Sony and Columbus appear to have put RENT through the anti-gay shredder — Page 10

You just won't give up, will you Art?
Well, as I believe I stated last time this topic came up (and I'm sure other people have stated, but I'm not going to read through nine pages to find out): part of what was always so beautiful about the show Rent is that there were no labels. The people just were who they were (gay, lesbian, straight, bi... whatever), and it never had to be stated or made obvious; the fact they simply were who they were and that everyone accepted it naturally, was a major part of the show to me, and I'd really hate if the just movie screamed "hey these people are gay," because it's so much more than that (and sorry if that didn't make sense just now- I swear, it makes perfect sense in my head).
And I love you right now Elphaba... just thought I'd tell you.

---

oooh...that's a tough choice...

---

Well...

I'm sick of your posts.

I'm sorry that we can't help you understand the flaw in your logic.

Hmmm, I guess I qualify as both sick AND sorry. Lucky me.

Seriously though, these art2 threads are the best. Nothing brings people together more quickly.

Hmmm, what are your thoughts on the War in Iraq? Perhaps you can come up with an extremist 3rd perspective that will help unify Congress!

Updated On: 11/4/05 at 10:36 PM

"If the RENT trailers and poster had been fair, accurate and inclusive, I wouldn't be here complaining about it."

To the story they are supposed to represent, or the story you want them to represent? They are fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the story they stand for. If you have problems with the underlying book, then go talk to the Larson estate and pitch a fit.

The movie was not going to create a dynamic that was not already there. Sony and Columbus were working of an existing story - you still have not indicated how they deviated from the Rent Musical that currently plays on BW regarding gay male love.

You know, I am a somewhat rational person. I can usually at least appreciate someone else's position on an issue, even if I do not agree with it.

But, Art2, you have done me in.

Please answer my last query so I can figure out whether you are angry because the movie does not accurately reflect how the relationships are portrayed in the stage show, or if you are angry because the movie does not depict physical love between two gay men notwithstanding how it was portrayed in the stage show.

You know, you could have come at this at a whole different way, and probably gotten some people to agree with you - if your goal is to point out that mainstream society has some discomfort with the portrayal of gay male love on screen, then I probably would agree. But, to use an adaption of a stage production that itself did not focus on the physical love between two gay men, but rather, the emotional love, as the basis for your argument just undermines it completely.

Updated On: 11/4/05 at 11:03 PM

Tonight it is a Pinot Grigio - here's a glass for you. I just opened the bottle a few minutes ago.

As for the shredder - I am not touching that one. I am only a probationary libido liberal - so I cannot opine on the source trauma associated with the use of the term shredder in the title.

But, the wine is nice.

Art, I never said I did, or did not have qualms with the Gay Marriage sub-plot. I have not seen the movie yet. I may take great offense to it if it appears out of context or inappropriate, or takes the characters to places that would not be envisioned as part of the original story. I would also take offense to a graphic love scene between Angel and Collins because that would seem to be counter to the core of the story as originally present. But, I have not seen the movie yet, so I cannot take offense or not.

You did not answer my question, just try to divert the issue, which leads me to believe that your answer is that your concern is with the issue in general, and not Rent in particular.

I have no idea what position you have proven true. Except for that you are better at double-speak than Scott McClellan.

By the way, want a glass of wine? I think you could use one as well.

Updated On: 11/5/05 at 12:09 AM

"As for my own position, I've proven to be true."

--What does that mean? "True"? "True" to what?

Art, is English not your first language? It's O.K. if it's not; this country's strength comes from it's immigrant population. I'm just trying to understand why your word choices are so bizarre.

And as to what appears to be the underlying point of your post--it is not the role of Sony Pictures to advance the cause of gay rights. If, in fact, your wildly incoherent protestations--which seem to be that Sony has been insufficiently agressive in providing equal time for positive images of male, same-sex relationships--have any basis in fact (and let's not lose sight of the fact that you HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM YET), what led you to believe that it is Sony's job to promote these positive images? Sony is not a moral entity--it is a corporation. Sony Pictures has not betrayed anyone. They have made a film adaptation of a Broadway musical. Some will feel it was successful, some will not.

This is an inappropriate crucible in which to anneal the sword of gay rights.

---

Updated On: 11/5/05 at 12:37 AM

The Angel/Collins relationship isn't meant to be very physical--it's supposed to show a deeper, more meaningful love which is what I think we're gonna get.

And let us all put our collective minds together...why would Roger and Mimi have more focus place on it than either of the gay couples? Could it be because the play gave them the most songs and made them more or less the main characters? Nah...It's gotta be the libido liberals keeping the plot similar to the original RENT in attempt to rain on the homosexuals' parade.

Speaking of gay pride parades, who wants to bet that art2 protests at gay pride parades because there isn't enough man-on-man action to be pro-gay?

This thread has given me a great big, gay headache.

---

Art2... First this gay marriage subplot is not that big of a subplot in the movie. But as long as you bring up the point that columbus does integrate this very important issue into the film please tell me how even after that integration you can still call Columbus homophobic.
Second, You go on complaining that the advertisement does not depict a homosexual relationship, yet you refuse to aknowledge the fact that the original advertisement for the broadway production also did not depict this, and techincaly the movie ads do depict homosexuality, you just seem to be blind to it for some reason. And many people have taken the me to point this out to you, how about a response on that topic too?
Third, you have not yet told us why there should be a kiss between Colins and Angel with Angel out of drag when it never happened that way in the original production. Both times these two characters exchange a kiss Angel is in drag.
Fourth, and probably most important, You have not yet seen this movie, you do not know of the content within. If you read what the actors and the Larson family, as well as the reviews of the privelaged few who have seen this movie, they say that the film very much keeps the essence that Larson was looking for. In rent, nobody makes an issue of any of the characters being gay, it is accepted as fact and that's that, why make a big deal out of it on film, why can these characters not be portrayed as normal people whoppen to be gay, why should an ordeal be made out of it? It isn't what Larson was looking for, do a little research you can readily find what it is he was after.
Many people have brought up these very valid responces to your very poor argument, and yet you have still not truely dignified a single one of them with a response. Your arguement is flawed and illogical and you seem to be doing very little to revearse that. Arguing in circles is not an appropriate way to go about an arguement, and most learned people know that.

I stand unchallenged on the point that the gay male relationship has been marginalized in the trailers and the poster, both relative to the heterosexual relationships and to the gay female relationship. Look at the facts without those pro-RENT blinkers I mentioned earlier - it'll do you the world of good.

I wonder what would happen if we all decided to agree with art2. Maybe pigs would fly or hell would freeze over or he'd finally shut up. Actually, I think the first two are more likely than the latter.

Anyway. Has anyone seen the trailer for Brokeback Mountain? Looks like a good one. (I figure that it semi-relates to the topic we're...discussing here.)