rent is due
i first saw rent the musical as a sophomore in high school at the age of 15. the trip was a 16th birthday celebration for one of my friends, and i remember clearly being excited for the trip to new york--the limo, the eating, the shopping--but i was less than enthusiastic about the choice of the show. i didn't know much about it, other than it was "supposed to be really good" and had that song about the "500 minutes" that somehow made it's way into mainstream america.
sitting through the show, from the upper mezzanine, i remember enjoying the loud, pop-rock music, but was frustrated that i could barely understand any of the words, and honestly had no idea what the fuck was going on. (i will admit that it took me a little bit to decide whether or not angel was a drag queen or an eccentric woman). but, i would never admit any of it. i wanted to leave inspired, and awed, and changed by the experience like everyone else was, or at least pretended to be. i wasn't.
over the next year or so, my friends began to listen to the soundtrack in the car while we drove around, and i started to familiarize myself with the songs, and the lyrics. i pieced the plot out, got to know the characters more intimately, and by the time a drama-club trip rolled around my senior year of high school, i was ready for it. and that time, i got it.
i was awed, inspired, and i'd like to think, changed. in any case, i became somewhat of an addict, turning the show/trip into an annual (sometimes semi-annual) tradition. and when i moved to new york, the city became my enabler, and though i won't reveal how many times i have seen the show, i could possibly qualify for RA (rent anonymous).
over the past 9 years, i have seen a lot of different casts come through the nederlander theatre, including some notable (and sometimes odd) performances from joey fatone, mel b. aka scary spice, frenchie davis from american idol, and jai rodriguez (both pre-and-post queer eye fame). but, perhaps my largest regret, is that i never fully appreciated the brilliance of [the majority of] the original cast when i had the chance. it wasn't until i got to know the soundtrack that i appreciated their voices and their chemistry, in retrospect.
which leads us to the present, and this past week's release of rent: the motion picture. a lot of people may not know that the project had been circulating through hollywood since the late 90s. at one point, spike lee had the rights to the film, and the treatment i read was horrendous--a complete re-imagining, and reorganization of the songs and the plot. while creative, it was not what i wanted to see. as the rights to the film changed hands, there was also talk of casting celebrity actor-singers, such as justin timberlake, in the lead roles, to attract more of a mainstream audience. however, when chris columbus actually decided to direct the film, he opted to keep it true to the plot, and to include as much of the original broadway cast as possible, and i couldn't have been more thrilled.
who better to immortalize the roles than those who had worked with the characters and the music since the very beginning, suffered through jonathan larson's sudden death, and lent their voices to the original soundtrack that everyone already has? sure, they are a little older, and there were two substitutions, but in my opinion, they pulled it off.
the movie is different from the stage production, and was always intended to be. when dealing with the visual medium, the audience demands scenery changes, realistic locations, a believable timeline, and a running time of under 2.5 hours. thus, a few of the lyrics needed to be changed. some of the interstitial numbers needed to be spoken quickly. and, while i admit it was a bit frustrating at points, it's forgivable for the sake of the film.
the actors were strong, newcomers included. in fact, rosario dawson was fantastic as mimi. adam pascal (roger) gave probably the weakest performance, which was a surprise, given the energy he has had on broadway. i just found him to be subdued, almost as if he was going through the motions. maybe he was weighed down by his sudden sprout of hair. you can tell that anthony rapp (mark) brought some of the most enthusiasm to the project, clearly emotionally vested in the show, having stayed on broadway the longest. (i mean, what else has been doing since?)
moments that translated best to film included "rent", "tango maureen", "another day", "take me or leave me", and greatest of all, "la vie boheme".
there were, of course, deficiencies with the film that i wish were not there. one of the more emotional moments in the score was neglected when the second half of "goodbye love" was cut-out after angel's funeral. "happy new year" is one of the more fun and uplifting numbers that was rewritten as dialogue. and, perhaps the biggest change of all was the treatment of benny. in the show, he is granted redemption, but in the film, he was simply left as a lost cause.
the critics' biggest complaint was that the film did not capture the energy of the show. in response, i have only to say "duh." the film, in fact, is quite adequate, fun, enjoyable, uplifting, and translates the message to a wider audience, which i believe was the goal. it will also be nice to own the visual on dvd to supplement the soundtrack. but, could anything on the screen match the energy of a live band, music so loud your seats shake in an intimate theatre, and actors practically spitting on you in the front row. no fucking way.
you'll never be able to own the incomparable broadway show, but at least now you can rent it.
sitting through the show, from the upper mezzanine, i remember enjoying the loud, pop-rock music, but was frustrated that i could barely understand any of the words, and honestly had no idea what the fuck was going on. (i will admit that it took me a little bit to decide whether or not angel was a drag queen or an eccentric woman). but, i would never admit any of it. i wanted to leave inspired, and awed, and changed by the experience like everyone else was, or at least pretended to be. i wasn't.
over the next year or so, my friends began to listen to the soundtrack in the car while we drove around, and i started to familiarize myself with the songs, and the lyrics. i pieced the plot out, got to know the characters more intimately, and by the time a drama-club trip rolled around my senior year of high school, i was ready for it. and that time, i got it.
i was awed, inspired, and i'd like to think, changed. in any case, i became somewhat of an addict, turning the show/trip into an annual (sometimes semi-annual) tradition. and when i moved to new york, the city became my enabler, and though i won't reveal how many times i have seen the show, i could possibly qualify for RA (rent anonymous).
over the past 9 years, i have seen a lot of different casts come through the nederlander theatre, including some notable (and sometimes odd) performances from joey fatone, mel b. aka scary spice, frenchie davis from american idol, and jai rodriguez (both pre-and-post queer eye fame). but, perhaps my largest regret, is that i never fully appreciated the brilliance of [the majority of] the original cast when i had the chance. it wasn't until i got to know the soundtrack that i appreciated their voices and their chemistry, in retrospect.
which leads us to the present, and this past week's release of rent: the motion picture. a lot of people may not know that the project had been circulating through hollywood since the late 90s. at one point, spike lee had the rights to the film, and the treatment i read was horrendous--a complete re-imagining, and reorganization of the songs and the plot. while creative, it was not what i wanted to see. as the rights to the film changed hands, there was also talk of casting celebrity actor-singers, such as justin timberlake, in the lead roles, to attract more of a mainstream audience. however, when chris columbus actually decided to direct the film, he opted to keep it true to the plot, and to include as much of the original broadway cast as possible, and i couldn't have been more thrilled.
who better to immortalize the roles than those who had worked with the characters and the music since the very beginning, suffered through jonathan larson's sudden death, and lent their voices to the original soundtrack that everyone already has? sure, they are a little older, and there were two substitutions, but in my opinion, they pulled it off.
the movie is different from the stage production, and was always intended to be. when dealing with the visual medium, the audience demands scenery changes, realistic locations, a believable timeline, and a running time of under 2.5 hours. thus, a few of the lyrics needed to be changed. some of the interstitial numbers needed to be spoken quickly. and, while i admit it was a bit frustrating at points, it's forgivable for the sake of the film.
the actors were strong, newcomers included. in fact, rosario dawson was fantastic as mimi. adam pascal (roger) gave probably the weakest performance, which was a surprise, given the energy he has had on broadway. i just found him to be subdued, almost as if he was going through the motions. maybe he was weighed down by his sudden sprout of hair. you can tell that anthony rapp (mark) brought some of the most enthusiasm to the project, clearly emotionally vested in the show, having stayed on broadway the longest. (i mean, what else has been doing since?)
moments that translated best to film included "rent", "tango maureen", "another day", "take me or leave me", and greatest of all, "la vie boheme".
there were, of course, deficiencies with the film that i wish were not there. one of the more emotional moments in the score was neglected when the second half of "goodbye love" was cut-out after angel's funeral. "happy new year" is one of the more fun and uplifting numbers that was rewritten as dialogue. and, perhaps the biggest change of all was the treatment of benny. in the show, he is granted redemption, but in the film, he was simply left as a lost cause.
the critics' biggest complaint was that the film did not capture the energy of the show. in response, i have only to say "duh." the film, in fact, is quite adequate, fun, enjoyable, uplifting, and translates the message to a wider audience, which i believe was the goal. it will also be nice to own the visual on dvd to supplement the soundtrack. but, could anything on the screen match the energy of a live band, music so loud your seats shake in an intimate theatre, and actors practically spitting on you in the front row. no fucking way.
you'll never be able to own the incomparable broadway show, but at least now you can rent it.
posted by mark at 1:27 PM
1 Comments:
I think you are giving the production too much credit. While a film cannot, of course, capture the energy of a live performance, it should be able to create it's own energy. Chicago, the movie, was very different from the staged production, but I never felt that it was lacking something. I feel the way about the entire movie of RENT that you felt about Adam Pascal's individual performance: it was subdued, and going through the motions. Chicago was a living, breathing movie. It was possible to watch the film and forget you weren't watching the show. It proved that you can add and subtract from the original plot of a musical while still maintaining the integrity of the original. The movie version of Evita actually had more vitality than the recent production I saw at the Hippodrome.
I'm just saying that the uncaptured energy is a big deal. The film might fly with people who have no or little experience with the staged version of RENT. But the true fan should feel grudging acceptance or happiness at seeing the stars reunited, at best. Anything else is much more than the movie deserves.
Post a Comment
<< Home