RENT: Why so much hate?- Page 4

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 8:45pm

In all fairness, saying "His girlfriend April left a note saying 'We've got HIV'" wouldn't flow as well.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 9:32pm

Call me nuts, but I actually think it flows better!

"...saying we've got H. I. V., before slitting her wrists in the bathroom."

"AIDS" not only doesn't follow logically, it feels as if there needs to be an additional beat there that "H.I.V." provides! =)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 9:46pm

I never assumed April was supposed to be particularly enlightened. It's one line about what a fictional character wrote on a piece of paper.

...and one of them is a loose go-go dancer who doesn't concern herself with possibly spreading it.

That's an assumption, not something in the script or the staging.

There is still that stigma of your typical AIDS victim bringing it upon his/herself due to their lack of morals. Rent only strengthens those messages.

I think the stigma exists for those who believe that to be true and especially for those who WANT those stigmas to exist to make their lives and sense of morality easier, but I didn't attach those stigmas to any of those characters nor did I ever feel the show expressly reinforced them.

Updated On: 7/24/12 at 09:46 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 10:39pm

This misinformation (generally speaking, not necessarily because of Rent) is responsible for recent cases that involve discrimination against HIV positive individuals by institutions that should know better.

Okay, I'm calling you out on this and would like to see citations of these recent cases you mention. I'm not saying you're not right, I'm just saying it sounds like something you're making up to bolster your argument.

I can also assure you that drug injectors who lived on the streets back then, and even some now, often found out they had full-blown AIDS the first time they presented at the emergency rooms with symptoms they had been living with for a long time. Actually, my ex-lover got pneumonia and ended up in the hospital and found out he had AIDS then. It was 1996, and it was AIDS. He was an educated white homosexual who had never been a drug user and never tested for HIV. So I just don' think it's that egregious to have a single reference to getting AIDS.

It's interesting that you are angry that the gay couple and the straight addict couple are the ones who get HIV and then you go on and on about how much you were moved by Angel. It's not because you saw something special, it's because it was written that way.

What Larson was smart enough to do was to give the characters who are most at risk for acquiring HIV, HIV. I suppose there could have been a straight character who had NO IDEA how she got it or something, but that's false drama in a world of people living with real drama.

When the show first opened I was a little startled by what seemed to be Angel's sero-sorting in his choice of a partner. Once he knew Collins and he were seroconcordant he said they'd "get along fine." That was a VERY long time before gay men were discussing this as a tool they use in their HIV prevention arsenal.

I mean, if you're looking to dig deeper that the sin of saying they got AIDS.

Updated On: 7/24/12 at 10:39 PM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 10:50pm

True, and I'm sure that's why I can't hate it. I added my own subjective thoughts and was in no way claiming them to be objective or inherent to the work. I'm sure Larson didn't intend to imply anything that could lead to misinformation.

Citation: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/13-year-old-honor-student-with-hiv-denied-admission-by-private-school/discrimination/2011/12/01/31069

That's one. How many more would you like?

Updated On: 7/24/12 at 10:50 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 11:07pm

I know when people kill themselves, the first thing I do is critique the language they used in their suicide note.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 11:14pm

Sorry. My previous post was in response to Mister Matt. And the citation is for FindingNamo.

I'm confused by what you mean by "that's how the show was written"? I didn't claim to see something that can't be reasonably interpreted from the material. I didn't claim to have a religious experience nor was it a life changing event. I was moved. Moved by the inferences I subjectively gathered from the material. I clearly said that was how and why it affected ME like it did. I did not say that's what it set out to do in everyone else.

Nor am I even remotely "angry" at anything. Sorry if you got that from what I wrote, but nah. I'm aiight.

I'm a bit worried about you, though. :S

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 11:16pm

I concede that it's a recent case, but are you saying the notion that "got AIDS" implies a some kind of difference in the school's decision that "got HIV" would not have had?

HIV is transmittable and it is the virus that causes AIDS. I really don't think a show written in the early '90s has to "get it right" in the 20-10s. The way "The Normal Heart" realllllllllllllly got it wrong by 1995.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 11:24pm

Eric, in response to your response to my "If only Rentheads could love Sondheim and HELLO, DOLLY! too..." remark:

I had a friend who loved RENT. Other than the Disney films of the late 80s and early 90s and THE SOUND OF MUSIC, he had never been exposed to musicals. I thought to myself, "Hey! If he really likes this show about a certain group of New Yorkers, maybe he'll love ANOTHER show about ANOTHER group...COMPANY." So I leant him my copy of the CD and he proceeded to say very little about it, until I finally asked him his honest opinion. "Well, it's not RENT." He thought Patti LuPone's "Everything's Coming Up Roses" was too "over the top" on the Tony Awards. (Compared to RENT?)

But that's just my one experience and was perhaps too broad a generalization. He's in college now and I haven't talked to him in a while, but I hope he's exposing himself to other theater, since he IS a theater major after all.

I am sure there are other young people who have matured into intelligent theatergoers. Sorry for the generalization.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 11:33pm

"I know when people kill themselves, the first thing I do is critique the language they used in their suicide note."

I don't care if that note was written by my own mother, I'd have mentally corrected her upon reading it. XD

It doesn't make sense to denote mental distress by spreading misinformation on an often misunderstood condition, however innocently, especially when the distress is made abundantly clear by suicide. And I doubt Larson chose "AIDS" in a strategic effort to suggest April's distress.

And it's quite ambitious to suggest insensitivity towards those who off themselves when I'm clearly critiquing the writing of the show's creator.

Nice try.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 11:43pm

"I concede that it's a recent case, but are you saying the notion that "got AIDS" implies a some kind of difference in the school's decision that "got HIV" would not have had?

HIV is transmittable and it is the virus that causes AIDS. I really don't think a show written in the early '90s has to "get it right" in the 20-10s. The way "The Normal Heart" realllllllllllllly got it wrong by 1995."

I'm not scolding Rent or the late Jonathan Larson for "getting it wrong." I didn't even say he objectively got anything wrong. I said I do not enjoy some of the inferences made by the words he chose.

I also stated that I'm not solely blaming Rent or its writer for any stigmas. But they don't help to curtail those stigmas. That's as far as I went regarding influence. To suggest Rent is responsible for injustices such as the one at the Hersey school would be a tad delusional, I would think, lol.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:06am

A Director - Excellent reply, agree 100%.

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:53pm

Here are some basic facts about Rent:

Rent had a 12-year run and 5,124 performances, making it the ninth-longest-running Broadway show.

The production grossed over $280 million.

It won 4 Tony's including Best Musical and Best Score.

It has been performed in 24 different languages.

...most musicals can only dream of doing what Rent has already done.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:24pm

You could say similar things about Cats and Phantom, but I don't think either is good.

Popular /= Good.

Now, if you want to evaluate the show's quality with a qualitative argument (what you think is good about it), rather than using the capitalist argument, that's another thing entirely.











Updated On: 7/25/12 at 04:24 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:53pm

JV, that's more than fair, and I shouldn't have implied that your own personal experiences weren't true. I jumped on your comment because I have heard that generalization before, and I guess it irks me and is one that personally I don't think is all that accurate, but that's from my own experience.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:55pm

My first experience with Rent was the movie, which I absolutely hate. A few years later I saw the Off-Broadway production and listened to the OBCR, which also left me cold. I guess it comes down to a matter of taste- I just don't care for the score or the plot or the characters.

HOWEVER, Rent is show that is very much at the mercy of its actors. I saw Emma Hunton as Maureen, and she made the show largely bearable for me. But Rent as an enterprise is getting very, very tired. I know the really great shows live forever, but this one just won't die. Call me unromantic, but I refuse to believe it's because of its timeless message of hope and community blah blah blah. Rent remained on Broadway for the sole purpose of making money. I recognize that that's the main reason any show opens on Broadway, but it long outstayed its welcome, becoming a tired old relic of a production. Then it was revived for the same reason, with nothing new to add to the show.

I think the producers of the revival hoped it would be like the Hair revival - an old show that was given new life and vibrance and urgency. Here's the thing: it's just never going to happen, at least not within the next decade. Give it twenty or thirty years and it could be revived as a semi-relevant museum piece. As for Rent and the AIDS epidemic, it is not even in the realm of plays of Angels in America or even The Normal Heart. When I saw those productions I felt energized and compelled to do something, sort of a "Why does nobody care?!" reaction. Rent stirred no such feelings in me, because it's simply not as good a show.

I respect the intentions of Larson and those involved with the original production, but have very different feelings who turned it into a tired old cash cow of a show. And of course I have nothing against most of the fans, but the ones who screech about how "revolutionary" and "amazing" Rent is are the ones I'd count as annoying.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 5:32pm

My issues with RENT are as follows:

1. The music. Larson hits all the academic bases, but his lyrics are HORRIBLY cliche'. "Will I wake tomorrow from this nightmare?" Oldest cliche analogy in the book. So of course, they repeat it about 100 times. Roger's lines are also particularly bad. It's exactly what I would expect a theatre person to think a rocker sounds like. His lyrics are amateurish and flat.

2. Not a single character, except Roger is a victim. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for a bunch of slutty, drug addicts. Do they deserve AIDS? No. Did they have it coming? Yep.

3. I don't get to know Angel nearly well enough to give a damn when he dies. The first act taking place in one night is tricky to pull off, and in the end, I think it shoots them in the foot. Because everything character related feels rushed. I never buy Angel and Collin's relationship. Again, it's too rushed. There's nothing to support Mimi being Angel's best friend, as she claims to be at his funeral, and her relationship with Roger is rushed. Almost to a Disney level or meeting and falling in love.

4. The corny as hell ending. Mimi just wakes up... out of no where, for no reason. Umm

I by no means hate the show, but I have no emotional response to it.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:08pm

Wait, how is Roger a victim? He was a drug addict, too.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:16pm

I think thinking someone deserves something and thinking that had it coming are pretty much the same thing.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:24pm

"Wait, how is Roger a victim? He was a drug addict, too."


Oh, you're right. Then, yeah. There are no victims, and I feel for none of them.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:26pm

Because they had it coming?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:27pm

^^^^My thought as well. I'm guessing HappyPhantom means they contributed to their own misfortune rather than morally deserving a potentially fatal condition, but I'm not sure.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:29pm

"Not a single character, except Roger is a victim. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for a bunch of slutty, drug addicts. Do they deserve AIDS? No. Did they have it coming? Yep."

My work for the past 20 years has focused on HIV in the areas of prevention and research. I hate to be prejudiced, but I just know you are somebody I would never want to be friends with.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:31pm

Gaveston understood my post.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:32pm

Which characters, exactly, do you consider "slutty drug addicts"? Yes, Roger and Mimi are drug addicts, but I don't think much of anything is really mentioned about their sex lives, so I don't how either of them could be seen as sluts. Same for Collins and Angel, unless you're conflating "slutty" with gay.

Really, the only character that could be at all considered a slut in any way is Maureen, who is one of the few characters that doesn't have AIDS (not that her sexuality would be the reason for it anyway).