Really? The world is coming to this?

[Traveler]

Once in a while Mrs. Traveler and myself like to explorer new horizons.    Out of the blue we decided to take in a Broadway (actually off Broadway) Play for a date night.   We choose a popular musical called “Rent”.  Some of you may be saying to yourself that we should of done some research – if you are thinking this way – I think you are right.  But we are talking about the Echols theater in SLC in the middle of our church culture.  Why not adventure into the Arts?

First off – I will admit to not understanding much about what was going on in the musical.  In musicals there is a lot of singing to tell the story and unless you have familiarity with the words of many songs – you can miss what they are saying and then be very confused with the symbolism unfolding in the a story. 

The story for “Rent” opens on Christmas eve in NYC and immediately things were confusing because I could not identify an apartment or any resemblance to what I understand as an apartment.  I was unclear of the social structure in the living space.  I am not sure there were roommates or just a bunch of people living together.  There seemed to be one phone – maybe it was a pay phone and it may have had an answering machine – I am not sure or if different characters in the play just took it upon themselves to answer the phone and take messages.  It seemed that there was no heat – except for a fire in a garbage can.  I think there was a homeless colony outside the building but I was never able to figure out who was homeless and who lived in the building paying rent.

But this rent thing was a mystery.  The lead in the play was initially worried about how rent was going to be paid – but seemed to quickly resolve that they would not pay rent.  None of this made any sense to me.  Why would anyone choose to live under such conditions?  There was a song about opening a restaurant in California.  Really – this is their best counter option?  Entering into all this are a bunch of characters that were all were so folded into themselves that I am not sure that they could ascertain their reality from their imaginations (which were very bazar) life should not be this kind of a challenge.

Anyway – this guy decides to write a song.  I am still not sure if they thought that would pay the rent or not.  But then there were two guys sitting behind the wife and I that thought everything was wonderful and a story that needed to be told and that they should shout and hoot some kind of encouragement of what was going on.  It was obvious to me that they were a little confused with human gender and reproduction.  But what I did not understand is why they would laugh themselves silly of stupid gender confusion gags.   I was confused because I honestly believe if I (obviously straight guy) pointed out such flaws concerning gender confusion that they would not be beside themselves with such laughter.

So now I am wondering – Is this musical an accurate depiction of the new norm for our upcoming generation’s community?  Is this something they want to convey to the world as a means to bring understanding to the LGBT cause?  Or did I miss the whole thing and the musical “Rent” had nothing at all to do with LGBT lifestyle choices and an the optimum utopian society?

The wife and I decided we just could not relate – and left early – a little unhappy with our date night choice.  But we were not the only ones – there was quite a stream of others leaving the theater and perhaps oddly enough – they were male/female couples that I am sure felt deliberately left out of the experience.  And as we left, a theater worker was asking everyone why they were leaving early.  I replied that I could not connect with the story.  I did mention to my wife that there did not seem to be anything that made me feel uplifted that life was worth living in such a manner and that we all have the best to look forward to - not just us and our standards but for anyone - this is what we all should look forward to?  

Anyone have insights?

 

The Traveler

[Ironhold]

According to the Wikipedia article, the play was first staged in 1993 and is allegedly an updated version of the 1890s "La Boheme", which was similarly about a group of ne'er-do-wells. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Spoiler alert-Roger wrote the song (In Your Eyes) because he loves Mimi, who is struggling with heroin addiction. In the beginning of the musical, Roger sings a song called "One Song Glory". The point of that song (One Song Glory) is to see if he can write one "great song" before he dies of AIDS. He is HIV positive. The tenants of the loft are Roger and Mark. Benny, who used to be part of their group,  married a wealthy woman and bought the building. 

I've seen it dozens of times, it's one of my favorite musicals and one of the popular musicals of all time. The writer of the musical, Jonathon Larson, also wrote "Tick Tick Boom", which is probably my favorite musical ever. Every time I've seen it live, no one has walked out. 

It was cutting edge in 1997, but now it's sort of antiquated. It was among (no, not the first) the first musicals to feature an openly gay couple, someone with HIV a transgender person,  drug abuse etc. Now, that's much more normal in musicals. 

I can see why an LDS person would be offended and confused by the subject matter. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by MormonGator

[Vort]

You missed "Mortgage"? Bummer. It's a great musical about a man named Gene/Jean who is really a woman. She is into eating human flesh and brain matter, and has thereby tragically contracted a parasite that will quickly and painfully kill her. She is in a long-term relationship with her dog, but in her despair, goes exploring other lovers and settles on a handsome stallion that lives just outside of town. The play ends [SPOILER ALERT!] happily and in a life-affirming manner, with Jean taking ownership of her life despite her conditions being utterly outside her control, and bravely choosing assisted suicide with the help of her horse lover. The dog is magnificently supportive of all this, of course. Really a beautiful musical, an introspective look at the foundational realities of the human experience. One of my all-time favorites.

[Guest Godless]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

But this rent thing was a mystery.  The lead in the play was initially worried about how rent was going to be paid – but seemed to quickly resolve that they would not pay rent.  None of this made any sense to me.  Why would anyone choose to live under such conditions? 

"Who the #$%& doesn't pay their mortgage???"

-investment bankers prior to 2008

I haven't seen Rent, but from what I've heard/read about it, it seems to be more or less a reflection of lower class Manhattan life: struggling artists and dreamers trying to scrape by after realizing that NYC isn't the cultural utopia they thought it was. It's theater, so obviously things are dramatized a bit beyond our every day recognition. I can understand why it might not land well among LDS crowds, but apparently the rest of the world adores it.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

We choose a popular musical called “Rent”

Fool. 

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Spoiler alert-Roger wrote the song (In Your Eyes) because he loves Mimi, who is struggling with heroin addiction. In the beginning of the musical, Roger sings a song called "One Song Glory". The point of that song (One Song Glory) is to see if he can write one "great song" before he dies of AIDS. He is HIV positive. The tenants of the loft are Roger and Mark. Benny, who used to be part of their group,  married a wealthy woman and bought the building. 

I've seen it dozens of times, it's one of my favorite musicals and one of the popular musicals of all time. The writer of the musical, Jonathon Larson, also wrote "Tick Tick Boom", which is probably my favorite musical ever. Every time I've seen it live, no one has walked out. 

It was cutting edge in 1997, but now it's sort of antiquated. It was among (no, not the first) the first musicals to feature an openly gay couple, someone with HIV a transgender person,  drug abuse etc. Now, that's much more normal in musicals. 

I can see why an LDS person would be offended and confused by the subject matter. 

It was not that I was offended - it made absolutely no sense to me.  I did not find it entertaining or interesting.  I understand people struggle and suffer and that many people make mistakes - I just did not see that in this case that there was a point to it all.  Obviously the performers were very talented.  Perhaps the primary thing I came away with was why homeless is growing out of control and why so many look to outside forces to solve all their problems rather than be responsible.

I try to understand others and their opinions but honestly this looked and seemed like an effort to celebrate stupidity rather than the intelligent possibilities of mankind that should exist (and be recognizable) in every human to some degree.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

You missed "Mortgage"? Bummer. It's a great musical about a man named Gene/Jean who is really a woman. She is into eating human flesh and brain matter, and has thereby tragically contracted a parasite that will quickly and painfully kill her. She is in a long-term relationship with her dog, but in her despair, goes exploring other lovers and settles on a handsome stallion that lives just outside of town. The play ends [SPOILER ALERT!] happily and in a life-affirming manner, with Jean taking ownership of her life despite her conditions being utterly outside her control, and bravely choosing assisted suicide with the help of her horse lover. The dog is magnificently supportive of all this, of course. Really a beautiful musical, an introspective look at the foundational realities of the human experience. One of my all-time favorites.

How have I missed out on such entertainment and enlightenment?   I am aware that stupid exists - but I did not realize that it is so popular.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

You missed "Mortgage"? Bummer. It's a great musical about a man named Gene/Jean who is really a woman. She is into eating human flesh and brain matter, and has thereby tragically contracted a parasite that will quickly and painfully kill her. She is in a long-term relationship with her dog, but in her despair, goes exploring other lovers and settles on a handsome stallion that lives just outside of town. The play ends [SPOILER ALERT!] happily and in a life-affirming manner, with Jean taking ownership of her life despite her conditions being utterly outside her control, and bravely choosing assisted suicide with the help of her horse lover. The dog is magnificently supportive of all this, of course. Really a beautiful musical, an introspective look at the foundational realities of the human experience. One of my all-time favorites.

And people have difficulty relating to the protagonist?  Pfffbbbttt.  Basket of Deplorables, I tells ya.

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

Out of the blue we decided to take in a Broadway (actually off Broadway) Play for a date night.   We choose a popular musical called “Rent”. 

...I could not identify....
...I was unclear...
...I am not sure...
...I am not sure...
...I was never able to figure out...
...None of this made any sense to me....
...Why would anyone choose...
...I am still not sure if...
...But what I did not understand is why they would...
...I was confused because...
...The wife and I decided we just could not relate – and left early – a little unhappy with our date night choice. 

Anyone have insights?

Here are my insights: 

- I'd be willing to bet ten bucks you are not an ESFP.
- Did you wear white socks, crocs, and cargo pants to this thing?  If not, take comfort that everyone else who reacted this way was.
- Truth be told, I was bored out of my skull at Starlight Express.  Same for Cats. Who the crap cares who wins the stupid train race?  I couldn't even identify something in Cats that anyone would care about.  But then I learned how to feel, and appreciate production values, and it all makes sense now.

But if you want some genuine feedback, I've learned that people go to stuff like that to feel, not to think.  The plot, the behaviors and consequences, everything that happens in the play is secondary and unimportant. The people who wanted to do Rent could do everything they wanted to do if the play was about robots from outer space, or different kinds of mud in a bog, or whatever.   Did you catch the feels?  Did you catch any empathy for meat unit #7 as it it's human words and facial expressions pointed to pain, or frustration, or angst, or whatever?  If you heard that in the personal lives of the cast and crew, there were two births and three funerals as this show was born and brought to stage, does it do anything for you?  

Stuff like that.

Edited July 1, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

Haven't seen the play but I have seen the movie.  I didn't like the movie 

I can understand why lots of people didn't connect with the play enough to leave early.  If the movie is anywhere close to the play (it seems like it is from the comments above), then it's a portrayal of the lifestyle of "woodstock hippies" who can't possibly consider a traditional life - let alone a job - as it infringes on their artistic creativity.  So they live these unconventional co-op kind of life to support each other while working on their art.  The movie portrayed these people in their stereotypical characters - artistic self-absorbed space cadets - in their wanna-be-utopian life but having real life like Rent and AIDs mess things up.

Conventional people just don't understand the perceived necessity of the lifestyle especially when presented with all its problematic inconveniences that is easily solved by going conventional.  I've gained a bit of appreciation for the "my art is my life" viewpoint having a son who thinks that way who I found myself to have to "bring back down to earth" and inject some practicality into his upbringing.  Now that he's a few weeks from being legally an adult, he now sees things as "I need to make money to fund my art so it can be my life... I also need money to feed my future wife and kids".

I'm also not keen on the music.  Okay, I take it back - I like the musical style and I would enjoy the music if I can take out the words out of it.  The way it is - the words and music don't seem to match.  It's like singing "Here Comes The Sun" lyrics to rock music... weird.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

It was not that I was offended - it made absolutely no sense to me.

I understand. In fairness, that musical can be confusing at first. 

 

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I try to understand others and their opinions

I do as well. It's very hard to do so with art because it's so subjective. Just because I like The Music Man (and I love that musical) doesn't mean I think everyone should. Same with Rent as well. Just because I love it doesn't mean I think everyone should. 

I know of so many people who, for whatever reasons, just can't understand how someone can have an opinion if doesn't match their own. I think it's more pathetic than sad. Glad you aren't one of those people. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by MormonGator

[Backroads]

Saw the movie in college. It was okay.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

40 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Saw the movie in college. It was okay.

 

Lately, most movie versions of musicals have been bad. Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Rock of Ages, Rent...

[Backroads]

52 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Lately, most movie versions of musicals have been bad. Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Rock of Ages, Rent...

A legacy of "eh"

[person0]

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Les Miserables

I thought the non-musical adaptation with Liam Neeson was excellent.  I didn't even bother to watch the more recent one.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, person0 said:

I thought the non-musical adaptation with Liam Neeson was excellent.  I didn't even bother to watch the more recent one.

I love the recent one with Hugh Jackman although I think Hugh Jackman's singing voice just isn't well suited for Valjean and they should've cast Gerard Butler over Russel Crow for Javert.  Other than those, it was very very well done.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I love the recent one with Hugh Jackman although I think Hugh Jackman's singing voice just isn't well suited for Valjean and they should've cast Gerard Butler over Russel Crow for Javert.  Other than those, it was very very well done.

They should have cast literally anyone over Russel Crowe for that role. Other than that,  I thought they did a great job with that adaptation.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I love the recent one with Hugh Jackman although I think Hugh Jackman's singing voice just isn't well suited for Valjean and they should've cast Gerard Butler over Russel Crow for Javert.  Other than those, it was very very well done.

 

21 minutes ago, Godless said:

They should have cast literally anyone over Russel Crowe for that role. Other than that,  I thought they did a great job with that adaptation.

Les Miserables need singers that can act, not actors that can (sort of) sing.

I'll admit, Anne Hathaway was phenomenal in it. The rest of it was okay. But nowhere near as awe inspiringly awesome as it should have been.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Les Miserables need singers that can act, not actors that can (sort of) sing.

I'll admit, Anne Hathaway was phenomenal in it. The rest of it was okay. But nowhere near as awe inspiringly awesome as it should have been.

All the main actors in that movie are singers.  Jackman was in opera before he became Wolverine.  Eddie Redmayne was also in a National Youth Music Theater.  Russel Crow is a singer in a band.  Anne Hathaway (whose mother played Fantine which is the reason Anne decided to pursue dramatic arts) was a soprano in a chorus, Amanda Seyfried is a classically trained singer, Samantha Barks is Eponine in the theater play.  Sacha Baron Cohen has been playing musicals including Fiddler on the Roof since his youth.  Helena Bonham Carter is... well, Helena Bonham Carter - no training in acting nor singing yet she's very good in both in her niche roles.

The movie was filmed with live singing - not overdubbed singing like Phantom of the Opera.  It has proved difficult to control the sound quality on a movie set and therefore, big music scenes such as the jail scene has sound quality that can't compete with the stage.

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

All the main actors in that movie are singers.  Jackman was in opera before he became Wolverine.  Eddie Redmayne was also in a National Youth Music Theater.  Russel Crow is a singer in a band.  Anne Hathaway (whose mother played Fantine which is the reason Anne decided to pursue dramatic arts) was a soprano in a chorus, Amanda Seyfried is a classically trained singer, Samantha Barks is Eponine in the theater play.  Sacha Baron Cohen has been playing musicals including Fiddler on the Roof since his youth.  Helena Bonham Carter is... well, Helena Bonham Carter - no training in acting nor singing yet she's very good in both in her niche roles.

The movie was filmed with live singing - not overdubbed singing like Phantom of the Opera.  It has proved difficult to control the sound quality on a movie set and therefore, big music scenes such as the jail scene has sound quality that can't compete with the stage.

I'd argue with you -- but what's the point? You clearly don't understand what I'm saying and I don't see any particular reason to get into it.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd argue with you -- but what's the point? You clearly don't understand what I'm saying and I don't see any particular reason to get into it.

Your choice.  Your statement is pretty straightforward.  You think Les Mis Movie cast are actors not singers and do not have the singing ability to be singers in a stage musical and you think Les Mis Plays are singers first and actors second (which is kinda funny because Lea Salonga is an actor who trained to sing for Miss Saigon).  You can gaslight all you want, I disagree - Les Mis play and movie are actors AND singers.

Edited July 3, 2019 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 Les Mis play and movie are actors AND singers.

I didn't say otherwise.

You clearly do not understand me.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't say otherwise.

You clearly do not understand me.

Ohhh... trying to backtrack on your (sort of) words.  Then saying "oh, you just don't understand me".

 

Okay, okay, I won't needle you anymore.

 

Carry on peeps.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Ohhh... trying to backtrack on your (sort of) words.  Then saying "oh, you just don't understand me".

 

Okay, okay, I won't needle you anymore.

 

Carry on peeps.

Anatess, you clearly have absolutely no interest in trying to understand me or what my actual point of view is. You're only interested in proving me wrong, pointing out all the flaws in any wording I used, and pounding your opinion down my throat.

I'm not interested in that conversation/debate.

If you want to understand my view you're free to ask politely. But don't be too surprised if you've ticked me off enough that even then I just tell you to take a flying leap.