Elspeth (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
vintage_belle) wrote2005-11-27 12:43 am
vintage_belle) wrote2005-11-27 12:43 am
How we gonna pay last year's rent?
I'll start off by saying that my vacation quickly got better after my last post. Thanks to everyone who commented - they were appreciated. Any rate; my luggage came, we had a really great Thanksgiving dinner at Jon's sister's house (Italian catered, because nobody felt like cooking X3), and I got to hang out with my nee-chan and otouto, and Ellen; who I never get to see. Didn't get to see the Twins, Piccalo, or Dana, but this will happen immediately following the start of Winter vacation. Also finished my New Year's Card assignment for Japanese class - it looks quite awesome written in a calligraphy brush pen, I must say.
And now for the highlight of today:
Overall RENT, for all that it is a musical - and one made into a movie besides - I found to be rather well done. The filming is lovely, and how can anyone possibly resist 6/8 of the original cast? I know I can't. The adaptation from stage to movie was well thought-out and the switches and deletions of song numbers were likewise well done and good for keeping the story going without having the audience fall asleep in the middle of everything. There are many cases of lyrics becoming dialogue, but I suppose it would be strange to have as little dialogue and as much song as there is in the show in the movie - it was already weird enough as it was. Gotta say that I thought the opening (after they sang "Seasons of Love", because that was just lovely) had me a little weirded out, just because a) I'm used to the show and b) I think the show's segway to "Rent" makes a lot more sense. However, I was more than happy to have Rosaria Dawson playing Mimi, because I couldn't stand the original Mimi's voice, and Tracie Thoms (Joanne) is simply awesome. It was also interesting to see April in flashback moments during "One Song Glory", whom we only get mention of during the actual show, and she was appropriately crack-whorish. But enough of me exhalting the film - let's get to the best part: nitpicking!
This is my major beef with the movie: It was filmed in San Francisco. And to this I have only one question: WHY?
It's entirely unnecessary, because while granted the Alphabet City of 1989 looks different from the Alphabet City of 2005 in terms of actual stores - replacements and absences - and new bars and restaurants and the like (for example: the Life Cafe does exist, but "La Vie Boheme" was shot inside the Horseshoe Bar which is across the street from it), the exterior and overall feel of the area remains largely the same. There are still the tiny old tenament houses (Mark and Roger live in a loft that Alpabet City residents would kill to get their hands on), homeless people, shady characters, and dingy bars/clubs that the characters would have frequented. So why the hell did they have to pack up and film in San Fran? I don't get it. There is also a shot of the New York City skyline that bothers me, because it's very clearly out of proper timeline. You can't ahve the traditional skyline with the Towers, 'cause those're gone, so instead of choosing a nice shot of the Empire State Building or something, the filmmakers chose a shot that shows the Metropolitan Life (Met Life) Building, completely with huge fucking sign. So what's the problem with that you ask? Well, the Met Life has only been the Met Life since about 1995 or so - before that it was the Pan Am.
Yes, I know that this won't make a difference to anyone who doesn't live in New York (just as the fact that Avenue A is NOT ON AN ANGLE with 11th-ish street [the sign is purposely blurred so much as to be illegible, because the actual street is never stated, but it looked like an 11 to me], or the presence of a non-existant subway stop, won't matter to anyone out of the City), but it's the principle of it. If it was a show that just happened to be set in New York, and the City wasn't so important, even integral, to the plot, I can understand better that it might just be easier to set it out of the City and nearer to the director's home for filming. However, the entire point of Rent is that it is New York 1989 and how people in Alphabet City, all largely broke, lived, fought and simply survived. To remove the City element was, in my opinion, stupid and any New Yorker will tell you, it doesn't even look like New York at all.
There were other little things that I noticed, for example: the couch in the loft changed a couple times, and the ball of crumpled posters disappeared from Benny's car for a few shots (at least I think it did, it might have been the lighting). Nitpicky, yes, but they amused me. The relationship between Benny and Mimi was completely downplayed, which was weird because it has a lot to do with Roger leaving. Adam Pascal (Roger) looks weird with long hair, and his mom doesn't exist. Mark's parents are still hilarious, and we actually get to hear his dad, and their message gives way to one of the better lines in the show. This line being:
Mark Cohen: There are times when we're dirt broke, hungry and freezing, and I ask myself, why the hell am I still living here? ... And then they call, and I remember.
Speaking of lines, I was also very sad that one of my favorite lines did not make it into the movie, so I'll paraphrase it here (it's been a while since I last saw the show):
Tom Collins: I think it's only fair to tell you. You just paid for the funeral of the person who killed your dog.
Benny Coffin III: [shrug] I always hated that dog.
So, all in all, the movie is well worth the watching if only to see those 6/8 of the original cast reprising their original roles, and I may just be forced to see it again if there is the interest in it. But I still wanna know why the hell it couldn't have been filmed in New York.
And now for the highlight of today:
Overall RENT, for all that it is a musical - and one made into a movie besides - I found to be rather well done. The filming is lovely, and how can anyone possibly resist 6/8 of the original cast? I know I can't. The adaptation from stage to movie was well thought-out and the switches and deletions of song numbers were likewise well done and good for keeping the story going without having the audience fall asleep in the middle of everything. There are many cases of lyrics becoming dialogue, but I suppose it would be strange to have as little dialogue and as much song as there is in the show in the movie - it was already weird enough as it was. Gotta say that I thought the opening (after they sang "Seasons of Love", because that was just lovely) had me a little weirded out, just because a) I'm used to the show and b) I think the show's segway to "Rent" makes a lot more sense. However, I was more than happy to have Rosaria Dawson playing Mimi, because I couldn't stand the original Mimi's voice, and Tracie Thoms (Joanne) is simply awesome. It was also interesting to see April in flashback moments during "One Song Glory", whom we only get mention of during the actual show, and she was appropriately crack-whorish. But enough of me exhalting the film - let's get to the best part: nitpicking!
This is my major beef with the movie: It was filmed in San Francisco. And to this I have only one question: WHY?
It's entirely unnecessary, because while granted the Alphabet City of 1989 looks different from the Alphabet City of 2005 in terms of actual stores - replacements and absences - and new bars and restaurants and the like (for example: the Life Cafe does exist, but "La Vie Boheme" was shot inside the Horseshoe Bar which is across the street from it), the exterior and overall feel of the area remains largely the same. There are still the tiny old tenament houses (Mark and Roger live in a loft that Alpabet City residents would kill to get their hands on), homeless people, shady characters, and dingy bars/clubs that the characters would have frequented. So why the hell did they have to pack up and film in San Fran? I don't get it. There is also a shot of the New York City skyline that bothers me, because it's very clearly out of proper timeline. You can't ahve the traditional skyline with the Towers, 'cause those're gone, so instead of choosing a nice shot of the Empire State Building or something, the filmmakers chose a shot that shows the Metropolitan Life (Met Life) Building, completely with huge fucking sign. So what's the problem with that you ask? Well, the Met Life has only been the Met Life since about 1995 or so - before that it was the Pan Am.
Yes, I know that this won't make a difference to anyone who doesn't live in New York (just as the fact that Avenue A is NOT ON AN ANGLE with 11th-ish street [the sign is purposely blurred so much as to be illegible, because the actual street is never stated, but it looked like an 11 to me], or the presence of a non-existant subway stop, won't matter to anyone out of the City), but it's the principle of it. If it was a show that just happened to be set in New York, and the City wasn't so important, even integral, to the plot, I can understand better that it might just be easier to set it out of the City and nearer to the director's home for filming. However, the entire point of Rent is that it is New York 1989 and how people in Alphabet City, all largely broke, lived, fought and simply survived. To remove the City element was, in my opinion, stupid and any New Yorker will tell you, it doesn't even look like New York at all.
There were other little things that I noticed, for example: the couch in the loft changed a couple times, and the ball of crumpled posters disappeared from Benny's car for a few shots (at least I think it did, it might have been the lighting). Nitpicky, yes, but they amused me. The relationship between Benny and Mimi was completely downplayed, which was weird because it has a lot to do with Roger leaving. Adam Pascal (Roger) looks weird with long hair, and his mom doesn't exist. Mark's parents are still hilarious, and we actually get to hear his dad, and their message gives way to one of the better lines in the show. This line being:
Speaking of lines, I was also very sad that one of my favorite lines did not make it into the movie, so I'll paraphrase it here (it's been a while since I last saw the show):
So, all in all, the movie is well worth the watching if only to see those 6/8 of the original cast reprising their original roles, and I may just be forced to see it again if there is the interest in it. But I still wanna know why the hell it couldn't have been filmed in New York.