Rent (2005)

[ZapRowsdower]

I went to see Rent with two friends who had seen the show on Broadway. When I walked out of the theater, one of my friends looked at me and asked, "what did you think?" I stared back at him blankly for a moment. My lips were about to move, but I quickly stopped, as I knew no sound would come out. My friend understood completely. To describe how good Rent is in words is impossible. No matter how much I talk the movie up in this review, there is no way my words are ever going to do this film justice.

Chris Columbus' direction was astounding. I'd say that this was the best film he has ever directed. I hear that most of the original Broadway cast returned for the film, and it shows. You know how they say no one can beat the original cast? Well, there you are. The acting and singing were incredible. Rosario Dawson surprised me. I had no idea she could sing.

You have to be able to look below the surface in order to appreciate the story of Rent. Naysayers criticize it for being a film about "lazy gay people with AIDs who refuse to pay rent". Way to trivialize the message the creator was trying to convey. You gotta look beneath that. The whole point of the film (and the musical) was to bring awareness to the AIDs epidemic. And the film does so.

This was one of my favorite films this year. If you don't cry watching this movie (because you're too busy blindly staring at the surface), then you have no heart.

100%

[Bartwald]

Hmmm, so you liked it so much, Smitty?

Well, this still doesn't sound like my cup, so I can't believe I'll go out and watch it in a theatre but I may just catch it on DVD... great direction by Chris Columbus - who always seemed a "no distinctive style director" to me - is something that needs checking out.

[Pulpmariachi]

I with Bart on this one. I'll probably catch it on DVD when my friend shows it to me, like Phantom of the Opera.

Oh, and I don't think Colombus is that great of a director. Look at the mess of the first two Harry Potter films.

But, I'll just wait for the DVD.

Isn't the stage version, like, bare minimum of sets? I've never seen it.

Good review, Smitty, though. Short.

[ontariosuave]

Alright I have a confession to make before I can, with good conscience, proceed with this review: I don't like this show and I never have. I don't think it's really necessary to elaborate on that yet as details of those feelings will inevitably come out during this review. My point here though is not to attack the show, but to give an honest and intelligent view of the film adaptation. I'll be honest. As far as intelligent goes: I promise nothing.

First off, I was impressed that they managed to secure nearly the entire Broadway cast for this. It was apparent from on screen interactions and the depth of the various performances that these actors and actresses are comfortable with these characters and with each other. This isn't something that is easy to come by. Take the recent adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera. Unfortunately they managed to get very few people who had performed in the stage show and that came through on screen. A bigger problem is that, out of the countless number of people who they could have gotten to do that movie, they ended up casting a Phantom who had never sung professionally and a Christine who couldn't sing the high notes, but that's not really the point I guess. My point is that it's always better when adapting a stage show for film that you get actors who are both capable of doing the performances and comfortable with the parts. It's a testament to these actors that I enjoyed their portrayals even if I continue to strongly dislike most of the characters.

The renditions of the songs were, for the most part, effectively done. There were times where they got over the top. "Tango: Maureen" comes to mind. Was it really necessary to have a ballroom dance scene there? I understand why they did it, but still. I also have to take a moment and rip on "Light My Candle" because it's just such a stupid song. It's not that it's ineffective or that the intent isn't plot important, I just hate the lyrics. Maybe Jonathon Larson should have spent more time looking for his song. In contrast to the failing moments of the film, Angel's funeral was moving and honest, standing out as one of the few emotional scenes that didn't come off as hackneyed. "La Vie Boheme" was the highlight of the show for me, as it's always been. There are few things more bad ass than breaking out in song in the middle of a restaurant and singing about S&M just makes it that much better.

I think it's important here to stop for a moment and discuss the one character in this show that I actually like: Mark. The thing that drives me crazy about this show is that all of the characters are, at times, almost cartoonish; this isn't helped by having stage actors play the parts. Mark stands out in this show because he has some subtly to his character. He's the underdog, the loyal friend. Despite wanting to be a starving artist he does what is necessary to save himself and his friends while keeping his pride. There are nuances in Mark that don't seem to be apparent in the others. Maybe it's because the other characters are strongly defined by their relationships and Mark is, romantically, alone. Whatever the reason I am glad that I have something to try and analyze when I watch this.

Interesting fact for all you trivia buffs: I don't know who else noticed by the screenwriter for this adaptation was none other than Stephen Chbosky of "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" fame. I guess he's matured with the times and gone from teenaged disillusionment to 20-something disillusionment. Good for him!

Now onto my issues with the show in general: my main issue with this show is that they try and tackle too many issues all at once. Although they are all intertwined, heroine addiction, poverty, defiance, AIDS, coming of age, and the many other topics and themes of RENT could all be shows of their own and by throwing them all in together the scope of the show gets a bit too wide and all of the parts become too caricaturish to be believable. I have, however, always been impressed with how they handle homosexual relationships in this show. Rather than treating them as taboo the show portrays them as perfectly normal; an attitude that was not prevalent in the early 90s during the height of the AIDS scare. Even by today's standards this show is progressive. It's sad to think that in over a decade we haven't come any closer to achieving this level of acceptance and understanding. Unfortunately the only things in this show that are outdated are lyrics discussing "dying in America at the end of the millennium" and Mark Cohen's periodic announcement of the date. Other than that everything in this show remains relevant. Perhaps Larson was trying to incorporate as many themes are he could because he felt that others weren't willing to deal with these issues. I wish his plans had produced a less annoying show, but I guess his intentions were good.

It's a good adaptation in that, from what I saw, the way people felt about the stage show was the same way they felt about the movie. A little advice: grab the tissues for this one ladies, but leave your boyfriends at home.

[Phoenix]

I saw this on Broadway in college, and I think I'm going to preserve that experience. I just dont think I will be able to capture the same feelings I had as seeing it on the stage. Great reviews though!