Once upon a time, I was something like a Bohemian. My friends were in theater, starting their own bands, doing beautiful artwork. They were drinking to excess and fantasizing about absinthe, smoking things and sampling drugs, having sex: gay, straight, and group. They were not returning their parents' phone calls, because to do so would mean having to justify on some level their wayward lifestyles. We all had black nail polish and too much eyeliner on. We were Bohemian Goths in Texas.

At the time, Rent resounded with me strongly. Even then, I recognized that some of the lyrics were awkward, but I was awkward then. We were awkward and rebellious and unsure of our futures. The characters were barely older than us, at the time. We were late teens, early twenties. They were late teens, early twenties. We were focused on death for our own reasons, and they were dying. AIDS seemed like a genuine and immediate threat.

The movie fails, less for the reasons that Zacharek lists, and more because it forgets that it's a period piece with actors who are too old to play their characters. Roger says, "You look like you're sixteen," and Mimi replies, "I'm nineteen, but I'm old for my age. I'm just born to be bad." "I once was born to be bad," Roger admits, already old at around twenty-five. But he's being played by a man who was twenty-five when it started ten years ago. And teenaged Mimi is played by a woman who's twenty-six. Keeping the original cast is great and all, but it causes some cognitive dissonance. Rebellion in one's early twenties is one thing. Rebellion in one's early thirties? Surely one has gotten over it by now.

It's not possible to update the script to compensate for this, though Columbus seems to try. He seems to try to compensate for the fact that it's a musical, too, turning song into dialogue, and poorly. He seems to try to compensate for the fact that it's from the theater, and both glorying in the fact that it's on film and trying to nod to the theatrical roots does not work. It's very clear that he doesn't trust the source material, and thus he reworks it poorly. It's a fairly poor adaptation of a work that is very much a product of its period.

I enjoyed it anyway.

As a former casual friend of several "creative class" types in the Chicago of the 1980s and 90s, I can relate to many of the situations depicted in "Rent." Although I never embraced the lifestyle myself, I always had a certain from-a-distance admiration for their perseverence and determination to stay true to their visions. This, of course, was coupled with sadness and revulsion at the tendency for self-destruction that so frequently accompanied such ambitions. Which is why I eventually moved on to more "traditional" circles (with their own, different-by-degree, capacities for dysfunction).

One aspect of the musical that I haven't seen much discussed, but which stands out in my mind, is its portrayal of "traditional family values" beneath all the sex/drugs/rock & roll trappings. For the past few decades our popular culture (especially on television) has been reflecting the reality of our need to create "alternative family structures" in a society in which traditional ties of blood and culture no longer exclusively define "family." The two most frequently-presented alternatives are the workplace ("Mary Tyler Moore," etc.) and the social network ("Friends," etc.). "Rent" clearly subscribes to the latter. Its motley crew of "bohos" live, love, laugh, fight, cry, and eventually die within the framework of the new, improvised "family."

Perhaps it is this unique blend of alternative lifestyles and traditional values that makes "Rent" succeed where many other rock-oriented musicals have failed. It's not perfect, but it's a good start, and will be (for better and for worse) the template for contemporary musicals in the years to come.

I hate musicals, always have. Rent turned me around late in life for an actor, at 17 with the full original cast (never done one and never will, and yes I can sing). And if whats his name insists on being overly cerebral and cooly detattached about a writer and show whose passion was more provocative than his sexuality then congratulations on being yet another Scrooge more comfortable with critique stupid enough to match boundless optimism.

I disagree with Zacharek's assessment of the highly energetic and faithful film-version of "Rent". That he had never seen the stage production might be the critical difference (I have seen it twice ove rthe years). But I was completely emeshed in the film from the very beginning, enjoying the characters' songs and the vibrant cinematography with each scene. Perhaps only in the final third does the story lose its strength of direction in painting a satisfying conclusion to the musical.

I agree with some of the other letters posted here, where they say that if someone is going to review a movie musical then they should have some basic knowledge of musical theatre. Stephanie has clearly not done much homework with regards to the origin of this musical, and, as someone pointed out, blatantly misquoted some of the lyrics. (and also misspelled aortic aNeurism. Its not an ayersim...and oh by the way did not know which character she was slamming half the time because 90% of the things she quoted, she conveniently left off which character actually said it.) I agree that the AIDS scare is a little dated, but when this musical first came out it was a very heavy topic. Unfortunately, as she did correctly state, Larson did die before the musical went into previews on broadway...the night before, as a matter of fact. So much of it has not been revised, but instead left as a testimony to what basically became his lifes work. To pick on Chris Columbus' directing I think is doing a disservice to the director. I especially take offense to the comments on the staging of La Vie Boheme. As someone who saw the show several times both on and off broadway, and who currently has an ex-classmate touring in a production of the show as Mimi (I hold a bachelors of fine arts degree in musical theatre) i can tell you that the staging of that particular number is almost identical to the original staging...and is one of the best numbers in the show. I saw the movie just yesterday, so the images are fresh in my mind. I do agree that some of the movie was stilted and awkward...but that is because, in order to appeal to jow blow public (who clearly does not appreciate the effort), they added dialogue to what was an entirely sung rock opera. They also took some of the song lyrics and made them spoken lines, which was incredibly awkward and should not have been done. The only GOOD added line of dialogue happens at the end of "take me or leave me," when Maureens mother turns to Mark and says "now you guys can get back together." it was funny.

One of the things I loved about this movie was that they were able to bring back almost the entire original cast...they could not get the original mimi or joanne, but I thought that the replacements were phenomenal. It was really amazing for me to see how the actors have grown (and thank g-d anthony rapp has learned how to sing a teeny bit less nasal...his voice has always annoyed me. if you want to hear how it used to sound, listen closely to the song "what you own." I believe they used the original recording for that particular song because it is the only one in the movie that was not changed somehow, and their voices sound different there then they do in the rest of the movie.) Age and time away from the show has given these brilliant performers time to get a better appreciation for the characters, and find more depth to them. Jesse L. Martin, in particular, gives a spectacular performance. You completely believe his love for Angel, and he has a glow about him that is amazing.

In conclusion, I can see how it would be tough for someone who does not know the show well, and who does not enjoy musical theatre, to like this movie. But that is no reason to write a venemous article completely trashing it. It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another thing to not have any respect for the fact that other people may see things differently than you. The point of a movie review is to give an objective perspective on a piece so that people can judge for themselves whether or not they want to see it. It is not your job to prejudice the general public one way or another. Stephanie, next time you review a movie musical, i suggest familiarizing yourself with the original first...that way you are able to approach it from an informed perspective and not come off so ignorant.

PS I would like to add that I am actually typing this under my boyfriends account, as he has the membership and I do not...so if anyone disagrees with the things that I have said, don't take it out on him...thanks. :)

-AVERY