Rent Revival

[C.Jack]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 3:23pm

After seeing DEH and listening to the Rent cast album. I've started to wonder if there is a chance we could get a rent Revival in a few years. With all of the progress we have made in this country over the past few years, I think this show would do real well. Maybe it could be presented as a period piece about the AIDS crisis ala Falsettos.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 3:35pm

Totally not trying to be rude at all (promise!), but there was a thread some months ago on this topic that got some two cents added to it: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1097724

[Kitsune]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 7:57pm

Adding my two cents since I'm new to the board and have thoughts on the topic.  Per usual, all of the below is just my opinion - friendly, civil debate is encouraged!

I was a huge Renthead back in the day - I must have seen Rent six times in various incarnations between 2001 and 2003.  There was a time when I could sing the entire OBC by memory with no accompaniment.  I chose "No Day But Today" as my senior yearbook quote.   So needless to say it holds a very, very special place in my heart.

That being said, I think Rent needs at least another 10-20 years before a revival.  The messages about "we're starving artists by choice, look at us!" do not resonate well in a world where a lot of millennials struggle to make ends meet, even when we're acting responsibly and doing everything we can.  Mark and Maureen have aged the worst under a 2017 lens IMO - both come from very middle class backgrounds, and could move back in with their parents if it was truly a matter of starving.   Their choice to live as starving artists comes across as privileged rather than noble.  (I always imagined Roger coming from a blue collar background, but that may have been my headcanon).

I still love Rent, and I think as time goes on it'll be a great commentary and perspective on living in the 90s.  But it's a little too close right now, and the piece needs time for that perspective to really sharpen.

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 9:11pm

It's one thing I thought DID work about the movie- the use of older stars and bohemians made it clear that these characters were already established failures, not college dropouts who could go home at any time.

[Kitsune]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 9:14pm

darquegk said: "It's one thing I thought DID work about the movie- the use of older stars and bohemians made it clear that these characters were already established failures, not college dropouts who could go home at any time.

 

"

I never thought of it that way before, but that's a good point.

The movie also (from my recollection) firmly sets it in the 80s, which worked well.  It works well as a 90s piece too, but once you get into the 00s and beyond things stop feeling right.

[greenifyme2]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 9:19pm

There was an off-broadway revival like 5-6 years ago and it was awful I was so disappointed. 

[asimplegal2]

Posted: 7/22/17 at 12:43am

I don't think we need a new revival of Rent every decade. Let the show breathe a little - you know, give people a chance to miss it.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 7/22/17 at 1:18am

Say what you would about the revival, but it was around six years ago, came not that long after the Broadway production closed too. I thought that was a foolish move. Sure, if they waited awhile to do that then that wouldn't have been an issue in my mind. I would have seen nothing wrong with waiting longer than they initially did to bring it back. Giving the show more breathing room would have been better. 

I've met many people who are trying to do the whole bohemian/hipster/art thing (yes most of them live in Brooklyn) that are from either NYC itself or the close suburbs of NYC. Either way, they do get help from their parents with their rent. Fine, as far as I'm concerned it's no big deal. And yet, for many that do, they act as if it's totally taboo to even have the the thought. Considering that being a thing, I think that if you saw those in Rent trying to be bohemian it would come off differently than back in 96

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/22/17 at 1:40am

Rent is a show that hasn't aged well, and in my opinion plays as extremely dated these days. 

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 7/22/17 at 2:54am

I have the exact opposite opinion. I revisited the show recently on tour. The production is very well done with nearly identical staging to Broadway with just a few changes to make it more relevant/timely and updated. The youthful (and very talented) cast also brings currency and their life experiences to the stage which helps. 

I would love to see a well done revival in the near future. The revival at New World did not personally work for me though many of the cast members were wonderful.

I have always thought that Rent was very universal. Yes, it is set during a specific time period, but subtract the specifics and you still have overarching themes that apply to so many different situations. Particularly with the current political climate certain scenes and lines hit me differently than before. However, regardless,  when you are talking about themes like dealing with disease, discrimination, friendship, and love these are pretty timeless. 

I recently saw NT Live broadcast of Angels and thought about how both of these shows still work because the ideas transcend the period circumstances of the characters. Not that the period circumstances aren't important, but the ability to make those circumstances universal is what makes them age well.

Yep, I admittedly have a soft spot for Rent, but I truly do not believe that the time period dictates the relevance of the content in the case. And as far as the bohemian aspect, I personally think that's a surface level circumstance compared to the deeper themes.

Also, the tour audience was so enthusiastic during and after the show. I know that this is often the case. Yet, everyone from people returning to see it again to people bringing their children to see it for the first time and even those who had never seen it really reacted genuinely enthusiastic throughout the show. 

I think it would be lovely to have a revival for the 25th anniversary if not sooner. Just my two cents. :)

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 7/22/17 at 02:54 AM

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 7/22/17 at 3:00am

Rent was the all-state production at the Illinois HS Theater Fest last year and my students were obsessed with it and the seniors insisted on shoehorning Seasons of Love into their graduation ceremony somehow.  None of them had ever heard of  Rent before.  However, the original is available on DVD so theater nerds can access it.

i have never seen the movie because I believe it is an abomination but I don't understand how it can possibly be set in the 1980s.  Technology is a motif in the show, demonstrating how  fast the world was changing and how that generation faced new challenges of all kinds.  The main tech was emails and cellphones.  Would any of those characters have had hand-held cellphones or email addresses in 1989? Did they have have Joann pull out a zach Morris cellphone to call Maureen? Ugh this movie sounds so dumb.

I am a bona fide Rent head and I feel that the show should be put away long enough so that when it comes back, the audience will say things like "you mean people were once afraid of getting HIV? And there was no social media? And cell phones were a novelty? And Manhattan had inexpensive artists enclaves? Wowwwww".  A period piece that can teach us a fresh lesson.  We are nowhere near that point yet. I would say at least wait 20 years.  

Updated On: 7/22/17 at 03:00 AM

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

Posted: 7/22/17 at 7:20am

I also think enough time should pass that it's not treated as some sort of sacred cow and is ripe for revisal. Not wholesale changes, just restoring little things from the workshop to make the characters more sympathetic.

For example, literally everyone's bitching about "JUST GET A JOB, YOU LAZY PIECES OF SH*T!" was answered in the 1994 workshop, and cut before (what became) Broadway: in the voice mail scene at the top of the show, the first message is from someone named Dave telling Roger that he's left them without a bartender for the last time and he's fired, and Mark's mom ends her message not with comfort over the loss of Maureen, but the news that Mark's dad got a call from Chemical Bank and "we meant it when we said that you're cut off." In other words, it's not as though they were naive edgelord dilettantes, unrealistically "suffering for their art" 24/7; they took jobs or tried to get help from parents, but life gets in the way (for example, I can't imagine "just coming back from half a year of withdrawal" made it easy for Roger to go back to bartending and being around temptation), and now two potential sources of income are cut off right at the moment when Benny decides he needs rent money from them. Out of sheer panic, frustration at having broken his promise (however unrealistic it was), and just being overwhelmed by literally everything going on in their lives, I could easily see them snapping in such a situation and saying, "...you know what? No. No. F*CK YOU. We're not paying."

I think, had someone raised this objection when he was alive, Larson would've found a way to re-include some of that. Back then, who didn't have to balance their "art" with making ends meet, and how often did the balance upset itself? Not only would it have been relatable to people back then, it would be scarily relevant now.

Updated On: 7/26/17 at 07:20 AM