Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

I saw the movie adaptation of the musical Rent yesterday, and I have to say I was impressed, because beforehand I was under the impression that the Broadway version was probably one of the least adaptable plays for film I'd seen in my not-so-long life.

For the movie, there were many changes, but it was surprisingly faithful to the overall feel of the play; if anything, it was even "darker" than the stage version. What surprised me most wasn't even that some of the songs were omitted or switched, but that, even though the majority of the principal characters were played by members of the original Broadway cast, their voices sounded much different than they had on the Broadway soundtrack recording. Of course, we're close to a decade past the recording of that version, and the orchestrations/arrangements in the film were different as well.

I know a lot of movie critics had objections to the idea of making a movie-musical about AIDS with members of the underclass singing and dancing in subways, alleys, and strip clubs, and maybe quite a few ordinary viewers feel this way as well, but I don't think it's any worse to do that than to have orphan girls turning backflips as they're forced to clean their orphanage, for example. :rolleyes:

I could start up on a cultural critique where I explore the validity of commodifying the struggles of the urban underclass through musical theatre, and the ways in which it is often used by the capitalist establishment to mollify ruling-class guilt...but I won't. :beg:

Did anyone else see this?

Link to comment

Yes, I saw the movie as well (in fact, I've seen it twice and I'm going again this weekend). I'm a casual musical fan -- I catch them when I can, but I much prefer ballet and opera so I definitely choose the Met or City Center over Broadway when I make it to NYC. But I do like to see musicals, and my favorite films are all musicals.

I haven't seen RENT on stage, so I can not comment on how faithful the film is to the original. But after reading interviews with the cast members and the family of Jonathan Larson (creator of RENT), I get the feeling that the movie is as faithful as it can possibly be. More importantly, however, it stands on its own very well -- I think it will create a whole new group of RENT fans who have yet to see it on stage (like me).

I do have the original Broadway cast recording, and although I'm sad about some of the ommissions, I understand that musicals on stage and on screen are different creatures. So in general I was very, very happy with the film, and it touched me in more ways than I thought possible.

I apologize for posting a review so vague, but I can add some details later. I'm running late but wanted to add my two cents :beg:

Link to comment

I saw this movie tonight and loved it. The movie is exuberant, overloud, and Larson's songs range from glorious to pretty darn bad, but overall the movie had a life and vitality that I find missing from so many movie-musical adaptations. (Exhibit A: last year's Phantom of the Opera.) The subject matter seems a bit dated now but the exuberance is still there. I recommend it.

Link to comment

My second veiwing of RENT was actually on December 1 -- World AIDS Day. The date reminded me that the film is still very much relevant in some respects. I applaud all efforts to raise awareness about a disease that still claims too many victims every year.

I love the music, which is a bit strange because in general I prefer the more "operatic" musicals -- or just opera in general. But I think the sheer exuberance (to use canbelto's word) just really carries both the movie and the musical (I assume) along. Although if I had to listen to the soundtrack or cast recording 800 times a day, I'm sure my ears would react against it!

Anyway, I feel like I should get back to posting about ballet, but I can't help it -- I enjoyed RENT (the movie) much more than anything else I've seen -- on stage or screen -- in quite some time.

Link to comment
My second veiwing of RENT was actually on December 1 -- World AIDS Day. The date reminded me that the film is still very much relevant in some respects. I applaud all efforts to raise awareness about a disease that still claims too many victims every year.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw it...on that day also. Not that a movie or a musical should be a public service announcement, but if it gets people thinking about it, that's a good thing, especially when people with HIV/AIDS are portrayed sympathetically.

Hans, I can see how having to hear it 800 times a day might turn you off...I feel the same way about Grease, myself, having been to sleepaway camp in my childhood... :lightbulb:

Link to comment

Those who wish to see Rent should check it out ASAP unless waiting for the DVD works for you -- it's tanking at the box office. I must reluctantly agree with those who can't abide the score, but I was hoping that the picture would do better.

I have a feeling this much-vaunted movie musical revival is going to sputter out. (I do not have high hopes for The Producers, but then I wasn't crazy about the non-musical original, either.)

Thanks to all who have reported their impressions so far.

Link to comment

It was great to see a movie musical where the characters just break into song (unlike, say, Chicago, where they're careful to let you know the numbers are only figments the imagination). And that worked because they avoided a problem that many musical films since the 60's have (Grease, for instance), where the acoustic for the songs is different from that for the dialogue, so that when the characters start to sing, it sounds completely artificial. The movie struck me sort of as Hair meets Fame. I neither loved nor hated the score; some numbers were good, and the performers were all terrific, especially Jesse L. Martin. Given the subject matter and what I'd heard about the stage show, I was surprised how old-fashioned the music was, and the arrangements, the instrumentals behind the singing, were incredibly unimaginative and monotonous, I thought. Also, trying to sing dialogue to a thumping beat--rock recitative, I guess--well, it just never works for me. The score got me thinking though--usually I find distasteful the way in today's musicals characters, instead of simply singing feelings, sing about what their feelings MEAN. (Coming soon to a theatre near you: "I'm OK, You're OK: The Musical.") There was some of that in Rent, but something about rock music (it's tradition of protest and making statements?) makes it a lot less objectionable than I usually find it.

The movie had a great look, it created its own world. (That film within the film of flashbacks to good times, though--yuck. Was that actually in the stage show?)

Link to comment

Thank you for those thoughtful comments, Anthony_NYC. In addition to the acoustic issue you mentioned, I also think there is a stronger resistance among today's moviegoers to accepting the convention of actors breaking into song and dance. It may be that Chicago worked (for many; not for me) precisely because they were careful to telegraph that the numbers aren't intended to be naturalistic.

I did enjoy the "Little Shop of Horrors" from quite a few years back with Rick Moranis. I don't remember how it did at the box office, but I thought it worked very well.

You are right, the score isn't all that bad.

Also, trying to sing dialogue to a thumping beat--rock recitative, I guess--well, it just never works for me.

It works for me in the right context. "Here comes Ivor the dirty sooty old engine driver to make her feel all right"-- although that's not really recitative.......

Link to comment

Okay, this isn't about the movie, which I've not seen, but a stage production of Rent that I endured yesterday.

I think I didn't get it. Clearly, there's a sort of a cult that DOES get it, judging from the huge cheers, the instant standing ovation, and the incredibly long line waiting to buy pricey t-shirts before and after the show. I think I am too old, too much of a fuddy duddy, and too curmudgeonly.

Are we supposed to actually care about the characters? Why? What is exciting/positive/redeeming about this life they are trying to hold onto? Aside from sex and a certain "we're in this s*** together" sense, why are they attracted to each other? (Except for Angel and Collins -- I get that. Angel is the ONLY character I felt any kind of sympathy for or attachment to.) Why is it such a horrible thing for Benny to try to come in and clean up the neighborhood?

I don't remember a single song. I actually fell asleep at one point.

Now, I'm willing to believe that it was this particular production that failed (and will someone clue me in to how the Broadway in Chicago series gets away with charging $70 for a NON-EQUITY production featuring a bunch of college actors with mostly obscure shows to their credit?). But ... am I way off base? Why do people like this show?

Link to comment
Why is it such a horrible thing for Benny to try to come in and clean up the neighborhood?
I have seen neither the show nor movie, but I suspect that "cleaning up the neighborhood" could be seen as a precursor to gentrification, leading to rising rents, driving out artists and breaking up their enclaves. It's happened over and over in my city in the past 30 years, and I don't doubt that it's happened in yours. Keeping artists' communities intact was a huge, high-profile issue when Rent first hit the boards (as was the AIDS epidemic)

If it's all about keeping the Rent low, then perhaps this production, in a bass-ackwards way, succeeded. :thumbsup:

Link to comment

The road show of Rent is non-equity? Surely the Broadway production is equity?

I still haven't seen it, though I feel perhaps I'm betraying a friend, I also suspect the production's got to have moved away by now from it's creator's influence. Just weird twinges of feeling (and finances) have kept me from rushing out to see the show.

If it is non-equity, I have an anecdote about Jonathan Larson and Equity: He had me set up to shoot his staged reading of "Tick Tick Boom!" his monologue inspired by his 30th birthday (incidently a card I sent him that day had a little something to do with this monologue, he once told me)... he was the composer, lyricist, writer, actor, musician, producer, director etc. of this one-man-band production... the day before the show, Jonathan called me up and told me he had to break the gig for me because Equity wouldn't allow him to record... and he couldn't figure out who Equity was protecting: were they trying to protect the actor from the producer? the musician from the composer? It was a bit much. No doubt, giving Equity their due, had he been made aware of the issue earlier by Second Stage (the theater), he would have been able to get an archival waiver, but alas, there was no professional recording made.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...