Rent's Legacy & Reputation Today- Page 2

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 2:37pm

I would also say these characters may not have known the difference between the two things. Starting in the early nineties, part of my job involved HIV counseling and education. Many people, including those most at risk, didn’t necessarily know the difference between HIV and AIDS. And by the time, some people found out they were HIV-positive, they already qualified for an AIDS diagnosis or did very soon after due to the lack of effective treatments available.

[a12la]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 3:56pm

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

I was going to post the same thing. Rent has some good songs but it has a bad message. Updated On: 8/11/18 at 03:56 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 4:28pm

@Dave28282 It is perfectly valid for you to think the show is outdated. (I would say the same thing about 99% of all musicals, but that's a separate thread.) My comment was about erroneously saying that "nobody with HIV develops AIDS anymore." Per CDC, about 36.7 million people were living with HIV around the world in 2016, and 19.5 million of them were receiving medicines to treat HIV. An estimated 1 million people died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2016. 

I agree with what Miles2Go2 said.I also disagree with the notion that the show has a bad message, but to each their own.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 4:52pm

I said in the Western world where good treatment is available. I know that in Africa for example this is not the case. Then there's also people who don't get tested and don't know they carry it.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 5:42pm

@Dave I see that you have amended your original post and I'm glad. I think much of the rest of what you say is about not liking the characters rather than the play. There were (and still are) a lot of denizens of the East Village (and elsewhere of course) who have (and had) tortured relationships with the 'rents, and who also played both sides of the divide. You don't have to like those people but Larson was depicting a very specific and real group of people. I don't happen to like Richard Plantagenet at all but I love Richard III, the play named after him. 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 6:54pm

Actually, I have not amended my first post, I did that earlier because of a grammar error.What I wrote was there all the time.

Look at the update time.

[Seperite]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 6:54pm

The show feels...incomplete. Like an early draft from an exceptionally talented musician/scorewriter, but far from a final product. There are far too many undeveloped or underdeveloped plot points (the death of Angel, for example, elicits an extraordinary sense of sadness from all of the characters, but up to that point, we are given no indication that any of them, other than Collins, had any kind of relationship with her). One gets the sense that if Larson had lived, the final version of Rent would have been vastly different than what we have today. On the other hand, if he hadn't died so tragically, the show may never have made it to Broadway in the first place.

The score is iconic, radically different than almost all that preceded it, and several of the songs became anthems of a generation. But with some tightening up, audience testing, and further development, it could have been much, much better than it is.

[Soaring29]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 8:38pm

Regarding the characters, I also feel that they are pretty selfish, but I can”t help but like them anyway. The show and the film had a profound effect on my passions for musical theatre and like many have already stated, the music is incredible.

[aimeric]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 8:58pm

I always think it's a little funny whenever I hear people complain about the characters in Rent being s***heads (which I completely agree that they are), because I mean, really, what could we honestly be expecting from anything that's an adaptation of La Boheme?  They were a**holes in the original short stories, they were a**holes when they had the names Marcello and Rodolfo and were singing Puccini, and they're still a**holes in Rent.  I can't really think of too many times and places more full of entitled hipsters than mid-19th-century Paris--except maybe 1990s NYC...  (And yes, I don't care--still love to listen to the OBCR.  What can I say, nostalgia factor.)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 9:44pm

I am trying to wrap my head around what some here are thinking when they write about these characters. Do they realize that Jon Larson was observing the world he found? Do they think that the EV life of the period is not worthy of their attention? I don't get it. I wish someone would explain what they mean.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 10:09pm

I’d also add that most beloved musicals feature characters who do unlikeable things and may themselves be unlikeable. I’m thinking of some of my favorites: Chicago (murderesses, corrupt prison matron and lawyer), Hamilton (adulterers, murderers, and, lest we forget, slave owners), and Sweeney Todd (murderer and his accomplice who feeds the victims to her unsuspecting patrons). Also, while not beloved by me, many love a musical about a creepy guy who lives beneath the Paris Opéra House and kidnaps the soprano he’s obsessed with.

[Soaring29]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 12:07am

Benny made a promise to them regarding the rent and then reneged on it- the title song has Roger and Mark exclaiming "How we gonna pay last year's rent?", which is the rent that Benny is now demanding. If he was just demanding them to pay rent from that point on, they may have complained but they would have eventually been forced to begrudgingly accept those terms. Benny reneged on his promise and turned the power off in order to leverage a deal with Mark and Roger to silence his critics that were threatening his business aspects. How is that something that is ethical and completely valid for him to do? It's odd that so many critics of the show miss that point. 

Updated On: 6/8/25 at 12:07 AM

[gypsy101]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 12:43am

i really just think it’s not like... very good. a few catchy tunes but mostly just a bland score.

[bohodaysbook]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 7:40am

Having spent the last few years writing a book on Larson's work and methods, I feel pretty qualified to answer this (and will save the shilling and the link for the end).

 

The question of RENT's ongoing legacy and reputation is hard to judge for a couple reasons, not least of which because the show is such a product of its era. Changes in HIV treatment, LGBT visibility and vocabulary, and the shift of wealth and property in New York all mean that a considerably progressive work of and for its moment is now an awkward period piece. You can say the same thing about Hair, A Chorus Line, or looking internationally, Linie 1. The reason we still talk about these shows today isn't because of their politics (more on RENT's in a second) but because of their emotional cores and artistry.

 

Regarding the show and its politics or lack thereof, Larson either composed for or completely wrote an extensive amount of outright (and often heavy-handed) political material. His first mentor, Jacques Burdick, was all about Brecht and Kabarett, and the belief that theatre could influence an audience, and that stayed with Larson for his entire life and career. His 20 minute show on the de-intellectualisation of American elections? Pretty forward thinking and dead-on for 1991. J.P. Morgan Saves the Nation? Jeffrey M. Jones' script and lyrics have only become more relevant since 2008.

Keeping that in mind, RENT's politics weren't about changing the government - they were about getting middle class people to treat those outside their insular social circles with love and respect and not as unfortunate statistics or sinners to be punished. Saying that RENT should have been about invading the FDA is like saying La Boheme's main characters should have re-stormed the Bastille to provide for TB victims. It's not the intended message. Larson had lost colleagues in the theatre and friends closer to home to AIDS, and seeing people mistreated due to their illness infuriated him.

Re: the characters... Murget's and Puccini's bohemians weren't that different from Larson's. Recall in the cafe scene that Musetta creates a scene and then sends her new lover off so that everyone can run away and he gets stuck with the bill. Again, comparing the characters in RENT to other 90's media - Reality Bites, Singles, etc. - it's very much in line with the era's portrayals of 20-somethings. A lot of 90's media has not aged well, in part because it is so much about being disaffected and sarcastic. It does help, though, to know some of the background information Larson worked out as he revised the show. I've got a summarised version in the book, so won't drag things out here.

Is it a flawed show, though? Absolutely, but that's part of what makes it feel, well, human. I also find myself frequently pointing out that Larson's big pop music period was the golden age of the concept album, and as much as he was Sondheim's protogé, he absolutely picked up on the form's messy storytelling and the way that even the best concept albums have gaps which the audience (or the liner notes) are required to fill in for themselves. He was all about the big moments, the emotions, and the messages, and succeeded creatively more often than not. Had he lived past 1996, he likely would have continued growing as a storyteller.

Anyway, there's a lot more about RENT (two chapters' worth) and how it fits into Larson's creative evolution in the book. It's up for preorder here at Barnes & Noble (Amazon don't like non-Createspace self-pub preorders) and a sub-$10 digital edition is available from your e-book retailer of choice. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 1:25pm

@soaring, I think you are assuming the opening song is not a prologue. I'd have to refresh my brain to know if that's valid. But in any event, I'm not really understanding the criticism you are looking for. I know this is not it, but we have to remember that the east village was rife with notions of both nihilism and anarchism, in contrast to "selling out" and I'm not sure how we can make moral judgments that are anything but subjective. 

@bohodaysbook thanks for all of that. looking forward to catching up to the book.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 1:35pm

I have a major problem with Mimi living at the end. In both La Boheme and the Murger novels she dies. I also hate that she makes this "choice" to live. I have the same issue with Prior Walter "choosing" to live after an encounter with an angel. 

This implies that somehow the reason they survive AIDS is because they make the "choice" to live. I actually find that concept offensive. All the beautiful people who died of AIDS in that era and are continuing to die today are not making the "choice" to die.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 2:10pm

poisonivy2 said: "I have a major problem with Mimi living at the end. In both La Boheme and the Murger novels she dies. I also hate that she makes this "choice" to live. I have the same issue with Prior Walter "choosing" to live after an encounter with an angel.

This implies that somehow the reason they survive AIDS is because they make the "choice" to live. I actually find that concept offensive. All the beautiful people who died of AIDS in that era and are continuing to die today are not making the "choice" to die."

I know a lot of people have an issue with Mimi living. I can understand that dramatically, but I've never understood why it should be thus because of what's in the earlier work. Larson never set out to be 100% faithful to the originals. 

Regarding the "choice," a couple points. First, I don't recall exactly what you are relying on but I do not recall reading it that way. Second, I think it is important to remember that Mimi is, at the end, living for the day, not for the foreseeable future. This is very real. And finally, perhaps you'd be less offended if you thought of it as a choice not to die (again, today). Anyone who has spent time with people dying of AIDS (or cancer, etc) knows that the mind is powerful and the will to live does affect how long one survives. I know this from personal experience and also from what every doctor or nurse will tell you. (And scholarly literature too of course.) None of this means you have to be satisfied by the show, but I thought putting things in context would be worthwhile. Larson was not writing from a distant perch.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 2:32pm

This is the finale to Rent:

Mimi "dies"

Mimi wakes up: "I jumped over the moon. I was in this tunnel, headed for this warm white light. And I swear, Angel was there. And she looked good. And she said turn around girlfriend, and listen to that boy's song.

Then Finale B starts. Finale B is one of my favorite musical finales ever composed. It's a magnificent song. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykQQUuNWhM

This is just a personal pet peeve of mine, this idea that people "choose" to live when they have a terminal illness. It's frankly such hogwash. People are able to live with HIV today because of advances in medicine and knowledge of the virus. People in Larson's era were on the cusp of getting that knowledge and medical cocktails. But the great many people who died didn't "choose" not to live.

As for the drama of Mimi dying, that's always been part of the appeal of Murger's novel and the opera. The fact that there is a tragedy at the end that shatters the bohemian family. Having Mimi live pushes the feel-good ending in the face of the much more dramatically coherent death. 

FWIW, I saw Rent in the theater and as a movie and loved both experiences. The work has undeniable impact with a wonderful score that is so grand and sweeping that it hides most of the weaknesses of the book. JMO.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 2:33pm

PoisonIvy2, your post above seems to indicate that Mini dies from AIDS and then comes back to life. I do believe she actually overdoses. At least that’s how I always interpreted it. Regardless, HogansHero is correct to say that lots of people have a problem with Mimi living. I suspect that Larson didn’t think narratively it made sense to kill off two main characters at the end of the show. Of course, Spring Awakening proves it can be done. But each musical is unique.

As far as Prior Walter, I suppose that’s a valid point, as well. After spending almost 8 hours with Prior, I am glad he lives. I do not believe that Tony Kushner meant to indicate that those who die from AIDS- related complications died because they just gave up. I also don’t think that’s the message that audiences walk out of the theater with. The whole play(s) is so filled with the supernatural that I suppose it didn’t bother me as much it would have in a show more grounded in absolute reality.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 3:00pm

@poison, That's consistent with what I remembered. The scenario is a very real one. People gather around deathbeds, their loved one "dies," and a moment or two later they wake up again. The "tunnel" is also well documented. And you seem to be ignoring or not understanding that people regularly choose to die rather than live, and then die. No one is suggesting that one can stay alive by will when the biology calls it quits. What Larson writes here is something that I have experienced, and I have no doubt that he was writing from real life. I don't think anyone thinks that Roger and Mimi are going to have grandchildren some day. But they may go for a walk to the Temperance Fountain next week.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 3:17pm

HogansHero said: "@poison, That's consistent with what I remembered. The scenario is a very real one. People gather around deathbeds, their loved one "dies," and a moment or two later they wake up again. The "tunnel" is also well documented. And you seem to be ignoring or not understanding that people regularly choose to die rather than live, and then die. No one is suggesting that one can stay alive by will when the biology calls it quits. What Larson writes here is something that I have experienced, and I have no doubt that he was writing from real life. I don't think anyone thinks that Roger and Mimi are going to have grandchildren some day. But they may go for a walkto the Temperance Fountain next week."

People do choose to die. I had an aunt who forgoed further treatment after cancer had spread to brain and she passed away a week later. But this was after years of chemo treatments, surgeries, and participation in a clinical trial for experimental cancer treatments. 

Then there are those who give up on life altogether. They drink too much, take too many drugs, isolate themselves, and their neighbors find them dead one morning and everyone says "how sad."

What I object to is a very particularly contrived theatrical mechanism which is determined to shoehorn a "happy" ending in an inorganic way with convenient tricks. I think Rent is guilty of this. I also think DEH is guilty of this. And I adored both shows. Mimi "choosing" to turn around in the tunnel is the same as the Connors' building an orchard tree and Zoe thanking Evan. While we're at it, the Lerner/Loewe MFL is also guilty of this. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 4:05pm

I'd rather not get into those other shows right now, but to some up, I think...

I don't think it is contrived or a trick, nor do I think it is inorganic at all. I think it is a choice (which does not mean you personally have to find it satisfying). A happier - I bristle at calling it "happy" - ending is not a bad thing, unless you are comparing it to the ending in the earlier works.And here again, I'm not saying that you personally have to like happy endings. And please don't take this as a dig, but I am just curious if you have any direct connection to the AIDS crisis as it played out in New York in this period. 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 4:09pm

I’m agnostic, so I don’t believe in an afterlife although I acknowledge it is a comforting notion. Regardless, that doesn’t stop me from appreciating the spiritual aspects of the deaths in “Angels in America” and “Rent.” While I appreciate how staged art can reflect my own and the life of others back to me in unexpected ways, I don’t need it to be literal (in fact, I appreciate it when it’s not). Of course, there are scientific ways to explain Mimi’s “afterlife” experience and Prior’s and others’ otherworldly experiences that don’t require a belief in an afterlife. I can appreciate both shows either way, but probably appreciate them more if I take them on their own terms within the rules of the reality each creates. So, Prior and Mimi coming back to life doesn’t bother me nor does it bother me when they interact with angels or Angel in the otherworld.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 4:29pm

I am agnostic too but I don't think that comes into play in Rent. Mimi has not died. Her interaction with Angel was not a spiritual encounter. I am pretty sure a psychiatrist would label it a dream. I had a bizarre dream last night. I woke up from it. I fell back asleep. I had an unrelated dream. I woke up. Dreams are weird things. (And don't worry: none of you were in either of them.)

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 4:33pm

I had weird dreams last night too. That’s what I get for watching the episode of  W. Kamou Bell’s CNN series that deals with “The New KKK” followed by a couple of episodes of CNN’s The History of Comedy. Regardless, I welcome being in any of your dreams, Hogan although I do prefer one about Broadway show profit margins over being in a prisoner of war camp situation however humorous. 

Updated On: 8/12/18 at 04:33 PM