I’m in a unique position WRT Rent. I love it…I love the music and the message (insofar as the message is “don’t let yourself be consumed by cynicism and negativity, embrace life and love without fear”). But at the same time, I can understand where its detractors are coming from, and I think that if I met this kind of person in real life, I’d be mentally rolling my eyes the whole time.
I think that maybe part of it is the difference in the characters’ presentation between La Boheme and Rent. In LB, both the Murger novel and (to a large extent) the Puccini opera, the bohemians are meant to look a little ridiculous. We get the sense that they’re not so much BEING starving artists as they are PLAYING at being starving artists–Rodolpho isn’t so much in love with his work that he doesn’t burn it for only a few minutes of heat; he had to know that the warmth wouldn’t last long. Though we sympathize with them, we laugh at them a bit as well.
More to the point, with Mimi’s death at the end, we see reality crashing in on their self-created fantasy–there’s absolutely nothing romantic or artistic about poverty when it leads to disease and death.
With Rent, we don’t get that feeling that the bohemians are being ridiculous–we’re meant to sympathize with them being against The Man, even if it sometimes seems as if The Man has a point. Which is probably why they had Mimi live at the end, even if it may not be for much longer–the same message as LB wouldn’t have applied here. But then again, her survival at the end ties in with the overall message of *Rent–*it doesn’t matter in the end that Mimi is still living with a deadly disease, all that matters is to “give into love or live in fear.”
While I agree with the rest of your analysis, I just want to point out that I don’t see this part as a valid reason for dismissing a work of art, or even disliking it. My favorite movies, plays, and television are filled with people we wouldn’t want to have to interact with in real life. I’d probably punch any of Groucho Marx’s characters in the nose. Homer Simpson is a terrible individual. But they’re entertaining as hell when we can watch them from afar.
Just want to nitpick “Richard Hooker.” That’s a composite pseudonynm. Hornberger was the “story” guy, but W.C.l Heinz was the actual author of the words.
I’d never heard of this before. Eveything I’d read suggested that Hornberger was the sole author. Certainly he was the only one they quoted about disagreement with the tone of the TV series.
The first two sequels to MAS*H were apparently Hornberger’s work alone, according to the Wikipedia entries. I wonder if that explains their relative obscurity. Later MAS*H sequels were ghostwritten.
I think what Hermione was getting at is the bit different though. We ask asked at times to sympathize with Homer Simpson, but we aren’t supposed to believe that his lifestyle is good or his choices are good (in fact, just the opposite - we are supposed to sympathize with Homer even though he makes horrible choices that no one should ever make). Rent, at some level, seems to imply that we should applaud these artists for their lifestyle and their choices.
Well, that second part is also not accurate. . . probably. The book doesn’t describe how the monster was created, whether from exisiting tissue or tissue created in a laboratory. It does describe Frankenstein’s trying to find the secret of life by examining dead bodies and carcasses from slaughterhouses, but on the actual creation itself, El Zippo.
Going back to the OP I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would think Zapp Branagan was anything more than a broad parody of Capt. Kirk, On the other hand a lot of people believe that Kirk slept with lots of women, which isn’t true.
John Norman’s Gor novels are often misrepresented as being nonstop X-rated sex slavery porn. In point of fact, they have very few sex scenes in them, and even fewer sexual bondage scenes, and those that DO exist are generally not at all sexually explicit, more soft R than anything else, and a very soft R at that.
However, the female character do tend to be slaves, and there’s generally a romantic relationship of some kind between her and one of the male characters, and she also responds sexually to her slavery (in Norman’s stilted way). This creates the IMPRESSION of nonstop sex scenes, but in point of fact they just aren’t there.
The sequels not by him (the Wiki entry says of dubious literary merit, which is putting it mildly) were accessible to fans of the TV series, while his sequels (and the last was written after all or most of the TV sequels) were more true to the characters from the novel. I also suspect the TV spinoffs got more heavily marketed. I could only stand to read one of them, but there is no continuity between them and the real “Hooker” books.
I don’t remember if Henry Blake is alive in the TV spinoffs. I seem to remember him being there, but it has been a while.
Jesus, I can’t let people think I watched that show! So I found the reference - the monster refers to himself as “the Adam of your labours” when talking to Victor.
No, it’s about the rather basic observation that if you completely sever the connection between what a person does and what happens to them, that they become irresponsible. At least as embodied in the Soviet Union, collectivism DID produce a society of sullen goldbricks who did the shoddiest work they could get away with.
Disaffected youth are disaffected. It’s a major theme in Rent, American Idiot, Spring Awakening, Picnic and probably a number of other musicals and plays. Maybe even an update of Catcher in the Rye.
It’s just a trope, guys.
I think this comes across in the musical, too. The two leads are privileged white males, both from comfortable middle class existences willing to take them back in, but they’d rather live in a shithole. Why? That’s what some people do in their 20s.
For the non-white characters, it’s a depiction of extreme poverty, homelessness, AIDS, mental illness, and discrimination. Who wouldn’t want to sing and dance to that?