Non-Equity RENT

[CollegeDreamer]

Posted: 1/22/17 at 7:05pm

I'm seeing the Tour stop in Seattle next month, how is the show doing if anyone has seen it recently? Any standout performances? Anything lacking? 

Updated On: 1/22/17 at 07:05 PM

[helvizz]

Posted: 1/22/17 at 7:17pm

I had a blast when I watched it, loved the guys playing Mark and Collins. I hope you love it too!

Updated On: 1/22/17 at 07:17 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/22/17 at 8:07pm

The cast is pretty good. It's unfortunate that the actors are getting paid less and not being looked after by a union but I think Rent lends itself well to fresh talent so it does have that going for it. I thought Mark, Mimi and Roger were excellent. Mimi was especially emotional during "Goodbye Love" and the way she sort of cried the lyrics near the end really stuck with me. The only differences that I happened to notice was the lack of posters on the back wall and most of Roger's costumes. Otherwise it was pretty much the Rent that I remember.

[CollegeDreamer]

Posted: 1/22/17 at 8:13pm

CATSNYrevival said: "The cast is pretty good. It's unfortunate that the actors are getting paid less and not being looked after by a union but I think Rent lends itself well to fresh talent so it does have that going for it. I thought Mark, Mimi and Roger were excellent. Mimi was especially emotional during "Goodbye Love" and the way she sort of cried the lyrics near the end really stuck with me. The only differences that I happened to notice was the lack of posters on the back wall and most of Roger's costumes. Otherwise it was pretty much the Rent that I remember.

 

"

This gives me hope after they released their promotion videos (: 

Updated On: 1/22/17 at 08:13 PM

[Jakeevan942]

Posted: 1/22/17 at 8:19pm

This, along with most non-equity tours, shoot B-roll and photos a few days before their first preview performance-Before they have done the show for an audience. It often isn't fully representative of the final product.

Equity tours usually shoot a few days after the first performance, not much better.

As a comparison, most Broadway shows shoot about 5 days before opening, just after the show is frozen, and with 3-4 weeks of previews under their belts.

Updated On: 1/22/17 at 08:19 PM

[sm33]

Posted: 1/25/17 at 3:04am

Just saw this tonight! The last time I saw Rent was when Adam Pascal and Anthony Rapp were touring with it, so it's been awhile. Overall, the company is really young and energetic, and the staging seemed similar to what I remember from eight or nine years ago. Joanne, Maureen and Collins were all fantastic. I think the rest of the audience agreed with me on that - Take Me or Leave Me got the loudest, longest round of applause, followed closely by the reprise of I'll Cover You. Mimi and Mark were good, too - Mark was very, very reminiscent of Anthony Rapp's performance. I was not a fan of Roger at all.  

[sparkledust]

Posted: 1/25/17 at 1:35pm

Jakeevan942 said: "As a comparison, most Broadway shows shoot about 5 days before opening, just after the show is frozen, and with 3-4 weeks of previews under their belts."

 

This 100% depends on the show.  

 

I know the cats revival shot their B-Roll and photos at final dress (they didn't have an invited dress, as far as I know).

 

It seems that photos are mostly shot invited dress because the photographer can walk around and get the shots - tours are the same way.  They're going to shoot when they can put the audience (if there is one) out of the way of the photographers. 

[Leah Robertson]

Posted: 1/26/17 at 11:46am

I saw it in Nashville and loved it! I never got to see it on Broadway though, so I can't compare it to that. We had the understudy for Roger, who was the guy who was usually Benny. It was every bit as good as the touring production of Book of Morman that we saw the next month at the same venue.

[PepperedShepherd]

Posted: 1/30/17 at 1:32pm

Well, looks like I'm going to be the contrary one on this thread.

Saw this production last night at the Pantages. Or, to be more precise, I saw the first act of this production last night at the Pantages. I had to bail at intermission to preserve what few remaining good thoughts I had left about RENT.

First the good: Danny Harris Kornfeld was excellent as Mark. Great voice, smooth moves, really nailed his scenes. Hopefully this will be a stepping stone for him. He deserves much better.

Aaron Harrington (Collins), Jasmine Easler (Joanne), and Christian Thompson (Benny) were all very good. Good voices, strong presences.  [Christian may have been almost too good in "You'll See". Instead of coming off as a sellout/sleezeball, he really made you believe in his vision for CyberArts. Which kinda throws the whole play out of whack, but whatever...]

"Tango Maureen" was definitely the highlight of the first act. Wonderfully performed by both Danny & Jasmine, it gave a glimpse of what this production could have -- and should have -- been.

I did not see enough of Katie Lamark (Maureen) to make an overall judgement. Her voice was strong, she looked the part, and certainly milked "Over the Moon" for all it was worth.

Unfortunately, it goes down from there.

While I appreciated what David Merino was doing physically as Angel, the voice was just not there. And I'm still not sure what was going on with Kaleb Wells (Roger). One minute he'd use a gravelly rock voice, then slip into a smooth Broadway voice, jump back & forth between the two without any real reason, before finally degenerating into shouting. Last and, I'm afraid, least was Skyler Volpe (Mimi). Just NO.  Worst version of "Out Tonight" I've ever heard and the Roger/Mimi portion of "Another Day" was actually painful as neither actor sang; they just shouted at each other. And even when they weren't shouting, they didn't harmonize. "I Should Tell You" was embarrassingly bad.

I just watched the promo videos on YouTube, referenced by CollegeDreamer above. With the exception of Danny (who was much, much better), they seem like a pretty good representation of what I saw.  If you can deal with those, you should be good. All others are advised to stay away.

 

Updated On: 1/30/17 at 01:32 PM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 1/30/17 at 6:09pm

PepperedShepherd said: "[Christian may have been almost too good in "You'll See". Instead of coming off as a sellout/sleezeball, he really made you believe in his vision for CyberArts. Which kinda throws the whole play out of whack, but whatever...]"

To be honest, I never got that vibe, no matter who was playing Benny, until the end of Act I, when he decides to start rubbing it in Roger's face that he and Mimi have a past because nothing else he tries to get through to them is working. Cyber Arts is actually a really great idea (at least until you remember, this being 2017, that the dotcom bubble burst shortly thereafter).

Think about it. The subtext to what he's saying is, "Look, guys, I get it. The homeless have it rough. They're not in that lot by choice. Some of them are probably even mentally ill. But if you can get Maureen to stop her protest, maybe your inability to pay the back rent won't matter, because I'll have a studio where you can produce films and write songs like we used to dream about. You'll be on the payroll, capisce? I won't even need to bother you about rent, because you'll be artists in residence. Are you guys connecting the dots? All you have to do is get her to shut up for just a second."

Objectively, it's not a bad concept, especially in the final version of the show, where -- without material that was cut following the 1994 workshop, which suggested that Benny made his request for the back rent at a time when Roger had just lost a day job and Mark's parents had cut the financial umbilical cord -- it appears that Mark and Roger are choosing to be struggling artists instead of moving back in with their folks (or at least asking them for money) or getting a day job, and their self-identification with actual homeless people seems superficial or offensive, and more than that, we're expected to interpret this as a gutsy gesture.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 1/30/17 at 6:42pm

In the commentary to the Rent film, someone (I think Anthony Rapp) says something to the effect that Larson's intent was for Benny's point of view to have a certain amount of credence; he wasn't just supposed to be a greedy capitalist. I don't think that balance was achieved in the show as we now know it - perhaps that's something that would have been improved if Larson had lived to make revisions.

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:19pm

I'm with you, Shepherd.

I saw it in Hollywood last night too.

I did stay for both acts, but just did not have the same emotional attachment to this cast that I've always had in the past.  This was the fourth time I've seen it and have felt something every single time.  I felt the strong ties and connections to, and between, all the characters.  

Mark, Maureen, Joann and Tom Collins were the best.  As was Benny.  I thought they all had very good voices and played to their characters well.

Unfortunately I never felt the love between Roger and Mimi.  I agree with you...they were almost shouting at times and it almost created a chasm between them that didn't make their love believable.  When she almost dies at the end....I felt nothing.  They're sharing words of love for each other, but I just didn't see it.  I din't feel it.  There just wasn't the same kind of chemistry between them that I've seen with other Rogers and Mimis. That climactic interaction as she almost dies has actually drawn a lump to my throat every time I've seen it.  Just didn't get that sensation last night.

Personally I thought Mimi was played rather soft too.  I've always sensed Mimi as having a vulnerability and insecurity that she tries to offset through her toughness, forwardness and attitude.   The actress who played her last night was just way too light in my opinion.   So when she did yell/sing at Roger, you were wondering where it came from.  All of a sudden.

I also thought Angel was played as a little too contrived. Almost like the actor was creating a caricature that he knew the audience expected to see, rather than feeling the character.  He sure had a lot of energy, but there was still this disconnect.  And I felt it somewhat in his relationship with Tom.  I thought the actor who was playing Tom was pretty good, but there was this chasm between them that I couldn't put my finger on.

Again, I remember finding myself choked up during some of their more emotional moments in past productions.  Last night, not so much.

I'm glad I saw it, but I will hold on to my memories of past productions where the musical really resonated with me on so many levels.  It's still one of my favorites.  I'm hoping the next time I see it that love will be revitalized.

 

 

 

[PepperedShepherd]

Posted: 1/31/17 at 3:54am

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "The subtext to what he's saying is, "Look, guys, I get it. The homeless have it rough. They're not in that lot by choice. Some of them are probably even mentally ill. But if you can get Maureen to stop her protest, maybe your inability to pay the back rent won't matter, because I'll have a studio where you can produce films and write songs like we used to dream about. You'll be on the payroll, capisce? I won't even need to bother you about rent, because you'll be artists in residence. Are you guys connecting the dots? All you have to do is get her to shut up for just a second.""

That's not subtext; that's actual text. :)  But previous Bennys I've seen (and this was my 4th or 5th stage production) always struck me as being more Mephistophelian. There's always been this element of selling your soul whenever I've seen it.  (Even Taye Diggs in the movie gives off that vibe to me.)  How else can Mark, Roger & Collins assert their moral superiority? "What happened to Benny, what happened to his heart?" "You can't quietly wipe out an entire tent city and then go watch It's a Wonderful Life on TV." etc., etc.

I just thought Christian played it without this whole deal-with-the-Devil aspect. He seemed genuinely sincere & enthusiastic about his plans for CyberArts. Yes, he was asking for a quid pro quo but Mark, et. al., came off as being douchebags for dismissing him outright.

Props to theatreguy12 for sticking it out. I just couldn't (even though I am loathe to walk out on a $150 investment). [Ouch, just typing that figure hurts.]

ITA about Roger/Mimi. That was one of the main reasons I left. If I didn't feel anything by "I Should Tell You", I knew that Act Two wasn't going to work for me.  Also agree about the disconnect between Collins & Angel. A large part of that had to do, imo, with the fact that Collins was actually GOOD, whereas Angel -- despite lots of attitude -- simply wasn't up to his standards.

Talking about attitude:  I thought the waiter in the Life Cafe pretty much stole "La Vie Boheme".

Lastly, a true story: As I walked out of the Pantages, an usher told me that I'd need my ticket to get back in. "No problem", I said. "I'm not coming back." Then, while crossing the theater forecourt, a young woman somewhat sheepishly approached me. She had heard what I'd said to the usher. "Can I ask you what you thought of this?" she asked. "I think it's horrible," I replied. She looked like she was going to burst into tears. "Thank god,' she said, "I thought it was just me." She ended up walking away, too.

 

 

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 1/31/17 at 3:04pm

Saw this on the Dallas stop.  I walked out at intermission.  Thought the actors had no grasp of the show they were performing...  A lot of jumping around, very little understanding.  

 

Angel and Roger for me were the worst.  Caricatures of what they should have been.

 

Mark was the strongest in terms of forming a real person and being able to express that to the audience.  He made personal choices in his performance.  I enjoyed him, but not nearly enough to stay and suffer.

 

This is yet another 'Broadway' tour that's charging top prices for a non-eq cast that's not up to the task.  

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Posted: 1/31/17 at 3:56pm

I was not planning on seeing this tour when it comes to San Francisco based on those pro-video(s). It made me cringe. However, for a tour that is billing itself as the 20th Anniversary Tour, does anyone know why it is a non-equity tour? 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/31/17 at 7:21pm

It's cheaper to send it out non-Equity, and that increases the profit margin (since most people are not paying lower prices to reflect the lower cost of the productions' expenses).

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Posted: 2/1/17 at 4:23pm

Yes, that is the obvious response. But there has to be more than just money since I don't remember a non-equity tour receiving so much press through broadwayworld, etc. For anyone who still has their playbill, can you let me know who the current producers are. Just curious. Thanks.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 2/1/17 at 9:54pm

In comparing the descriptions of the show to this Tumblr review of the UK Rent, I think we got screwed. Don't quote me on that though.

[CollegeDreamer]

Posted: 2/1/17 at 10:07pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "In comparing the descriptions of the show to this Tumblr review of the UK Rent, I think we got screwed. Don't quote me on that though.

 

"

This sounds like an amazing production. 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/2/17 at 12:23am

Yes it's a stunning production (the UK one), it feels fresh energetic and full of emotion, I've seen many productions inc Broadway and West End but this is by far one of the best. 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/2/17 at 12:27am

The trailer is on here for the UK production featuring clips from the show. http://www.rentonstage.co.uk/videos