Rent: Vidas extremas

I saw 'Rent' at a screening on Nov.12. I had seen the stage version both in NYC with the original cast as well as in LA with a different cast. The music and story has been echoing in my head for the past 10 years. So I was bound to be critical, but determined to be open-minded as this was going to be a film, not a stage musical. Chris Columbus did a wonderful job in preserving the message and feelings Jonathan Larson I think wanted people to take away with them. The changes made to bring this story to the screen were artfully accomplished. The film is gritty and sad and has a feeling of hopelessness that was difficult to transmit in a stage venue. The music that made it into the film is spectacular, and the soundtrack is indeed better than the OBC recording. The loss of several songs, though at first disappointing, works in the context of the movie. I hope all you fellow 'Rentheads' give this film the chance it deserves. I will be in the theater on opening day next week to see it again for sure.

It's obvious this musical has an incredible fan base. That became evident when we saw the movie version the other day. There were a lot of young people in groups that came to see what director Chris Columbus did to the musical that is still running on Broadway after nine years. The screen adaptation is by Steve Chbosky.

"Rent", written and composed by Jonathan Larson, started as a small musical at the NY Theater Workshop and then was transferred to the Nederlander theater where it's still playing. The film has six of the original cast members in it, the exception being Freddie Walker who is substituted by Tracie Thoms and Daphne Rubin-Vega who was the original Mimi, a role that went to Rosario Dawson in the film.

This movie will definitely resonate with a younger audience. The music is targeted to them. This is a pop-rock opera and make no mistake about it. Don't go thinking you are going to find anything resembling Puccini's "La Boheme". The musical is extremely loosely based on the characters from the opera, but that's where all the comparison ends. The people one sees in the musical are more real because the pain of what is going on in their lives is clearly evident. The AIDS epidemic affects a few of the characters; there are gays and lesbians just being themselves without anyone judging what they do. At the bottom of it all is every day survival in that environment.

What "Rent" is, it's a celebration of the life on that side of New York during the 80's when anarchists populated the lower east side of Manhattan squatting in abandoned buildings and living precariously at the edge of a society that didn't want them around. The young people that were attracted to the area brought with them a new way of living without prejudice.

Alas, everything comes to an end. In fact, just a tour of the area today will show the gentrification that is taking place after Mayor Giuliani and his ilk got these bohemians evicted in order to give way to condominiums and new luxury dwellings where the people the movie celebrate will have no chance to live in them at all. This seems to be the problem when artists create spaces that later on are taken over by the establishment, only to displace the creators, as has happened in Soho, Dumbo, and will not be too far behind in displacing the Williamsburg's artistic settlers.

As a film, "Rent", has great moments. Even though one has heard the songs many times, there is still a fresh take on them by the talented cast that sing them. Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Wilson Jermaine-Heredia, Jesse Martin, Taye Diggs, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms and Rosario Dawson work as an ensemble under the direction of Mr. Columbus, who would have appeared as an unlikely candidate for directing the film, but who brings the best from his talented cast.

By the way, "Rent" was filmed in the west coast, so don't go looking for any authentic East Village locations, since most of what one sees was probably shot in a studio. The Horseshoe bar is shown on the outside, and a scene of Tompkins Square Park, but the rest is fake.

"Rent" is an excellent adaptation of the stage musical. It is handsomely filmed and very well acted. The movie version takes the story out into city's real locations.

Most of this movie is singing, but it is so well done it never breaks the 'suspension of disbelief' that as an audience we grant the fiction we are watching.

This 'rock operetta' is about a group loft-dwelling 'Bohemian' New Yorkers, some of whom have AIDS. The stage version has a devoted following of 'Rentheads' including director Chris Columbus, for whom this film was a labor of love.

I saw it with several young people and they really connected with the story's message of friendship, tolerance and living every day to the fullest. Some elderly members of the audience thought the music was being played too loud and they couldn't identify with the lifestyle depicted in the story.

This movie could attain the cult status of the stage musical.

The musical RENT is a film adaptation of a Broadway play. I've recently seen a pretty dang good Chicago production of it. It's got no shortage of heart, lots of energy, and lots of laughs and tears. It's also got some weaknesses that are precariously close to being its death blow. Its flaws don't kill it, but they come close.

The performances are absolutely amazing. I don't have a single critical thing to say about any of the actors.

Musically, I know this music has made the global rounds and it's huge. I don't think there's anything bad to say about the musical score either.

But looking critically at RENT, both as a story and as a film, reveals glaring flaws that keep me personally from falling head-over-heels in love with it and becoming a full-fledged RENT-head. This story has some problems that are both unfortunate and major, paradoxically leaving me with a sense of disingenuousness. Which doesn't make sense considering its origin, where it came from, Larson. I shouldn't be able to call 'BS' on RENT and be justified, and yet I can.

RENT assumes rather than earns its authenticity.

RENT has an unflinching, unapologetic self-centeredness that both serves it and cripples it. It has devoted so much focus and effort into being Gen-X'y, bohemian, and anti-establishment, that it has overlooked having a genuine identity of its own. Its uniqueness is stereotypical. It's confined to its freedom. Its portrayal of village artists and photographers is obvious, clunky, one-dimensional, cliché. The film is far too self-congratulatory to even consider noticing this.

RENT is trying (plaintively?) to make its characters' last year on Earth a celebration, but the thing is, I feel like a terrible situation of tremendous gravity, urgency, and despair has been turned into something of a 3-ring circus. On some level I feel like I have to question how seriously this was meant to be taken. Only its origin saves it from being creatively bankrupt. The exact same story coming from any Hollywood writer would rightfully get burned at the stake. Ultimately, these decisions ARE Larson's prerogative. I guess that being homeless and your imminent AIDS-related death doesn't automatically require an uptight documentary-style treatment.

RENT's excessive prettiness is also a big detriment to the film's authenticity, honestly. These people are awfully beautiful to be homeless AIDS victims. These are all designer characters. Their appearance is a deliberate, calculated, manicured image designed to make the idea more digestible. I rather suspect some watch this so they can feel like they've adopted some of the suffering of an underprivileged group of people. Do those individuals spend any actual time with the homeless? Who's to say. This mentality has infected other visual aspects of the film, too. Everything is so manicured and staged it becomes false. Everything is designer and Hollywood and perfect, including--nay, ESPECIALLY the abandoned buildings and alleys. The cinematography is a technical masterpiece and everything happens much too perfectly for me to believe in the world of RENT. It's not to be unexpected in a musical, but the nature of the subject matter changes the game quite a bit. Would I apply that equally to all films everywhere? Unfortunately, we're in the territory of art criticism here and it's subjective--and context matters, so no. For instance, Chicago has all the exact same traits, but they work for the film it instead of against it.

The entire scene with Sarah Silverman is the epitome of what I'm talking about. It fails to be the stark contrast with the rest of the film that it's trying to be. Furthermore, the entire subplot is an absurd non sequitur, but that's beside the point. It's trying to contrast how perfectly neat and tidy this corporate world is with how free and loose the world of the rest of the film is, but the entire film is actually neat and tidy--the spontaneity and freedom are artificial. I don't buy it.

But thanks to the performances, damn, RENT sure does have a fire in its britches.

It really challenges you to drop your hangups and relax and enjoy the ride.

I'm not a RENT-head, nor do I hate it. I don't think it's mediocre, canned, or kitsch. I don't think it's amazing or enlightening. Calling it pretentious isn't exactly fair, though there is a pretentiousness to it. I do, however, feel confident in saying both that it has flaws and has something to it.

So, how you feel about RENT will always come down to how deeply you connect to the characters and how much you're feeling the music. Is it an electrifying, heartbreaking celebration of life and love, or is it a mockery? Both cases could be made. My bottom line opinion: RENT is successful in spite of itself. The actors work harder than they should have to to sell a story that's working against them, confined by excessively stiff character molds--and they are so good, they pull it off. What's strong is incredibly strong. But to pretend its flaws didn't exist would be, for me, an intellectual suicide.

So I'm reading the reviews...none seem too terrible, most are lukewarm, and some are even good. But one theme seems to override them: the material is "dated." Figures that journalists, whose livelihoods depend on presenting news flashes that will easily fall into the shadows after something more captivating happens, would find this material dated. You really think the topic of people living with -- not dying from -- AIDS is dated? Wake-up, friends...I'm not one to throw around statistics, but even I can tell you that AIDS is a much bigger problem today than when Jonathan Larson -- a genius in his own right -- wrote this almost 20 years ago. And drug addiction? Yeah let's not even guess how much that statistic has surged.

True, the material is not as shocking as it was when it first graced the stages of NYC 10 years ago. But -- though I never knew the man -- I have a feeling Mr. Larson was not going for shock value. I am sure he realized in his day that his masterpiece would create quite a stir, but I highly doubt that was his purpose. What was it, then? If you ask me, it is obvious ...the human condition.

The elements of humanity that satiate the stage version are virtually all apparent in the film version. These characters are vastly different from each other on the surface -- but listen to their songs. They are all experiencing life. And not only that, for the most part they aren't afraid to experience life -- the devastations, the love, the convictions, the laughter, the tears. Just listen to Seasons of Love -- it's all in there. That song, to me, is the premise of Mr. Larson's story -- this is life. It isn't necessarily glamorous, it isn't always glorious, but this is what happens in a year of these peoples' lives. And the one thing that gets them through it is the fact that they have each other -- their love for one another overshadows all of the intricacies of day-to-day life. And that theme, to me, is never dated, especially when it is portrayed so well, as Chris Columbus and the incredible cast have managed to do.

I applaud everyone who had any part in this film -- aside from the excellent adaption of Jonathan Larson's exquisite piece of art, I think it is extremely important to constantly expose our society to controversial topics, about which most of us don't like to think. And I think the ones that are dubbed "dated" are the most important, because it means that those are probably the ones we have forgotten. But just because it seems "dated" does not mean it has gone away.