There’s a group of people, a phenomenon in our country, affectionately referred to as “Rentheads.” Chances are you’re friends or at least acquaintances with one of these individuals. They’re often characterized by ownership of certain memorabilia, such as a two-disc soundtrack from the original Broadway musical that opened in 1996; a cast poster that looks like an abstract Technicolor version of the Brady Bunch; or more than one ticket stub from the show, proof that they are a true “Rent” aficionado.
Proponents of the new film adaptation of “Rent,” which hit theaters last week, will more than likely be composed of members from this sect. However, whether a fan of the original musical or not, audience members will probably leave this film feeling more than a bit bewildered. This is not to say they will certainly like or dislike the film, but some confusion about what happened to them during the past 135 minutes of their life will undoubtedly be present.
“Rent,” originally written by Jonathan Larson and based loosely on Puccini’s opera “La Boheme,” tells the story of seven friends living in New York City’s East Village in a time period that, while undetermined, seems to be somewhere in the ’80s. Upon its release, the musical was both heralded and scorned for its unabashed portrayal of AIDS, homosexuality, drug use and the counterculture lifestyle of alternative musicians, independent filmmakers and abstract stage performers.
What excited most Rentheads about the film adaptation was that the main characters in it would be revived by almost all of the original Broadway cast. Indeed, the heart these actors and actresses brought to their roles was palpable. Most noteworthy was the portrayal of Angel Dumott Schunard, a transgender street performer with AIDS, by Wilson Jermaine Heredia. The performance that won the actor a Tony and a Drama Desk award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical in 1996 is unquestionably the most powerful of the film. Overall, one must give credit to the cast for being able to finesse the same roles on the big screen that they performed on the stage.
In this way, a fine line between success and failure exists when adapting a screenplay from any other medium. For instance, when creating a film from a book, screenwriters and directors frequently grapple with the problem of limited time, which means they must learn to give life to only the most vivid of scenes and sift out only the most important plot points. When moving from the theater to film, however, the challenges are quite different. Characters must be toned down from their ostentatious stage versions to be more believable, and they must be able to move in settings that were once unembellished in the playhouse but have become a real world with all its complexities on the screen.
The setting of the film works at times and fails miserably at others, though it more often falls into a murky and apathy-inspiring middle ground. When it works – as it did in the “Tango Maureen” sequence, which launches characters Mark Cohen and his ex-girlfriend’s new lover Joanne Jefferson into a dream-like dance number – the scenes are exciting and audience members can’t help but bounce their feet along to the tune. When the setting fails, one is left wondering if director Chris Columbus, known most recently for his work on the first two “Harry Potter” films, was even attempting any creativity at all. A darker, more subversive and possibly even unknown director may have better filled the shoes required to make this film really work on screen.
Overall, the subject matter of this film is still as heavy as it was in the late ’90s. The outcries have already begun to rise over the content matter of drug use and homosexuality. And the fact that AIDS is as much an issue today as it was when the musical was released makes the subject matter almost disturbingly pertinent. However, the characters in the story toe the line of being outdated, as has the edginess of the bohemian lifestyle. With shabby chic attire and indie film festivals all the rage these days, too many filmgoers will leave “Rent” feeling like they’re part of a way of life that, in reality, they will never be able to understand. And it’s difficult to deny that the characters, if real and alive today, would likely boycott this film version of their lives as they boycotted the construction of a multimedia corporate office building in the neighborhood in the show.

[email protected]