Daphne Rubin-Vega - Rent movie- Page 2

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 3:54pm

A lot of movie critics actually mentioned the cast being too old as one of the reasons that they disliked the film. They said that the whole anti-conventional attitude that you see in RENT is something that is expected in younger adults, but in people in their 30s like most of the cast was, it's irritating and you want to say "Just get a job already."

[darquegk]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 4:46pm

While I don't loathe the film like everyone else, and it was a major part of my high school years, I always see the stage show as about poor, young but promising artists, while the film is somewhat more tragic in its approach to them, playing them very clearly as failures who are NOT going to make anything of themselves. We root for them in the stage version, but in the film, I always saw it (and I saw the film before seeing a Broadway or tour production of RENT) as partially about coming to terms with the fact that they AREN'T special and never will be.

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

Posted: 12/20/12 at 5:00pm

Somehow I still have the feeling that no one's going to like a film of Rent no matter who does it or how.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 5:13pm

That's because RENT is not that good of a musical in the first place, but there are ways in which the film could have been at least interesting or fun like the show.
Darquegk, I want to see the movie that you saw, that at least would have been a unique approach to the material, but I don't think Chris Columbus was interested in making this a tragic or complex story.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 7:06pm

Thanks y'all. For allowing yourselves be coaxed into supporting your arguments so that a musical theatre fanatic like yours truly could get more of something he just can't get enough of. =)

I agree. Which is why I also believe the film would have been more effective had it been shot shortly after the show premiered on Broadway with the original cast. This is a case of nuances and their power to make or break a work. Not that the actor's ages broke the film. It works but in a decidedly broken pattern.

The real mistep I feel is that the director, knowing the cast was well into their 30s, felt he should adapt the gritty, unsophisticated way of life depicted in the stage musical and make it more "settled" and sure of itself, like most of us 30-somethings can well relate to.

That was a huge mistep because you've got a bunch of 30-somethings at times behaving like 20-year olds, sometimes behaving like 30 year olds, sometimes demonstrating a maturity typical of their chosen lifestyles and other times feeling they were stuck in the middle of a situation that they were conveniently placed in, just as an excuse to make a movie about some show that opened a decade before.

I was overall satisfied somewhat after I saw it for the first time in the theater. And any major concerns were from my thoughts about the source material, which I had hoped would have been helped, in some way, in the film adaptation.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 7:25pm

Rent obviously impacts people of all ages, but its place in the canon as a cultural phenomenon is highly dependent on its role as something that young people relate to. In a massive, fierce way. If the film deliberately went against that and tried to be more explicitly "for" 30-somethings, that might have been a mistake, too. It would have alienated a huge part its audience. I suppose in an ideal world there could have been a way to balance out the two, but I wonder how it might have achieved what you are suggesting without changing some of the writing.

stuck in the middle of a situation that they were conveniently placed in, just as an excuse to make a movie about some show that opened a decade before.

Sheesh, well, if you thought that was passé, I wonder what you think about Les Mis! Multiple decades! The horror!

Updated On: 12/20/12 at 07:25 PM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:08pm

Yeah, but they didn't cast Lupone as Fantine and Ball as Marius in the film. Had they done that, I'd be writing dissertations about how much I love/hate the idea left and right. The love part would be love for the actors, obviously. The hate part, well, is fairly obvious, haha.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:26pm

But to be fair, there's a just a little bit difference between 10 years and nearly 30 years.

Updated On: 12/20/12 at 08:26 PM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:34pm

Oh! I agree and think those who claim seriously that the cast of Rent looked "old" are a bunch of shallow muthas who need to get their eyes checked, lol. They looked believably to be young still. Not late teens-young or even mid-20s young, but young enough. I agree that Roger's Farrah Fawcett 'do made him appear somewhat older. The incredibly short snippet in the film that has him in his own style at the time of Rent, looks a LOT better!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:37pm

Well yeah. Did they look 21? No. But I didn't and I still don't think they looked that old. But frankly I'm sitting here typing this trying to figure out why we are even still HAVING this discussion.

Anyway, my point wasn't about the ages -- it was just that I thought it was odd you were pulling the "some show that debuted 10 years ago" about Rent (like "why bother making it?") when Les Mis is about to come out nearly 30 years after it debuted. Lots of movie musicals take a while to happen. So then to say you don't have the same problem because of the casting was kind of a non sequitur to me.

Updated On: 12/20/12 at 08:37 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:45pm

Gee Emcee, it seems like only YESTERDAY that it was 8 years ago and you and I were stalking the set having this EXACT same discussion.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:47pm

Like I asked in my first post on this thread: what year is it again?

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 8:47pm

Not what I meant. Sorry if it came across that way.

I just think it would've fared better had they made the film shortly after opening because then they could have employed the entire original cast at a more appropriate time where they wouldn't require director meddling and ultimately tarnishing what they made work so well on stage at the time.

I guess you could assume that my opinion then is that they shouldn't have bothered making it by the time they did. Just because you could assume that doesn't mean it's what I meant. You should have right out asked me "Are you saying the film shouldn't have been filmed at all, then? Based on their ages?"

To which I would respond, "NO MA'AM."

And save us from this unnecessary exchange. :)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 9:00pm

Look, I loved the movie when I saw it, and I think that I needed to. I spent time on the set (invited; Jordan's joking), it was a really exciting time for me, but in hindsight, ultimately it could have been a lot better than it was.

The thing about what you're saying is that it seems like you think making the film was always contingent upon casting the original actors (or should have been, but if it was, it should have been made sooner). That wasn't the case. There were prior versions of the script and other directors attached and it was absolutely not always the intention to cast those actors. In fact that idea didn't come until relatively late in the game.

And I think the problems with the film as it is would not be fully (or even close to fully) solved by casting younger actors.

And fine, we could get into the argument about not making assumptions, but when you put something out there and you have the chance to edit it and tweak it to say exactly what you want to say, you have to take some responsibility for how it appears. It's a message board -- you're only as good as your words. It's only logical that people are going to "assume" you meant what it perfectly well looks like you meant; please don't blame others for your lack of clarity. That's just silly.

THAT being said, no, I did not think that this "Are you saying the film shouldn't have been filmed at all, then? Based on their ages?" was what you were saying. I thought you were saying the film should not have been made based on how long it had been. (What else is "just as an excuse to make a movie about some show that opened a decade before" supposed to mean?) You are the one who keeps conflating the amount of time with the age issue - not me (but I think now I see why, as I said above). So really, you could have spared me the blame and the mini-lecture on making assumptions.

Lordy!

Updated On: 12/20/12 at 09:00 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 9:15pm

"Like I asked in my first post on this thread: what year is it again?"

Are you asking what year does Rent take place? The show never really makes it clear. The Tompkins Square Park riot took place in August 1988.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 9:16pm

No no no no. Nevermind.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 9:16pm

Thanks for your detailed response and for supporting your argument!

Lordy, my posts are long enough. But I will do EVERYTHING in my power, from now on, to make sure I am not misinterpreted in the future.

The bottom line is I was misinterpreted because that isn't what I meant. Don't assume next time and ask. I left it there because I think my role in this is quite clear, but if it'll make you happier, then I will do my part by clarifying what I mean.

There.

On a somewhat related note, as for clarifying what I mean concisely?

Maybe next year.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 9:19pm

Ha, I can challenge almost anyone to a tl;dr contest. And unfortunately I get way too easily sucked into them.

I didn't assume! I just spelled out that what you're accusing me of assuming is not even what I thought. You can scroll up. I'm not going to type it out again. This is totally ridiculous.

Updated On: 12/20/12 at 09:19 PM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 9:34pm

Jesus, Mary, n' Joseph and the Saints! You're a nit-picky mofo! More nit-picky than me!

I love you!!!! XD

OK, OK, you did not assume. You just took what I said and responded to it. I was unaware I wasn't clear and, thus, allowed for the exchange to take place, in which I was confused and assumed I knew what you were talking about.

I coulda, shoulda, woulda stopped my cunfuzzlement, known exactly what you were discussing, and not assumed. Assumption is a crime, I assume, because you're avoiding it...like the plague! XD

We both had an evil hand in this. Me for my assuming I can read between the lines correctly every time, and you for assuming you play no role in this tragedy!! XD

The End.

Updated On: 12/20/12 at 09:34 PM

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

Posted: 12/20/12 at 10:49pm

Enrique, we've found you a man at last! xD

I once wrote my own screen edit of Rent, based on a blend of the Spike Lee draft (no, he didn't write it, Stephen Chbosky was still attached at the time, but the draft was written with the intention of Spike Lee directing) and the later Columbus version. I think it would be very interesting for some of the people in this thread to read. I had a younger cast in mind, and I really think if someone with a level head had taken what worked with both versions and put together a movie of that (look at that, I'm not even saying I did a great job; hi Namo :P), it might have been better.

(The password to the link is "rent" without quotes.)

My fan screenplay of RENT (which I feel was better)

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/21/12 at 1:51am

^Is that the one with Jonathan Larson hanging out with the Rent characters?

Updated On: 12/21/12 at 01:51 AM

[JuanValjean72]

Posted: 12/21/12 at 8:24am

That's exactly what the director wanted. He wanted Justin Timberlake and the late Brittany Murphy but the producers and creative team refused to do that to the film, so they went with people who knew the show, score and characters already.