Tucker
|
Lack of HIV+ actors in RENTI'm an hiv positive actor and I'm curious if there are any out hiv positive actors or actressess that have performed in the show -on b'way or tour?
I recall seeing a statement in with audition notices inviting disabled actors to audition-I wonder if any have actually been hired.
There are a large number of hiv+ men that I personally know in the musical theatre business that would be a great Roger or Collins or Angel.
HIV is not a death sentence anymore and medications have made it possible for some of us to work. I've heard of programs helping those living with AIDS or HIV return to work-but in another career. Bravo to them-but wouldn't it be great to assist those that can still perform get work on the stage?
I've thought about show's like "Children of A Lesser God" which is produced often and always seems to have cast a deaf actress in the deaf leading lady role. Do you think casting an hiv+ actor in an hiv+ role is the same?
I'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this
|
NYMNUT123
|
I think HIV+ actors/acresses should be considered for any role...why just limit them to the HIV+ roles?
|
DiesIraeDiesIlla
|
they should be considered, but I don't think that being HIV+ should automatically grant you a role. That's affirmative action all over again. I believe that I know someone that was in Beauty and the Beast on broadway and he had AIDS, and someone else that had only one full arm. So broadway tends to be pretty fair. If they can overcome a physical "Dissability" then surely an invisible ailment isn't a problem. And besides, no one is condemned to share their entire medical history before being hired, especially for a job in the entertainment feild.
|
Valentin
|
The late, great, Ian Charleson (who sadly passed away from AIDS in the early nineties) worked for many years after his illness became public knowledge. In fact, he is on the National Theatre 1982 recording of Guys and Dolls as Sky. He was fantastic, and it suggests that in the theatre world HIV and AIDS are not neccassarily a death sentence to one's career.
|
Simon_Yes_Simon
|
I agree completley - why not?
Its not like it affects ability to perform
|
Loppy Poo
|
I think that is kind of a moot point.
There are a great many HIV+ actors who are actively at work in the theatre community. Not for nothing, but why do you think that BC/EFA was established? The theatrical community has always been heavily effected by HIV and AIDS.
Healthy HIV+ actors who are up for the physical components of a role should have the same casting opportunities as non-HIV actors. And they do.
That said, actors (in RENT or in any other show) should not be hired BECAUSE they are HIV+. While it is true that understandin HIV could bring a certain depth to the role, I believe that type of casting is counterproductive. After all, should we only cast Nazis as the emcee? Should we only cast ex-cons as Velma Kelly? Should we only cast Catholics as Maria Von Trapp? By saying that HIV+ peole are more qualified to play HIV+ roles, you are also running the risk of saying that they are only capable of playing HIV+ roles
The ability of an actor to tracend himself and become a character is the hallmark of a good performer. It should not be dependant on his or her personal characteristics.
And as for the job placement services in other fields-that is done primarily for those who want or need to find other employment. It is in no way a blanket organization or need for all HIV positive actors
|
redandblack
|
personally, i feel that someone with the disease would bring an extra bit of heart to the role...and i think that RENT needs that.
a close family friend of mine died several years ago of AIDS, and RENT is still painful to listen to. i suppose i'm being melodramatic...but i feel like the show undermines the seriousness of the disease...showing it to be happy and fun, when it is not, at all. i know the show is about living life to the fullest, but i still think it lacks a certain sensitivity to the people who have the disease.
and tucker...i am sorry to hear that you are HIV+. it's a terrible thing to go through. 30 or so pills every morning, and the horrible feeling that even with a condom, you may spread this terrible disease to anyone you choose to be intimate with. i hope that the medical advances as of late will spare you, and so many others from the fate that once awaited all aids hosts.
xoxo- jill
|
Loppy Poo
|
[quote="redandblack"]personally, i feel that someone with the disease would bring an extra bit of heart to the role...and i think that RENT needs that.
I disagree with you there. In all honesty, the audience has no idea if the person onstage is HIV+ or not. For all we know, we could have seen several HIV+ performers in RENT productions.
For all we know those performers could have just as easily be playing Mark, Maureen, or Joanne.
Stating that an HIV+ actor could add heart to an HIV role is counterproducitve. It lends itself too easily to typecasting and sterotyping.
|
Fontinau
|
| redandblack wrote: | personally, i feel that someone with the disease would bring an extra bit of heart to the role...and i think that RENT needs that.
a close family friend of mine died several years ago of AIDS, and RENT is still painful to listen to. i suppose i'm being melodramatic...but i feel like the show undermines the seriousness of the disease...showing it to be happy and fun, when it is not, at all. i know the show is about living life to the fullest, but i still think it lacks a certain sensitivity to the people who have the disease. |
Sorry about your friend.
I can't agree that RENT undermines the seriousness of AIDS. In fact, I think that together with "Angels in America", RENT is one of the most sensitive stage plays to deal with AIDS that I have ever seen. RENT goes out of its way to show that HIV+ people are experience moments of joy, sadness, love, and anger like everyone else. This gives the AIDS victims in the show dimension beyond simply "they're people with AIDS". It allows the audience, the majority of whom may not even closely know anyone who is HIV+, to relate to the characters, which in increases the impact of characters' deaths. I'll take RENT over a depressing movie-of-the-week where the AIDS victim spends the whole thing dying in front of the camera any day.
|
Loppy Poo
|
I agree and disagree with both redandblack and fontinau here
I don't think that RENT necessarily glorifies the world of AIDS. And I do think that RENT has provided a lot of exposure to AIDS and HIV-which can only lead to greater funding and reasearch.
But I do agree that it simplifies it to an extent. We never see our characters "ill". Even in the scenes immediately preceeding Angel's death. And while it can be argued that Mimi is briefly ill-her death is a total cop-out.
Moreover, I have a problem with the characters in RENT who take no accouantability for their personal choices. Now I am in no way hinting that anyone's choices should condemn them to illness. But I do think that they spend an awful lot of time complaining about a lifestyle that they chose. "We're hungry and frozen, it's the lifestyle we've chosen". My point exactly.
Moreover, I find the lines "Actual Reality. Act Up! Fight AIDS" highly hypocritical. NOTHING that these people do "fights AIDS". And considering that a good deal of references in the show point to the fact that they use drugs(how many are referrenced in "La Vie Boheme" alone) I don't know how they can insinuate that their "reality" is anymore substantial than someone elses.
In fact, I think this how feeds into sterotypes as well. Who is this show has AIDS? The Bohemian gay people and the drug users. The people who fall outside that realm of what many people accept as society. I believe that FALSETTOS deals with AIDS and its impact on real people-not sterotypes-much better than RENT.
|
redandblack
|
yes. i think RENT is rather unrealistic. it never shows the bedridden aspect, of the disease. each and every one of the characters is always beautiful...when in reality, someone near dying of aids (ex: mimi) would have sores on their face, splotchy skin, and sunken eyes.
i haven't seen the way they present it onstage...but on the cd the line 'azt break" is presented happily. how could administering drugs to yourself be fun or joyful?
i agree with loppy poo that the characters take no responsibility for their poor choices. no one deserves aids...but they brought it upon themselves by living that type of lifestyle.
however, i'm glad that it has brought more awareness of the disease to youth. i think that's really important.
|
Loppy Poo
|
I beg all of you to go see FALSETTOS if you have the chance
Get the cast recording (March of the Falsettos/Falsettoland) if you don't
The people in this show are so human. Their pain so real.
I find that show a much more fitting tribute to those living (and dying) with AIDS.
|
Fontinau
|
| redandblack wrote: | | i haven't seen the way they present it onstage...but on the cd the line 'azt break" is presented happily. how could administering drugs to yourself be fun or joyful? |
Without contradicting the rest of what you said, I think the line "AZT break" is delivered with resignation, not joy. You can sort of hear Mimi rolling her eyes as she says it.
|
Loppy Poo
|
I totally agree with you there Fontinau
|
Louis
|
Mimi has to be somewhat optimistic about having AIDS and taking AZT, doesn't she? She is keeping herself alive with AZT, but she doesn't want to have AIDS (obviously). Just because she doesn't completely grumble when she says it doesn't mean that the show is presenting AIDS as something people treat like the common cold.
Some people have that attitude now, and I've read that experts and concerned members of society are worried. But that, of course, is a completely different story.
|
DramaRobin2002
|
I agree that you can hear Mimi rolling her eyes on the "AZT break" line. When I saw Karmine Alers as Mimi, there was more of an edge to her voice when she delivered the line, so you could really hear almost a disgust (though I wasn't sure if it was directed at the medicine or her fighting with Roger)....I also agree that sometimes the show can be a tad unrealistic and stereotypical...but I don't really agree that the characters, except for Roger and Mimi, brought AIDS upon themselves through their lifestyles. We never do learn how Collins and Angel got AIDS and unless previous posts are indicating that because they're gay they AIDS, I don't see how lifestyle really is an issue there. Even then, is sexual orientation really a conscious choice someone makes? Does someone just wake up one morning and think, "Hmmm...I think I want to be gay." or "Hmmmm.....I think I'll be straight today." So, one could argue that Collins and Angel didn't choose that lifestyle, that's just who they are. Obviously, gay couples could NOT have AIDS (which Rent also shows through Maureen and Joanne) but in all honesty, there are also gay couples that do have the disease and it could be deemed a double standard of sorts if just because they were gay, Jonathon Larson decided not to make them have AIDS. Anyway, just my little rant of the day. Feel free to ignore it  .
~~~Amy~~~
|
Fontinau
|
DramaRobin, you just touched on one of the things that annoys me most about the way people react to RENT. If Angel and Collins hadn't had AIDS, Jonathan Larson would have been accused of being too politically correct and ignoring reality. Since they do have AIDS, people accuse Larson of playing off a gay stereotype.
This extends to other elements of the show: I've seen RENT get slammed in the same discussion for being overtly politically correct by including one straight, one gay, and one lesbian couple in the play, and for being homophobic by only killing off a gay character. RENT just can't win!
|
Loppy Poo
|
I don't think that Angel and Collins got AIDS because they are/were gay. However, I do think that there are implications that they were less than responsible sexual partners which may have led to the situation.
It seems to me that most of the characters in RENT seem pretty willing to jump into bed with a new partner very quickly. We are no longer living in the early '80s. We know the risks of AIDS and people, particularly people in communities where AIDS is prevelent, need to attempt responsibility for their behavior. It is the responsibility of sexually active people to do their best to know their partner's history and protect themselves.
Does this always happen? No.
Can people get sick despite all of the proper precautions? Yes
Does anyone deserve a death sentence for life choices such as these? NO!
But at the end of the day, I do believe that most, if not all, of the characters in RENT have demonstrated drug use and sexual promiscuity. If not directly onstage, than through implications.
I have always had a hard time with this show. For everything I like about it, there is something I dislike. For everything I hate, there is something I love.
But I do not like the hypocrisy of this show. And I fear that many people who go to see it breeze through the show without recognizing those hypocrisies.
|
redandblack
|
well i haven't seen the show. i think it probably makes a whole lote more sense when it's accompanied by actions. i didn't know what the end of "light my candle" was until my friend (who saw it) told me.
|
Fontinau
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | But at the end of the day, I do believe that most, if not all, of the characters in RENT have demonstrated drug use and sexual promiscuity. If not directly onstage, than through implications. |
Well, now we're starting to get into whether promiscuity and drug use are all bad or not. And that's a WHOLE different discussion...
Anyway, I think people place RENT under far too close scrutiny. Had it been conceived by some Broadway bigshot, with the intention of teaching the average theater goer about AIDS, poverty, etc. I could understand such scrutiny. But as far as Jonathan Larson knew, he was just writing a retelling of "La Boheme", set in the East Village he was familiar with. He didn't know that the show would make it anywhere near Broadway. He had no idea that it would be both the definitive and the last play of his career. He had no idea that anyone would even remember it a few weeks after it played. So I think he can be forgiven for concerning himself with plot (well, quasi-plot), lyrics, and melody, rather than with some positive and completely consistent "message" for his audience.
|
Loppy Poo
|
I'm not saying that they are all bad, part bad, or not bad at all.
I'm merely saying that these were lifestyle choices that the characters made. And by making those choices they must live with the results. I'll be the first one to say that i think that drugs should be legal and taxed in the U.S. If they are a choice that people want to make, so be it. But if that is the choice they make, they must live with the consequences.
As I've said many times, my problem with this show is it is extremely hypocritical. These people spend two hours whining about a lifestyle that they chose. They say that they should be respected as individuals and as a community-yet they are always mocking people who fall outside of their "norm"
They question cyber reality and virtual reality, but they use drugs to achieve their own altered reality.
And they make proclaimations about acting up and fighting AIDS, when (as I've said before) they do nothing themselves to fight AIDS. If anything, it can be argued that their behavior does something to spread AIDS.
And truthfully, I don't think Larson conerned himself so very much about plot. As we all know, and as you said before, the plot was a modernization of "La Boheme". The plot was pretty laid out, all he had to do was update it.
I believe that Larson's inspiration was the message. And I believe that the message is flawed.
And I also don't believe that Larson is above scrutiny because he didn't start out writing a show for Bway. Many other fringe shows have been in the same place. A show is supposed to develop on its way upward to Broadway.
And if it can claim its longevity and Tony Award for Best Musical (which I do not believe this show would have won if Larson had not passed away) as hallmarks of success, it is also open to the criticism and analysis that all other shows are subjected to.
|
DramaRobin2002
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | As I've said many times, my problem with this show is it is extremely hypocritical. These people spend two hours whining about a lifestyle that they chose. They say that they should be respected as individuals and as a community-yet they are always mocking people who fall outside of their "norm" |
I agree about the mocking part (though it is awfully fun to watch during La Vie Boheme) but in my experience, that is just a human trait. In my own experience, people mock what they don't understand or things that are different. Is this hypocritical? Yes. But it is realistic. On the whining...yes they whine a bit. But not so much as everyone makes it out to be. Isn't that also a human property? It is natural to complain about things you don't like, whether it decends from your choice or not. "We're hungry and frozen, that's the life that we chosen." I never really depicted this line as a complaint. More of a, "Yes, we don't have food or heat but we chose that." Actually, I always thought the entire title song was more of an establishing song.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | They question cyber reality and virtual reality, but they use drugs to achieve their own altered reality. |
Going with the main characters, I never got the feeling that any other than Roger and Mimi did any hardcore drugs. The only real inference to any of the other characters doing drugs is the marijuana line in "La Vie Boheme" (this is not counting The Man's section during the "Christmas Bells" street scene). I never really took that line as a fact that all the characters smoke marijuana, so I guess that really is just how much you really listen to La Vie Boheme and take it about how these characters live.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | And truthfully, I don't think Larson conerned himself so very much about plot. As we all know, and as you said before, the plot was a modernization of "La Boheme". The plot was pretty laid out, all he had to do was update it. |
I have to admit, I've never seen La Boheme. But, from the plot summary I read, there are key differences. I read somewhere, I think in the Rent coffee table book, that though the show began as a remake of La Boheme it actually just began to evolve and Larson put some of his own life experience into it. Now, I can say how true it is, but the show changed A LOT from the original ORIGINAL NYTW idea. I heard the recording of that and....well......I appreciated the Rent we know and love a lot more  . Heh heh, and if you wanna hear complaining....listen to THAT version of "Rent" (mostly about different ways of killing one's self).
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | I believe that Larson's inspiration was the message. And I believe that the message is flawed. |
This one is all about personal opinion, so all I can give is mine. I personally think that the message is a good one. I will be the first to say that I am not exactly street wise. I've lived in a tiny suburb my whole 18 years and no, I never had to deal with things like AIDS. But I have dealt with death and I think that the "no day but today" motto is something that a lot of people need. I know that it helps me get through particularly hard times.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | And I also don't believe that Larson is above scrutiny because he didn't start out writing a show for Bway. Many other fringe shows have been in the same place. A show is supposed to develop on its way upward to Broadway. |
I completely agree!
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | And if it can claim its longevity and Tony Award for Best Musical (which I do not believe this show would have won if Larson had not passed away) as hallmarks of success, it is also open to the criticism and analysis that all other shows are subjected to. |
What other shows was Rent up against for the Tony? I think that it still may have won, as it is an excellent show, but I can't really make a judgement since I don't know all the factors (such as what it was up against).
Just my two cents anyway, do with it what you will
~~~Amy~~~
|
Fontinau
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | As I've said many times, my problem with this show is it is extremely hypocritical. These people spend two hours whining about a lifestyle that they chose. They say that they should be respected as individuals and as a community-yet they are always mocking people who fall outside of their "norm" |
I agree with the others who have said that RENT's characters really don't whine all that much. They recognize that they could change their lifestyle and income level by selling out, and have recognized that, choose not too. ("You're What You Own")
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | They question cyber reality and virtual reality, but they use drugs to achieve their own altered reality. |
Actually, I think there's a fairly strong anti-drug message in RENT. The only person living in a drug-altered reality is Mimi, and it obviously does her no good. Roger doesn't exactly look fondly back on his days of addiction either, and makes an effort more than once to convince Mimi to stop shooting up.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | And they make proclaimations about acting up and fighting AIDS, when (as I've said before) they do nothing themselves to fight AIDS. If anything, it can be argued that their behavior does something to spread AIDS. |
How exactly does their behavior do something to spread AIDS? The song "Contact" pretty firmly establishes that these people have learned their lesson and are practicing safe sex, as unpleasant as that may sometimes be. (Even Collins and Angel, both already HIV+ and unlikely to get pregnant from one another anytime soon, have safe sex; a smart move, since mixing HIV strains can make it even harder to treat. I thought that was an especially nice touch.)
| LoppyPoo wrote: | | And if it can claim its longevity and Tony Award for Best Musical (which I do not believe this show would have won if Larson had not passed away) as hallmarks of success, it is also open to the criticism and analysis that all other shows are subjected to. |
Oh come one, what was the deadly competition that Larson's death somehow unseated at the '96 Awards? "Bring in da Noise, Bring in da Funk"?
Say what you want about RENT's message - the music is excellent, the lyrics are very good, and the characters are well-developed. In a world where "Aida" and "Footloose" manage to pick up Broadway accolades, RENT better have gotten that Tony.
RENT's longevity on Broadway is an unfortunate byproduct of its popularity. I really wish the Broadway bosses would let these shows retire with a shred of dignity rather than running them into the ground.
|
Loppy Poo
|
So many direct quotes to try to debate...not going to even try
but here are my major points, I'm going to work backwards because it's easier to organize it
Neither AIDA or FOOTLOOSE have picked up Broadway accolades. Have you read the reviews to either of these shows? Have you looked at their Tony tally. Neither of those shows are respected by the Broadway community, and you know it.
As for the deadly competetion..yes, precisely "Bring in 'da Noise, Bring in 'da Funk". That show was more original than RENT (reinventing an existing show really can't be considered original), had better technical aspects than RENT, had less plot holes than RENT, and was able to deliver its message without resorting to hypocrisy. Moreover, I think it represented it's minority subject as much less of sterotypes than RENT. All RENT does all night is feed into sterotypes. Have you seen both shows before you make a judgement on which one is superior?
The attempt at a "fairly strong anti-drug message" in RENT is tainted by the fact that drugs are celebrated as part of the "Bohemian lifestyle". You can't spend one moment saying that drugs are bad and then glorify them in at least three seperate references in the next moment(and for the record, carcinogens and hallucinogens ARE hard core drugs). And whether they are hard drugs or soft drugs, they still alter reality. That is what I mean by inconsistencies and hypocrisies.
Their behavior spreds AIDS because of drug use and multiple partners. Bottom line. Maybe they have "learned their lesson" now, but they clearly didn't at some point. Characters like Maureen glorify promiscuity. Even Angel and Collins, though they became a couple, seemed pretty quick to jump into bed upon first meeting. I personally don't care who sleeps with whom. But at the same time, when you're living a life of multiple sexual partners and sex with strangers, you can't be shocked if your decisions catch up with you. Once again, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS BEHAVIOR MEANS THAT PEOPLE DESERVE AIDS. But at the same time, I look at this behavior and think, "who the hell are YOU to tell ME to fight AIDS". What are any of them doing to fight AIDS?
inconsistencies and hypocrisies over and over again
As for differences between RENT and La Boheme, I've seen them both. Of course there are some. Otherwise it wouldn't be a reinvention. But while it adds and changes, it sticks very close to the original struture.
But this argument is really pointless. You like the show. I'm not going to change your mind. I see this as a decent but flawed show promoted by the unfortunate death of the creator. Your not going to change my mind. Seems like a pointless and endless argument
|
Fontinau
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | Neither AIDA or FOOTLOOSE have picked up Broadway accolades. Have you read the reviews to either of these shows? Have you looked at their Tony tally. Neither of those shows are respected by the Broadway community, and you know it. |
Oh, I wish I could say I knew that the Broadway community didn't respect "Aida" - but as I recall it picked up a respectable 4 Tonys, including best score. Other examples of the Broadway community being morons:
Hairspray's recent win: Don't get me wrong, I like the show, but it was no where near the best of its year.
"Into the Woods" losing to "Phantom of the Opera": What the hell!?
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | As for the deadly competetion..yes, precisely "Bring in 'da Noise, Bring in 'da Funk". That show was more original than RENT (reinventing an existing show really can't be considered original), had better technical aspects than RENT, had less plot wholes than RENT, and was able to deliver its message without resorting to hypocrisy. Moreover, I think it represented it's minority subject as much less of sterotypes than RENT. All RENT does all night is feed into sterotypes. Have you seen both shows before you make a judgement on which one is superior? |
I have to confess that my experience with "Bring in da' Noise..." is limited to the cast album. I wasn't very impressed. (Yes, I know it's a very visual show, and yes, I know cast albums are never a good indicator of how good a show is. So my bad on this one.)
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | (and for the record, carcinogens and hallucinogens ARE hard core drugs). And whether they are hard drugs or soft drugs, they still alter reality. That is what I mean by inconsistencies and hypocrisies. |
I personally define hard drugs as anything that's highly addictive, like cocaine or heroin, so I wouldn't include hallucinogens under that designation. And if carcinogens are hard core drugs, then I should warn my barbecue-enthused neighbor that the narcs are coming after him.
But I suppose this is nitpicking.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | What are any of them doing to fight AIDS? |
Well, they're not exactly in a position to give money to support AIDS research, are they?
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | But this argument is really pointless. You like the show. I'm not going to change your mind. I see this as a decent but flawed show promoted by the unfortunate death of the creator. Your not going to change my mind. Seems like a pointless and endless argument |
Maybe, but it's so fun.
I actually agree with you about a lot. The show's messages are confused, and often self-contradictory. The plot is a mess. It's been on Broadway way too long. Worst of all, the show makes a spectacle of poverty and disease for the enjoyment of well-off theater audiences, while doing very little to challenge those audiences. (Then again, you could say the same about "La Boheme" a century ago.)
But I don't think it's correct to say that the show owes its success to Larson's death. Back story and messages aside, RENT is musically speaking a very good piece of work.
So yeah, you're right. RENT is flawed. It just still happens to be better than 90% of the crap that permeates Broadway today.
******************************************
But why settle for "better than"? How would you improve, or "fix" RENT? This isn't a challenge, I'm seriously curious. I always like hearing how people would make movies, plays, or musicals better. (I'm a "Chess" fan, after all. Goes with the territory.  )
|
Sara
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: |
What are any of them doing to fight AIDS? |
Fighting AIDS also includes fighting the disease. Sure, for some of them, fighting AIDS includes sex and drugs, but then again, these people are fictional.
|
Loppy Poo
|
Fontinau-
While I agree with you wholeheartedly about Phantom beating out Into the Woods, I personally disagree with you about Hairspray. Which show did you think was better? In my mind, the only show that came close to Hairspray was La Boheme, but that was billed as a revival so they wouldn't be competing anyway.
LSD is highlu addictive, and I believe ecstacy can be considered pretty habitual too. But all of that is irrelevent, I was defining these drugs as things that "alter reality" and all of the above do. Hence my argument that their reality under use of any drug (really from wine to marijuana, to hallcunogens) is no more substantial than the cyber-reality that they mock.
They may not be in a position to give money to AIDS charities, I don't argue that. My problem is the "holier than thou" way in which they tell the audience to do it. They have just sang a whole song glorifying Bohemia and mocking mainstream life. I find it hypocritical for them to mock me and then proclaim that i must "Act Up. FIght AIDS". Don't get me wrong, I support the fight against AIDS and I give a good deal of money to BC/EFA. I just find that song to say something along the lines of "I chose my life. My life has put me in my situation. I dispise your life, but I want you to help me out anyway."
I just don't like that attitude very much.
Anyway, my battery is dying so I'll write me "suggestions for change" later
|
Fontinau
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | In my mind, the only show that came close to Hairspray was La Boheme, but that was billed as a revival so they wouldn't be competing anyway. |
Hmm. Touche.
Now that I think about it, most of the good musicals that year were revivals ("La Boheme", "Gypsy", "Flower Drum Song", etc.)
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | LSD is highlu addictive, and I believe ecstacy can be considered pretty habitual too. But all of that is irrelevent, I was defining these drugs as things that "alter reality" and all of the above do. Hence my argument that their reality under use of any drug (really from wine to marijuana, to hallcunogens) is no more substantial than the cyber-reality that they mock. |
Without contradicting any of what you said, I think I should point this out: Plenty of artists, from Allen Ginsberg to the Velvet Underground, claim that they were inspired by reality-distorting drugs. I have yet to see an artist claim he or she was inspired by a virtual reality video game.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | | Anyway, my battery is dying so I'll write me "suggestions for change" later |
Yay!
|
Loppy Poo
|
| Fontinau wrote: |
Without contradicting any of what you said, I think I should point this out: Plenty of artists, from Allen Ginsberg to the Velvet Underground, claim that they were inspired by reality-distorting drugs. I have yet to see an artist claim he or she was inspired by a virtual reality video game.
|
I don't actually think that the characters in RENT are in particular opposition to virtual reality video games in and of themselves. I perceived their complaints about "virtual life" to encompass all of the technical aspects of modern life-computers, television, video games; as well as as the less tangible aspects of life-commercialism, laws, and capitalism. It is my belief that all of these components comprise the "virtual reality" that they speak about-the living of an existense that is not uninhibited and in the moment. I cannot believe that they are speaking specifically about virtual reality games-though I'm sure they don't support those either-because they are not so commonplace or ingrained in society that they are something that needs such analysis. Think about it-how many times have you used a virtual reality game? How much time do your peers spend in such games? Virtual reality games are an amusement park attraction-not a major facet of "America at the end of the millenium". I believe the "virtual life" that they talk about is the general existence lived by those outside of their way of life.
So while I agree that not many artists have been inspired by virtual reality games, a great many (including Jonathan Larson) have been inspired by the society we live in. And in addition to artists inspiration, this age has brought about many technological, medical, and scientific discoveries that have brought a great deal of positive things to the world.
I agree that spending all of my time in front of a tv or computer isn't a great idea-but spending some of it isn't such a crime either.
Anyway, here are my suggestions for change. Please keep in mind that I haven't seen this show for years so I probably can't be as specific as many of you.
NUMBER ONE: BENNY!!!!!
I don't like anything about this character's development. I think that his behavior is to inconsistent to be realistic and I think that he is too sterotypical of a "sell-out". I think they would have been better served having another person(not a character currently in the show) be their landlord and just having him be a friend who is torn between his loyalty to his friends and his desire to succeed.
NUMBER TWO: ACT II
Structurally I find this act much weaker than Act One. And unfortunately, this is the act where all of the action takes place. We have a whole act dedicated to exposition and establishing where we are-I believe all of Act I takes place within 24 hours. Then we have to fit in an entire year into Act II. I find it rushed. I like the idea of ending the show where it started, but I think that they try to fit an awful lot into Act II and therefore have to jump around an awful lot. I can't say that i know exactly HOW to fix this, so I guess it foesn't count as a suggestion-sorry.
NUMBER THREE: WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THINGS HOLY DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST THEIR PARENTS?
Kind of minor, I know...but all of these characters seem to hold a big grudge against their parents. I believe that reference is even made to parents betraying. I just don't see that. Each character that has contact with their parents (Roger, Mark, Mimi, Joanne) seems to have loving parents who are very interested in them-perhaps a little opinionated and overbearing from time to time-but who's parents aren't from time to time? Maybe Maureen, Angel, Collins, and Benny have more to reasons to dislike their parents, but if so, no reason is really given within the structure of the show. It appears to me that any alienation that the characters feel towards their parents is one-sided and irrelevent to the plot. Take out the anti-parent references or give a reason for them to be there (ie parents disowning them, abuse, or blatently not accepting their lifesytles. And by blatent, I mean more than just suggesting that they "get a real job"or hinting that a homosexual child shouldn't bring her partner to an event...something more than just "annoying").
|
Fontinau
|
| Loppy Poo wrote: | Anyway, here are my suggestions for change. Please keep in mind that I haven't seen this show for years so I probably can't be as specific as many of you.
NUMBER ONE: BENNY!!!!!
I don't like anything about this character's development. I think that his behavior is to inconsistent to be realistic and I think that he is too sterotypical of a "sell-out". I think they would have been better served having another person(not a character currently in the show) be their landlord and just having him be a friend who is torn between his loyalty to his friends and his desire to succeed. |
Hmm. You know, that's actually a really good idea. (Of course, now you have the problem of not making the landlord a 1-dimensional stereotype. )
| Loppy Poo wrote: | NUMBER TWO: ACT II
Structurally I find this act much weaker than Act One. And unfortunately, this is the act where all of the action takes place. We have a whole act dedicated to exposition and establishing where we are-I believe all of Act I takes place within 24 hours. Then we have to fit in an entire year into Act II. I find it rushed. I like the idea of ending the show where it started, but I think that they try to fit an awful lot into Act II and therefore have to jump around an awful lot. I can't say that i know exactly HOW to fix this, so I guess it foesn't count as a suggestion-sorry. |
The rushed nature of Act 2 is definately a problem - one that goes all the way back to "La Boheme" actually. To throw in a suggestion of my own, I think you could at least take steps to make Act 2 less muddled. For example, Joanne and Maureen could break up in "Take Me Or Leave Me", and Mimi and Roger could break up in "Without You", and then they could STAY broken up until the funeral scene. "Contact" could feature sex with other, temporary partners. This simplifies the whole "we're breaking up... no we're together... no we're definately NOT..." mess that is Act 2.
And while I'm making suggestions about Act 2, perhaps an extra scene could be devoted to Angel's failing health.
| Loppy Poo wrote: | NUMBER THREE: WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THINGS HOLY DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST THEIR PARENTS?
It appears to me that any alienation that the characters feel towards their parents is one-sided and irrelevent to the plot. Take out the anti-parent references or give a reason for them to be there (ie parents disowning them, abuse, or blatently not accepting their lifesytles. And by blatent, I mean more than just suggesting that they "get a real job"or hinting that a homosexual child shouldn't bring her partner to an event...something more than just "annoying"). |
Aside from the homosexual child thing - that's just pathetic on the part of the parents - I agree that the characters in RENT are way too hard on their parents. However, how many twenty-somethings do you know who act exactly that way to their parents, with exactly as little cause?
That's actually the way I feel about a lot of the "whining" and "double-standards" exhibited by RENT's characters. These aren't good personality traits, but they are realistic. Young people, especially the "artsy" crowd, love to complain about society, parents, how unfair life is, etc. without thought or cause.
As such, I feel that the irrational, sometimes even hypocritical, nature of RENT's characters is actually to the show's credit - not to it's detriment.
|
Loppy Poo
|
I like the idea of spending more time on Angel's failing health. I think that it was definately too much a a jump. One minute he's dancing around the stage and another he's dead. I think that goes back to what we were touching on earlier in the thread-that the show doesn't concentrate enough on the horrors of AIDS.
I do like your suggestion of everyone breaking up earlier, but at the same time I think that it would make "Contact" a little more trite. Part of the frustration of living in this era is that you must take caution with intimacy with everyone-even with relationship partners. Additionally, I think that having over half of them run off and become intimate with temporary partners feeds into the "slutty" Bohemian sterotype. They're already walking that line now, and pusing it farther may make the audience less sympathetic towards them. Lastly, it would take so much meaning away from everyone saying "it's over" and ending with Collins making that statement about Angel.
That said, this is one of those moments where I don't remember all of the details of the show. I could be wrong.
I agree when you said that the irrational, whiny, hypocritical nature of these characters may be realistic. But at the same time, I have less sympathy for them because those are not the type of people I chose to associate myself with. When I first saw this show, I was putting myself through grad school. The second time I saw it I was in my second grad school(with lots and lots of student loans) in an outer-borough of Boston, struggling to pay rent. There were times I was angry and frustrated. But I also took accountability for my decisions. I was the one who chose to dedicate many years and expenses to education. They were the ones who made the same commitment to their arts. ALL of us have to take accountability for our decisions, and I don't feel like these people do. Instead they act like they are above the rules that everyone else has to follow. "We're not gonna pay rent", my @ss when I'm shelling out 700 dollars a month to live with 2 roommates in an apartment where the heat only works 45% of the time
As for the homosexual child thing-I really didn't see any parents in RENT shunning their children for their sexual preference. I actually think Joanne's parents were more anti-Maureen than anti-lesbian. And honestly, how many parents that you know would be thrilled to have Maureen brought home for a family dinner?
Anyway, one of the things that I really DO like about RENT is the emphasis on the "peer family". This is becoming an ever important facet for 20 and 30 somethings in a society that no longer encourages early marriage and family. We find ourselves depending more and more on friends in adulthood and I enjoy that that is celebrated in RENT.
|
Ilona
|
Re: Lack of HIV+ actors in RENT | Tucker wrote: |
I've thought about show's like "Children of A Lesser God" which is produced often and always seems to have cast a deaf actress in the deaf leading lady role. Do you think casting an hiv+ actor in an hiv+ role is the same?
|
I own the script for "Children of a Lesser God" and it says write in the notes that the part of Sarah has to be played by a deaf actress, which is why it is alwasy cast that way. It has to be.
|
Loppy Poo
|
this was a good conversation. i miss debates like this
|
Ilona
|
Jonathan Larson's main theme in Rent is "No day but today." So I think the fact that the characters with AIDS don't appear so sick, nor do they seem overly upset about having AIDS is because it is my symbolism than anything else. They're sybolizing that they are not just a big disease. They are people. In one of the lyrics it says "People living with, not dying from disease". So I think the fact they dont' show the actual sickness and all is because these people are showing the insides of how they are coping. Mimi says "There is no future there is no past, I live this moment as my last". She's saying in essence, I know I"m gonna die, but I'm not dead yet, but I may be soon, so why not be happy now.
|
Loppy Poo
|
| Ilona wrote: | | Jonathan Larson's main theme in Rent is "No day but today." So I think the fact that the characters with AIDS don't appear so sick, nor do they seem overly upset about having AIDS is because it is my symbolism than anything else. They're sybolizing that they are not just a big disease. They are people. In one of the lyrics it says "People living with, not dying from disease". So I think the fact they dont' show the actual sickness and all is because these people are showing the insides of how they are coping. Mimi says "There is no future there is no past, I live this moment as my last". She's saying in essence, I know I"m gonna die, but I'm not dead yet, but I may be soon, so why not be happy now. |
oy
|
Ilona
|
No no no...it's Mark that's Jewish, not Mimi.
(refering to your post that said "oy")
|
minesayrejoice
|
Personally, I think having an HIV+ actor in the show would be enough. Not neccessarily as one of the HIV+ charries, but just in the show. It might help those playing the parts to have someone to ask questions of. But, people should be cast based on talent, of course. Not just because they have the disease. And not rejected because of it, either.
|
(Evan)
|
| minesayrejoice wrote: | | Personally, I think having an HIV+ actor in the show would be enough. Not neccessarily as one of the HIV+ charries, but just in the show. It might help those playing the parts to have someone to ask questions of. But, people should be cast based on talent, of course. Not just because they have the disease. And not rejected because of it, either. |
Why do they have to be in the show for the cast to ask questions about the disease?
Evan
|
minesayrejoice
|
1. Since they're at rehearsals, those asking will always know where to find them when they have a question.
2. Who says those asking know anyone with the disease? I don't, or at least i don't know that I do (probably not).
I think it would be helpful to have someone knowledgeable working on the same project as you.
|
DramaRobin2002
|
I think that if they were cast in Rent, they would probably do some research on the subject before hand.
~~~Amy~~~
|
Eponine_Fantine
|
In reference to those who said they would change things about the story....you should keep in mind that changes would probably have been made had Jonathan Larson not passed away so soon after writing the show. I think that the producers and such have kept the show the way it is in order to avoid changing anything Jonathan would not have wanted to change.
|
ShadowInTheWings
|
I think that RENT is a good portrayal of the people living with (and dying from) HIV and AIDS. It's not perfect, nothing's going to be. But this stuff didn't come out of no where; several of Larson's best friends died of AIDS in the late eigthies-early ninties. You have to realize that RENT is a musical, it needs to bring in audiences, so that while AIDS is a horrible thing, the show needed to appeal to people to get them to come see it, to raise awareness.
One thing that I always thought would make it a little less sterotypical is to have Joanne as HIV+, so it's not just the starving artists.
And yeah, in "La Vie Boheme" they sing about "Let he among us without sin be the first to comdemn"- but it's their lifestyle that the rest of the world "condemns" that led them to where they are now. I am NOT saying that all HIV/AIDS victims can be blamed for having the disease, but these particular ones I think can. Roger and Mimi most likely got the disease from sharing needles, and I assume Angel and Collins got it from a partner somewhere along the line. I'm not saying they got it because they are homosexual- for all we know Mimi contracted it from a past relationship (maybe Benny-ooh, plot twist...kidding).
This is the lifestyle they choose, they have to accept the consequences. Their lives may end tragically early, but then again some people never really live at all, and it appears to me that the group in RENT were happy, and led lives they were happy with.
|
RyanJ
|
| ShadowInTheWings wrote: | I think that RENT is a good portrayal of the people living with (and dying from) HIV and AIDS. It's not perfect, nothing's going to be. But this stuff didn't come out of no where; several of Larson's best friends died of AIDS in the late eigthies-early ninties. You have to realize that RENT is a musical, it needs to bring in audiences, so that while AIDS is a horrible thing, the show needed to appeal to people to get them to come see it, to raise awareness.
One thing that I always thought would make it a little less sterotypical is to have Joanne as HIV+, so it's not just the starving artists.
And yeah, in "La Vie Boheme" they sing about "Let he among us without sin be the first to comdemn"- but it's their lifestyle that the rest of the world "condemns" that led them to where they are now. I am NOT saying that all HIV/AIDS victims can be blamed for having the disease, but these particular ones I think can. Roger and Mimi most likely got the disease from sharing needles, and I assume Angel and Collins got it from a partner somewhere along the line. I'm not saying they got it because they are homosexual- for all we know Mimi contracted it from a past relationship (maybe Benny-ooh, plot twist...kidding).
This is the lifestyle they choose, they have to accept the consequences. Their lives may end tragically early, but then again some people never really live at all, and it appears to me that the group in RENT were happy, and led lives they were happy with. |
I'll agree with you on your last point, that they did lead happy lives and were satisfied with what they had, but I think that when they said "Let he among us without sin be the first to condemn" they were referring to other things besides HIV/AIDS, such as homophobia or the treatment of the homeless (as seen in "On The Streets").
|
ShadowInTheWings
|
| RyanJ wrote: | | ShadowInTheWings wrote: | I think that RENT is a good portrayal of the people living with (and dying from) HIV and AIDS. It's not perfect, nothing's going to be. But this stuff didn't come out of no where; several of Larson's best friends died of AIDS in the late eigthies-early ninties. You have to realize that RENT is a musical, it needs to bring in audiences, so that while AIDS is a horrible thing, the show needed to appeal to people to get them to come see it, to raise awareness.
One thing that I always thought would make it a little less sterotypical is to have Joanne as HIV+, so it's not just the starving artists.
And yeah, in "La Vie Boheme" they sing about "Let he among us without sin be the first to comdemn"- but it's their lifestyle that the rest of the world "condemns" that led them to where they are now. I am NOT saying that all HIV/AIDS victims can be blamed for having the disease, but these particular ones I think can. Roger and Mimi most likely got the disease from sharing needles, and I assume Angel and Collins got it from a partner somewhere along the line. I'm not saying they got it because they are homosexual- for all we know Mimi contracted it from a past relationship (maybe Benny-ooh, plot twist...kidding).
This is the lifestyle they choose, they have to accept the consequences. Their lives may end tragically early, but then again some people never really live at all, and it appears to me that the group in RENT were happy, and led lives they were happy with. |
I'll agree with you on your last point, that they did lead happy lives and were satisfied with what they had, but I think that when they said "Let he among us without sin be the first to condemn" they were referring to other things besides HIV/AIDS, such as homophobia or the treatment of the homeless (as seen in "On The Streets"). |
I just reread my post and realized that I had phrased it wrong. What I meant was exactly what you said- the rest of the world condemning them for their homelessness, their lifestyle choices, their addictions, their freedoms, their passions, their whatever. Not neccesarily for thier HIV/AIDS.
Thanks for for pointing that out, my way of putting it was definitely not what I meant to say.
|
RyanJ
|
| ShadowInTheWings wrote: | | RyanJ wrote: | | ShadowInTheWings wrote: | I think that RENT is a good portrayal of the people living with (and dying from) HIV and AIDS. It's not perfect, nothing's going to be. But this stuff didn't come out of no where; several of Larson's best friends died of AIDS in the late eigthies-early ninties. You have to realize that RENT is a musical, it needs to bring in audiences, so that while AIDS is a horrible thing, the show needed to appeal to people to get them to come see it, to raise awareness.
One thing that I always thought would make it a little less sterotypical is to have Joanne as HIV+, so it's not just the starving artists.
And yeah, in "La Vie Boheme" they sing about "Let he among us without sin be the first to comdemn"- but it's their lifestyle that the rest of the world "condemns" that led them to where they are now. I am NOT saying that all HIV/AIDS victims can be blamed for having the disease, but these particular ones I think can. Roger and Mimi most likely got the disease from sharing needles, and I assume Angel and Collins got it from a partner somewhere along the line. I'm not saying they got it because they are homosexual- for all we know Mimi contracted it from a past relationship (maybe Benny-ooh, plot twist...kidding).
This is the lifestyle they choose, they have to accept the consequences. Their lives may end tragically early, but then again some people never really live at all, and it appears to me that the group in RENT were happy, and led lives they were happy with. |
I'll agree with you on your last point, that they did lead happy lives and were satisfied with what they had, but I think that when they said "Let he among us without sin be the first to condemn" they were referring to other things besides HIV/AIDS, such as homophobia or the treatment of the homeless (as seen in "On The Streets"). |
I just reread my post and realized that I had phrased it wrong. What I meant was exactly what you said- the rest of the world condemning them for their homelessness, their lifestyle choices, their addictions, their freedoms, their passions, their whatever. Not neccesarily for thier HIV/AIDS.
Thanks for for pointing that out, my way of putting it was definitely not what I meant to say. |
No problem
I've done that plenty of times myself
|
SnowFlakeKisses
|
I read all the posts and I want to say Tucker I'm sorry for your disease but I do think that you brought up a good point with this post, as someone already said RENT doesn't glorify the life of someone with the HIV/AIDS virus but it does show awareness, I don't think that someone with HIV/AIDS should be granted the part because of the disease they have but I also don't think that they should be discriminated against it also, if they audition and deliver the part with passion and conviction then that itself says enough, if you want something bad enough then go for it like Tucker said "HIV is not a death sentence"
|
