Film vs. Broadway

Subject:

Had we not heard and discussed Broadway’s RENT a week before the movie arrived in theatres, I probably would’ve enjoyed the film much more than I did. Please don’t misunderstand me – I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but the simple fact that the screenplay didn’t follow the script made me uncomfortable.

Now there were plenty of qualities that Hollywood brought to the film that Broadway couldn’t – for instance, bigger and better sets, the ability to change scenes, wardrobe, etc. while performing a single song, altering location, larger cast and all of the amenities afforded from a bigger budget.

At the same time, poetic license allows Chris Columbus to shoot the film and edit it according to his desires. He did a fantastic job with this through the first section (Act One) of the film – he followed the script as much as possible. After all, you have to have a little difference between the Broadway musical and the big screen simply for separation’s sake – if you want to show “the” RENT, just tape a Broadway production. However, this is not what Columbus wanted to do – he made it obvious that he wanted to make his own version of the production but remain true to the original feature.

He accomplishes this in Act One by using a majority of the popular songs (although some are out of order) and even removing the music to have the actors speak word for word lines from the play rather than sing. By the way, this implies the greatness of Larson’s work – his words are powerful with or without music and flow just as easily. These minor differences can be forgiven and make for a great show; but in Act Two, Columbus lost me.

By adding three scenes that weren’t in the original play, and forcing the addition of text that never were in Larson’s production, the idea of staying true to Larson’s RENT is thrown entirely out the window as Columbus marks his territory on the musical.

The scenes in and out of Alexi Darling’s office all the way through the civil union scene (making a blatant political statement) were completely unnecessary. Even Angel’s funeral sequence could’ve been left out – and we know this because they are not in Larson’s original production and his play still works – not only does it work, it is phenomenal, endearing, touching, and memorable.

Columbus also deletes the moments of voice recording from the caring (although sometimes annoying) parents of each of the characters. By doing so he leaves out an important aspect of the story – that although the kids cannot always depend on each other, they can always count on their parents (but refuse to do so).

Overall the film itself is a great work and by the end of it, there is hardly a dry eye in the house. Audience members of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs leave singing the songs or at least talking about what they had just witnessed – however, this credit is due to Jonathon Larson and only proves his amazing talent. If anything, the only credit we can give Columbus is following the work to a point and then tearing it apart to make it something it is not.