RENT
The film adaptation of RENT certainly has its flaws, none more offensive than that which it inherited from its source material: the death of homosexual transvestite Angel and the miraculous survival of Mimi because of the endurance of “straight” love. Of course, the medium of film manages to take things to a new level: Angel, when dying, is emaciated and covered with sores, but Mimi, although sweating profusely, looks more like she has stepped out of a sauna at the gym when it seems as though her death is imminent. That another way in which one satisfy the conservative masses, you see: let the gay man die painfully because of his HIV-infection, which is what the conservative masses believe is right and justified and, to an extent, an awful shame. In this way, the conservative masses can feel really proud of themselves for feeling sorry for the gay man who dies of AIDS, even though they’re really happy and validated when the straight girl suffering from the same disease lives.
Musical Cyberspace 
‘People say, “Why doesn’t Mimi die?” Because it’s about living another day with your diseases, emotional roadblocks, and realizing they’re only roadblocks.’ – Kevin McCollum in the RENT book.
‘There’s only us, there’s only this, forget regret, or life is yours to miss. No other road, no other way, no day but today…’ – Mimi Marquez.
I think I’ll take her word over Kevin McCollum’s.
Looking at AIDS as nothing but an ’emotional roadblock’ is basically the same thing as letting it spread. Until we, as a society, look at AIDS as what it is – a disease which infects millions and ultimately KILLS every one of them – we’re allowing it to spread through ignorance and a lax attitude.
Want to ‘act up – fight AIDS?’ Then educate people to the true horror of what it is. Glassing it over as something that can be overcome by love is doing a disservice to our society. And it is outright insulting to the millions of people who are affected by AIDS.
Well if we’re citing Rent quotes, what about: ‘To people living with, living with, living with / not dying from disease’?
That would be dandy if she didn’t die from the disease. They had the chick die, see a light, and come back. You can’t tell me that you actually think that’s the same thing.
The movie specifically shows her suffering both from withdrawal and what appears to be complications from AIDS. However, after she hears Roger’s amazing song (a let down, especially after a whole year – “One Song Glory” kicks “Your Eyes” in the ass) and sees the light and Angel, she miraculously gets better (until two weeks later when she actually does die). It’s hands down the corniest ending ever conceived for a musical.
The “survival” moral of Rent is hammered into the audience’s heads in the majority of the songs. Hammered and hammered and hammered. I think it makes a better point if Mimi did die.
I’ve always had a problem with the ending. It’s by far the worst, most silly ending since the laugh-inducing one in Carrie. I believe the only reason people feel uplifted at curtain call, is because most people go to a Broadway show to have fun and be happy. Any opportunity to celebrate is eagerly seized by an audience, so when Angel skips out in perfectly healthy condition wearing a cutesy outfit at show’s finale, to join his friends in chanting the sung contradiction that is “No Day But Today,” the audience has already forgotten about – gasp! – AIDS. The film version only revealed the weak finale for all to see and for die-hard fans to defend.
RENT is not about AIDS. RENT is about community. Friendship. Love. Hope. Dare I say, life?
I walk away from RENT thinking that there’s no reason why we should still be finding a cure for major diseases. We should have them! We have people dying from AIDS, cancer, famine, war, pestilence – and we are able to get rid of these problems, but no-one cares. Why? Because people are bigots and will only listen to Bono or other rock stars asking for help to solve the problems when we should all do it ourselves. The problem is, people are so bloody short-sighted to never look further than their own problems.
In the 1980’s, AIDS was running rampant. It wsas called “the gay disease”. The Reagan Administration knew what was going on, but they did nothing for the people who were dying because Reagan himself didn’t give a shit, the uncaring bastard. The world got a wake up call in 1991 when Freddie Mercury passed away from AIDS. The world said, “Oh, we have a problem.” Then things started happening.
I have a hatred for diseases, especially, AIDS. It took my hero (Mercury) away. Every time I see RENT, I ask myself, why do we still have AIDS in the world?
In RENT, Larson does not depict prejudice and hatred with regards to homosexuals and the play is not blatantly anti-homosexual, in that it does not actively promote homophobia, hate speech and so forth. But the play does indeed represent homosexuals in a way that makes it easy for mass audiences to empathise with their plight so that they can feel good and self-actualised for being able to empathise with a minority group. This validates a latent attitude towards homosexuals that is more disturbing and more difficult to subvert than openly displayed homophobia.
My issue is not about changing source material. I have no problem with making changes to source material. My issues have to do with the statements that RENT makes and the underlying attitudes the show promotes with regards to homosexual representation – a point supported by Enrique in one of his responses above. I think that West Side Story doesn’t work because Maria and Tony are not both shot; indeed, the point is that they are not both placed in situations with equal circumstances. Maria survives because she is not shot. Mimi and Angel are both “shot” and their health deteriorates to a point where they should die. Mimi is saved by Roger’s love. Collins loves Angel in a far more profound manner than Roger loves Mimi, so why isn’t his love able to save Angel? Fundamentally, this means that straight love is able to heal what gay love cannot.
I’m very aware that RENT is set in a different time period than today. But it’s not set in the 1980s either; in the 1990s, homosexuals began to enjoy a greater sense of equality. I’m not saying that there wasn’t prejudice against homosexuals in the 1990s; indeed, my point is that there is, in fact, still a great deal of prejudice against homosexuals, which is why I feel that the dissemination of these attitudes is disturbing.
The big problem that I have with the RENT book is that people involved with the show make statements like that and readers accept them without question. Just because the creators or participants of/in the show say that the show is about survival does not mean that the show is about survival. The RENT book is just propaganda – one shouldn’t blindly accept what is written there.
If you examine the text of the show, the primary theme of RENT is unquestionably “no day but today”, not survival. And the show says that this is part of living with disease – one should live for ‘no day but today’ because one does not know whether there will be ‘another day’. But Mimi’s miraculous return to life totally destroys this idea. Never mind the implications this dramatic choice holds for the depiction of homosexuals and their relationships on stage.
But all of those things are affected by HIV/AIDS. The play is about how the community deals with HIV/AIDS, how HIV/AIDS affects friendship, love, hope and life.
I read an interview with Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein. Both of them wanted Maria to sing a aria to the gun and turn it on herself and shoot. That’s how they wanted to end West Side Story originally. Richard Rogers read the ending and said, “Change it. Maria is already dead when he dies.” Or he said something like that. I can look it up for you if you like.