Why was RENT a Flop in London ????

This has been puzzling me for a while and i don't remember it being discussed here. A few years back when I heard that RENT was opening in London, I was sure that it would take the city by storm and would run for years. And with the Original Cast opening the show, and the hype surrounding it, it should be a huge success for a long time. I consider the British audience very open and appreciative of modern and unique things like RENT. So I was very shocked to hear that it lasted, what, a couple of years and then closed. Does anyone understand or know the reasons that RENT didn't captivate the London audience ?

Rent had a very successful German tour. It was quite well-received.

---

It had 3 London runs though, Princeton. Which one did you see? And who was in it at the time?

---

The original London production was hardly a flop. While it's true that it closed earlier than planned, it still ran for a year and a half which can hardly be called a flop. It was extremely successful while the members of the OBC were there. Once they were all gone, the ticket sales began to drop a bit. It really was never intended to be a longrunning production, though. The subsequent productions in London were very different and had some questionable casting which caused them some bad publicity.

popcultureboy, it isn't true at all that it hasn't done well anywhere but the U.S. It did well in its initial London production, it did well in Canada, and also in Germany. There were several other successful productions around the world as well, Mexico being just one.

I remember Adam addressing this in a bit of depth in his second Chatterbox interview. I'll post that, since it's pretty interesting. He said a lot of it, he thought, had to do with the marketing campaign; there would just be posters that said "RENT" and the date, and that the campaign assumed that people knew what this American phenomenon was. But, they didn't, and if they did, it felt like the campaign was just pushing it as this big, bad American musical that you were supposed to be familiar with. His take was that if they didn't know what it was, this sort of strategy certainly wasn't going to make them care to check it out.

He also seemed to think that other parts of the show were sort of lazily done because they did have OBC members there, and that they were expected to shoulder the production... poor direction, etc. He said that some of the new cast members just didn't have their hearts in it, and really didn't understand very well the weight of what they were doing, and told a story about one of the girls who played Mimi, saying she was often drunk.

I don't know enough to offer my own explanation, anyway, but I always enjoy his opinions, since he's so honest.

---

and told a story about one of the girls who played Mimi, saying she was often drunk.

Sadly not just drunk, either. However, she has now cleaned up her act immensely and last time Rent was in London she was involved in the production and was an alternate Mimi (and Maureen, bizarrely) and was in amazing voice.

---

Mrs Emcee. I've been expecting you LOL

Now Magruder, don't be snooty . For the record, Rent received very good reviews in London but that didn't translate into an audience.

---

It may be true that it is an American musical. But I think that its great messages and its big heart could be universal. Add to that its wonderful and modern music. And I thought especially London is very receptive of fresh and unique things !

P.S. I am not sure, should I say its or its' ?

luvtheemcee, that particular castmember to whom Adam was referring was not a 'new castmember'. She had performed both in the Canadian cast and on Broadway prior to going to London.

Whether or not the show was sold out, if it ran for a year and a half, in my opinion, it shouldn't be referred to as a flop. There are many successful shows which rarely run at 100% attendance in NYC, perhaps the bar for considering a show a success in London is higher? And as I said, the show has definitely had successful productions outside the U.S., despite popcultureboy's claim.

Actually, Erinrebecca, that cast member had only performed in the Canadian cast prior to London. She left London to join the Broadway cast for a minimum of 6 months. She was let go after just 3 months due to her addiction problems.

---

popcultureboy, you're correct, Krysten didn't perform on Broadway prior to going to London the first time. I was mistaken, she was in NYC before leaving because she was living with a friend of mine but she was only at the Neder for rehearsals. However, your other info is slightly inaccurate. She left the London production in Nov.'98 to take over when Marcy left until a replacement could be found. She was there until February when they made the decision to bring Maya to Broadway. Krysten then returned to the London production in February and stayed until she came back to NYC at the end of May. She was signed to a limited run at the Neder and had definite vocal (and other) troubles during those months. It's a shame because she was a fantastic Mimi and obviously was well-respected by TPTB because she was brought back yet again in a subsequent London run.

'The curse' actually started with Rent and went on to claim Lautrec, Napoleon, Peggy Sue got married, Umoja, Mille and Bat Boy. As the theatre has very little passing trade or visability from tourist spots it has trouble sustaining long runs.

The problems with Rent were:
Bad marketing (as already posted)
Stuck in the Shaftsbury (reasons above)
The plot. I saw the original production three times during its run, and people either didn't understand what was going on, or thought that the whole thing (the ending in particular) was just a bit silly. And the watered-down badly cast tour (Caprice) just destroyed any reputation it might have had (though ironically did quite well)

Maybe the film will go some way to redeeming it over here!