HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 30, 2005 I must first write a disclaimer. I am a huge fan of the stage musical. With that said, I want to tell the reasons why I liked and disliked the movie 'Rent'. First off, it was awesome, yet awkward to see the original cast perform. Some of the cast had gone onto bigger and better things following their success on Broadway. Some had never left the stage and it was noticeable. For instance, the powerful voice of the actor playing Roger, Adam Pascal, the main character, could allow you to forgive his deadpan expressions throughout the film. Although I had seen him in movies such as School of Rock, the emotion in his face did not often fit the up close and personal affect of cinema. The same could be said for Jesse L. Martin who played Tom Collins. After being on television for years on Law & Order, I would have expected some, not all, of his delivery to be stronger. I can understand, however, that some of the music was changed to dialogue, a good director's choice since it allowed the actors to ground themselves in reality rather than a totally phony existence involved in musicals (see movie like Chicago and Moulin Rouge). Aside from the singing, which is at once magical and devastating, the movie works on so many levels, giving the audience not prone to attending the theatre a chance to see the story from a visual standpoint. Only one scene bugged but not for the beauty of the scenery but because it did not jell will the rest of the imagery. Overall the film was a toe-tapping, entertaining ride through the time when AIDS seemed untreatable and yet people still found hope in each other. Some critical analysis has missed the mark, calling the film "too late" or not relating to our times. In the beginning it tells you that it is 1989. It means it is a pseudo-modern period piece. No such criticisms exist for films like Chicago or Troy, do they? The second criticism, actually brought up by VH-1's parade of C-list talent on "The Best Week Ever" is that it was being sold as a love story but it wasn't. This is untrue. It is the story of love for friends and lovers alike and how that love should not be broken over petty bickering because, in the end, the argument didn't really matter. It is the love that is important. As a musical goes, it is top-notch. The tragedy behind the story is the death of creator Jonathan Larson before the musical was to move from a small experimental space to the lights of Broadway where it captured the hearts of almost everyone who saw it. Now more Americans can share his vision and the story, based on the opera La Boheme, in a more accessible format. I would give this film a 8 out of 10 star rating because, while the music is inspired and the acting well done, the story, at times, seems a little rushed. Also, to adapt it to the screen, some liberties were taken without necessity. Moving songs around or omitting some is one thing but the reason the stage production worked so well was the linear feeling. Maybe I am biased because I have seen the stage production and listened to the soundtrack a number of times, reliving the production I saw over and over. I just think that removing certain elements did not make sense. The story: A group of out of work artists live in an apartment in New York and have to figure out how to find themselves. What works: The music and the performances and the energy of the cast. What doesn't: Some alternating wooden performance by two of the leads. Rating: 8 out 10 stars. ------------ About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist. Email: nicholasjolson@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
