RENT (the musical) (2 Viewers)

[MichaelBA]

It almost seems like RENT the movie has suffered the same problem as HAIR the movie -- both were made at least five years too late, and more likely maybe even TEN!

Larson set the show in 1989 because of the AIDS crisis at that time and specifically to examine how the characters, most of whom are presumably in their mid to late 20s at that point, could look back on a freer, healthier time in the early 80s.

RENT was a great show, but it really was meant for a certain place and time, and for a certain age-group, I think. Not that it can't translate at all beyond that, but to "get" it best, you had to be of that place, time, and age. Not to mention a VERY particular social circle.


What's wrong with THAT, whippersnapper?!

The tragedy of RENT is that Jonathan Larson died the day it opened. :frowning:

 

[Michael Reuben]

Technically, it was the day it went into previews Off Broadway, January 25, 1996. The initial opening was in February 1996 at New York Theater Workshop. Rent opened on Broadway on April 29, 1996.

It isn't just the state of AIDS treatment that marks the period in which the play is set. The New York depicted in Rent is very much a product of the 80s. By the time the play opened, after a long period of gestation and development, the Giuliani era had commenced, and for better or worse, the New York of Rent was already disappearing.

M.

 

[Haggai]

I went into the movie without knowing much about the original show, and without having heard any of the songs. I thought the dialogue in between numbers was an unhappy medium that didn't work too well, as the movie ended up seeming like it had a very over-stuffed collection of songs. They end up singing about stuff that seems fairly banal, since they were just talking about it two seconds before. "I'm going to start a cybercafe, guys...and now I've just gotta SING about it!"

As Michael said up-thread, they must have figured that a movie wouldn't be accepted by general audiences if it's all singing. But I don't think there are very many people out there, among those who might be willing to go see a movie musical in the first place, who are going to stay away just because there's no regular dialogue. Had it been constructed like a more standard movie musical adaptation, e.g. Chicago, they would have had to cut out quite a lot of the music, so I can understand that they didn't want to do that. But I think they should have just gone ahead and stuck with the all-singing nature of the show.

 

[MichaelBA]

Yup. It was nostalgic even ten years ago.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Either that, or the script needed more work. For example, I thought the scene with Sarah Silverman was one of the film's best inventions (although I seem to be alone in thinking Silverman was right for the part). In the play, Alexi Darling is just a voice on an answering machine. By giving her a face and an office, the film makes Mark's sense of selling out more tangible. (It also adds a great little scene for Joanne as she watches Maureen with Alexi's secretary -- and Tracie Thoms makes the most of it.)

Admittedly, there are only so many plot points where that kind of invention is possible. Still, I have to give the film credit for trying (and often succeeding) at making a genuine adapatation and not just filming the stage show.

M.

 

[Haggai]

I also thought that scene was pretty good, although (as I mentioned in my previous post) I had never seen the show, so I didn't know that was new for the movie. I agree that it was fun casting to have Silverman in that little role.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I agree with this completely. I had a great big grin when I saw it was Silverman playing the role, as I'm a fan of hers and she's very interesting to hear speak "out of character" (which is hard to do since she's always in character on stuff like Letterman or Conan).

It also helps that since that scene wasn't in the show it had dialogue that was originally written to BE DIALOGUE. It might only bother people that know the show by heart, but hearing all of these lines spoken verbatim from the show that were originally sung was somewhat distracting (though I'm guessing maybe a few people not familiar with the original show were wondering why some sections of dialogue were rhyming so well).

Not only that but sung dialogue like that, for "operatic" purposes is given certain leeway due to convention not given to regular spoken dialogue - so rewriting alot of that stuff rather than pulling it straight from the libretto would have helped immensely in some spots.

I don't remember exactly what the build-up was to "Take Me or Leave Me" in the Broadway show (that's one of the few parts that isn't actually on the Broadway recording), but I thought the dialogue exchange in the movie worked rather well there too. If it was pulled from the show it obviously worked better there than in other spots.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Excellent point, and I think it applies equally to the commitment ceremony leading to "Take Me or Leave Me".

M.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

You're not alone. Since they lost those answering machine messages (thank God, since her messages are even more irritating than they're supposed to be.)
Just having Sarah Silverman in that role sold with the casting everything that Alexi Darling represents.
I think this is one of the best visual translations of a musical to film. The sets capture the clostraphobia of the stage, but the cinematography creates a dynamic and three-dimensional space. Visually this isn't a play shot on film, as all too many adaptations are. This is visually a movie, and that's fantastic, when it doesn't go overboard (Roger in Santa Fe comes to mind)
Still, I just couldn't get into it all the way through "Over the Moon". Visually it was cool, but it seemed rather empty to me. The aforementioned song lacked all of the necessary energy and enthusiasm. When you wait that long to introduce the enigmatic Maureen, you better make it a shocker of an intro. I did like the little touches like the televisions, though.
But everything from "Le Vie Boheme" was a masterpiece; even if Santa Fe was a misstep visually it didn't tarnish the emotion. Columbus's translation of "Without You" is tragic and inspiring. When the Life Support people started fading from their chairs I just lost it. Even the over the top subway pole dancing early on made sense when you have the contrast of Collins and Angel huddling on the train.
This just might be the performance of Jesse L. Martin's career. He and Heredia had the best chemistry in the movie.
I lost it again with the reprise of "I'll Cover You", and once more with "Your Eyes". That whole final stretch was just nailed perfectly - probably because the dialog felt natural and I finally was able to get away from the comparisons.
I'm also not sure how that got a PG-13. There were at least two "fuck"s and a half-dozen "shit"s. Columbus certainly didn't pull any punches; Collins' mugging was surprisingly violent for a musical, the drug use is shown up front and center, and the sexuality isn't exactly tempered. In other words, just how it should be.
And I don't care what anybody says, Dawson hit Mimi out of the park. I understand the loyalty to Ruben-Vega, but Dawson knows how to use the screen like no one else except maybe Martin. Indeed, when Mimi comes back after Roger sings "Your Eyes" I found her straighter take far more affecting.

 

[ThomasC]

You can say "shit" all you want, and two "fucks" don't make an R.

 

[RafaelB]

MichaelBA:

LOL- not that there's anything wrong with pushing 40... I just meant that these people are supposed to be in their mid-20s and Jesse L was really starting to look his age is all.

I'm also in the camp the liked Sarah Silverman's cameo. Actually during the opening credits, I was very surprised at seeing her name and then anticipating where she would show up.

Rafael.

 

[MichaelBA]

Argh! I better see the film soon because all these posts are giving away so many scenes!
That was one of the BEST moments seeing the original show ten years ago! Egged on by the audience, Idina Menzel would sing until her vocal chords ripped. And the WHOLE theater would "mooooooooooooo"!

Ha! Man, what a screaming good time it was!

 

[Colin Dunn]

I saw "Rent" last weekend. I remember before it was released, a lot of people were posting on discussion boards here and at IMDB worrying that it would be a "sanitized" production since it got a PG-13 rating.

I never saw the Broadway version, but it didn't feel "sanitized" for a rating, save for one scene:

Maureen and Joanne kiss, but only the beginning and end of the kiss are shown. There is a cut-away to another shot in the middle.


I had the Broadway cast recording and the libretto, so I was familiar with the story and the "adult themes" therein. But as others have said, all the content related to drug use, sexuality, poverty / rough neighborhoods, etc. was in there. It didn't feel "watered down" to get a PG-13 rating. Instead, I got an impression that the MPAA was more lenient than usual since "Rent" is a musical from a mainstream studio. I think an independent film with the same content would have gotten the R rating.

I read somewhere else that the PG-13 was awarded on the first try, so this film wasn't resubmitted over and over again with minor cuts until the ratings board gave in.

I wonder if other countries follow the MPAA's lead when rating a film. The UK gave it a 12A rating (which usually coincides with PG-13 films in the USA), and Canada gave it a 14A rating (which coincides with hard PG-13 or soft R films in the USA). It would seem other ratings boards had a similar consensus...

 

[Michael Reuben]

Although the first-week box office for Rent the movie may have disappointed, the release has led to a renewed interest in the Broadway show, which last week experienced the highest seven-day ticket sales since it opened nine years ago. (Phantom of the Opera saw a similar spike when the movie was released last year.)

We all know that theatrical film releases are often just advertising for the DVD. But for Broadway? That's new.

M.

 

[Greg_M]

I really liked the first half of this film. But by the second half it all fell apart. You couldn't really connect or care about any of the characters, and the whole bit of Roger going out west passed by in split seconds and you never understood why he came back to New York. At least I didn't though I'm not too familar with the soundtrack. I also thought the cast was about ten to fifteen years too old for the film.

 

[MichaelBA]

Well, I just tried to post a very LOOOOOOOOOOOONG set of comments on the film, having seen it last night, but... some Database Error message popped up instead and I lost the entire content.

I couldn't possibly reduplicate it.:frowning:

So, in short, I came into the film with zero expectations, thus I can't say I was disappointed, but I can say that I disliked it.

It's mostly Columbus' fault. He took a great stage show and made an awfully boring film.

Blah. All my energy behind commenting on the film has been dissipated by this web error...:frowning:

 

[TheLongshot]

That's why I usually write my long posts in a text editor and just copy it into the box. After years of experiencing what you have, I had enough.

Jason

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I also write my long replies in Notepad and copy/paste them into the box. I've had too many problems the other way.

 

[David Williams]

I'm glad I waited to post this, what with the upgrade failure. I saw RENT on Sunday. It was my first exposure to the musical outside of hearing the signature song, 525,600 Minutes, I expected to enjoy the movie, but I was blown away by how much I was emotionally touched by it. My personal situation couldn't be any more different than that of the film's neo-bohemians but I was touched by the film's message of measuring your life by how much love you give and living life for today. It's really different as a musical as it's the first one I've ever been to that had maybe 10 minutes of dialogue in the whole film. It was wall-to-wall singing. This bothered my mother who went with me, as it was so different to her expectations of a traditional musical, though she did enjoy it somewhat.

Even if the performers felt a bit too old for their roles (No one in their right mind would believe that Rosario Dawson's Mimi was anywhere near 19!), it really didn't matter to the story. In fact the age helped Tom's character who is supposed to be teaching college... I just can't see a 20-something pulling that off unless he was some major genius. Wilson Jermaine Heredia was amazing as Angel. Even though you knew the character was doomed to die (the nice ones always bite it), they didn't go stereotypical. He got really sick and was dead in one song and the way that his death brought everyone back together was very moving.

So far it's the best movie I've seen in 2005 and I don't expect it will be topped by Chronicles or The Producers which will probably be the last 2 films I see this year.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

And my (and others') complaint was that there was too much spoken dialog. Tells you what the origital libretto was like And the signature song is called Seasons of Love. But those are nitpicks. I'm really happy you connected with it.