So, tonight was the opening of London RENT. (Well, according to my boss who thinks who knows all the world of musicals because he is dating a musical producer, it is just a first night of previews. Who cares, it is in fact the first night of its returning to London after it closed its curtain in 2003.) It was supposed to be happening last night but I got a call on my mob around noon, informing that the technical difficulties forced to postpone the shows' opening.
I knew that some day some body will open the big mouth and says,
"Look around, this is no longer at the end of the millennium, and having Latino drag queen in the show is just a stereo typing and a bad publicity."
And, sure enough, RENT is over 10 yrs old, and it can look dated. However, it was never meant to be a classic, and looking timeless was never in the producers' consideration. But it did become classic, and many of us love the show as it was intended. It is not just because Jonathan Larson died and we wanted to have it preserved in his honour.
But, well, because RENT never did massively well in London, they had to give some botox injection to it, like they do shamelessly with CHICAGO. They had to jazz it up, and slut it down.
It was all rather bad from the beginning. I purchased a ticket which included a two course dinner, for £20. And the dinner costs £16 before tax. So, the show ticket was pretty much a give-away.
Then, when I got the theatre there was a guy in front of me at the box office, saying that he only bought one tickets but being handed two instead. He said he doesn't need this but walked away with it anyway. Then the box office says the same to me. Now 1 two course dinner and 2 theatre tickets cost £20. Insane. Why, are they so desperate to give away tickets? It doesn't sound promising.
Show itself was rather disorganised. One cast started with a wrong que, and one forgot a line, one repeated a line. Upper circle audiences had hard time seeing some bits of the show.
They have changed the order of the story and songs completely, and scene settings were so hard to follow. Half of the cast could not sing well so it was hard to hear what they were saying.
Casts were so wrong, too. First of all, Mark was actually very good looking, and hunky. He looked very pumped up with juice. And he was BRITISH!! (Why? Couldn't he hack the American accent, or they thought it would be more convincing for him to speak that way to be Jewish boy from Scarsdale?) And Mimi was NOT Latina and she could hardly sing. And Angel was macho, and bold.
They changed characters so much, that Mark was now creepy, no longer a loveable loser with hidden talent. Angel was undecidedly uncute and was a forcible flirt. I had this urge to figure him out rather than watching him dance around like a Soho go-go boy. He might as well had just a thong on rather than trying to squeeze in 6 inch heels and a skirt. Maureen was not at all sweet but very much of a madam. Mimi lost all the fun factor and looked like a heroine addict from the first moment. (I don't think she has smiled, not even once.)
Maureen was acted by buxom Denise Van Outen, and she really was fabulous, stealing the show completely. But, then again, Maureen is a character that has to be reinvented by actresses every time. Roger by Luke Evans was unrealistically good, too. He did not look like Roger, but, god, that voice! Not so special to carry lines, but so sensitively crafty when singing. I could just listen to him sing all night.
I know that show is in development and might turn for better. But, as self claimed RENT-head, I must say this show is a disaster, and not even a good experiment. RENT cannot work in this digital era, full of pretension and genericism.
I knew that some day some body will open the big mouth and says,
"Look around, this is no longer at the end of the millennium, and having Latino drag queen in the show is just a stereo typing and a bad publicity."
And, sure enough, RENT is over 10 yrs old, and it can look dated. However, it was never meant to be a classic, and looking timeless was never in the producers' consideration. But it did become classic, and many of us love the show as it was intended. It is not just because Jonathan Larson died and we wanted to have it preserved in his honour.
But, well, because RENT never did massively well in London, they had to give some botox injection to it, like they do shamelessly with CHICAGO. They had to jazz it up, and slut it down.
It was all rather bad from the beginning. I purchased a ticket which included a two course dinner, for £20. And the dinner costs £16 before tax. So, the show ticket was pretty much a give-away.
Then, when I got the theatre there was a guy in front of me at the box office, saying that he only bought one tickets but being handed two instead. He said he doesn't need this but walked away with it anyway. Then the box office says the same to me. Now 1 two course dinner and 2 theatre tickets cost £20. Insane. Why, are they so desperate to give away tickets? It doesn't sound promising.
Show itself was rather disorganised. One cast started with a wrong que, and one forgot a line, one repeated a line. Upper circle audiences had hard time seeing some bits of the show.
They have changed the order of the story and songs completely, and scene settings were so hard to follow. Half of the cast could not sing well so it was hard to hear what they were saying.
Casts were so wrong, too. First of all, Mark was actually very good looking, and hunky. He looked very pumped up with juice. And he was BRITISH!! (Why? Couldn't he hack the American accent, or they thought it would be more convincing for him to speak that way to be Jewish boy from Scarsdale?) And Mimi was NOT Latina and she could hardly sing. And Angel was macho, and bold.
They changed characters so much, that Mark was now creepy, no longer a loveable loser with hidden talent. Angel was undecidedly uncute and was a forcible flirt. I had this urge to figure him out rather than watching him dance around like a Soho go-go boy. He might as well had just a thong on rather than trying to squeeze in 6 inch heels and a skirt. Maureen was not at all sweet but very much of a madam. Mimi lost all the fun factor and looked like a heroine addict from the first moment. (I don't think she has smiled, not even once.)
Maureen was acted by buxom Denise Van Outen, and she really was fabulous, stealing the show completely. But, then again, Maureen is a character that has to be reinvented by actresses every time. Roger by Luke Evans was unrealistically good, too. He did not look like Roger, but, god, that voice! Not so special to carry lines, but so sensitively crafty when singing. I could just listen to him sing all night.
I know that show is in development and might turn for better. But, as self claimed RENT-head, I must say this show is a disaster, and not even a good experiment. RENT cannot work in this digital era, full of pretension and genericism.
