Jump to content
Cameron H.

Musical Mondays-Week 8-Rent

Recommended Posts

Are you watching Father Ted now? Beware of Spider-Babies. They have the body of a spider, but the mind of a baby...

 

ETA: I'm thinking of starting a cooking blog. I'll let you know when I get started with it :)

 

I watched the first 2 episodes of Father Ted. It's grand (not sure if this is correct usage).

Yes, definitely start a food blog. Post some mandarin recipes.

 

I see what you did there

 

tumblr_mn4f9aJNai1s5h9x0o1_500.gif

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I hope it's just quiet tonight because you're all busy revelling in the magic of the stage version.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was playing a video game, but I will mention I've never tried Indian food. I am a wimp when it comes to spices.

 

On the food topic, the guy running the restaurant was a total wimp for someone not wanting them in his establishment lol

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I was playing a video game, but I will mention I've never tried Indian food. I am a wimp when it comes to spices.

 

On the food topic, the guy running the restaurant was a total wimp for someone not wanting them in his establishment lol

 

Mass Effect?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Mass Effect?

When I first read this I thought you were talking about mass effect as in a crowd pushing its way through into the restaurant. Then I realized you were asking which video game. Congratulations on a multi-dimensional comment!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Feel very late to this all and will have to flip through my notes for things not mentioned.

 

Some of this will be a bit of a rehash but I just want to get a bit aboard the whole why are they so hard on Benny train. Feel free to ITSV me because I haven't had time to watch it, but from what I get is Mark, Roger, Tom, and Benny use to all live in that apartment together. Maybe Maureen too or she was dating Mark but that's not the point. Some point during this Benny met a girl who happened to be from a rich family, feel in love and run off to be with her. Now she was rich and set him up with a job from her father who happened to own the building and surrounding properties in which he lived with his friends. Now because he's living this rich lifestyle he's "the man" and a "sell out" instead of their old friend. I feel a very key part of this story is missing though. What did Benny want to be? Mark, aspiring film maker. Roger, musician. Tom, scholar. Was Benny an aspiring artist of some sort? Did he let his dream die to be with the woman? This would help explain some of the hostility towards him because otherwise he's just doing his job. Otherwise, if he was just a young person trying to scrape by who happened to fall in love why would they be so mad? While we're at it he's bending over backwards to be kind to his old friends and try to do his work but they do nothing but shit on him and try to screw him over. He even offers them a free place, and free use of Cyberplace if they help him and Mark is disgusted by this, but yet later he "sells out" and gets a job and uses their equipment for his movie making for free which was basically what Benny was offering him. If Benny was secretly a social climber looking to sell out and climb the later why would he try so hard to help his friends or let things slide? Those two concepts seem at odds.

 

Also, why are they fighting so hard to save tent city? Now, I don't want to come down on the homeless too hard, but they are trespassing on property right? It's sad that they have no where to go, but you know maybe instead of trying to help save the property they're squatting on, maybe volunteer at a homeless shelter or something that would actually help them more. Also what about the businesses and other people in the area? I'm sure they might not all agree. Rather, like the scene with the homeless lady that Mark tries to document, they're doing this for themselves. Its not that they're starving artist who also fight social causes rather they're fighting gentrification to protect their identity as an artist. "Hey homeless people good news I spent a lot of money and time to make a performance art piece to protect your right to live here in the cold and dirt of this abandoned lot. True, I could have spent that time trying to raise awareness of the issue of homelessness in the city or provide you with food, blankets, or clothing, but I didn't want to ruin our bohemian lifestyle. La vie boheme!"

 

Again like mentioned before this would be easily forgivable if I wasn't 33 and jaded and neither were the actors.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Also hate to make this a separate post but it's not Rent related so wanted to give it a bit of space. If you aren't good with spicy hot stuff samosas are a wonderful Indian dish. Like these Indian dumplings and they are divine. Aside from mutton vindaloo (also my favourite) it's my favourite Indian dish.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Oof. I read the first page of notes, which reminded me that I was so meh about the movie and the idea of getting into details on it, along with the reminders about how much better the stage version is (which, as I say, when I saw it live in 1999, I loved) but which I haven't revisited, and I think I'm just going to tap out this week guys. You've all covered it pretty nicely (having not read pages 2-7 in the notes).

 

Here's the things I would have posted yesterday had I been on my computer.

 

- The first guy to sing in the 'Will I Lose My Dignity' song is Aaron Lohr, who plays Dean Portman in the Mighty Ducks movies.

dean-portman.jpg

- I found this David Rakoff interview with Ira Glass, which I liked. I'll quote it in full, although it probably covers things we've already brought up.

There are 525,600 minutes in a year. I learned that from watching Rent. From watching Rent, I also learned that the best way to mark the passing of these 525,600 minutes would be to measure them out into something Jonathan Larson, the writer of the musical, called seasons of love. What does that even mean, seasons of love? In Rent, the characters live out their seasons of love in huge lofts. Some of them have AIDS, which is, coincidentally, also the name of the dreaded global pandemic that is still raging and has killed millions of people worldwide. In Rent, however, AIDS seems to be a disease that renders one cuter and cuter.

 

The characters are artists, creative types. They have tattered a million clothes. Some of them are homosexual, and the ones who aren't homosexual don't even seem to mind. They screen their calls, and when it is their parents, they roll their eyes. They hate their parents. They're never going back to Larchmont, no way. They will stay here, living in their 2,000 square feet of picturesque poverty, being sexually free and creative.

 

Here's some ways to broadcast creativity in a movie. Start plinking out a tune on a piano, scratch a few notes on some music paper, plink some more, suddenly crash both hands down on the keyboard then bring them quickly up to your head and grab the hair at your temples, screaming, "It won't work!" Or sit at a typewriter, reading the page you've just written, realize that it's shit, and tear it from the platen and toss it behind you. Cut to waste paper basket overflowing with crumpled paper.

 

Here's what they do in Rent to show that they are creative-- nothing! They do nothing!

 

They hang out. And hanging out can be marvelous, but hanging out does not make you an artist. A secondhand wardrobe does not make you an artist. Neither do a hair trigger temper, melancholic nature, propensity for tears, hating your parents, nor even HIV. I hate to say it. None of these can make you an artist. They can help. But just as being gay does not make one witty, you can suck a mile of cock-- it does not make you Oscar Wilde. Believe me, I know. I've tried.

 

The only thing that makes you an artist is making art, and that takes the opposite of hanging out. So when they sing the anthem of the show, that's a lie, really. Every song in the show is an anthem delivered with adolescent earnestness. It's like being trapped in the pages of a teenager's diary. So when they think the title anthem of the show, "We're Not Going to Pay This Year's Rent," followed by a kind of barked cheer of "rent, rent, rent, rent, rent, rent, rent," my only question is, well, why aren't you going to pay this year's rent?

 

It seems that they're not going to pay this year's rent, because rent is for losers and non-creative types. Rent is for suits. By contrast, they are the last bastion of artistic purity. They have not sold out. And yet their brilliance goes unacknowledged, so fuck you, yuppie scum.

 

I know what it's like to feel angry and ignored. I lived in Brooklyn a long time ago about a block away from a prison. During the day, the neighborhood bustled with lawyers, judges, criminals, bail bondsman, private detectives. I lived on a block in a little two-story building that once been a couch house in the 19th century. And the basement had a red dirt floor. On the ground floor below me was an office that did-- what, exactly, resumes? I can't remember.

 

What I do remember is the man whose office it was. Raul was knee-bucklingly handsome. If my life had been different, like-- I don't know-- if I were a hot girl with a driver's license, I could have put on a tube top and gone outside to wash my car in slow motion or something. But, alas.

 

Once during the day-- it must've been the weekend, because I was at home-- I could hear Raul having sex in the office downstairs. I skittered around my apartment like a cockroach on a frying pan trying not to make any noise while desperately looking for a knot hole in the crappy floorboards. Eventually, I just lay down flat against the tile of the kitchen floor, listening.

 

Lying flat against the tile of my kitchen floor, listening to someone else have sex is essentially my 20s in a nutshell. I was robbed in that neighborhood twice. And there were days when it hardly seemed worth it to live in a horrible part of town just so that I could go daily to a stupid, soul-crushing, low-paying job, especially since, as deeply as I yearned to be creative, for years and years I was too scared to even try. So I did nothing. But here's something that I did do. I paid my fucking rent.

 

 

- Then there's this article: https://thinkprogres...bc0b#.ttwjzusjt

 

I know, I know, I'm being the guy I was mad at last week for posting before I've read the thread, but hopefully this isn't complete repetition.

 

Good pick, Cinco! Sorry I wasn't around to get into it more with you all.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

What did Benny want to be? Mark, aspiring film maker. Roger, musician. Tom, scholar. Was Benny an aspiring artist of some sort? Did he let his dream die to be with the woman? T

 

Here's my guess:

 

That was Benny's apartment from the get-go and he let his friends live there with him. I don't think he was ever an "artist" but he wouldn't necessarily have to be to be friends with them or be a part of their scene. My theory is that he saw how run down that area of town had become and wanted to revitalize it in some way. Maybe he grew up there or something? Regardless, when he starts out, his intentions and ideals are pure, but as he is traveling in these circles he meets a woman whose father is a big deal real estate broker. Instead of working toward his goal and making it on his own, he marries this man's daughter as a matter of convenience. Since he still wants to improve the neighborhood, he probably doesn't see this as "selling out" so much as "buying in." Ultimately, though, he is seduced by the material comforts wealth grants him and instead of trying to renovate Alphabet City because it's the right thing to do, he's doing it as a way to make more money.

 

In this way, his "sin" would be a mirror of Mark's and this is why Mark is so despondent over the tabloid news opportunity. He sees it as a bite of the apple that corrupted one of his best friends and he doesn't want to go down that route.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Oof. I read the first page of notes, which reminded me that I was so meh about the movie and the idea of getting into details on it, along with the reminders about how much better the stage version is (which, as I say, when I saw it live in 1999, I loved) but which I haven't revisited, and I think I'm just going to tap out this week guys. You've all covered it pretty nicely (having not read pages 2-7 in the notes).

 

poster_benny.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I finally read through all seven pages and I'm relieved to know I didn't double-post. Now I'll add something that hasn't been said yet, that might be controversial.

 

I think 'Rent' only succeeded the way it did because Jonathon Larson died.

 

So. Hear me out. Larson was a struggling waiter in New York, writing little musicals for his friends (including 'Tick Tick Boom' which still gets remounted sometimes), when he started work on 'Rent'. As we've discussed, he adapted 'La Boheme' into something that spoke to his experience struggling on the Lower East Side, wrote some good songs, cobbled together some ideas, and right when they were about to premiere the show, he died unexpectedly. I'll quote an essay a friend of mine wrote, because she says it better than I do:

 

 

 

Jonathan, in case you missed it, died at the age of 35 of a aortic aneurysm on January 25, 1996. The night before his now phenomenally successful Rent, then tiny, edgy rock opera, was to have its first preview at the New York Theatre Workshop in downtown Manhattan. The preview was officially canceled, but Jonathan’s friends and family were invited to come to the theater and see the show, but to avoid getting caught up in technical elements, the cast would just sit at tables and chairs and sing through the show. In the opening verse of “La Vie Boheme,” Anthony Rapp, who played Mark, got up on the table as he did in the show; the audience response was overwhelming, and the cast chose to go forward with Act II fully staged, with all costumes, props, lights, etc. After the Act II finale, the audience sat in silence for some time before one voice called out, “Thank you, Jonathan Larson,” and the room erupted into applause.

 

Larson's death was used as the trigger to get the piece up and running (not in a ghoulish way, but the romantic story of this struggling man coming up with the seed of an idea but not seeing it realised was too good for producers to pass up) so the bare-bones, raw production was picked up, restaged, and exploded on to Broadway, all carried along on the tide of Larson's memory. But that meant that the process of developing it - "who do you think you are, barging in on me and my guitar" (ouch) - STOPPED because we can't mess with the 'vision' of Larson. But. Larson's estate then took all of the credit and royalties, which meant a landmark case for Lynn Thomson, the dramaturg who worked with him to beat it into something vaguely playable. This is an important moment for dramaturgs (I am one), as it speaks to the advocacy of the dramaturg's role. You can read more about that here: https://www.backstage.com/news/rent-dramaturg-sues-larson-estate/

 

Next, the structural strength of 'Rent' is in its source material - we forgive the dead dog because it was in Puccini first, for example, which means Larson's storytelling relies entirely on 'La Boheme'. So, the hard work was done for him - the storytelling - which led to the only concern being finding parallels and writing the music. This is all very hard work, don't get me wrong, but it must be said. Add to that, there's some evidence Larson plagiarised some elements from the production, as outlined here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2005/11/sarah_schulman.html

 

The terrible TV show 'Smash' stole the idea of 'Rent' and Larson's death verbatim, restaging that 'Thank you Jonathon Larson' moment in an awful way, but it made it clear that there's nothing better for business than getting behind a tragedy that gets people in the door. I truly believe that the flaws in 'Rent' might have been removed with some more development, but Larson's death ended that opportunity, because people leave it as a 'tribute' to him, despite the fact that the authorship is murky.

 

TL/DR: 'Rent' is great, but it was the death of the composer than made it a smash hit. Larson doesn't die, 'Rent' doesn't fly.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I finally read through all seven pages and I'm relieved to know I didn't double-post. Now I'll add something that hasn't been said yet, that might be controversial.

 

I think 'Rent' only succeeded the way it did because Jonathon Larson died.

 

So. Hear me out. Larson was a struggling waiter in New York, writing little musicals for his friends (including 'Tick Tick Boom' which still gets remounted sometimes), when he started work on 'Rent'. As we've discussed, he adapted 'La Boheme' into something that spoke to his experience struggling on the Lower East Side, wrote some good songs, cobbled together some ideas, and right when they were about to premiere the show, he died unexpectedly. I'll quote an essay a friend of mine wrote, because she says it better than I do:

 

 

 

Larson's death was used as the trigger to get the piece up and running (not in a ghoulish way, but the romantic story of this struggling man coming up with the seed of an idea but not seeing it realised was too good for producers to pass up) so the bare-bones, raw production was picked up, restaged, and exploded on to Broadway, all carried along on the tide of Larson's memory. But that meant that the process of developing it - "who do you think you are, barging in on me and my guitar" (ouch) - STOPPED because we can't mess with the 'vision' of Larson. But. Larson's estate then took all of the credit and royalties, which meant a landmark case for Lynn Thomson, the dramaturg who worked with him to beat it into something vaguely playable. This is an important moment for dramaturgs (I am one), as it speaks to the advocacy of the dramaturg's role. You can read more about that here: https://www.backstage.com/news/rent-dramaturg-sues-larson-estate/

 

Next, the structural strength of 'Rent' is in its source material - we forgive the dead dog because it was in Puccini first, for example, which means Larson's storytelling relies entirely on 'La Boheme'. So, the hard work was done for him - the storytelling - which led to the only concern being finding parallels and writing the music. This is all very hard work, don't get me wrong, but it must be said. Add to that, there's some evidence Larson plagiarised some elements from the production, as outlined here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2005/11/sarah_schulman.html

 

The terrible TV show 'Smash' stole the idea of 'Rent' and Larson's death verbatim, restaging that 'Thank you Jonathon Larson' moment in an awful way, but it made it clear that there's nothing better for business than getting behind a tragedy that gets people in the door. I truly believe that the flaws in 'Rent' might have been removed with some more development, but Larson's death ended that opportunity, because people leave it as a 'tribute' to him, despite the fact that the authorship is murky.

 

TL/DR: 'Rent' is great, but it was the death of the composer than made it a smash hit. Larson doesn't die, 'Rent' doesn't fly.

 

I saw this before I knew that story. I liked the stage version quit a bit. I'm sure it helped get it out there initially, but it had to have resonated with people on some level. The romantic death of the creator just before opening night might give it a bump of notoriety, but something more would be required to give it the longevity it has enjoyed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I saw this before I knew that story. I liked the stage version quit a bit. I'm sure it helped get it out there initially, but it had to have resonated with people on some level. The romantic death of the creator just before opening night might give it a bump of notoriety, but something more would be required to give it the longevity it has enjoyed.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's not good, I'm saying that Broadway, of all places, is a place where the hot new ticket gets lauded and elevated so high that it's impossible to separate frenzied panic-buying of tickets from quality. 'Hamilton' is an example of something that's really good, sold well into the future, that people bought like crazy because of the IDEA of that show, not because they knew the show. It's self-perpetuating: it is the hot ticket, they all get snapped up, the hardcore fans come back again and again, the casual fans want to get in because it's hard to. BUT. In the clear light of day, looking back on the show without any of the frenzy, some of them don't stack up. Look at the frenzy-buying examples of 'Once', 'Book of Mormon', and (especially) 'Spring Awakening' to see shows that are pretty good, but not necessarily deserving of the frenzies.

 

I know this might be contentious, but my job as a dramaturg is to pull things apart and look at them from their structural points, and each of these examples (except 'Hamilton', that's a miracle show) do the same thing: BIG frenzy for a couple of years, which builds a ready-made audience of hardcore fans which drags more people in from outside, and before you know it, it's a mainstay. But NONE of these frenzy-buying plays (including 'Rent') are still on Broadway. Okay, maybe 'Wicked' and 'The Lion King'. But these other ones (I HATED 'Once') have the staying power, which speaks to the relative weakness of the content.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

"Hey homeless people good news I spent a lot of money and time to make a performance art piece to protect your right to live here in the cold and dirt of this abandoned lot. True, I could have spent that time trying to raise awareness of the issue of homelessness in the city or provide you with food, blankets, or clothing, but I didn't want to ruin our bohemian lifestyle. La vie boheme!"

This does get specifically called out in the movie by that homeless black lady who yells at Mark. He films the cops harassing her and she's like uhm excuse me unless you've got a dollar get the fuck out of my business. But then they move on and don't learn anything from that experience.

 

That message also doesn't really hold much truth now considering the climate of police vs. citizens of color (particularly black citizens) and how they very much WANT people to be there with cameras making sure all of the shit they deal with is caught. But the difference being that it's not for "art" as much as proof that racism is still very much alive in this country.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, I finally read through all seven pages and I'm relieved to know I didn't double-post. Now I'll add something that hasn't been said yet, that might be controversial.

 

I think 'Rent' only succeeded the way it did because Jonathon Larson died.

 

Nah, it might have been controversial back in 1996, but it's not really anymore. I can't find the article, but even Daphne Rubin Vega says as much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nah, it might have been controversial back in 1996, but it's not really anymore. I can't find the article, but even Daphne Rubin Vega says as much.

Oh good! I'll look for the article too. But I mostly meant controversial in the fact that most people in here seemed to like the stage musical a bunch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

CakeBug thank you for not bowing out because this line alone is officially my favorite thing ever -

 

But just as being gay does not make one witty, you can suck a mile of cock-- it does not make you Oscar Wilde. Believe me, I know. I've tried.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

As far as plagiarism claims:

 

lead_large.jpg

 

 

The first image is from Neil Gaiman's Book of Magic about a bespectacled, dark haired English Boy who becomes a wizard. He has a pet owl. I'm not sure who the other picture is of. ;)

 

The point is, Gaiman's version of a boy destined to be the greatest wizard ever came years before Harry Potter, and while people pressed him to sue Rowling, he never did. I can't find his exact quote, but basically he said they were both writing against the blond-haired, blue-eyed, jock, archetype which had been the standard shorthand for "hero" for years. To each of them, the opposite of this archetype was brown-haired, brown-eyed, nerd. So it's not insane to think that they both created similar characters. There are others who have sued her and failed on similar grounds. They failed because even though their characters were similar (right down to the name in some cases) their circulation was so low, the chances Rowling had ever seen them was almost nil.

 

The problem is, unless you have evidence of someone breaking into your house and stealing your manuscript, it's really hard to prove plagiarism.

 

I vividly remember writing a song one day and really liking where it was going. Suddenly, I stopped and sped up the riff and realized I had just "wrote" "Enter Sandman." I also started writing a novel about a normal boy who dresses up like a superhero and finds himself in over his head. A year later, Kick-Ass by Mark Millar was published.

 

It just doesn't sound like her story was so original that someone else couldn't have written something remarkably similar.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Cameron, to add to your point, this happens in comedy ALL THE TIME! I keep hearing comedians talk about premises they came up with and then the next month they have to scrap them because they saw someone do the same premise on Conan. When something happens now that provides a good joke you'll see comedians flock to twitter to get it in first so they can be the one to use it later, cause they all know they're thinking the same thing. It seems like when you have an artistic mind (or a comedic mind - which I guess is artistic too nevermind lol) your going to follow a lot of the same paths as other artists.

 

I'm glad that Neil Gaiman realized that it was more than possible for the two of them to have the same ideas, cause I don't know where I would be without Harry Potter lol. Also I mean look at that skateboard lol - totally different!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Cameron, to add to your point, this happens in comedy ALL THE TIME! I keep hearing comedians talk about premises they came up with and then the next month they have to scrap them because they saw someone do the same premise on Conan. When something happens now that provides a good joke you'll see comedians flock to twitter to get it in first so they can be the one to use it later, cause they all know they're thinking the same thing. It seems like when you have an artistic mind (or a comedic mind - which I guess is artistic too nevermind lol) your going to follow a lot of the same paths as other artists.

 

I'm glad that Neil Gaiman realized that it was more than possible for the two of them to have the same ideas, cause I don't know where I would be without Harry Potter lol. Also I mean look at that skateboard lol - totally different!

 

There was a Cracked article the other day making fun of Mike Huckabee's dumb tweets and that night Patton Oswalt was on Jimmy Kimmel performing them as stand-up.

 

The sooner people don't realize they aren't original, the better. I have. I used to be hung up on originality and it wouldn't get me anywhere. I recognize that the thing that I've been working off and on for the past year isn't groundbreakingly original. My goal is just to make it the best version of that story I possibly can.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, I'm not suggesting it's not good, I'm saying that Broadway, of all places, is a place where the hot new ticket gets lauded and elevated so high that it's impossible to separate frenzied panic-buying of tickets from quality. 'Hamilton' is an example of something that's really good, sold well into the future, that people bought like crazy because of the IDEA of that show, not because they knew the show. It's self-perpetuating: it is the hot ticket, they all get snapped up, the hardcore fans come back again and again, the casual fans want to get in because it's hard to. BUT. In the clear light of day, looking back on the show without any of the frenzy, some of them don't stack up. Look at the frenzy-buying examples of 'Once', 'Book of Mormon', and (especially) 'Spring Awakening' to see shows that are pretty good, but not necessarily deserving of the frenzies.

 

I know this might be contentious, but my job as a dramaturg is to pull things apart and look at them from their structural points, and each of these examples (except 'Hamilton', that's a miracle show) do the same thing: BIG frenzy for a couple of years, which builds a ready-made audience of hardcore fans which drags more people in from outside, and before you know it, it's a mainstay. But NONE of these frenzy-buying plays (including 'Rent') are still on Broadway. Okay, maybe 'Wicked' and 'The Lion King'. But these other ones (I HATED 'Once') have the staying power, which speaks to the relative weakness of the content.

 

Not sure I would lump Rent in with Once and Spring Awakening. Rent ran for 12 years on Broadway and it's now on "tour." I think that's pretty good for something that became dated so fast. Also, Book of Mormon is one of my favorite musicals of all time. I get the hype.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 

Not sure I would lump Rent in with Once and Spring Awakening. Rent ran for 12 years on Broadway and it's now on "tour." I think that's pretty good for something that became dated so fast. Also, Book of Mormon is one of my favorite musicals of all time. I get the hype.

No, I get you. I just hear things in 'Rent' that sound so 90's much in the way that Dame Sir Andrew's synths make 'Phantom' sound, and that takes me right back to that time and place. 'Rent' is absolutely strong, in many, many ways, but to get the bump from NYTW to Broadway - where Steven Spielberg showed up for the second show because of the buzz around the composer's death before the first show made it immediately must-see - was something that, if it were written in a script, you'd write off as outlandish.

 

Mormon's fine. I saw it once, was so glad I didn't pay $1500 to see it on Broadway. I would totally pay that to see Hamilton, had I the money, but Mormon? Once was enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

No, I get you. I just hear things in 'Rent' that sound so 90's much in the way that Dame Sir Andrew's synths make 'Phantom' sound, and that takes me right back to that time and place. 'Rent' is absolutely strong, in many, many ways, but to get the bump from NYTW to Broadway - where Steven Spielberg showed up for the second show because of the buzz around the composer's death before the first show made it immediately must-see - was something that, if it were written in a script, you'd write off as outlandish.

 

Mormon's fine. I saw it once, was so glad I didn't pay $1500 to see it on Broadway. I would totally pay that to see Hamilton, had I the money, but Mormon? Once was enough.

 

Here's my thing: what else was going on on Broadway in 1996? It sounds like you're attributing its success on its creators death, and I'm not saying that wasn't a contributing factor, but maybe it really was the best thing going on at that time...

 

ETA: I also love the Book of Mormon.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Here's my thing: what else was going on on Broadway in 1996? It sounds like you're attributing its success on its creators death, and I'm not saying that wasn't a contributing factor, but maybe it really was the best thing going on at that time...

 

ETA: I also love the Book of Mormon.

No, the point is that without Larson's death, the question is, would the buzz have been the same? All I'm saying is that it might have been a well-received little show that ran Off-Broadway for a while. Lots of great shows don't make it to Broadway, but the bump that his death gave made the buzz explode. It's a crowded marketplace, and without deep pockets behind you (and from all the oral histories, many investors were put off by the music and the subject matter) no matter how good you are, you're going to struggle.

 

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical#1990s

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Mormon's fine. I saw it once, was so glad I didn't pay $1500 to see it on Broadway. I would totally pay that to see Hamilton, had I the money, but Mormon? Once was enough.

 

Noooooo I didn't pay $1500. I went a few years after it opened, when ticket prices were more reasonable (on top of the discount through work). Didn't see any of the original cast, but Ben Platt was Elder Cunningham, and I'm going to see him again in May in Dear Evan Hansen. I'm very excite.

 

ETA: WTF, name confusion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×