I never saw Rent onstage, but as a teacher of high school students was well aware of the complete fanatical devotion to this piece of theatre that was almost universal. My critical viewing classes expressed interest in seeing it when we did movie musicals, so I decided to screen it as a possible candidate.
My background is musical theatre and I am well aware of the difficulty in transferring a stage show like this to film, with all the inherent unbelievability that might occur. But I have to say that his film moved me, excited me, inspired me and certainly made me realize why it is so appealing to the younger audiences.
I think that Columbus is so underrated as a director. The choices he made in bringing this to the screen--no the least of which is casting the original actors when possible--show a real feel for the material and a respect for the intent. Who cares that they are not the right age? You simply don't care because you become involved with their stories. He also makes the whole situation, bursting into song seem completely normal and if you can't accept it, maybe musicals just aren't your thing. I thought it was visually exciting as well, but he also knows how to just let the camera roll so we get continuous takes which let the action unfold.
Why are so many people dissing this film and his direction? What does Chris Columbus have to do to prove he's a good director? His Harry Potter movies were blockbusters, but he's criticized for sticking too close to the books. Home Alone was a blockbuster, but it's not taken seriously because it's just a fun film. The truth is this director knows how to involve his audience in stories, which is a wonderful gift. I also think whatever he toned down to get his PG-13 rating was probably the right decision. This is a film that young people should see. It still has plenty of grit and seaminess and whoever calls it dated--excuse me, are people not dying of AIDS anymore? Is drug use over? Do people of different sexual orientations now have complete acceptance? No? Well, then, I guess it's not that dated after all.
In conclusion, I must say that even though I loved the film, the music, the story and everything about it, there is a generational gap, because I couldn't help thinking, "why don't you guys get a job, a mortgage, etc?" That's why this film is so much a symbol of the youth, of any era. It articulates their voice.,
My background is musical theatre and I am well aware of the difficulty in transferring a stage show like this to film, with all the inherent unbelievability that might occur. But I have to say that his film moved me, excited me, inspired me and certainly made me realize why it is so appealing to the younger audiences.
I think that Columbus is so underrated as a director. The choices he made in bringing this to the screen--no the least of which is casting the original actors when possible--show a real feel for the material and a respect for the intent. Who cares that they are not the right age? You simply don't care because you become involved with their stories. He also makes the whole situation, bursting into song seem completely normal and if you can't accept it, maybe musicals just aren't your thing. I thought it was visually exciting as well, but he also knows how to just let the camera roll so we get continuous takes which let the action unfold.
Why are so many people dissing this film and his direction? What does Chris Columbus have to do to prove he's a good director? His Harry Potter movies were blockbusters, but he's criticized for sticking too close to the books. Home Alone was a blockbuster, but it's not taken seriously because it's just a fun film. The truth is this director knows how to involve his audience in stories, which is a wonderful gift. I also think whatever he toned down to get his PG-13 rating was probably the right decision. This is a film that young people should see. It still has plenty of grit and seaminess and whoever calls it dated--excuse me, are people not dying of AIDS anymore? Is drug use over? Do people of different sexual orientations now have complete acceptance? No? Well, then, I guess it's not that dated after all.
In conclusion, I must say that even though I loved the film, the music, the story and everything about it, there is a generational gap, because I couldn't help thinking, "why don't you guys get a job, a mortgage, etc?" That's why this film is so much a symbol of the youth, of any era. It articulates their voice.,