Rent

(l to r) – Adam Pascal, Rosario Dawson, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms, Anthony Rapp
and Jesse L. Martin star in Revolution Studios’ rock opera RENT,
a Columbia Pictures release. Photo by: Phil Bray

 
“525,600 minutes… How do you measure a year?” This is the song that opens the film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize-winning musical “Rent.”

At first, the song, which is performed with the principal actors together on a stage, seems a Broadway cliché. However, that impression will change by the reprise near the end of the film. The stage fades to black, and makes way for Mark Cohen’s (Anthony Rapp) 8mm documentary of bohemian life in the East Village of New York City.

On Christmas Eve, 1989, developer Benny Coffin (Taye Diggs) demands rent from his tenants. They refuse by breaking into song, naturally. Roger (Adam Pascal) tells us… er, sings,”The narration crackles and pops with incendiary wit.” Well, no, not exactly… but I’ll get back to that.

Benny’s father helped finance the purchase of the lofts which he wants to develop into a more lucrative property. Maureen (Idina Menzel), Mark’s ex-girlfriend, is protesting the impending evictions. However, Benny asks Marc to help end Maureen’s planned protest (which takes the form of a one-person performance piece).

In “One Song – GLORY,” Roger connects us to the melody from Musetta’s Waltz in Puccini’s La Boheme (the play which inspired this musical). It’s revealed that he is, like several of the other characters, HIV positive. There’s a fascinating shot here near the transition point between his number and Mimi’s (Rosario Dawson) to follow, as he descends the staircase the light fades and Mimi comes up with a candle—only her face illuminated. And here’s where I have a difficulty with this movie.

First, I’ll admit to you I’m not a huge fan of musicals—much less musicals on film. In numbers like “Light My Candle,” the songwriting falls into that abysmal style of reciting actions as they’re being depicted on screen. Roger and Mimi share an unnecessary exchange in song, “Oh the wax, it’s dripping/I like it between my…/fingers.” When Mark describes to Maureen’s new girlfriend, Joanne (Tracie Thorns), the way that Maureen’s flighty personality resembles a tango, Maureen’s theatre becomes a ballroom. Mark and Joanne’s conversation becomes an actual tango. However, the latter works well because it’s imagined.

Not only is this somewhat redundant exposition from a cinematic point of view, but it’s also borders precariously on mediocrity. Great art transcends with ideas to a level that specific actions and incidents cannot move one’s imagination. A concept in song can evoke many images, whereas a person, place or a thing can evoke only one. Additionally, in film the energy of a live stage performance, which compensates for otherwise ridiculously maudlin lyrics, is lost on the audience. Most of the song numbers, at least in the first half, have no sense of spontaneity and the actors don’t sell them.

By contrast, “Chicago” and “Moulin Rouge” had two things going for them: More experienced actors and structures that made the musical numbers plausible. In “Chicago” the songs were either metaphorical (as when Richard Gere is introduced doing a tap dance because, well, he’s a lawyer and that’s what they do), or imagined (it’s implied in most instances that Roxie is fantasizing when the dialogue turns to music). In “Moulin Rouge,” the entire atmosphere is so outrageous that, by association alone, the musical performances don’t seem any weirder than any other component in the frenetically-paced, Absinthe-drowned mania.

As I mentioned, we’re introduced to Mimi, Roger’s on-off girlfriend, who works as a dancer at the Cat Scratch Club and contracts HIV through drug use. Adding to their tense relationship, Roger resents Mimi’s addiction because he contracted HIV by way of a former lover’s drug use. There’s also Maureen, a performance artist, and the aforementioned Joanne—an attorney. But most central to the story is the relationship between the caring Tom Collins (Jesse L. Martin), who was expelled from MIT for his “theory of actual reality” and scene-stealer Angel Schunard (Wilson Jermaine Heredia).

While the subplot regarding the various HIV positive characters in the play is such a well-known fact that it’s even been trivialized by the creators of South Park (see “Team America”), the film does not dwell heavily on it. Instead, the most personal moments are shared for a few middle-act scenes involving an HIV positive support group and the failing health of Angel. This becomes the turning point in the film by which time I felt like I really knew and empathized with these characters.

Why is it that so many films get adapted into musicals or plays, but musicals get adapted into film musicals (and not films)? It would be intriguing to have seen “Rent” adapted into a story with allegorical exposition rather than song, where the ideas could be conveyed in direct images and dialogues on which the mind could focus—rather than trying to sort itself out through dialogues, songs and actions that, to me, seem to be constantly resisting each other for your attention. But that’s wishful thinking. I still must assess this film for what it is, and not what I want it to be.

That being said, sparse as they are, there are some excellent prosaic moments in the film, such as when a homeless woman is being accosted by the police. Mark films the moment, but the woman doesn’t appreciate it. Instead, she scolds him, “He’s just filming to kill his guilt… Hey artist, you got a dollar?” After filming a riot at Maureen’s protest and the police brutality that follows, Marc oddly winds up with an opportunity to work for Buzzline, a major news program. He considers it selling out. I wonder what he thinks of a major Broadway play about Bohemians getting remade into a film by Columbia Pictures…

At the turn of that decade in particular, some will wonder, why would people at the height of AIDS-awareness and the depth of economic downturn engage in drug usage and promiscuous sex, risking HIV, and also refuse to pay their rent? That’s not an interesting question for a critic to ask. It’s obvious that, as Bohemians, this is the value system they’ve chosen, for whatever reasons… The two bigger questions are: 1. Why must love and joy be “punished” by disease and death? (please, no letters about the moral or religious consequences… such responses still don’t actually answer my question), and 2. Can I, as a critic, review this film from the perspective of accepting the value systems that apply/are applied within it?

The first is, of course, a rhetorical question the film thrusts toward us, demanding our consideration… Not by throwing gay relationships in our face, but by failing to differentiate them from the others, and endearing them (especially Tom and Angel) both as individuals to us, so that when things turn for the worse we cannot help but care. One audience member’s reactions to the cross-dressing Angel turned from “ugh”s to sobs over the course of the movie.

Note that, of all the relationships, the couple whose love is most threatened by AIDS is Tom and Angel. They’re also the couple that doesn’t fight, doesn’t cheat on each other, and, by all accounts, seem to be the most enthusiastic about their life and relationship. The others greatly envy Tom and Angel for what they have together… as well they should.

Bohemians, like all other components of an economy or an ecosystem, have their role to play. Without art, by what do we define the unique culture that fuels both supply and demand? The residents of the East Village in “Rent” are an integral part of the economic potential of that area as much as the legendary CBGB, founded in the 1970s by Hilly Kristal and recently threatened with eviction, is an integral part of the Bowery District’s culture. It can be argued that the property values in the district that are now being demanded by the Bowery Residents Committee are a direct result of the very presence of CBGB. Likewise, it can be argued that the culturally and artistically diverse group of residents of the East Village in this movie are much needed by Benny. Land is scarce everywhere in New York. Thus, what else, other than these individuals’ presence, adds exceptional value to the East Village?

Rent • Dolby® Digital surround sound in select theatres • Running Time: 135 minutes • MPAA Rating: PG-13 for mature thematic material involving drugs and sexuality, and for some strong language. • Distributed by Columbia Pictures