Theater Review: Rent

[yesthattom]

I saw Rent last night on Broadway. It was... ok.

Am I the only person in the world to watch it and not think it was so wonderful? Maybe it was more powerful 9 years ago when it came out (1996) and certainly maybe the original cast was a lot better. Or am I just jaded? Would I appreciate it better if I was a bigger Opera fan?

It was depressing, the plot was difficult to follow and thin, and the big conflict was trite, and the resolution was, um, what was the resolution?

Yes, the funeral scene was sad, but it was mostly painful because it brought up memories of the aids/hiv funerals that I’ve attended.

Maybe in 1996 it was more powerful. Or maybe it’s powerful to str8 people that watched it but to people that “were there” it was just a painful record of what was happening [and I hardly was “there”, I was reading about it from a birdseye view while doing related-but-disconnected political activism]

Can someone fill me in?

Comments

[vixi.livejournal.com]

I loved Rent when it came out. I was like 16.. and I thought it was great. The lyrics were kind of poor, so was the music.. but I loved something different in musical theater. It is also a poor adaptaion of La Boheme.

Rent also didn't date very well, it's pop culture and even AIDS related lyrics.. Even in 1998, it sounded dated.

The original cast was GREAT. Idina Menzel, Taye Diggs, the cute black guy from Law and Order, etc.. They were fantastic, with fantastic voices.

They are now making a movie with the original cast, directed by Chris Columbus.. I don't think it will be very good, but I will go see it anyway.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

I'll go see it because chunks of it were filmed 8 blocks from me. Got to support the home team. :)

I haven't seen Rent on stage. I don't generally go to musicals, and I don't have any special affection for NYC, so it never really occured to me to catch it when it came through here.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

I got to see Idina Menzel in "Wicked" and she was amazing. (Well, Wicked itself was amazing)

If they're making a movie and she's in it, I'll at least go see it.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

Not sure that anything can convince you it was wonderful since you/your taste has concluded it isn't.

But I'm not straight, I was in the middle of 'there' in the mid-90s, didn't discover RENT until 2001 or so (discounting the three main things you're thinking of), and I've thought it was really wonderful, on the cd or with the touring shows (have not seen Broadway).

So I have no clue why it didn't affect you, aside from again, your personal taste. Which isn't a bad thing; we all have different tastes, else art would become bland with everyone liking the same thing.

I do think, however, that you're far more prone to attributions. If someone said 'I didn't get RENT. I guess it must have just been aimed at those queers.', it would be as offensive as your recent comments on RENT, or on Avenue Q a few weeks ago. You chalk up an astonishing amount of things to the sexuality of yourself and others, that really, has little to do with it at times, IMHO.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

I don't think Tom's being offensive, but I do think it demonstrates a little bit of insular thinking. I think it's hard to know what people outside of one's immediate sphere identify with or respond to.

Avenue Q is a great example, actually. With the single exception of Tom, every single person who has recommended this play to me has been straight. Some have talked about how it's particularly funny to geeks, to punks, to people "our age", whatever. I think it's a measure of how cool the show is that everyone thinks it's speaking to them...and a measure of the insular way people think about their social allegiances that each individual attributed their ability to "get it" to some particular subcultural membership or other.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

"you're far more prone to attributions" -- help me understand what that means

[thespian.livejournal.com]

I think that what kimuchi said explains what I was trying to get at. Your review of Avenue Q was the thing that made me start to realize that you're radically left, Democrat, and queer *at all times*. No matter how little something has to do with politics, you seem, since Dean, to be trying to radically politicize everything. You seem not only to be doing that, but at times, you're defining yourself *not* by what you are, but by what you're not - at times it feels not like you're proudly queer or Democrat, but instead, you're polemicizing 'the other side', with statements like 'Or maybe it’s powerful to str8 people that watched it but to people that “were there”...', without realizing that that strips people who happened to be straight and were there from possibly connecting with the loss, or with the play.

When talking about anyone who isn't of your subcultures these days, the perception I get, not talking to you anywhere but here, in LJ, is that you're adopting the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' attitude. You're categorizing a lot. 'Those Republicans.' 'Those str8s.' It's no longer 'those people.'

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting analysis. My livejournal is about 1% of my life, so i can agree that 1% of my life is as you describe.

But really...

I used to be one of the people that tip toes around categories trying not to offend anyone. I'd infuse any sentence with parentheticals explaining that when I say "group X" I realize that not everyone in group X is like everyone else in group X, and I'd go to great lengths to water down my words so they would be absolutely correct in all instances.

Then I realized that I'm wearing down my fingertips and it isn't worth it.

Then I read a book about graphic design that convinced me that "bold" is the only way to design things and that wishy-washy designs were boring, confusing, and weak.

Then I got a lesson in modern campaigning and learned that being concise, bold, and strong is more important than being painstakingly accurate, boring, and ignored. That it sounds weak to say

I think that, and pardon me using the term "straight", that straight people, or people with a stereotypical straight background and acknowledging that not all heterosexual people conform to straight stereotypes, nor are homophobic or unaware of AIDS/HIV (and with props to those that feel the proper term should be "HIV Disease" not AIDS, and acknowledging people that feel that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS) may have a different reaction to RENT than I do.

I used to write that way. Nobody could understand what the fuck I was saying. Now I just say, "Straight people may have a different reaction to RENT than I do." and people understand what I'm saying.

And most people understand that generalizations are just that.

And meanwhile the Democrats run advertisements that nobody understand because they say, "I support civil unions but not gay marriage because they are the same thing... but not so 'same' that I shouldn't be against them both" and lose to Republicans that say, "Protect Marriage" because people understand what that means, even when it doesn't mean anything.

So, yes, in the interest of writing understandably, and role-modeling the bold style that I believe Democrats should use, I make generalizations.

Am I polemicizing 'the other side'? Well, I'll have to go look up that word to find out what you are saying. However, if you are accusing me of differentiating those people that disagree with me calling them wrong vs. those that agree with me and calling them right, then yes, I do that.

I'm sick of seeing talk shows where the Republicans say, "I'm right" and then the Democrat says, "They have a good point but I have a point too." Don't give them an inch. Watch who wins the debates, it isn't the person saying that the other side has a good point.

Do I see things more polarized since I worked with Dean? Yes. Democrats are losing elections because they haven't realized just how polarized things have been for ages. It's time to wake up.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

"Well, I'll have to go look up that word to find out what you are saying. However, if you are accusing me of differentiating those people that disagree with me calling them wrong vs. those that agree with me and calling them right, then yes, I do that."

No, I'm saying that you're not just saying, 'you're wrong'. You're pigeonholing people into little boxes (You won't get this because you're straight, You won't get this because you're _____). People aren't just 'wrong'. They're people. Your rhetoric doesn't actually allow for 'a straight person', it just allows for 'those str8s'.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Read the original post, I was asking a question not making a statement.

[amaebi.livejournal.com]

Saw it in 1999 and thought it was okay. (I'm a woman who's (very) primarily been with men.) Talking with a gay friend and former student, I thought that perhaps one appeal of it to him was simply having gay life, complex life, ill life, and death visible, out of the closet and on the stage. If this has been a major appeal for others, it's probably not quite as ravishingly spring-like nowadays.

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

I think Rent is one of those shows that is highly dependent upon the power of the cast that's performing it. If the chemistry is good, it's amazing. If not, it's mediocre.

[dpfesh.livejournal.com]

*pets yer pretty hair & misses mine that looked like that*

[auntiemisha.livejournal.com]

I liked it when I saw it, it had at least some original cast as I remember the guy with the scarf. I didn't think it was outstanding or anything, I liked some parts more than others.

[lovingboth]

No, I saw it back when it opened here, and I though it was barely ok.

Loud but empty was my main memory.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

I saw rent when it came out, and it really spoke to me.

then again, I was in high school at the time, so the rebellious nature of the whole show and the "finding yourself" go-nowhere plot appealed to me. I have a special place in my heart for it; the soundtrack is still my sountrack for when I'm angry.

I think if you see that and you're in a similar stage of life you might like it. Remember too, what happened to Jonathan Larson -- that DEFINITELY kept the show's ratings up higher ("what they've done in the face of the writer/director dying unjustly so soon before opening night").

[sjthespian.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those people who agree with you about Rent. Yes, it was something different on Broadway (grunge musical, I think they call it these days). However, the lyrics are trite, the music is repetative, and the adaptation of La Boheme is somewhat odd -- after all, she lives! It's like watching West Side Story -- I always want Maria to die at the end (and even saw a version of the show where she did :) ).

I think it does get a strong reaction from some people, but I've never been sure why. Then again, I've never been able to figure out what's so great about Phantom of the Opera either. The show bored me. Give me something complex like Sondheim to keep me happy.

[cappyhead.livejournal.com]

My dad hated it, because it was about them queers.

I've never seen it.