Welcome to another edition of “Monday at the Movies.”
We haven’t reviewed a musical around these
parts, so let’s give it a go.
Rent (2005) – Let’s
begin by separating the film from the stage play (which I’ve never seen) and
take the movie adaptation on its own merits.
I feel about
Rent very much
the same way I felt about the last musical I reviewed, Baz Luhrmann’s
Moulin Rouge – on a technical level, I see
that the moving parts work, and there are some fine performers clearly invested
in the material, but from an audience perspective both
Moulin Rouge and
Rent
felt very empty.
I’ll qualify this
review by quoting my
Moulin Rouge review
– I don’t think I’m the audience for this film – but as a reviewer that doesn’t
let the movie off the hook.
Rent feels empty because it seems to
strip away a lot of what makes the characters individually definable (see the
Plinkett test) and reduces a lot of their motivations to “I’ve got problems,
man, and life is tough.”
A few deleted
scenes really draw this out, especially with the character of Mark, who seems
hollow in the film proper but has a much fuller characterization when he gets
to, for lack of a better term, sing about his feelings.
I already have a tenuous relationship with
musicals – I really like exuberantly dumb musicals like
High School Musical or tonally thick ones like
Sweeney Todd – so I’m certain that
Rent isn’t for me.
Maybe if
I’d come to it with the stage play in mind:
I get the strong sense that this particular
Rent is targeted to those with the stage play near and dear at
heart.
For those of us newcomers, however,
the effect is much closer to wondering what all the fuss is about.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next
week for reviews of
Big Hero 6 and
Interstellar, and this Friday is the
Double-Oh-Seventh of the month... The Cinema King has a full dance card, so be
sure to subscribe – you won’t want to miss a moment!
No comments:
Post a Comment