What Can't You Say About RENT?

Subject:

With excellent music, an interesting story line, and a host of fantastic reviews, RENT was not at all what I had expected – then again, I’m not sure exactly what I expected other then a good show, which definitely delivered.

I have a feeling that, had I not had the script in my hand and simply listened the music, I would’ve been captivated by the songs more then the story. The music was incredible – interesting to say the least, uncomfortable at times, but always an amazing harmony or musical wit that could combine and overlap the familiar with the new. Yes, the music definitely captured my attention.

In fact, the sounds were so overwhelming that I didn’t actually put everything together until I read the final page written about the playwright, Jonathan Larson. There were many thoughts that I agreed with in the play (“forget regret,” for instance), things that I disagreed with (“I can’t control my destiny”), and other things that are simply true (“no day but today”). And perhaps those are the things that make this performance so memorable – the drama that is within. Unfortunately for most, however, I feel that they enjoy watching these plays but forget its message soon after they leave the theatre – there are several things in this life that I know we take for granted and I don’t think many of us realize it until we have experienced those things, lost those things, or perhaps had those things given back to us. But even then, it is easy to forget.

To change the subject, I couldn’t help but notice a similarity between Into the Woods and RENT in the fact that both are done in two acts – the first act tends to be more jazzy, friendly, and upbeat while the second hits you square between the eyes with reality. The homeless people that wonder in and out of scenes tend to act as The Chorus of Euripides that sets the mood and only gains in strength as the performance continues (literally – the homeless RENT chorus grows in number each time they come out).

There are a few questions I have in regards to the play – why two homosexual couples (or at least one homosexual, the other bisexual) when most productions are content with one (is Larson making a point)? Why use Bohemia for any other reason than its political struggle? Why the emphasis on AIDS? Is this play from Larson’s own experiences or just a unique imagination? And, perhaps the biggest question of all, has the world changed so much in just nine short years?