Aleksandra the Great’s Exploits

What a nice way to talk about the weather—it snowed!—and the Rent movie. The streets are perfectly clear; they were clear when I looked outside at 10:30 this morning, but a thin layer of snow settled on the roofs and rooftop furnishings and on the cars that haven’t moved today. Although my weather information service tells me that there’s a 100% chance of precipitation now, it isn’t snowing. I suppose that’s for the best, though. Snow would just be one more distraction to keep me from doing homework.

And now, Rent. My ideas were not settled enough upon first seeing it to post, so I had to wait until I saw it a second time (Friday night as a hall outing). Since we who saw it Wednesday night talked about it so much afterwards, I won’t bother repeating all that we thought. I did think, and the second viewing confirmed, that the film offers a very negative portrayal of Benny. In the play he gets the chance to redeem himself by paying for Angel’s funeral. In the movie, it seems Collins has enough money and doesn’t need Benny’s help. And then, unless I wasn’t able to follow this twice now, Benny just disappears. At least in the play they make it known that Muffy found out about Benny’s affair and had his location switched.

I had a problem the first time I saw it with the fact that Mimi intentionally went to Roger about the candle. The second time I realized why I disliked it, and it has to do with something else that bothers me—the cutting out of several key songs. Before I get to that, though, I think the film did a nice job of showing that Mimi and Angel knew each other before they knew any of the other characters. In the play it’s kind of hard to tell when they met. It seems from the things she says at Angel’s funeral that Mimi met Angel at a different time than everyone else, but there isn’t any proof in the play. In the film, at the end of “Rent,” Angel points his drumsticks up as a greeting to Mimi, so it makes sense that they were friends.

Back to the problems. When would Mark ever have gone to the Cat Scratch Club? He was dating Maureen for a while before the play/movie takes place, and it just doesn’t seem like something a person like Mark would do. And why does he know enough about Mimi to affirm that she’s going to Maureen’s performance? In the play, Mimi doesn’t know Maureen; she isn’t part of their group of friends at all except perhaps if she knew Angel previously. All this is described in the “Christmas Bells” song that was cut, not to mention the humorous bit in which Roger simulates Mimi’s dancing while she’s talking to Mark to tell him what she does.

“Halloween” describes how chance-dependent the last year was. Instead of Mimi’s just needing her candle lit and knocking at any random door, in the film she intentionally goes to Roger. Is that why “Halloween” had to be cut, because Mark’s questions were easily answered? The Mimi-Roger relationship is far too romantic and friendly in “Light My Candle.” Stage Mimi just wants a light, and then she tries to leave. Film Mimi hangs around Roger’s apartment, already suggesting what isn’t supposed to come until “Out Tonight.” And Roger almost immediately gives her his coat! Roger is supposed to be withdrawn and not interested in socializing. What good is staying in his apartment for however long (seven months? a year?) if he’s that chivalrous to the first woman he meets? [When Mimi climbs into his apartment at the end of “Out Tonight” he smiles a little. At first I thought this was going along the same lines that he’s just looking for a nice girlfriend, but I realized that it works well with “Another Day.” He is interested in Mimi, but he isn’t prepared for a relationship, especially not one with another drug addict. Good acting on Adam’s part.]

After the movie on Friday a few of the students and the faculty fellows who sponsored the outing went out for pizza and to discuss the film. Everyone agreed that the Santa Fe part was ridiculous, and some of the kids brought up a Britney Spears music video that looks like it shared the same set.

I just got back from seeing Harry Potter 4 with Christina and Ricky. Without spoiling it too much, I’d like to commend the most recent cinematic installment for its consistency and accuracy. The third movie deviated so much from the other two—for example, completely redesigning Hogwarts—and it showed little regard for the plot of the book. As a film alone, it was pleasant enough; but the third book, my favorite in the series, is infinitely better. The fourth movie did not quarrel with the directorial changes made in the third; it maintained stability for the viewers.

The fourth book is over three hundred pages longer than the third, and yet the new director managed to follow the written order (one of my biggest dislikes of the third movie concerns the placement of Harry’s receiving the Firebolt). Surprisingly, even the jokes thrown in were amusing. The only problem with it is that it is too rushed. What prevents Return of the King from being my favorite LotR film is the abundance of action without much story and character development. Battle scenes are connected by brief romantic and contemplative moments. HP4 bore much resemblance.

[Spoiler warning!]
The fourth movie moves from one event of the Triwizard Tournament to the next with almost nothing else in between. Unfortunately, the accuracy of the story suffered a bit at times in order to make all of the events believable and concise enough to fit into two hours and thirty minutes, but all of the modifications were tolerable and plausible. The kids are hardly ever seen in class; it seems the whole purpose of the year was for them to watch (or participate in) the tournament. The book takes a while to wade through because it is not one exciting scene of action following another. There are long, drawn-out parts about the house elves, and longer moments spent in the pensieve, and so many “boring” parts that make the really interesting stuff even better. That’s what this film needed. The audience would readily have watched the somewhat background plot—almost entirely cut from the film—in order to understand the characters and the school year better, not to mention (although I am mentioning it) the amount of drama that emerges in the fourth book that is only perhaps half present in the film.

These are very nitpicky criticisms. Usually I get extremely hung up on accuracy, so it’s really a big thing for me to think that a movie based on a book is good. This movie restored my faith in Harry Potter films. I recommend it to anyone who has read the book, or who will never read the book, without my usual “The book is much better” warning.

America Reads is such a nice program. They pay well for an interesting job that doesn’t require night or weekend time. Better than that, though, they give out free tickets to RENT. My friend Sisi and I got tickets this morning (she was there early, so we got row C of the mezzanine; thanks!) and went to the 8pm show tonight. During the first act, mostly, I noticed few things about the show in general and of course about the actors. If you haven’t seen it yet, I wouldn’t recommend reading the post; I tried not to make it spoil anything, but still, you wouldn’t want to see it with my opinions already in your head. Otherwise, if you’re interested in these minor details, enjoy! [Note: I object to not italicizing RENT in the title, but I really didn’t have time to figure out how to make that work and I wanted to post tonight. Perhaps having it in all caps will suffice.]

Acting
Mark (Matt Caplan) worried me at first. He …well, he practically lisped some of his early lines. Not that that would have been so terrible, but I was prepared to hear a rather poor Mark. But! he lost the lisp very early on (I’m talking about by the time “Rent” was over), and was actually reminiscent of Anthony Rapp at some points. He was the first actor to make me really understand the “She got you out” line in “Christmas Bells.” He made it seem like he was thanking god or some higher power that Roger had finally left the house; before I had never quite understood what he meant by it besides that Roger was outside now. It’s hard to explain. If you had seen him do what he did, and had been as confused as I had been, you would have appreciated it.

Roger (Cary Shields) was a bit shouty, but it was an improvement from last time. I’m not sure if it was the same actor or not; my other playbills are at home. He took the liberty of adding some notes to “One Song Glory,” but I’m a lot more tolerant of that now than I was four years ago when I first saw RENT. Other than that, he was pretty good.

Mimi (Karmine Alers) has been in the show for a while. I mean, we’ve seen her before, though I don’t know how many times. Since I went in knowing that I thought she was good, I easily let slide the deviations in “Light My Candle.” She doesn’t do “Out Tonight” as well as Rosario, but I guess it’s different when she’s actually jumping around on stage.

Maureen (Ava Gaudet) and Joanne (Merle Dandridge) worked really well together. Maureen had dark hair, like Idina, and did well in “Over the Moon.” I almost considered mooing; maybe next time. Angel (Justin Johnston) and Collins (Destan Owens) also were good together. Angel did not make his voice high enough at some points, but he was very funny in his actions. Benny (D’Monroe) was, like Roger, shouty at times. And he changed a line, saying “We’re out of luck, Alison, the protest is on.” Where does he get off changing Jonathan Larson’s lyrics? I guess where they all get off changing his music….

Colin Hanlon (omg!) had a few minor parts. For those who weren’t there, he was absolutely amazing last summer. He was the closest representation to Anthony Rapp’s original Mark of anyone I’d seen or heard. I couldn’t see him quite as well as last time, and of course his stage time was greatly reduced, but his version of Gordon was equally well-presented. It’s a shame he got shunted to such a small part.

General
This production was particularly interesting since approximately 200 NYU kids were there. I’m of course referring to the whole “couch potatoes at New York University” part. It got some laughs. I had actually completely forgotten that line, its having been cut from the movie and my listening to that soundtrack lately to prepare. The audience was very receptive in general tonight. You could tell that a lot of them had seen RENT before, since they anticipated entrances, etc. It wasn’t only that, though. People laughed a lot at certain parts (like Angel’s funny movements or Maureen’s role in the beginning of “La Vie Boheme”).

It bothers me that in the movie soundtrack, dialogue parts like “Could never be a theater person” are cut out of the songs. It seems to bother the actors in the show now too. Some of those parts were said really loudly, as if the actors were trying to compensate for their being cut from the movie. Something really pleased me, though. There are a few lines in “Christmas Bells” that are very hard to hear on the OBC cd and even in the show if you aren’t watching Mark’s and Roger’s mouths. Tonight those lines were the loudest; it was the first time I could clearly hear them, and I felt sure that a lot of the other theater-goers picked them up as well. [Oh! Ricky just reminded me about how the renovations were to fix the sound system. Perhaps that’s why those lines were much more clear and loud.]

I also noticed two things about the choreography tonight. I never noticed before, but the waiter in “La Vie Boheme” joins in with the bohemians in singing against Benny and Mr. Grey. That’s not really a big deal, just some pleasant interesting thing. What is kind of absurd to me, though, is “Santa Fe.” It really is just like Collins, Angel, and Mark sitting in the lot singing, and then all of these uninvolved homeless people start dancing around behind them. I know that a lot of people criticize musical theater because people just burst into song and everyone knows the lyrics and the movements, but this is different. It’s pretty clear in this song that it isn’t one of those impossible musical moments, and yet everyone suddenly starts dancing and singing. I don’t know, but from my experience homeless people don’t jump off their benches and start dancing when musicians set to work in the park. Maybe lot homeless people are different.

Most of the details I picked up on were in the first act. Perhaps I was too absorbed by the time the second act came around that I didn’t bother with petty differences. Overall, it was a good production. I can’t say it was the best I’ve ever seen, because I know the cast last summer with Colin Hanlon as Mark was probably better, and that was the best. But of course I can’t say that it was worse, either, because that would be a disappointment. So, it was good, it was different. Seven times now.