Talk:Rent (musical)

Definately a disambiguation -- "Rent" would be an important economics article, for classical and socialist theories, as well as many others. -- Sam

I don't get it, somone please explain, seriously

I watched the movie "rent" yesterday. It was the movie version, but I have heard that that was fairly unchanged from the original (Is that true?).

And, I can't NOT understand how it was ever popular!? Is the stage version so different in plot from the movie?

The story is basically a bunch of ungrateful twerps who think the world owes them something and yet are unwilling to even say "thank you" for it when they get it. Not even unwilling to say "thank you", but actually ask for MORE while at the same time going out of their way to call you names. The entire play is filled with horrible, mean, nasty, cruel, jealous, hypocritical, self centered people who are considered the "heroes" and reasonable, generous, mild-mannered, *extraordinarily patient* "villains".

Like the very first scene the group is getting *free rent* on a entire building, in the middle of New York, for a YEAR (worth, what, well over a million dollars a year? I mean this is an entire building, right?) and then they decide to stage a protest against the very people giving them free rent...

So basically, the guy who owns the building is like, "Hey, either pay rent or stop protesting against me you ungrateful jerks!" and then they proceed to demonize that guy through the whole thing... Not one thank you. Just a lot of nasty incrimination and sarcasm towards him.

The theme of "I deserve special treatment and free stuff for no reason, but I want to be self-righteous about it and at the same time slap you across the face for not hurrying up with the gifts" is basically the theme. Even their internal relationships are like that.

One guy has a cheating girlfriend who decides to be a lesbian who gets "married" to another lesbian and then attempts to cheat on THAT girl her wedding day and finally has the audacity to sing a song about how, "So what, I lied to your face, and insulted you and your family. This is who I am, and obviously there is nothing wrong with *me*, so YOU need to get over it". Basically the same theme... Give me what I want, give it to me now, but I don't care what you want.

One guy eventually gets a job, the most amazing DREAM JOB of his life (he is a "film maker", and he films stuff all day long, and the company wants to pay him to just keep doing what he is doing), and calls it "selling out", gets all angry about it, stays just long enough to pay for rent for a month and quits.

Seriously, what was the message in this thing: Human trash is great? Aspire to make the most hyper-left-wing commune-living teaching-killer-whale-stolen-from-sf-oceneographic-society-to-eat-pure-vegan hippies look like industrious, clean-living upstanding members of society by comparison? Being a diseased, drug-addicted talentless loser with no means of income nor any redeeming qualities whatsoever is no reason you shouldn't expect the world to bow to your every whim?

Why would New Yorkers watch this thing and leave without throwing rotten fruit? Are we to believe that they are so unintelligent? Do they like people going home with the impression that, "New Yorkers are vapid, worthless dregs of human trash who can't think past their own self-centered egos, and we are proud of that impression. And, before you go, give us money, you stupid jerk."

Like you end up thinking, a city where something this THIS kind of retarded monkey message in what many consider one of the "high class" art form is revered with SUCH high acclaim must NOT be a great loss if someone took a match to the whole place.

To that end, the only saving grace, and what I *assume* is the reason why everyone liked this musical so much, because there is no other reason that makes sense, is that they *all* seem to have AIDS, and even if they don't it's reasonable to assume they will catch it soon... and at least one of them dies outright and another comes close enough for you to cheer... And I suppose we are left to hope the rest will die soon?

I guess the message of the musical, in the end, is: "You wouldn't think that watching people dying of a horrible wasting disease could make you happy, but it really can happen... Don't believe me? Here let me give you an example."

First and foremost, I would like to say that the stage version is far, far superior to that of the movie version in my opinion. This is because, if nothing else, of the energy that one gets from having it performed live. As well, the movie cut out several of my favorite songs such as "Christmas Bells" and "Happy New Year" as well as cropping "Goodbye Love" and "La Vie Boheme" (the beginning). At this point I will say that though I am an ardent believer in RENT, I was not totally appalled at what you said, though it wasn't exactly a pragmatic questioning (i.e. "ungrateful twerps" and the name-calling). I think your flaw is looking too much at the superficial aspects of the story. As [Fredi Walker], the original broadway "Joanne" once said, the movie is about people. This means that they are like us. Jonathan Larson's characters are designed for all of us to see a little bit of ourselves in them. I think that is why it is so popular. People relate to it. People see how to put ASIDE the issues of drug addiction, sexuality, wealth, etc., and see that things like love, trust, and living for the now are just more important in life. Listen to the lyrics a few times and it's a good thing to listen to when you are feeling bad.

Personally, I think you misunderstand the musical which is far superior to the movie in my opinion, although of course you are entitled to your views as well. I'd be happy to explain the musical to you, and if you really do want to have this conversation, leave me a message on my page. But this is really not the place for such a discussion; this page is for discussing issues about the Rent (musical) Wikipedia article, not the topic itself. Instead, I'd suggest you post your query or opinion at the Rent movie page on imdb.com, or at www.compulsivebowlers.com. Drenched 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Best Musical Ever

The best summary is not too long. A concise summary with spoiler warning would be optimal. I have seen the musical, so if someone else is ready & willing to do it, I would appreciate it. After an acceptable amount of time, I'll do it myself, the necessary information is already contained within the article, it just needs to be hunted down & gathered. -- Zenosparadox

I shortened the plot synopsis - does the new version work? ewok37 06:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the touch ups ewok37 06:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Good stuff. --Zenosparadox

Still a bit too long and gives away quite a bit. Yeah, there's a spoiler warning, but the entire play shouldn't be put up there--people might actually want to see it, y'know. And there's a bit of grammatical issues that need fixing. 158.123.178.2 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away a lot, as long as there's a spoiler warning -- I actually came to the page to try to find out the ending. Maybe there could be a non-spoiler summary as well as a complete one?

I just seriously edited the plot summary, including reworking a bunch of the Act Two summary. Better than it was, I hope? Hbackman 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of despoiling the intro to the article ("Spoilers End Here" is somewhat painful, and hard to avoid if you really are trying to avoid spoilers) I've moved the character summary down into the plot synopsis, which consolidates the two spoilery sections. I think it still reads pretty well this way. -- Metahacker 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The opening comments imply it opened at the Nederlander which is incorrect. it opened and ran at the NYTW before moving uptown. Facts should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.175.73 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Too critical?

I really enjoyed it. It was vibrant, moving, original. The songs worked at many levels (as did the staging, and other aspects) and I especially appreciated the social/economic criticism (love the song on living in America at the end of the Millenium, as well as the homeless interventions on Christmas). Yet I was disappointed that while it was one of the first representations of LGBT characters on Broadway, the gay (male) love story is ended by death while the equally HIV-infected heterosexuals (Roger & Mimi) don't have their love story shortened in this way (though the threat looms). I know, another reading is possible: the romantic value of the gay relationship is elevated (made equal?) to that of Mimi's in Puccini's La Bohème through Angel's death (and heterosexual sympathy is aroused perhaps, and possibly equal respect for such relationships); also, the lesbian relationship doesn't end in this way. RENT was written when AIDS was a death-sentence, not a chronic, manageable illness as it is today (*if* you have access to meds and aren't fighting a secondary disease or condition like addiction or homelessness), so someone dying is inevitable (and in keeping with operatic tradition). Perhaps it was meant to honor, recognize, publicize the number of gay men who had died due to AIDS-related complications from the early 1980's until RENT's production in the mid-1990's. Yet, as a gay man living with AIDS, I admit I felt cheated after an initial flush of pleasure at *finally* seeing something on stage that didn't require me to translate culturally or romantically. Why couldn't Mimi (or Roger) be the one to die? Not to mention other questions I had... Was Angel's relationship with another man palatable because he did drag and the presumably majority-straight audience could sustain a fiction and avoid the reality that this was a male-male love relationship? Or was it more radical because of this? Does it simply reaffirm gender stereotypes (and assumptions about same-sex relationships that they must parrot these terms) or upset them completely? I don't know... Perhaps I'm just too critical or thinking too much about it. I know, being starved for representation affects this for me. I also know it's a work of art, not a political statement (or, rather, not solely a political statement, and not necessarily one that must support any of my pet ideologies, though it comes close).  :) No matter; I would see it again and recommend it to others. -- Kamal

I sincerely doubt that the fact Angel dies and not Mimi or Roger is somehow a statement against gays. In the 80s, the Reagan era in NYC, AIDS was a serious problem for gays, heteros and drug users alike. The purpose of Angel's death in the play is to illuminate the fact that Collins and Angel had the purest love of all of them. They admitted openly that they had AIDS, that they loved each other, and that they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. Mimi and Roger spent too much time doing this complicated dance around each other because they were too closed up. Angel's death was necessary to shed light on their petty problems. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were gay and Roger and Mimi were straight. Megan 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Kamal that one of the reason that Angel dresses in drag is to make it understandable to heterosexuals that male-male love is just like male-female love by having one of the men equate himself to women. Fllmtlchcb 08:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

Maybe I'm naive, but I think that "Since its first run on Broadway, "Rent" has caused over 15,000 people from all walks of life to claw their own eyes out in despair and then jump into oncoming traffic." is not exactly part of RENT's cultural impact.

Nope, it's called vandalism. Thanks for removing it, and why not go ahead and sign up for a user account? It's a lot of fun! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rent had a huge cultural impact. Rent, which is one of Broadway's longest running musical teaches its audiences over and over again about taboo subjects such as AIDS and homosexuality. It focuses on tolence and acceptance of everyone. This play/movie (although much better play ... if I could add on) opened up new avenues for many people by introducing them to support groups, encouraging them to learn about the AIDS virus, attend seminars. Also, in the movie, people see a variation from the original Broadway play, where the characters Mimi and Maureen get married. There "wedding" is broken up when they decide to split up, but one can see the political comentary of this director, struggling with the real life controversy of approving gay marriage.

Anyways, thats just my 2 cents, everyone feel free to add on.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.230.39 (talk • contribs)

Sarah Schulman

The charges she lists on the source (Slate.com) seem somewhat vague. Is this factual enough to be included? Perhaps someone who has read her book (Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America) could elaborate?

I haven't read the book, but her charge is overstated regardless. She told Slate, " The gay part of Rent is basically the plot of my novel, but with a slight shift. [Larson] has the same triangle between the married couple and the woman's lover, but he made the straight man the protagonist, whereas in my version he was the secondary character." Or perhaps, Jonathan Larson is telling a different story? One told from a different point of view? Nevertheless, I can't evaluate the claim that "there are scenes in Rent, and events in Rent, that come right out of my actual life, via the novel." To clarify the accusation, just before it I added information about plot elements taken from La Boheme and from actual events in the East Village. I also deleted the word "significant" from the accusation. Even if you were to grant that the accusation is true, and say Larson lifted the Mark-Maureen-Joanne love triangle from Schulman, ultimitely it's just a romantic subplot that comprises not more than two songs (Tango Maureen and Take me or leave me). mike 22:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Angel

Throughout Wikipedia's articles about Rent, I have seen instances of male pronouns being used for Angel. Angel is a woman in mind, and that overrides her male body. Please try to fix this wherever you can.

Angel may have been a gender-bending, drag-queen kind of man, but he was still male. Rent itself acknowledges this. For example, this exchange from the song Goodbye Love - "At least now if you try, Angel's death won't be in vain. - His death is in vain!" Note use of the masculine pronoun. While feminine pronouns can certainly be playfully used to refer to Angel, their use on Wikipedia is unnecessarily confusing to people who are not familiar with Angel's character or with Rent in general. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be thinking too much about, you know, a fictional character, but Angel identified as a female. While Goodbye Love refers to him/her several times as "he", during the funeral s/he is referred to as "she". Also, Angel would be Collins' queen, implying femininity. It's a tricky part of dealing with transvesteded people, but since this is a Wikipedia article dealing with a fictional person, let's go with "he" to avoid confusion.

What happened?

the summary is ok, I guess... but there are TWO acts in rent, so where is the summary of the second act? The pointer outer 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea if this is really what was intended, but when I read it I asked myself the same thing and figured it was this way to simply provide a teaser communicating the basic idea of the play and creating a longing for more, presumably to get people to watch it. On second thought, that may not be the right way do to it on an encylopedic entry (as opposed to promotional material). Michael%Sappir 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that bit, clearly labelled both acts, and added an expand tag. Turnstep 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

how to cite bonus DVD?

In the section on Rent's creative process, it says, "... until one lone voice said "Thank you, Jonathan Larson," which broke the spell[citation needed]." This fact was mentioned on the bonus DVD that came with Rent, the movie. There was a documentary on the creation of Rent. How would one go about citing that source? Robin Chen 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea.. but it was mentioned on the No Day But Today documentary in the Without You segment.. I dont remember who was first talking about it.. I'll have to check and see...

There's a template for it: Template:Cite_video. My understanding is that features on a DVD count as films in their own right, so just include the name of the documentary etc. -- Metahacker 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Casts

About the organization of cast lists: I think there should be a separate section for casts, and include both the OBC and the current broadway cast in it as subheadings. The current setup is a tad illogical. Also, I think the cast section should include celebrity cast members and replacement cast members as well. i.e.:

Cast section

*OBC

*CBC

*famous people who were in rent ever

*replacement broadway casts (this maybe too long, but they pull it off on the Wicked site)

*possibly tour casts

what do you all think? Drenched 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Drenched

Organizing sections

I think we have somewhat redundant sections (i.e. the introduction, theatrical run, cultural impact). Could we perhaps just have a general "History" section that would include 1. Creative process 2. Theatrical Run 3. Impact all in one place instead of scattered all over the article? Also, I think the contents of the Trivia section right now is basically the same as in cultural impact. Couldn't we more explicitly just have a section called "References to Rent in Pop culture" or something that would just take care if it all? Then trivia could be reserved more for stuff like "Hey, Taye & Idina are married, awesome!" What do you guys think? Drenched 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Drenched

Detail Question

In the pop culture section, it says there are references to Rent in Avenue Q. I (think I) know Avenue Q] well, but I can't find a direct reference. Anyone know?