at 02:01 PM

BobbyBubby said: "I like many things about Rent, but it has always irked me that it doesn’t state the difference between HIV and AIDS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing in the piece that differentiates between the two."

At the time it was written there was no real distinction. If you contracted HIV, you expected to die from it. So what you are asking for is to rewrite history. BTW, the following post is wrong: people still die of aids. People who have access to treatment survive, but not everyone in the world does, and not everyone avails themselves of it. Michael Friedman died of AIDS less than a year ago.