rent movie....dont mean to insult...just want to know if anyone feels the same way- Page 2

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 4:18am

triplethreat, I was wondering what messages you felt were being betrayed in making a film version of Rent. Have you always had a problem with the OBC, or do you just have a problem with them now that this show has led them to professional success?

Yes, the stunt casting has ruffled collective feathers over the years, no one here will deny that. But Joey Fatone isn't in the movie. On a remote level, maybe Rosario is "stunt casting" but she's not Scary Spice or Britney Spears, she's an actress who can sing (beautifully, from what I've heard) and effectively portray the character of Mimi. So I don't understand if your problem is with Rent being made into a movie, or with the stunt casting on Broadway, because you seem to combine the two issues in your original post.

Emcee, yay for nightowls!

[triplethreat2]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:17pm

I dint insult myself I am NOT ignorant. I asked not to be bashed. People post things everyday about how much people suck and how much different shows suck. Did I say rent is going to suck? No I didnt. and for everyone that read wrong when I was talking about "big names" I obviously wasnt talking about the people in the movie. I was talking about when they put pop stars on broadway to sell tickets. I think its a disgrace to broadway and to whatever show they are put into. I know who is in the movie and that I agree with. I am not totally againt the movie I just wonder how things would have been done if JL were around. I wasnt trying to hurt anyone but now I feel hurt by just asking if anyone felt the same. I have read alot I have looked at the pictures people have sent me and it has helped ease my mind.But calling me ignorant and telling me I insult my self and not to mention the other nasty things people have wrote about me who KNOW NOTHING about me just make me not value anyones opinion because obviously they are just out to hurt other people. I didnt want to be bashed and for the very few people that didnt thank you your opionin and veiws are valued.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:24pm

Unfortunately, by posting such a strong opinion on such a touchy issue, you're bound to get nasty reactions.

It's perfectly clear that they aren't casting here to get big names. Even though Rosario is one of the "bigger" names they've got in this cast, she's not big enough to have gotten the role based on the name attachment. She can do this - there are clips out there of her singing, and she's spellbinding. Even if there are a few non-originals, it's lightyears better than the stunt-casting, which I DO agree with you on. I hate it, but everything is about money.

But you keep repeating this about what would happen if Jonathan were here to see this and take care of it. A lot of people say things about Jonathan having wanted his vision to reach out, and maybe this would have been the way to do it, or at least to try, since not everyone sees theatre. Before this all actually started happening with the movie, another production company had the rights, other casting was semi-in place, and a whole different version of the film was set to happen. This was years ago. There has been talk of a film for a pretty long time, and I'm inclined to wonder if maybe at some point, such an idea ever did cross Jonathan's mind, or get brought up to him, seeing as he did get to watch some of it grow. I know there are pictures of the cast and Robert DeNiro somewhere... I don't know under what circumstances, but that could have something to do with it. My point, though, is that the people working on this were close to him. They know what they're doing. They're his family. They're the people HE chose to bring these characters to life. I think anyone who is truly a fan of the work should be able to understand at least that much. Jonathan isn't being totally erased by this, by any means.

I don't know what the I'm really trying to get at by repeating myself over and over again, but I guess now that I finally see the other side, I wish other people would. They're doing just fine, and the movie looks incredible.

[another_day_2day]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:25pm

i agrea that it is a great idea which will get the beautiful story across to non broadway goers

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:30pm

Triplethreat, I really understand your feelings, but I don;t think most of teh posters here were attacking you. Some may have been and thats one thing and issues they should deal with. Many of the posts though were from people who also questioned the movie and either are waiting for it to come out to make a decision or have some other information that has changed their opinion.
I also wish Larson were still alive, his creativity and skills would have developed more and more and he seems like he was a fascinating guy.
There are problems of comercialization, etc. I was disgusted by Drew Lachey in RENT but, art needs to be made, I thik we need to see the film and develop opinions of its merits and vision at that time.
I hope you come to enjoy your experience here, many people are truly nice, but everyone is very opinionated. Try not to take it personally these shows just mean very much to all of us, as I'm sure from your post RENT does to you.

Updated On: 4/29/05 at 12:30 PM

[KelRel]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:37pm

Here is my 2 cents...This film is being done by most of the OBC..these people were there from the beginning, they were there when Jonathan died. They were his vision. They arent just slapping this together. They are avoiding hollywood pressures to "spice" it up, and are supporting each other.
"Usually on big-budget films, if an actor is not working, he's not on set. If he's needed that day, he'll be in his trailer, and if he's not, he won't be there at all. To see the cast crowded around the monitors CHEERING for Anthony every time he did a take of What You Own, and to see Idina show up just to watch and support her fellow cast members on a night when she wasn't needed, and to see them all out there supporting one another and proving how TRULY committed they are to this project blew my mind. It speaks volumes for how different this movie is going to be than the "sell-out" it had the potential to become, and how much HEART is going into it. "
I couldn't agree more Em. Give it a chance.
Think about this...
"How do you leave the past behind
When it keeps finding ways to get to your heart
It reaches way down deep and tears you inside out
Till you're torn apart
Rent!"
I can't help but think that lyric is playing over and over for the cast as they make this movie. They are reliving the process of making RENT. They made the magic and passion and "incindiary wit!" of the first version of RENT, how could they fail us with this version?
*steps off soap box*

[Justice]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:41pm

But, aren't you doing the same thing by talking about something you know nothing about? It is not a disgrace to B'way to do stunt casting - it is the business. They have stunt casted for many years, especially by putting pop stars on Broadway. Let me give you examples:
Some are stunt casting, and some are just cast...

Song and Dance - Melissa Manchester
Man of La Mancha - Sheena Easton
Little Woman - Maureen McGovern
Blood Brothers - Petula Clark/ David Cassidy/ Shaun Cassidy
Legs Diamond - Peter Allen (Writer and star)
Les Miserables - Ricky Martin/ Debbie Gibson/ Melba Moore
The Capeman - Marc Anthony / Ruben Blades
The Look of Love - Kevin Ceballo
Jesus Christ Superstar - Maya Days
Speed the Plow - Madonna

There are many more, (and this goes back way before the 70's and 80's) but this is all that comes to mind now.
As for stunt casting...if they didn't do it, sales would plummet, and your favorite shows (i.e. Rent, Chicago, etc.) would close.

And, just so you know, I have seen some of these pop stars, and instead of being criticized, they should be applauded for their efforts to do the same role eight shows a week. It is not an easy job - especially for first timers. Wether they are good or not, shouldn't matter. At least they're up there, trying their best.

As for you not wanting to be bashed or judged, etc...When you post a thread like this one, you should expect it. Not everyone is going to agree with you, let alone be nice if they disagree. I'm the one who called you ignorant, mainly because what I read in your initial post makes it sound like you have no clue what you are talking about.



P.S. Penguin - It was Drew, not Nick.

Updated On: 4/29/05 at 12:41 PM

[KelRel]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:43pm

I agree with you Justice

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:49pm

I also agree Justice. Sorry I fixed that now, I seriously have no clue which of them is which, I knew the one not married to Jessica Simpson was in RENT but I never can remeber which is Drew and which is Nick. :)

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 12:50pm

triplethreat2? I think there may be a bit of confusion. These entertainment "vehicles" are part of a business that is commonly now called show business. It used to be called "the show business." The film of RENT is being made to reap MONETARY PROFIT.
I'm really not sure what anything you mentioned has to do with anything about the show or the film. The film is being made to earn money.

[TGIF]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:07pm

I think it would be sad to say that things couldn't happen because the creator died.

Should we stop doing Shakespeare's plays? We could be performing it in a way he did not intend. What about Tick, Tick...Boom!? Do you enjoy that show? It was put together after Larson died. Who knows what his view of that show was like.

The point that I am trying to make is that we DON'T know what he would have done or wanted, and I think it is almost insulting for people to assume that they know better than Larson's family. This isn't direct soley at you, TripleThreat - alot of people have said "This isn't what he would have wanted."

Also, should Rent have stopped playing on Broadway? It didn't even start preview yet, and we don't know the changes he would have made the the score/book etc. I think it is fruitless to not do things because we are unsure of what the original person intended, otherwise great theatre would be lost and forgotten.

I, too, have my reservations about the film, but I have faith that it is being done with the best intentions. I also think alot of people's reservations are because they don't want RENT to become mainstream and more popular. They don't want to loose people like Adam, Idina, and Anthony to Hollywood.

Take a look at my signature. He wanted his music to be heard and remembered.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:12pm

Well said.

[Justice]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:13pm

Speaking of, and I have mentioned this in a past posting:

Larson wanted to fire the director during the NY Workshop production. That same Director was brought to B'way after Larson had died. So, your argument still doesn't make sense, because it went on B'way with Larson not wanting it to go on that way.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:23pm

Triplethreat2, I understand what you are saying, but you have to realize that the movie is not where it started.

When Rent began playing at NY Theatre Workshop, they couldn't give tickets away. At that point, those who saw it thought of it as an experience. It really spoke to a generation that were trying to find their purpose and feeling crowded out by the baby boomers. It was an experience more than a show. (I imagine it was what Hair was like to people in the 60's).

When the publicity machine started rolling, Rent was everywhere. The cast was on magazine covers, they appeared on Letterman, the Stevie Wonder "Seasons of Love" was supposed to make it big on the radio. They released the OBC album, then they released the "highlights" album (the highlights album was a total grab for money.)

When a show is pushed like that, it brings its message to the world. But in that giving, it loses a bit of itself.

I just wanted to say that the feelings you have expressed started long before the movie ever came into being.

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:26pm

>>I also think alot of people's reservations are because they don't want RENT to become mainstream and more popular.<<

TOO LATE. RENT has long become part of the mainstream. It has been cleverly marketed and promoted from the very beginning all culminating from the unfortunate death of Jonathan Larson just as the show was about to make it's move to Broadway. How do you account for all the books, cd's, t-shirts, coffee mugs made and sold. Not to mention all the posters plastered all over city streets, subway stations and cars when the show first premiered.

People have this notion that RENT is this sort of "underground thing", it's not. It's simply a Broadway musical based on Puccini's "La Boheme" adapted into modern times. It has a beautiful message at it's core which is a universal one.

Some people here are reading way too much into it than what it is really there.

[TGIF]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:28pm

I also just wanted to comment on what you said about the casting.

I am against stunt casting also. However, it is not because Drew Lachey hasn't lived as a starving artist (and who knows, maybe he has. I don't know his childhood) but lack of talent. Some stunt casting is done very well, but others are not so good.

It would be great if all "bohemians" and "starving artists" could play the roles. A few weeks ago, there was an amazing post by MargoChanning. He grew up living the life of what RENT talks about. He and others who saw the show were very disappointed with how it turned out and saw it as a "disney version" of what life in the East Village was really like.

I am not assuming that all East Villagers feel the same way, but we cannot assume that they would be jumping at the chance to play these roles.

What if in 50 years someone wants to revise RENT? Who knows what NYC will be like and if the East Village will be anything remotely similiar to what it was like then (heck, its drastically different even now).


EDIT: Marquise, I agree and thought that when I wrote it. It was more in reference to the actors, but partially to the show itself. I am sure alot of people are a bit scared about the prospect of 12 year olds who know nothing about RENT around singing the songs and claiming it as their "love" and "obsession". At least the kids who love the show semi get what it means.

Updated On: 4/29/05 at 01:28 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:31pm

I think what you're talking about, Marquise, is partially true. To people who live or have lived in New York, and have had exposure to theatre either by choice or just by default when living here, RENT is already sort of mainstream, because of the t-shirts, posters, publicity and presence, especially through its fans.

But when we talk about not wanting it to go mainstream, I think it's sort of a different kind of mainstream... something that Hollywood is that theatre is not. There are people who have exposure to movies that would never touch theatre, for a plethora of reasons. Maybe those same people won't be interested in the movie either... maybe they will. But in that sense, there are people who may have no idea what RENT is right now that will hear of it come fall.

Updated On: 4/29/05 at 01:31 PM

[peach]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:35pm

I understand I am very late joining this discussion.

I also understand where triplethreat is coming from.

However, I will also offer the peach's take on making my beloved RENT into a motion picture.

Making it into a major motion picture isn't all that different from making it a musical in the first place. Both are show biz. Both entertain audiences. Both make money. Both employ actors and singers. Both get the message across. Did I mention both are show biz and both make money?

I for one am very much looking forward to this film. I think it's going to be fabulous.

Done and done.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:40pm

Yes both make money (or lose it) and both are show biz. Both also have the capability to be art. This movie has many committed artists working on it, and even though I've never been fond of his movies I think Columbus is more interested in vision on this than just putting some crap out there so people can buy it.

It is about making money sure, but it is the love of money that causes problems, to put out a work of art and have people feel so profound about it that they spend on it is how I really think the producers are working on this.

[kangaroo]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:40pm

I would just like to say that I know that when I talk about "mainstream" I was thinking about Hollywood, as emcee said.

TGIF said it perfectly: They don't want to loose people like Adam, Idina, and Anthony to Hollywood.


~kangaroo

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:42pm

Right, and a lot of that sentiment is due to personal attachment to the people involved, just as much as it is to the material, I think. At least, that's how I feel. I wish them success in whatever they chose, but I know I'm selfish, too.

Updated On: 4/29/05 at 01:42 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:48pm

ya know, all of the "rent heads" who say that jonathan wouldn't want 'names' in his show or want it turned into a mavoie tick me off.. you are not jonathan lason and do not know what he would/would have wanted in anything! and further more, just because someone writes a musical based on 'living on the ege' and not conforming does not mean that it should be produced by the same philosophy.. because if they had done that, the damn show wouldn't be running... and would have closed YEARS ago... and EVERY last Renthead would be b(*&%ing about THAT! so please... SHUT THE F&^% UP!

[kangaroo]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:51pm

YES Emcee,

exactly how I am feeling... just selfishness but happiness that my favorite Broadway stars are going to succeed, but I want to still be able to get a picture with Adam after a show... but there goes the selfishness again

sorry ~kangaroo

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:55pm

I love articulate arguments that are clearly nothing but filled with animosity and "always being right."

As for the money vs. art issue, maybe that's why I'm not such a big fan of film... or at least "mainstream film." I feel like it's all about the industry, making money, and fluff to make people happy. That's why it's weird, no matter what the outcome, to see something I love so much for NOT being like that colliding with the world of film. Done right, which it looks like is the case, it won't be such a nasty collision. I think ultimately, the film is a financial endeavour, as most art has become in a way, but I think it's also a labor of love and a huge tribute to the work itself.

Updated On: 4/29/05 at 01:55 PM

[kangaroo]

Posted: 4/29/05 at 1:59pm

I definitely agree with you Emcee.. I feel that this is one of the only movies that has been made with love. I know that no one on this board really likes Lord of the Rings, but that is also part of the reason I loved the movie so much. Each actor put a lot of love into every scene, Ian McKellen almost memorized the book so he could make sure that Peter Jackson was staying true to the books.

That being said, I think it is the same way with RENT. With almost everyone from teh OBC there, plus Jonathon Larson's family, I don't think the movie will lose Jonathon's original message for the audience. I think that it will still be intact, despite all of the Hollywood aspect of it.

~kangaroo