When will RENT Close?- Page 2

[guitargeek0624]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:40pm

I think that the movie and the 10th Anniversary hype has given it a bit of a kick. I could see it going to its 15th anniversary, but after that, it might start losing its steam.

Let Phantom close already. When I saw it in November, the only good thing about it was Howard McGillin, and now that he's leaving (or gone already), I don't see why it should stay open for more than a few more years.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:41pm

"I hope it plays Broadway forever to prevent it from community theatre hell. "

I sooooo agree. RENT is going to be to community theater what AIDA currently is in high schools. And I am thoroughly frightened by the prospect.

[Katt]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:44pm

Have you seen the grosses for Phantom lately? Absolutely no way it will be closing any time soon. It will at the least make it to twenty years, and probably to 25.
Updated On: 4/29/06 at 01:44 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:47pm

I can't wait for the day High Schools start doing it and cut all the gay/HIV stuff.
Updated On: 4/29/06 at 01:47 PM

[Renthead#1]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:50pm

I think it will play fo 525,600 more years.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:51pm

If RENT is going to run to its 15 year anniversary - is it too much to ask the producers to make it a set "period piece" and put something in the program saying thus?

The show was dated before it even opened, but to even insinuate that the East Village depiction is current or that any medical centre in the country would still prescribe AZT is absurd. And "the end of the millennium" was oh - well - about ten years ago...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:04pm

Isn't there a synopsis in the Playbill? ... does it not say when/where the show takes place? I don't get the impression they're trying to fool anyone into thinking it's a current portrait of New York.

[faithanytwo]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:17pm

i agree luvtheemcee.

[Becky]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:17pm

I don't get the impression they're trying to fool anyone into thinking it's a current portrait of New York.

Me either Emcee. The cast even talks about how the East Village and the treatment of AIDS has changed since early '96, but I don't quite see how that changes much with regards to the show. RENT does take place in a certain place/time, and there are references to that period. It's not a negative thing to me or something that I think needs to be explained to an audience. I give the audience a little more credit than to think that they need to be told that this is not an accurate depiction of the Village, etc. And while it does have a certain period piece element to it, that's such a small part of the show. For me the show is more about the relationships, friendships, and music more than some dated references.

I don't need to be told at the start of Miss Saigon that I'm not in that time period anymore Updated On: 4/29/06 at 02:17 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:19pm

Well, even if it's stated in the show and nobody's trying to fool the audience intentionally, maybe I'm underestimating by thinking that people could, well, pretty easily figure out that this is not supposed to be now.

For me the show is more about the relationships, friendships, and music more than some dated references.

I agree. I think to call Rent "dated" diminishes a lot of what is transcendent about it. I think it's fine to call it a period piece, because it inevitably is, but being period doesn't make its themes dated.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:32pm

When RENT opened it was definitely supposed to be set modern day. That fact that it was supposed to be current and vital is the entire reason the show became a hit.

Because time has moved on and the show has stayed the same - that is what differentiates it as "dated" as opposed to a "period" piece.

A "dated" play can become a "period" piece (a la HAIR) but the producers of RENT seem to still be marketing the piece like they did in 1996 - that its a fresh, hip, edgy show.

And I think you'd be surprised how many people probably think the East Village is still like that.

[guitargeek0624]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:33pm

"Have you seen the grosses for Phantom lately? Absolutely no way it will be closing any time soon. It will at the least make it to twenty years, and probably to 25."

I'm not talking about the money. I'm talking about the quality of the show and the actors. I don't know what the current cast is like, but back in November, only Howard McGillin impressed me. He was the only thing keeping the show together, in my opinion. Again, the new Christine and Phantom may be great, and the show may be very good as a result. But if they aren't, then the quality of the show goes downhill.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:36pm

When RENT opened it was definitely supposed to be set modern day. That fact that it was supposed to be current and vital is the entire reason the show became a hit.

Because time has moved on and the show has stayed the same - that is what differentiates it as "dated" as opposed to a "period" piece.

But MB, the show stayed the same and *remained* a hit. I'm arguing that it's period but not dated because dated has such a negative connotation. Dated means that it's not current and therefore irrelevant to the degree that current audiences can't connect to it. No, the current situation is not the same, but Rent is about way, way more than AIDS and drugs -- that may not be alone what made it a hit in the first place, but I think that's what's *kept* it a hit.

And I think you'd be surprised how many people probably think the East Village is still like that.

By their own closed perceptions, not because Rent tells them so. When I went to the East Village for the first time last March, my mother was petrified that I wouldn't come home alive; she thinks it's still like it was ten years ago. She has never seen Rent -- it's not the show's fault she feels that way. It's because she doesn't open her eyes. And when she finally does see Rent, well, she knows that it's not meant to be now. Not gonna change the fact that she thinks the East Village is still drug-infested everywhere you look.

The marketing strategy is kind of perplexing, though I still think there is much "edgy" about Rent -- what went on down there *then* is way "edgier" than it is now, no? I don't necessarily think the whole "Rent: NOW" campaign is set up to make it look like Rent is a portrayal *of* now, but more like The Lion King's whole "SEE IT NOW" push.

Updated On: 4/29/06 at 02:36 PM

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:37pm

"Not to mention if I hear the word "dated" thrown around one more time I will poke my eyeballs out with a fork."

The message that fans of the show love so much may not be dated, but the method by which that message is delivered certainly is.
Updated On: 4/29/06 at 02:37 PM

[Becky]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:39pm

that its a fresh, hip, edgy show.

Well, I guess in comparison to some other things running on Broadway, it *kinda* still is - even 10 years later. Looking at some of the currently running shows, RENT probably fits that description a little more than most!.......

Avenue Q
Beauty and the Beast
Chicago
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Hairspray
LESTAT
Mamma Mia!
Rent
Ring of Fire
Spelling Bee
Sweeney Todd
The Color Purple
The Drowsy Chaperone
The Light in the Piazza
The Phantom of the Opera
The Producers
The Threepenny Opera
The Wedding Singer

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:44pm

Well, thats a good point Emcee - but the message behind HAIR is still relevent, but its also clearly a depiction of a time and place that is no longer here. It's so dated it has become as much a period piece as SOUTH PACIFIC and A CHORUS LINE.

If RENT were to run another 10 years without changes, its cultural references would render it irrelevent to the degree of affecting an audience's ability to connect with it. For that reason alone, I hope the Larson estate doesn't turn the show into an endlessly running cash cow.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:46pm

A "dated" play can become a "period" piece (a la HAIR) but the producers of RENT seem to still be marketing the piece like they did in 1996 - that its a fresh, hip, edgy show.

In comparison to 95% of the shows on Broadway, Rent IS fresh, hip and edgy.

Then again, if MB knew anything about "fresh, hip, edgy", he'd know that no one uses terms like that anymore.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:47pm

I'm sorry, but RENT is not "edgy" anymore.

What made it edgy in '96 was the non-chalant treatment of homosexuality, biracial relationships and transgendered persons as well as the honest look at AIDS, homelessness, and drug use. It was pretty new territory for Broadway, and became pretty new territory in popular culture at that point as well.

Though we haven't come nearly as far as we should have, none of that subject matter is really all that edgy these days. In that respect, the show is sligtly dated. It isn't quite as impactful as it was when it was breaking barriers 10 years ago.

The other broader themes: love, no day but today, community are themes that are pretty universal and therefore very lasting, and I think that is why the show has continued to grip younger generations.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:49pm

Well, I'd argue that you can draw a really important parallel between Hair and Rent; I see them both as clearly depicting something as what *was* and is no more, even if the messages are still relevant in other situations. I want to assume that my desire to argue Rent as *not* dated has to do with the fact that I walk into the Nederlander and watch the show with the prior knowledge that it's a period piece, but I also want to assume that people are a little smarter than to assume that it's supposed to take place today -- for a lot of reasons. Aren't you positing the presence of cultural references? Don't references to the early 90's make it *kind* of obvious that that's when the show takes place? But, similarly, I don't agree that the show is so laden with such references that they alone would out-date it any time in the relatively near future.

... and I'm still holding to the distinction between "dated" and "period." They're not mutually exclusive.

ETA --

The other broader themes: love, no day but today, community are themes that are pretty universal and therefore very lasting, and I think that is why the show has continued to grip younger generations.

Yes. And you can *absolutely* inject universal themes into other time periods and still have them impact people. That, at this point, is what Rent has become.

And no, there's nothing edgy about *how* they're showing what they're showing anymore, really, or at least to the degree it was in '96. But what was contemporary and is now past, I think, still has something raw about it. Except now, the specificity has become history.

Updated On: 4/29/06 at 02:49 PM

[Becky]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 2:55pm

Don't references to the early 90's make it *kind* of obvious that that's when the show takes place?

Ooooh noooo, the beepers and oversized cell phones don't give it away at all

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 3:00pm

Hell, the current 3Penny isn't even edgy.

I don't think anything can be edgy....unless a director figures out a way to get the machine that rips off clothes from DRACULA and put one under every seat of the house. Then, blackout and when the lights come up and every audience member is in the buff. That's edgy.


I don't think dated is necessarily negative. Plenty of great shows with great meaning get dated because they said what they've said and now things are different. To me, a period piece, is something that needs to be set in a certain time due to history, etc.

I think that's what they need to do with Rent. It isn't a big deal to even write "Setting: East Village, Early '90's" in the playbill. It's all they need.

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 4:55pm

RENT in the community theatres, oh dear lord.

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 4:55pm

double post, damnit. Updated On: 4/29/06 at 04:55 PM

Posted: 4/29/06 at 5:16pm

No matter how much longer RENT runs on Broadway, based on the performance I saw in May 2005, it ran into the ground somewhere between the time I first saw it right after the opening and last May. However, the condition of the show doesn't much matter to the current crop of theatregoers who think Broadway is just a spin-off of American Idol

[bwaybabe3]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 5:26pm

yea i was suprised but they loved it! and their grandkids were young too. it was so weird, but totally cool. and by loveable just like the characters and music are so easy to attach to!