RENT and the AIDS movement

[PattiLover]

I can't believe I'm about to defend RENT, but I will. I saw it when I was 16, a sophomore in HS. I loved Broadway and New York City, being from the sticks. I would never say RENT is on the same page as The Normal Heart, Angels in America or Falsettos. RENT was the first show I ever saw that was geared towards the youth of America to talk about AIDS...and it reached well beyond the boundaries of New York City.

It got young people involved in the fight against AIDS in a way that theatre never had before.

[songanddanceman2]

Yes it came in after AIDS had done the most damage but in the mid 90s it was still very much something that was and is affecting many. I know for me i watched Rent 3 weeks after a friend of mine had died due to AIDS, it did not tell me anything new but i was thrilled that it was getting talked about in a show aimed towards a youth market, something The Normal Heart and Angels in America did not really do (don't get me wring, i adore those plays but they did not speak to who needed to be spoke to about it).

In the mid 90s the adverts here in the UK that scared so many about AIDS had stopped, the virus is still a killer (i lost another friend only a year and half ago and have 4 more who are living with it. Rent at least kept reminding people that this thing is still out there. Like the show or not it spoke to a young audience about a serious issue, i will always applaud Rent for that.

[rosscoe(au)]

As for the magazine covers that made national and international news, after A Chorus Line, Phantom, Dreamgirls, Les Mis, Miss Saigon. The list goes on to say that reNt was the first after A Chorus Line is wrong in so many ways. reNt would never have opened on Broadway if Larson had lived.

[fingerlakessinger]

I think that is a wrong assumption.
It was creating a buzz already and the reviews were glowing for it.
Or at least that is what I heard. I could be wrong.
I think it would have made it to Broadway with or without Larsen.

[Kad]

It's possible.

But Larson's untimely death was a massive boost for the show. Where it had before been a new, unique, and buzzed-about musical from an exciting up-and-comer, it became something more romantic.

[rosscoe(au)]

Kad, that is so true. The show got its hype from his death.

[DEClarke]

I was born in 1985, so I was in 5th/6th grade when RENT opened on Broadway. Growing up in a small community theatre in Southeast Texas, I was exposed to RENT through the TONY Awards that season and its Original Cast Recording. I still remember more or less LEARNING what AIDS was because of RENT. We didn't talk about AIDS down here at all. So, I think it was a powerful educational tool for those more conservative areas. I also remember getting grounded for being caught listening to RENT as such a "young" age.

[Bwaydide92]

Larson actually died the day before the first performance off-broadway. He never got to see it performed for a paying audience. I think it still would have made it to Broadway had it lived, but it would have taken much longer and would probably be much better than it is. People have been afraid to touch the script since his death. I think the Hollywood Bowl concert directed by NPH has been the only major production besides the movie to change any of the book or score.

After a few more drafts I believe that RENT would have actually taught people about AIDs instead of just mentioning it like it does. Yes it made those that might have not been aware of it previously conscious of it, but telling us to fight AIDs without telling us how doesn't do much.

[taboo123]

IMO, I think theatre DOES matter. In many many many ways.

To experience something live, is far beyond anything a video game or television program can do. And it influences young generations over and over again in a vital way. I will never forget my first theatre experience and it rivaled any sort of entertainment. At least, for me.

RENT was not a favorite of mine for many reasons, but it still holds a mark on bringing awareness to many who consider it taboo. Til' this day, many communities and groups will NOT perform RENT due to it's subject matter. So I'm sure that it causes dialogue in the homes and hearts of people baffled by it's existence and expressions.

[taboo123]

IMO, I think theatre DOES matter. In many many many ways.

To experience something live, is far beyond anything a video game or television program can do. And it influences young generations over and over again in a vital way. I will never forget my first theatre experience and it rivaled any sort of entertainment. At least, for me.

RENT was not a favorite of mine for many reasons, but it still holds a mark on bringing awareness to many who consider it taboo. Til' this day, many communities and groups will NOT perform RENT due to it's subject matter. So I'm sure that it causes dialogue in the homes and hearts of people baffled by it's existence and expressions.

[GavestonPS]

IMO, I think theatre DOES matter. In many many many ways.

To experience something live, is far beyond anything a video game or television program can do. And it influences young generations over and over again in a vital way. I will never forget my first theatre experience and it rivaled any sort of entertainment. At least, for me.

In fairness to me, I allowed that theater may well matter to those of us who love it. But I often wonder what people are talking about when they mention the importance of "live" events.

Because if we're talking large musicals with all their sound equipment and computerized sets and lights (not to mention doubles and dubbed singing), a performance of PHANTOM isn't that much more "live" than a screening of the film.

[After Eight]

"In fairness to me, I allowed that theater may well matter to those of us who love it"

You "allowed" it? How generous of you.

"May" well matter?

What a way to start off the week.

[Jane2]

"What a way to start off the week."

Really. it's so early for this to begin.

[wonderfulwizard11]

"Because if we're talking large musicals with all their sound equipment and computerized sets and lights (not to mention doubles and dubbed singing), a performance of PHANTOM isn't that much more "live" than a screening of the film."

Wait, what? How does this make any sense? I mean, I understand the comment about the use of doubles, but the fact that the sets/lighting for Phantom (or any other show for that matter) are computerized has no bearing on how live the show is. I disagree with your analysis of theatre today, but that's really a ridiculous statement to make, as if computerized sets made theatre any less live.

[FindingNamo]

Fluid
no fluid
no contact
yes
No contact
Fire fire burn-burn yes!
No
latex rubber
rubber
Fire
latex rubber latex bummer
Lover bummer

It's about the frustrations of striving for intimacy ("how can you connect in an age where strangers, landlords, lovers, your own blood cells betray?") in a time that's so uncertain, the fluids of the person you love could physically harm you. It's about the conflicting urges to merge and protect yourself and the person you love.

It is not a song that advocates barebacking.

[Gothampc]

"People have been afraid to touch the script since his death. I think the Hollywood Bowl concert directed by NPH has been the only major production besides the movie to change any of the book or score."

I think there were some minor changes in the move to Broadway. Wasn't Tango Maureen originally in Act 2?

[Bwaydide92]

Yeah I was wrong about it advocating, but it hardly gives safe sex a good name. I love RENT and think it's a great show, but I hardly think it was a major factor in the decrease of AIDs in America or a factor in people being smarter about how they have sex. AIDs is just another part of it's story, not the driving force.

Gothampc, I mean like major reworkings of the script. Pretty much everything Larson wrote was kept intact, switched around maybe, but nobody wanted to say that his work needed improvement.

[GavestonPS]

You "allowed" it? How generous of you.

"May" well matter?

What a way to start off the week.

The word "asshat" was invented for you. I don't know what it means, but it suits you.

I assume other posters here have sufficient erudition to know that "allow" in my usage doesn't mean "to grant permission" but "to acknowledge the truth of".

Frankly, I lived this thread through five years of grad school. A small group of theater lovers sits around talking about how important the theater is, how "live" performance (delivered through a wall of electronic equipment) uplifts the soul, and quoting Brecht and Artaud to guide us as we bring about social change.

All the while, 98% of the culture as a whole wouldn't be caught dead in a theater unless little Shanikwa Sueleen has two lines in a production of ANNIE.

A point you would have made yourself if I hadn't gotten here first to say the sky is blue.

[GavestonPS]

Wait, what? How does this make any sense? I mean, I understand the comment about the use of doubles, but the fact that the sets/lighting for Phantom (or any other show for that matter) are computerized has no bearing on how live the show is. I disagree with your analysis of theatre today, but that's really a ridiculous statement to make, as if computerized sets made theatre any less live.

What difference does it make to your ear whether the voice you are hearing through a million dollars' worth of amplification comes from a living person or a CD? (Hint: none, unless the singer really screws up and you can say you were there to hear it.)

If there's any sweetening done to aid chorus or principles, then the conductor CAN'T respond to the audience or performers, s/he has to follow the recorded track. Is it still "live"?

While in theory, computers and humans can co-exist, in practice, the former usually governs the latter. The humans have to adjust their timing and movement to accommodate the machines and their cues, which are often executed by sequence rather than individually. Ask anyone who remembers how sets used to move before everything was on tracks and moved by remote control.

And we haven't even talked about modern, commercial theater styles in which performers are punished for varying anything they do, night after night after night. Think the actor playing the Phantom can just skip "Music of the NIght" one evening? Good luck with that. (Yes, I realize my example is extreme, but there are stage managers employed to watch for small deviations as well. Still "live"?)

I'm not against any of these practices per se. I'm certainly not pretending they can be avoided unless one confines one's theater-going to small, black-box theaters. (Which, BTW, I have yet to see mentioned in this thread even though that's where "live" often still means "live".)

But before we wax romantically about the soul-stirring uniqueness of live theater, let's admit that Jessie Mueller is just as shrouded in and governed by electronics as Angelina Jolie. If it's just the IDEA that Mueller is somewhere in the building riding a computerized cart that excites you, then how 'bout that poker game going somewhere near the stage door? It's usually far more "live" (and often more "lively") than what we are watching on stage.

[exedore]

"Pretty much everything Larson wrote was kept intact, switched around maybe, but nobody wanted to say that his work needed improvement."

Not really. Cuts were made in Christmas Bells and What You Own, a couple lines were changed in You'll See, a sung introduction to Without You went, We're Okay was moved, and about 2/3 of Mark's narration was verbalised from stage directions following Larson's death.

Everybody also knew the show needed work. The plan had been to do the run at NYTW, then send Larson back for more rewrites, after which they'd do a commercial run with a new director - Larson went to his grave hating Michael Grief's vision of the show.

Also, a lot of the material that seemed dated in 96 had been in the script since 92-93, when the main outline and major songs were written. The earlier drafts were also far more overtly political, but most (read: virtually all) of that material was jettisoned over the years in favour of developing the characters and the plot.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Gurl...are you working through some bad life choices or something? Cause these posts today are DEPRESSING.

If theatre (or 'live events') are irrelevant, why are there shows on Broadway that run for decades now? And why are attendance records for theatre in NYC (at least) incredibly high? The reason people still attend theatre is to see magic in ways they can't at a movie theatre. The use of doubles in PHANTOM allows for very cool effects that are extraordinary because it IS done live and engages the imagination in a very specific way. We know it's fake, yet we are still amazed, or moved or what have you. Watching the ghost of Mufasa appear in clouds in a movie is simply a plot point. On stage, it's a moment of magic that leaves one breathless. As Pal Joey is fond of quoting, 'I don't want realism. I want magic!' That's what the theatre provides in a way no other entertainment can. And that's why it will always have a place in the artistic conversation throughout the world.

[GavestonPS]

Robbie, I can quote Blanche DuBois, too. But the "magic" of which she speaks is that of a single, Chinese lamp shade. It doesn't require a crew of 50 and enough wattage to light a small town.

Did the Broadway theater have more of that magic before it was so automated? So they say. Even at 58 I'm barely old enough to remember. I know that before individual actors were miked, we used to have sit more quietly and listen more intensely. If there was "magic", it was at least half because we in the audience had to be so much more involved.

As is discussed here every day, most tourists go to Broadway shows because it's part of the "New York experience", not because they actually get some sort of magical experience from it. They wouldn't be on their cell phones and iPads otherwise.

I appreciate your asking, but I'm not depressed and I don't mean to depress others. But this isn't my first trip to the How "Rent" Changed the World Colloquium. If we're going to make extraordinary claims, I'd like to see some extraordinary evidence.

[SonofRobbieJ]

'They wouldn't be on their cell phones and iPads otherwise.'

My fellow New Yorkers are just as bad (if not worse) than the tourists in this regard. Let's not blame this on the tourists...or the theatre.

And I would argue that RENT did change something. I came to the city just as RENT exploded. It was the first Broadway show I'd auditioned for (and was called back for). I had been seeing theatre for a decade before, and there hadn't been a show that brought such a youthful vitality to the NY theatre scene in that time. And I would argue that RENT brought forth opportunities for the newer generation of musical theatre writers. I think everyone started to look for the next Jonathan Larson and so we ended up with people championing the likes of Jason Robert Brown, Michael John Lachiusa and Adam Guettel. I think the sound of RENT opened up a world in which the sounds employed in such shows as SPRING AWAKENING, IN THE HEIGHTS, NEXT TO NORMAL and PASSING STRANGE became something of a norm. Even something as new as DOGFIGHT feels like a descendent of RENT.

So...I wouldn't say that RENT changed the world. But do I think it opened up the NY theatre world to a more expansive musical vocabulary? Yes.

[GavestonPS]

Actually, Robbie, I do blame the contemporary theater, at least in part. A theater that beats you over the head with its volume and spectacle, that makes it clear the machines will keep running whether the audience is there or not--such a theater actively discourages spectator involvement. No wonder people (I'll take your word that New Yorkers do it as well as tourists) do other things while the machines keep spinning!

***

But my original point about RENT wasn't that it wasn't a hit or that it didn't matter to those who loved it. My point was that we who love theater need to keep in mind that we aren't so very far from opera-goers: the last devotees of a dying art form.

When we talk about ANY theater changing the world (at least in the U.S.), we're already deluding ourselves.

I realize it may SEEM otherwise here at BWW.com. But that's the truth.

[Kad]

Theatre is not a dying art form.

Dying implies it is fading away, which I cannot think one can argue to be true.

[FindingNamo]

"When we talk about ANY theater changing the world (at least in the U.S.), we're already deluding ourselves."

Then I don't think you have an understanding of how change happens in the world. A one degree deviation from a ship's charted course results in a major change of direction in a very short time. There are people making theatre all over the US that has an impact on citizen viewers. I wouldn't underestimate that unless I were a cynic.