Mikoid
Nov 11, 1999, 02:05 PM
Aray. Quoted from www.legmanila.com (http://www.legmanila.com) :
----------------------------------
To Rent or Not To Rent
By Israel Matias 11/5/1999
After some period of pondering (one month to be exact), I finally realized what it was about "Rent" that bothered me so much. The commercial machinery, the money-making business of artistic productions, the whole capitalist enterprise that the musical criticizes and mocks is exactly, precisely, that which allows the musical itself to be produced, presented, become popular, and, in the process, make money.
The musical's existence, in effect, contradicts its message, rendering it not just simplistic and naïve, but faintly hypocritical as well. As another, more authentic young rebel would put it, the musical reeks of phoniness.
For those who haven't seen it, "Rent" is about a group of friends -- a filmmaker, a musician, a dancer, a performance artist, an out-of-work philosophy teacher -- who bond in la vie boheme because of illness (most of them have AIDS) and poverty (some of them are being evicted because they can't pay rent). They crusade against a former friend who has become a businessman and wants to convert the empty lot next to their apartment building into a cyber-arts studio. Some of them fall in love, someone dies, lovers quarrel and separate. In the end, couples reunite and everyone is happy.
The musical posits some strong, but rather problematic oppositions -- the artist vs. the businessman, art vs. technology, the rebel vs. the establishment, even New York vs. Santa Fe. These oppositions seem so simplistic as to be laughable. I mean, who are the producers kidding? They glorify the artist at the expense of the businessman, but aren't they in business themselves? (It's no accident, of course, that many people milling about at the Music Museum during the show -- many of the musical's crew as well as audience members -- wore the regimental designer black of the wealthy artiste. It's symptomatic of the show's problems that the people who seem to relate most to it -- and remember this is a show about, among other things, not having money for rent -- are mostly wealthy and well dressed.) And the opposition the musical draws between the arts and technology is confused at best. What their point is regarding the issue is never clarified.
The artist as rebel and bohemian is such an old and trite concept, I'm surprised people still take it seriously. Moreover, the artists portrayed in "Rent" are unappealing because, just as they feel like outsiders in society, they themselves constitute a tightly knit group that posits other people and places as outsiders, as others that are unwanted, unhip, uncool. For these hardcore New Yorkers, for example, Santa Fe is way uncool.
These rebels are unappealing because they don't even seem youthful. Despite their illness, they don't have vulnerability the way, for example, Holden Caulfield does. In a way, they seem as smug and self-satisfied, as rigid in their likes and dislikes, as the moneyed middle-class against whom they position themselves.
And after all their bellyaching and complaining, these people don't really want an easier life, nor do they want to be part of the comfortable world of plain, working people because that wouldn't be cool. They would rather dance in bars or film each other's coolness. I'm sorry but I can't come up with much sympathy for people who seem to be, instead of suffering artists, just a bunch of spoiled brats.
Strangely enough, the musical has won many awards and much acclaim in the U.S. The death of its creator, Jonathan Larson, right before its showing is, of course, poignant and dramatic. But that's beside the point, right? There's no doubt that the musical is energetic and entertaining -- some scenes are truly funny, some of the songs are beautiful and heartbreaking. And one has to appreciate the show's presentation of the romantic involvement of people we don't usually think of in romantic terms -- gays and lesbians, for example. Moreover, the U.S. production involves a multi-racial cast, adding a layer of meaning that's necessarily lacking in the local version. But despite all these considerations, I'm still not impressed.
When I watched it, "Rent" ended to thunderous applause. The cast took a bow twice. As members of the audience started leaving, a voice-over started thanking the show's sponsors. In an unwittingly ironic turn, one of the sponsors they had to thank was the Hotel Intercon Manila!
The message seems to be this then: If you're an artist and you want to sing about not having money to pay rent, let a five-star hotel sponsor you.
----------------------------------
To Rent or Not To Rent
By Israel Matias 11/5/1999
After some period of pondering (one month to be exact), I finally realized what it was about "Rent" that bothered me so much. The commercial machinery, the money-making business of artistic productions, the whole capitalist enterprise that the musical criticizes and mocks is exactly, precisely, that which allows the musical itself to be produced, presented, become popular, and, in the process, make money.
The musical's existence, in effect, contradicts its message, rendering it not just simplistic and naïve, but faintly hypocritical as well. As another, more authentic young rebel would put it, the musical reeks of phoniness.
For those who haven't seen it, "Rent" is about a group of friends -- a filmmaker, a musician, a dancer, a performance artist, an out-of-work philosophy teacher -- who bond in la vie boheme because of illness (most of them have AIDS) and poverty (some of them are being evicted because they can't pay rent). They crusade against a former friend who has become a businessman and wants to convert the empty lot next to their apartment building into a cyber-arts studio. Some of them fall in love, someone dies, lovers quarrel and separate. In the end, couples reunite and everyone is happy.
The musical posits some strong, but rather problematic oppositions -- the artist vs. the businessman, art vs. technology, the rebel vs. the establishment, even New York vs. Santa Fe. These oppositions seem so simplistic as to be laughable. I mean, who are the producers kidding? They glorify the artist at the expense of the businessman, but aren't they in business themselves? (It's no accident, of course, that many people milling about at the Music Museum during the show -- many of the musical's crew as well as audience members -- wore the regimental designer black of the wealthy artiste. It's symptomatic of the show's problems that the people who seem to relate most to it -- and remember this is a show about, among other things, not having money for rent -- are mostly wealthy and well dressed.) And the opposition the musical draws between the arts and technology is confused at best. What their point is regarding the issue is never clarified.
The artist as rebel and bohemian is such an old and trite concept, I'm surprised people still take it seriously. Moreover, the artists portrayed in "Rent" are unappealing because, just as they feel like outsiders in society, they themselves constitute a tightly knit group that posits other people and places as outsiders, as others that are unwanted, unhip, uncool. For these hardcore New Yorkers, for example, Santa Fe is way uncool.
These rebels are unappealing because they don't even seem youthful. Despite their illness, they don't have vulnerability the way, for example, Holden Caulfield does. In a way, they seem as smug and self-satisfied, as rigid in their likes and dislikes, as the moneyed middle-class against whom they position themselves.
And after all their bellyaching and complaining, these people don't really want an easier life, nor do they want to be part of the comfortable world of plain, working people because that wouldn't be cool. They would rather dance in bars or film each other's coolness. I'm sorry but I can't come up with much sympathy for people who seem to be, instead of suffering artists, just a bunch of spoiled brats.
Strangely enough, the musical has won many awards and much acclaim in the U.S. The death of its creator, Jonathan Larson, right before its showing is, of course, poignant and dramatic. But that's beside the point, right? There's no doubt that the musical is energetic and entertaining -- some scenes are truly funny, some of the songs are beautiful and heartbreaking. And one has to appreciate the show's presentation of the romantic involvement of people we don't usually think of in romantic terms -- gays and lesbians, for example. Moreover, the U.S. production involves a multi-racial cast, adding a layer of meaning that's necessarily lacking in the local version. But despite all these considerations, I'm still not impressed.
When I watched it, "Rent" ended to thunderous applause. The cast took a bow twice. As members of the audience started leaving, a voice-over started thanking the show's sponsors. In an unwittingly ironic turn, one of the sponsors they had to thank was the Hotel Intercon Manila!
The message seems to be this then: If you're an artist and you want to sing about not having money to pay rent, let a five-star hotel sponsor you.