RENT Plot Holes

[Alex Kulak2]

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

I love RENT, but I realize there are lots of flaws with it. I just watched Lindsay Ellis' video of it, and I was in a production, so I have the text near memorized, and I've been thinking about all the plot holes in the story.

*These are specific to the stage version, I know the movie changes some things

1. In the stage version , the entire first act takes place over like 3 hours (December 24th, 9pm to Maureen's protest at midnight. It's really convenient all this stuff happened right around the same time.

2. Why does the Life Support Meeting take place at 9:30pm on Christmas Eve? I get the Christmas Eve part, people with AIDS might have nowhere else to go on Christmas, but why is it taking place so late at night?

3. Roger and Mark were kicked out of their apartment at the end of the First Act. The Second Act takes place a week later. Were they just sleeping on the streets for 6 days in New York in the dead of Winter?

4. I heard you sold your guitar and bought a car?
Does Roger own the most valuable guitar in the East Village?

 

Feel free to add your own plot holes, or resolve the ones I brought up

Updated On: 1/1/17 at 11:17 AM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 11:53am

I still don't know what, "I think I missed, don't get pissed" means and that keeps me up some nights.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 12:03pm

or "Where'd it Go?" Where'd what go?

[hork]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 12:10pm

The first three aren't plot holes. Mark and Roger probably just crashed at Joanne's place, 9:30 isn't late for Christmas Eve, and Mark sings an entire song remarking on how amazing that one night was. But the guitar thing always bothered me, too.

Bu the biggest plot hole is this: just what the hell is Mark filming all this time, when he doesn't even have sound to go with it?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 12:20pm

^ Yup. Lindsay Ellis spoke about this in her video too. Like why are we supposed to be so impressed that Mark can whip out a camera and make home movies? High art? Okay...?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 1:28pm

I get the Christmas Eve part, people with AIDS might have nowhere else to go on Christmas, but why is it taking place so late at night?

Because it was the time slot the space gave them that was available?  It happens to support groups often, especially those with little-to-no-budget in large metropolitan cities.

Does Roger own the most valuable guitar in the East Village?

You can buy old used cars that barely run for a few hundred bucks from private sellers.  You look around for cars with For Sale signs and make an offer.  It's not unusual.

just what the hell is Mark filming all this time, when he doesn't even have sound to go with it?

Mark wants to be an independent filmmaker and is getting started filming anything.  He's documenting the year and you have to film anything and everything if you want to edit down to the piece you wish to construct.  The majority of art films I've seen as installation pieces in museums have no sound or use an alternative sound source.  Mark behaves like an idealistic film student in the 90s.  Much of the footage from Tarnation consisted of home movies without sound and it became an underground hit. 

Like why are we supposed to be so impressed that Mark can whip out a camera and make home movies? High art? Okay...?

Like who said we're supposed to be impressed?  Or that his films are "high art"? Mark does it for his own reasons.  It makes no difference whether we're impressed or not.  Like why are we supposed to be impressed Lindsay Ellis spoke about misunderstanding artists in a video?

I still don't know what, "I think I missed, don't get pissed" means and that keeps me up some nights.

or "Where'd it Go?" Where'd what go?

The two funny lines from Contact could mean a number of things that are unusual, funny and not unreasonable.  All of the lyrics to the song are snippets of conversation and undefined sexual imagery.  Why do those need to be explicitly spelled out?  Make of them what you want.  Personally, I imagine Maureen wearing a strap-on with another woman and hitting the wrong target (it's a fairly common joke that straight guys use the "oops..I missed" excuse when they attempt a surprise anal moment with their girlfriends).  "Where'd it go?" could refer to a condom that flew across the room when Roger was trying to put it on.  Or a hundred other things.  Nothing about the song is about specificity.

Updated On: 1/1/17 at 01:28 PM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 2:27pm

I might be misremembering some details on this one, but as I recall:

Right before Tuneup #3, Roger asks Mark why he's going out. Mark says "Maureen calls," implying that he's going to go answer Maureen's call for help that we heard in the opening number.

Fast forward to "Today 4 U/You'll See." Mark is home again, and says "first I've got a protest to save" before leaving to go help Maureen again (at which point we see "Tango Maureen"

Are we meant to believe he left to go help Maureen twice in such a short amount of time? Did the equipment break again? 

[hork]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 3:30pm

Mark wants to be an independent filmmaker and is getting started filming anything.  He's documenting the year and you have to film anything and everything if you want to edit down to the piece you wish to construct.  The majority of art films I've seen as installation pieces in museums have no sound or use an alternative sound source.  Mark behaves like an idealistic film student in the 90s.  Much of the footage from Tarnation consisted of home movies without sound and it became an underground hit. 

Okay, but why does he talk to the camera and film other people talking (like Benny's speech)? And didn't Tarnation have sound? Whatever, it's the worst, most narcissistic movie ever made, so I don't really care.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 3:51pm

It became hard for me to appreciate Rent once I realized what horribly pretentious and somewhat talentless artists they all were.  Also, that absurd ending ( Surprise I'm back from the dead!) is hilariously bad.  I've always said that it isn't totally fair to poke around and make fun of Rent because the show lost it's writer so early in it's life that there probably things that would have been fixed, but Larson just didn't get a chance.  The show is pretty messy, but it has a reason for being so.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 4:21pm

It became hard for me to appreciate Rent once I realized what horribly pretentious and somewhat talentless artists they all were.  Also, that absurd ending ( Surprise I'm back from the dead!) is hilariously bad.  I've always said that it isn't totally fair to poke around and make fun of Rent because the show lost it's writer so early in it's life that there probably things that would have been fixed, but Larson just didn't get a chance.  The show is pretty messy, but it has a reason for being so.

I agree. Imagine how good Jonathan Larson's followup to RENT would have been

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 4:26pm

the show is not perfect, no show is, but most of the stuff in this thread is just folks overthinking something because they think it makes them cool to pick nits in a Pulitzer winner. Trees meet forest.

[hork]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 4:29pm

JBroadway said: "I might be misremembering some details on this one, but as I recall:

Right before Tuneup #3, Roger asks Mark why he's going out. Mark says "Maureen calls," implying that he's going to go answer Maureen's call for help that we heard in the opening number.

Fast forward to "Today 4 U/You'll See." Mark is home again, and says "first I've got a protest to save" before leaving to go help Maureen again (at which point we see "Tango Maureen"

Are we meant to believe he left to go help Maureen twice in such a short amount of time? Did the equipment break again? 

 

No, I think what happens is that he leaves to go help her, but on the way he runs into Collins and Angel, who bring him back to the loft.

 

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 4:31pm

Also, Lindsay brings this up in her video, but how do all these broke bohemians afford AZT at a time when a year of treatment cost thousands of dollars?

[hork]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 4:32pm

HogansHero said: "the show is not perfect, no show is, but most of the stuff in this thread is just folks overthinking something because they think it makes them cool to pick nits in a Pulitzer winner. Trees meet forest.

 

Not really. Most of us love the show. I personally think it's one of the best musicals ever written. I think you're projecting.

 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 4:39pm

Over the years, many of us have made a parlor game of cataloging subjectively determined "problems" with the show. (For me, it's Angel, talked about as a wonderful, compassionate near humanitarian, and all we see her actually sing about is killing a dog. And the second act is all about explaining what happened to people. Okay; who cares?) The piece is a rush, a wall of music, a specifically realized milieu that's a slice of a highly romanticized New York, and it's still about as thrilling as ever. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:08pm

And didn't Tarnation have sound? Whatever, it's the worst, most narcissistic movie ever made, so I don't really care.

Many of the clips didn't have sound originally, but had sound or music layered over it.  The filmmaker is an old friend of mine and the film isn't nearly as narcissistic as you might think, especially if you know him and his history.  Roger Ebert seemed to understand the purpose of the film pretty well: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/tarnation-2004

Also, that absurd ending ( Surprise I'm back from the dead!) is hilariously bad.

It really wasn't absurd because she wasn't dead.

Also, Lindsay brings this up in her video, but how do all these broke bohemians afford AZT at a time when a year of treatment cost thousands of dollars?

The same ways that most people obtained AZT in 1996 (including friends of mine who were struggling 20-something artists that didn't make more than about $5.50 an hour).  The price made the drug nearly unobtainable and thought it dropped considerably in the 90s, was still expensive at full price.  But by the mid-90s, many health care insurance programs began to cover it as well as medicare, the Ryan White Consortium and patient-assistance programs.  Jonathan Larson wasn't the only person who may have known low-income people who were able to obtain AZT, which is probably why he might have included it in the show.  I'm not sure why what Lindsay mentions in a video is taken at face value or how she's become some sort of point of reference.  I guess people think she's clever for bringing up questions she doesn't bother to research?

Updated On: 1/1/17 at 05:08 PM

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:10pm

It is possible to love a show and still be able to acknowledge its flaws! Like icecreambenjamin said you ca't really fault RENT that much as the show we know today is essentially a work in progress.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:20pm

In the stage version , the entire first act takes place over like 3 hours (December 24th, 9pm to Maureen's protest at midnight. It's really convenient all this stuff happened right around the same time.

Nearly the entire first act of West Side Story takes place in a few hours.  The rest of the first act and the entire second act take place over a few hours the following evening.  All but the last two scenes of Oklahoma take place in one day.

[Fan123]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:26pm

This parody Rent libretto points out quite a few plot holes, although a few aspects of the parody itself are a tad eyeroll-inducing.

http://www.broadwayabridged.com/scripts/rent.html

I figure a lot of us are here because we enjoy nerdily over-analysing play plot structure and the like, so this kind of discussion is not necessarily about finding any old petty reason to tear down a show. And although the plot holes per se have never been what irritates me about Rent, I know from other shows that a seemingly insignificant plot hole can really take you out of the moment and/or ruin more important aspects of the show that rely on it in some way, so even minor plot inconsistencies can be fair game as something to critique about a show IMO.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:32pm

hork said: "Not really. Most of us love the show. I personally think it's one of the best musicals ever written. I think you're projecting."

projecting what? and it is not inconsistent to love something and still overthink it.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:40pm

Someone once told me they thought it meant she missed her orgasm "window." I guess I'll never know!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 5:49pm

That parody fails from the get-go with this:

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GROW UP
AND GET JOBS AND PAY OUR DAMN RENT
EVEN THOUGH EVERYBODY DOES IT,
AND SOMEHOW THIS MAKES US SYMPATHETIC CHARACTERS!

Ignoring the plot isn't the same as pointing out a "plot hole" or creating a "parody".  A lot of the "parody" is really just being bitchy and offensive out of desperation for an attempt at being clever.  If it's supposed to point out plot holes, it fails miserably.  If it;s supposed to ignore the plot just to be snarky, it fails slightly less miserably.

Someone once told me they thought it meant she missed her orgasm "window." I guess I'll never know!

You don't need to know.  It doesn't matter. 

Updated On: 1/1/17 at 05:49 PM

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 6:04pm

Also, I don't enjoy the show's portrayal of bisexuals as being sluts (Maureen).

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 6:20pm

It doesn't.  Maureen isn't labeled a bisexual and I certainly never thought of her as a "slut".  If people take that as their assessment of bisexuals, it has far more to do with their own prejudices than anything reflected in the show itself.  Do you also think that the show portrays all heterosexual females are drug addicts and exotic dancers?

Updated On: 1/1/17 at 06:20 PM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 6:25pm

The same ways that most people obtained AZT in 1996 (including friends of mine who were struggling 20-something artists that didn't make more than about $5.50 an hour).  The price made the drug nearly unobtainable and thought it dropped considerably in the 90s, was still expensive at full price.  But by the mid-90s, many health care insurance programs began to cover it as well as medicare, the Ryan White Consortium and patient-assistance programs.  

Rent isn't set in 1996, it's set in 1989. Big difference.