Talk:Rent (musical)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikintoppa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Definately a disambiguation -- "Rent" would be an important economics article, for classical and socialist theories, as well as many others. -- Sam

There is a disamiguation for "rent" and "Rent". It only redirects to the musical page if you search "RENT" in all-caps, which is fairly appropriate since that is how many Rentheads distinguish the work.

(One set of new comments had been incorrectly placed well above EARLIER comments, which is not appropriate for a Talk page. Please note that "I don't get it" and its replies have not been deleted, but simply moved to their chronological place in the discussion. --Lawikitejana 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Needs cleanup

The plot summary is much too long and rambling. A concise summary with spoiler warning would be optimal. I have not seen the musical, so if someone else is ready & willing to do it, I would appreciate it. After an acceptable amount of time, I'll do it myself, the necessary information is already contained within the article, it just needs to be hunted down & gathered. -- Zenosparadox

(Note: I have restored Zenosparadox' original comments of 6 November 2005. For some reason in May, 2006, the same address User:70.185.191.59 was used to vandalize the paragraph twice and then was used to replace the blatant vandalism with three more subtle changes: (1) Renaming "Needs cleanup" to "The Best Musical Ever," (2) Changing "The plot summary is much too long and rambling" to "The best summary is not too long," and (3) "I have not seen the musical" to "I have seen the musical." These changes have gone unnoticed until now, but while I was going through the history and fixing things, I figured I'd restore this. I've made a note so that no one thinks I'm vandalizing. --Lawikitejana 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

I shortened the plot synopsis - does the new version work? ewok37 06:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the touch ups ewok37 06:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Good stuff. --Zenosparadox

Still a bit too long and gives away quite a bit. Yeah, there's a spoiler warning, but the entire play shouldn't be put up there--people might actually want to see it, y'know. And there's a bit of grammatical issues that need fixing. 158.123.178.2 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away a lot, as long as there's a spoiler warning -- I actually came to the page to try to find out the ending. Maybe there could be a non-spoiler summary as well as a complete one?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.7 (talk) 7 February 2006

I just seriously edited the plot summary, including reworking a bunch of the Act Two summary. Better than it was, I hope? Hbackman 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of despoiling the intro to the article ("Spoilers End Here" is somewhat painful, and hard to avoid if you really are trying to avoid spoilers) I've moved the character summary down into the plot synopsis, which consolidates the two spoilery sections. I think it still reads pretty well this way. -- Metahacker 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The plot summary is still too long, to the point of being too much to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.48.180 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not differentiate "spoilers" from any other data. Add with impunity what some might consider "spoilers". Likewise, Wikipedia does not label articles with any kind of "spoiler" alarm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nederlander information (heading added Sept 2006)

The opening comments imply it opened at the Nederlander which is incorrect. it opened and ran at the NYTW before moving uptown. Facts should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.175.73 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the introduction, but on the whole a section about the NYTW should be added since it was a very significant part of the musical's history. I think a noting of the original NYTW cast as well as a track listing is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hours (talk • contribs)

Too critical?

I really enjoyed it. It was vibrant, moving, original. The songs worked at many levels (as did the staging, and other aspects) and I especially appreciated the social/economic criticism (love the song on living in America at the end of the Millenium, as well as the homeless interventions on Christmas). Yet I was disappointed that while it was one of the first representations of LGBT characters on Broadway, the gay (male) love story is ended by death while the equally HIV-infected heterosexuals (Roger & Mimi) don't have their love story shortened in this way (though the threat looms). I know, another reading is possible: the romantic value of the gay relationship is elevated (made equal?) to that of Mimi's in Puccini's La Bohème through Angel's death (and heterosexual sympathy is aroused perhaps, and possibly equal respect for such relationships); also, the lesbian relationship doesn't end in this way. RENT was written when AIDS was a death-sentence, not a chronic, manageable illness as it is today (*if* you have access to meds and aren't fighting a secondary disease or condition like addiction or homelessness), so someone dying is inevitable (and in keeping with operatic tradition). Perhaps it was meant to honor, recognize, publicize the number of gay men who had died due to AIDS-related complications from the early 1980's until RENT's production in the mid-1990's. Yet, as a gay man living with AIDS, I admit I felt cheated after an initial flush of pleasure at *finally* seeing something on stage that didn't require me to translate culturally or romantically. Why couldn't Mimi (or Roger) be the one to die? Not to mention other questions I had... Was Angel's relationship with another man palatable because he did drag and the presumably majority-straight audience could sustain a fiction and avoid the reality that this was a male-male love relationship? Or was it more radical because of this? Does it simply reaffirm gender stereotypes (and assumptions about same-sex relationships that they must parrot these terms) or upset them completely? I don't know... Perhaps I'm just too critical or thinking too much about it. I know, being starved for representation affects this for me. I also know it's a work of art, not a political statement (or, rather, not solely a political statement, and not necessarily one that must support any of my pet ideologies, though it comes close).  :) No matter; I would see it again and recommend it to others. -- Kamal

I sincerely doubt that the fact Angel dies and not Mimi or Roger is somehow a statement against gays. In the 80s, the Reagan era in NYC, AIDS was a serious problem for gays, heteros and drug users alike. The purpose of Angel's death in the play is to illuminate the fact that Collins and Angel had the purest love of all of them. They admitted openly that they had AIDS, that they loved each other, and that they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. Mimi and Roger spent too much time doing this complicated dance around each other because they were too closed up. Angel's death was necessary to shed light on their petty problems. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were gay and Roger and Mimi were straight. Megan 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Kamal that one of the reason that Angel dresses in drag is to make it understandable to heterosexuals that male-male love is just like male-female love by having one of the men equate himself to women. Fllmtlchcb 08:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The death of Angel is to illustrate a point- Angel was arguably the most vibrant and loving character who introduces the rest of them to the "No Day But Today" lifestyle. He (or she) lived life to the fullest. I think it was almost a tribute to LGBT relations that Collins and Angel were considered the most pure and true love out of the three couples- shown throughout the text in lines such as "I'd be happy to die for a taste of what Angel had- someone to live for, unafraid to say I love you!" and more.

Her (or his) death was to show someone who lived life to the fullest, who lived with the thought that just because they were dying didn't mean they were dead, and Angel lived it up until the last possible moment (in the movie, her nails were painted like always, she smiled, etc.; and in the musical, she sings her "Today 4 U" song in her final moments). Angel was really the most beloved character with the best heart- yet AIDS can make anyone a victim, and it took some of the best and brightest. In the original La Boheme, Mimi did die- but Jon Larson said himself that he had Mimi survive because he wanted his play to end with life, not death.

--Julia528 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, eventually, they'll all die. angel wasnt the first. seriously.Dragon queen4ever 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Kamal, I understand that seeing someone in the same predicament on stage makes it feel more alive and that finally people are recognizing there are others living with disease (just as "La Vie Boheme B" states: "To people living with, living with, living with, not dying from disease") that still make an impact on life. People I have talked to after they have seen the movie adaptation fail to get what the musical was meant to get across. Sure, we can say it's a bad stereotype that Angel, a gay man who has AIDS, dies.

But we don't know the backstory except for tidbits. Maybe Angel has had AIDS for years on end and Collins recently contracted it. Maybe Angel's DNA couldn't fight it, or maybe he knew his time would be short and would just rather spend it living than in despair. RENT did so many things for society that, probably up until the night prior to it's opening (bless Jonathan Larson and his family and friends for his untimely death at that time) any off-the-street yuppie, a.k.a. real-life Bennys, would probably have scoffed at it for portraying a dark existence in the light. What everyone fails to see is that the musical was not meant to cause stereotype-based discussions, but to provoke the thought that maybe, just maybe, by living with a disease such as these high-profile ones, doesn't mean certain death.

In fact, although I understand there will be those in the medical field which will get ticked that I make such a non-medically based statement, the only thing in this world that will get you killed is yourself. I'm not suggesting suicide, mind you, and I don't mean the word "kill" in the same fashion as murder or suicide.

Look at Roger at the start of the musical: He's holed himself up for a year. He's basically starting "killing" himself from the inside. He pushes Mimi away, once again in just what I think, for multiple reasons, such as the fact that he's HIV+ and doesn't want her to get involved with that (figure she would end up already having it), that's he started destroying himself since April's death, and, who knows, maybe he's so mad at himself for letting her commit suicide that he's come to blame her death on his own inactivity in the matter.

Let's look back at the initial worry here: Was Angel a victim of AIDS or stereotype? RENT's core character base is 8, no more, no less. But who brings them all together? Angel. Everytime they start to drift apart, Angel pulls them back. And what event causes them to fall so far apart? Angel's death. One way to look at it is that perhaps Angel was indeed an Angel of sorts. The natural thought of angels is that they come down to help others. Perhaps Angel was here to help these people through the dark times. Plot-wise, the characters become one unit up until Angel's death, then upon his death, the foundation by which they stayed stable (Angel) was no longer there. They started to fall through the cracks and had to fight for what they wanted. That's where it probably should stop. Angel's death was nothing more than a plot device. It wasn't meant to provoke stereotypes. Stenir (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I just wanted to say my fair share here, even though my stance here is more about plot development than symbolism: I always thought the reason Angel was the one who died was because (s)he was more or less the one holding the group together, keeping them at peace. If any other character had died at that point, it wouldn't have had as huge an impact as Angel's death, especially on Collins. Mimi dying wouldn't have had as big an impact on the group, as Roger has already had a girl die (April). Also, Angel's death was (arguably?) what ended up saving Mimi's life in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.103.48 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural impact

Maybe I'm naive, but I think that "Since its first run on Broadway, "Rent" has caused over 15,000 people from all walks of life to claw their own eyes out in despair and then jump into oncoming traffic." is not exactly part of RENT's cultural impact.

Nope, it's called vandalism. Thanks for removing it, and why not go ahead and sign up for a user account? It's a lot of fun! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fun, well that is EP's POV of courseJayKeaton 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but that number did seem a little low... ;) Drjayphd (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rent had a huge cultural impact. Rent, which is one of Broadway's longest running musical teaches its audiences over and over again about taboo subjects such as AIDS and homosexuality. It focuses on tolence and acceptance of everyone. This play/movie (although much better play ... if I could add on) opened up new avenues for many people by introducing them to support groups, encouraging them to learn about the AIDS virus, attend seminars. Also, in the movie, people see a variation from the original Broadway play, where the characters Mimi and Maureen get married. There "wedding" is broken up when they decide to split up, but one can see the political comentary of this director, struggling with the real life controversy of approving gay marriage.

Anyways, thats just my 2 cents, everyone feel free to add on.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.230.39 (talk)

Something I was thinking as I looked on the page is that I would have liked to see some information on Rent's reception. Obviously, the show covers some controversial topics and viewpoints, which I'm sure must have attracted some praise/criticism, and I think "cultural impact" is a good place to put some information. Anyone have an opinion on this? Theaterdude88 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the information that would go under cultural impact is mentioned in the introduction right now, but it should be discussed more thoroughly in the "Cultural impact" section too. --Drenched 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Schulman

The charges she lists on the source (Slate.com) seem somewhat vague. Is this factual enough to be included? Perhaps someone who has read her book (Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America) could elaborate?--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.146.219 (talk) 11 December 2005

I haven't read the book, but her charge is overstated regardless. She told Slate, " The gay part of Rent is basically the plot of my novel, but with a slight shift. [Larson] has the same triangle between the married couple and the woman's lover, but he made the straight man the protagonist, whereas in my version he was the secondary character." Or perhaps, Jonathan Larson is telling a different story? One told from a different point of view? Nevertheless, I can't evaluate the claim that "there are scenes in Rent, and events in Rent, that come right out of my actual life, via the novel." To clarify the accusation, just before it I added information about plot elements taken from La Boheme and from actual events in the East Village. I also deleted the word "significant" from the accusation. Even if you were to grant that the accusation is true, and say Larson lifted the Mark-Maureen-Joanne love triangle from Schulman, ultimitely it's just a romantic subplot that comprises not more than two songs (Tango Maureen and Take me or leave me). mike 22:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So apparently the controversy was mentioned in the article in 2005. Regardless of the merit of Schulman's allegations of plagiarism, I recall that it was a major issue at the time, and her criticism of the depiction of gays and people with AIDS in mainstream productions such as this one is still very valid. Why was it deleted?--87.162.45.115 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Angel

Throughout Wikipedia's articles about Rent, I have seen instances of male pronouns being used for Angel. Angel is a woman in mind, and that overrides her male body. Please try to fix this wherever you can.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Devahn58 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2006

Angel may have been a gender-bending, drag-queen kind of man, but he was still male. Rent itself acknowledges this. For example, this exchange from the song Goodbye Love - "At least now if you try, Angel's death won't be in vain. - His death is in vain!" Note use of the masculine pronoun. While feminine pronouns can certainly be playfully used to refer to Angel, their use on Wikipedia is unnecessarily confusing to people who are not familiar with Angel's character or with Rent in general. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be thinking too much about, you know, a fictional character, but Angel identified as a female. While Goodbye Love refers to him/her several times as "he", during the funeral s/he is referred to as "she". Also, Angel would be Collins' queen, implying femininity. It's a tricky part of dealing with transvesteded people, but since this is a Wikipedia article dealing with a fictional person, let's go with "he" to avoid confusion.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.119.42 (talk) 15 January 2006

Please discern the facts from the story. We know Angel thought of himself as a woman in the story, but, in fact, he was male. The previous two repliers make good and valid points as well.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by No1cubfan (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006

Collins also comments "And you should hear her beat" at the beginning of "Today 4 U", even though during "Goodbye Love" he says "I can't believe he's gone." Apparently even in the lyrics there is no agreement on the proper pronoun for Angel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.141.188 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The use of different pronouns for Angel reflects life. When someone choses to identify as a different gender, their community, friends, and family all have different degrees of ease in switching pronouns. The same thing happens when someone changes their name. Some people manage it quite easily, some don't. Some try, but forget sometimes. If Angel were not fictional I would advocate using female pronouns. Because she is fictional, I would suggest continuing the ambiguity. If someone feels comfortable refering to her as "her", dont change it. Same goes for refering to her as "him". Hopefully the result would be the same mix that occurs in the story, with different characters, and sometimes the same character at different times, using different pronouns for Angel. ~Sierra

If you watch RENT closely you will notice that Angel only appears in drag on two days, at two parties. Admittedly, that party was the vast majority of the first act, but in his daily "work" life he appeared as a male, and in the hospital he again appeared male. Moreover, Collins identifies as gay ("I like boys") and often refers to Angel as 'he'. While it is possible that Angel was transgendered, it's a stretch, and therefore safer to say that he was a male who enjoyed dressing as a female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.62.178 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur; crossdressing is not a firm indicator of transgenderism, and we have no indication that Angel identified as a woman rather than as a gay male who also enjoyed cross-dressing. 209.6.54.213 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, but don't we? I've watched the musical a few times now, and after the song "Contact" when Mark is talking about the tourists, he refers to Angel as "he", but then is given a look by Angel and begins using "she" instead. I always thought that was meant to show that Angel preferred "she". Is that not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.103.48 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted that scene. As a trans person who is familiar with drag culture, referring to someone's drag queen persona as "he" is considered rude - similar to how a chef might dislike being called a cook. It implies that they are not good at their job. No official site states that Angel is transgender and the amount of times that Collins refers to Angel as "he" (always when Angel is out of drag) leads to the direct conclusion that Angel is a gay man who works as a drag queen, which is what official sources state. Angel at no point claimed to identify as female anywhere. And to address a point made above, "queen" is a feminine term... that is slang for an effeminate gay man (and also short for "drag queen"). Angel referring to himself as a queen therefore actually leans no more towards being a trans woman than it does being a gay man, but I would still refer back to official sources which state that he is a gay man. GuyCable (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened?

the summary is ok, I guess... but there are TWO acts in rent, so where is the summary of the second act? The pointer outer 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea if this is really what was intended, but when I read it I asked myself the same thing and figured it was this way to simply provide a teaser communicating the basic idea of the play and creating a longing for more, presumably to get people to watch it. On second thought, that may not be the right way do to it on an encylopedic entry (as opposed to promotional material). Michael%Sappir 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that bit, clearly labelled both acts, and added an expand tag. Turnstep 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How to cite bonus DVD?

In the section on Rent's creative process, it says, "... until one lone voice said "Thank you, Jonathan Larson," which broke the spell[citation needed]." This fact was mentioned on the bonus DVD that came with Rent, the movie. There was a documentary on the creation of Rent. How would one go about citing that source? Robin Chen 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea.. but it was mentioned on the No Day But Today documentary in the Without You segment.. I dont remember who was first talking about it.. I'll have to check and see...

There's a template for it: Template:Cite_video. My understanding is that features on a DVD count as films in their own right, so just include the name of the documentary etc. -- Metahacker 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Casts

About the organization of cast lists: I think there should be a separate section for casts, and include both the OBC and the current broadway cast in it as subheadings. The current setup is a tad illogical. Also, I think the cast section should include celebrity cast members and replacement cast members as well. i.e.:

Cast section

*OBC

*CBC

*famous people who were in rent ever

*replacement broadway casts (this maybe too long, but they pull it off on the Wicked site)

*possibly tour casts

what do you all think? Drenched 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Drenched

I changed my mind; now I think the article should only include the OBC and the current Broadway cast because it already has too many long lists. There are so many tour/international casts that I don't think cast lists of those productions should be included. And over the years, so many people have been in the Broadway production that I'm feeling wary of making a replacement cast section due to length and organizational messiness. What are your opinions of what cast lists should be included/excluded? --Drenched 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's such a big section, maybe split it into its own page, and just keep the OBC cast in place. That way the casual reader gets a little bit of info, and folks that want more detail can click through to it. -- Metahacker 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that could work. Do you know of any other musical theatre article that does this? Or, I know there are some external sites that have pretty comprehensive lists of previous and touring cast members like [1] (although I don't know how reliable it is...probably not that reputable). And there is another site whose link I can't find right now that has the cast list of every single show on Broadway until pretty recently. Maybe we can link those sites as a "see also" type deal in the cast section? --Drenched 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Organizing sections

I think we have somewhat redundant sections (i.e. the introduction, theatrical run, cultural impact). Could we perhaps just have a general "History" section that would include 1. Creative process 2. Theatrical Run 3. Impact all in one place instead of scattered all over the article? Also, I think the contents of the Trivia section right now is basically the same as in cultural impact. Couldn't we more explicitly just have a section called "References to Rent in Pop culture" or something that would just take care if it all? Then trivia could be reserved more for stuff like "Hey, Taye & Idina are married, awesome!" What do you guys think? Drenched 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Drenched

You don't need to understand everything.

This unsigned comment was moved on 17 September 2006 from the top of the page to its correct place in the chronology of the discussion, and the correct attribution for the unsigned comment was added.

I watched the movie "rent" yesterday. It was the movie version, but I have heard that that was fairly unchanged from the original (Is that true?).

And, I can't NOT understand how it was ever popular!? Is the stage version so different in plot from the movie?

The story is basically a bunch of ungrateful twerps who think the world owes them something and yet are unwilling to even say "thank you" for it when they get it. Not even unwilling to say "thank you", but actually ask for MORE while at the same time going out of their way to call you names. The entire play is filled with horrible, mean, nasty, cruel, jealous, hypocritical, self centered people who are considered the "heroes" and reasonable, generous, mild-mannered, *extraordinarily patient* "villains".

Like the very first scene the group is getting *free rent* on a entire building, in the middle of New York, for a YEAR (worth, what, well over a million dollars a year? I mean this is an entire building, right?) and then they decide to stage a protest against the very people giving them free rent...

So basically, the guy who owns the building is like, "Hey, either pay rent or stop protesting against me you ungrateful jerks!" and then they proceed to demonize that guy through the whole thing... Not one thank you. Just a lot of nasty incrimination and sarcasm towards him.

The theme of "I deserve special treatment and free stuff for no reason, but I want to be self-righteous about it and at the same time slap you across the face for not hurrying up with the gifts" is basically the theme. Even their internal relationships are like that.

One guy has a cheating girlfriend who decides to be a lesbian who gets "married" to another lesbian and then attempts to cheat on THAT girl her wedding day and finally has the audacity to sing a song about how, "So what, I lied to your face, and insulted you and your family. This is who I am, and obviously there is nothing wrong with *me*, so YOU need to get over it". Basically the same theme... Give me what I want, give it to me now, but I don't care what you want.

One guy eventually gets a job, the most amazing DREAM JOB of his life (he is a "film maker", and he films stuff all day long, and the company wants to pay him to just keep doing what he is doing), and calls it "selling out", gets all angry about it, stays just long enough to pay for rent for a month and quits.

Seriously, what was the message in this thing: Human trash is great? Aspire to make the most hyper-left-wing commune-living teaching-killer-whale-stolen-from-sf-oceneographic-society-to-eat-pure-vegan hippies look like industrious, clean-living upstanding members of society by comparison? Being a diseased, drug-addicted talentless loser with no means of income nor any redeeming qualities whatsoever is no reason you shouldn't expect the world to bow to your every whim?

Why would New Yorkers watch this thing and leave without throwing rotten fruit? Are we to believe that they are so unintelligent? Do they like people going home with the impression that, "New Yorkers are vapid, worthless dregs of human trash who can't think past their own self-centered egos, and we are proud of that impression. And, before you go, give us money, you stupid jerk."

Like you end up thinking, a city where something this THIS kind of retarded monkey message in what many consider one of the "high class" art form is revered with SUCH high acclaim must NOT be a great loss if someone took a match to the whole place.

To that end, the only saving grace, and what I *assume* is the reason why everyone liked this musical so much, because there is no other reason that makes sense, is that they *all* seem to have AIDS, and even if they don't it's reasonable to assume they will catch it soon... and at least one of them dies outright and another comes close enough for you to cheer... And I suppose we are left to hope the rest will die soon?

I guess the message of the musical, in the end, is: "You wouldn't think that watching people dying of a horrible wasting disease could make you happy, but it really can happen... Don't believe me? Here let me give you an example." --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.227.60 (talk) 5 July 2006

First and foremost, I would like to say that the stage version is far, far superior to that of the movie version in my opinion. This is because, if nothing else, of the energy that one gets from having it performed live. As well, the movie cut out several of my favorite songs such as "Christmas Bells" and "Happy New Year" as well as cropping "Goodbye Love" and "La Vie Boheme" (the beginning). At this point I will say that though I am an ardent believer in RENT, I was not totally appalled at what you said, though it wasn't exactly a pragmatic questioning (i.e. "ungrateful twerps" and the name-calling). I think your flaw is looking too much at the superficial aspects of the story. As [Fredi Walker], the original broadway "Joanne" once said, the movie is about people. This means that they are like us. Jonathan Larson's characters are designed for all of us to see a little bit of ourselves in them. I think that is why it is so popular. People relate to it. People see how to put ASIDE the issues of drug addiction, sexuality, wealth, etc., and see that things like love, trust, and living for the now are just more important in life. Listen to the lyrics a few times and it's a good thing to listen to when you are feeling bad. --kubfann 14:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think you misunderstand the musical which is far superior to the movie in my opinion, although of course you are entitled to your views as well. I'd be happy to explain the musical to you, and if you really do want to have this conversation, leave me a message on my page. But this is really not the place for such a discussion; this page is for discussing issues about the Rent (musical) Wikipedia article, not the topic itself. Instead, I'd suggest you post your query or opinion at the Rent movie page on imdb.com, or at www.compulsivebowlers.com. Drenched 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All of you people are crazy. This is the BEST musical ever. Each character has a strong inner struggle. Roger a man in his 20s who has already peaked in his musical career which was always his dream, not to mention he has AIDS, the worst diseas in the world. Mark a film maker who is doing whatever he can to live, stay true to his passion, and not sell out to the corporate world.Maureen is the one person who dosen't really have a problem other than the fact she has problems with committment. Joanne like Maureen has relationship probs and has no personality. These are just some examples of the wonderful deep characters. Along with these characters the score is great and sad and happy all at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiyero554 (talk • contribs)

Actualy, as New Yorker who has been going to Broadway musicals since the sixties, RENT is a good musical but I and most other critics wouldn't call it the best musical ever. I would reserve that for the original Showboat, Oklahoma, Caberet, A Chorus Line or Ragtime. But RENT was interesting concept of lifting the plot line from La Boheme, orchestrating it with a grunge inspired rock score and marketing it to Generation X, much like Hair was marketed in the sixties. Similar to the opera it was based on, the plot is a trite contrivance and mostly an excuse for a nice sung-through score. Also, those who think it was first musical to feature a gay lifestyle obviously have overlooked La Cage Au Folles from the 1980's. But youngsters infatuated with RENT probably wouldn't appreciate a singable Jerry Herman score GCW50 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome newcomers. Please don't forget to sign your comments! --Drenched 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the whole discussion does not belong in the page at all, as it's about the musical and not the Wikipedia article, but I thought it would be too big a violation of this Talk page's history to pull out these comments on the musical after all the replies and discussion. After all, equally off-topic pro-RENT comments have stayed. I did, however, move it from the top of the page, not because of the content, but because usual Wikipedia Talk-page etiquette seems to call for new sections always to be added at the end. Normally only replies are posted in the middle of other parts of the discussion. Hope this helps. Going to do a little more of added "unsigned comment" lines to sort out the discussion. --Lawikitejana 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I, like Lawikitejana, would like to point out that you are arguing over how good the musical is, something that has nothing to do with its Wiki page. And if it comes down to it, what does it matter if you have conflicting interests? Not everyone is going to feel the same about RENT, and saying that your point of view is the only right one is juvenile. Yes, you can be juvenile even when you have the ability to type and use a computer. I'm sorry that I posted so long after the last post, but I just felt like this was stupid. -- Venerated 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Detail question

In the pop culture section, it says there are references to Rent in Avenue Q. I (think I) know Avenue Q] well, but I can't find a direct reference. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No1cubfan (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006

You know, I was actually thinking the same thing when I read that. I've seen Avenue Q and have the cast recording, but I don't know of any Rent references in Avenue Q. I didn't delete the pop culture bullet though, because I figured I just missed something. Drenched 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact they both take place in Alphabet City, there isn't a direct connection. Fllmtlchcb 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no direct references in Avenue Q. The connection is more that Avenue Q contains similar themes, though I agree that is more of an opinion. I know it definitely reminded ME of rent when I first listened to it. Theaterdude88 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

New York Theatre Workshop

I feel like the part of the NYTW in RENT's history is not given sufficient attention. I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge than me, but I feel like we should at least include the 1994 cast as well as the prototype song list, with acknowledgements as to each song's update in the finished musical (Splatter = RENT, Right Brain = One Song Glory, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hours (talk • contribs)

That would be very interesting information, but I don't think it belongs in this article. One characteristic that prevents articles from reaching Featured status is the presence of too many lists since Wikipedia:Manual of Style preferse prose to lists. At the moment, I feel that we may already have too many lists and would definitely hesitate to add more. Also, most of the other articles on musicals don't include extensive workshop info. It makes for interesting trivia, but it's probably not encyclopedic. Furthermore, it'd be very difficult to find reputable published sources to reference such information (most of it isn't even in the Rent bible, and personal websites etc. aren't really acceptable sources). Just my 2 cents. But if this is really important to you, I guess you could always create a new page and see how it does. --Drenched 03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Touring cast out of date

I don't know who took over for them, but I know that Bryce Ryness, Jed Resnick, Arianda Fernandez, and Ben Roseberry have all left the tour, along with others. If anyone could do research and see who took over for them it'd be much appreciated. 152.163.100.68 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cast lists

The cast lists were mentioned in July; I'm revisiting the topic here. Other than the original cast list (and maybe the current Broadway cast list), these aren't really useful and are difficult, if not impossible, to maintain and document with reliable sources. (Who has access to documentation for the Japan tour cast, for example? The Rent website doesn't stay current on cast lists; it means constant trivial updates to the article, and isn't really encyclopedic. To list well-known actors and actresses who have done "guest turns" in the various casts is one thing; listing every actor and actress who has ever appeared in the show is another. If there are articles on individual performers, those articles can include the information that they were in Rent and link to the article(s) (movie and stage; not everyone in the film has been in a stage production).

I'm not even sure I'm in favor of including cast lists for tours that have ended. Which list do you use? The original? The closing? Mention everyone who was ever in the cast while it was on tour? Just doesn't make sense.

As for splitting the information off into a separate article, see What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a directory.

Also see the subpage about this article being nominated to be a Featured article; one of the specific mentions is the long lists.—Chidom ^talk  17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there are a bazillion productions listed in the infobox and it'd be impractical to try to list the cast lists of every production of Rent ever. I think we should just have the Original Broadway Cast and maybe the current Broadway cast. --Drenched 18:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we keep the list of notable broadway replacements? I think it's also remarkable to keep their names in record in addition to the ones played their rolds in the three versions mentioned. Also, it would also be better to have the names of actors played minor roles, since some of them are understudies of the main characters. Dustinchan (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It was getting impossible to keep referenced, just about anyone could come in and add their name and it wouldn't be discovered for years, if ever. The current approach preserves the most important information and dispenses with the rest, which I'm not sure it's feasible to maintain. WP:MUSICALS consensus is that understudy information should not be listed. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Amateur productions

It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to include information on amateur productions of a muscial; and none of the entries were sourced. I deleted the section.—Chidom ^talk  17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

It's generally accepted that Featured articles shouldn't have Trivia sections. If the information is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia, it should be included in the text of the article, not as a list. I'm not sure that much of this information is necessary, but when I have time I'll try to convert this into more of a narrative, unless someone else wants to do it. (Hint, hint. Please?)—Chidom ^talk  19:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and removed the trivia section, transferring one relevant statement to the Inspiration section. The majority of all trivia is, well, trivial, and this was no exception. It was also tagged and unsourced. María (habla conmigo) 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If somebody else can find it, I read in an old review of RENT that two of the main cast members were actually gay. I know one of them is Anthony Rapp, and I'm positive it's not Adam Pascal, Taye Diggs, or Idina Mendzel. --68.51.88.109 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the review you're talking about, but I do know that the wikipedia article on Anthony Rapp states that he's bisexual, although the statement is currently unsourced. I couldn't tell you about the other castmembers, though. —Mears man 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthony is bisexual. He mentions that in his memoir. As for another cast member, I believe Rosario Dawson is also bisexual (I heard by word of mouth so I doubt that it's true) but she was in the movie, not OBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.96.68 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

International productions

This section does not need the level of detail that an editor keeps restoring. The individual productions are listed in the info box at the top right of the article under "Productions"; lists in articles are one of the things that get evaluated in reviews for Featured Article status. This article needs to be tightened and shortened, not expanded with additional detail that can be summarized and still get the point across. In this case, it's that the musical has been produced all over the world. Whene exactly is was produced in each location, and what the cast there was, is just unnecessary information for this article. Maybe a separate article is needed, but that information doesn't belong here.—Chidom ^talk  12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT plays

Shouldnt this go under the category of LGBT plays.

But also, is Rent really one of the first Broadway shows to feature homosexual/bisexual character? Applause, back in 1970, had a homosexual character as Margo Channing's dresser. Sextet in 1976 featured characters of all sexual orientations, and even had gay characters for the leads. Dance A Little Closer had a pair of gay characters ask to be married, and La Cage Aux Folles was about a gay couple and their child, and both of those came out in the 80's. I think this section of the article should definitely be edited out. I don't even really know what you could qualify it as, since Rent doesn't seem to be a breakthrough show in this respect. Maybe transsexual?

Broadway cast edits

I've just gone through and edited the Broadway cast, which had Matt Caplan credited as Mark Cohen instead of Chris J Hanke. But, another thing that stood out to me, is that Karmine Alers is credited as playing Mimi; as well as being understudy for the role of Maureen. I'm just not sure whether that was right? Is anyone able to clarify?

Michael Potts

The hyperlink for Michael Potts in the section about the New York Theater Workshop staged reading is incorrect. The Michael Potts who played Benny is a black actor currently teaching at NYU. He has no Wikipedia page. Tischman 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the link to Michael Potts (actor). María (críticame) 15:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Various casts

Can someone who is a rent fanatic and knows the jargon, please add explanation in the article as to the various cast names. Why are they called the "Collins tour", the "Benny tour," etc? As someone who enjoys the show, but is not part of the fan culture, I find these insider terms confusing, and no effort has yet been made to explain them.24.165.188.30 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

These are North American tours, in alphabetical order according to chronology. I.e. "Angel" tour first, then Benny, then Collins etc. but it gets a bit more complex. --Drenched 04:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but this really should be explained in the article.24.165.188.30 (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review?

This article seems pretty complete. Why not nominate it as a Good Article and see what comments you get? Or else put it up for comment? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We could. I think the plot section is still too long to be successful as a GA, tho. But, hey, the worst that could happen is that it doesn't get promoted and we get some useful ideas.... —  MusicMaker5376 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the plot for the show is very complex and confusing and all over the place. So as it stands, the current plot seems good. Robauz (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

My watchlist keeps popping up with 192.138.89.235 as deleting an entire reference and other text. Quite frankly, I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to report a user (the user has MANY warnings). Can someone either give me a quick reporting tutorial or actually go ahead and do it yourself? It would be greatly appreciated. Anonymous~Source (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Celeb casting

I think we're playing a little fast and loose with the definition of the word "Celebrity". I think I've heard of all of two people on that list. One of the listees doesn't even have a WP article! Most of those people wouldn't even qualify to be on Dancing with the Stars. I'm all for deleting it. —  MusicMaker5376 16:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

I'm probably being dumb, but why is it called Rent? Shouldn't there be an explanation in the article? 86.133.214.216 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because the characters live together and all share the rent on the apartment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just that, it's a comment on the impermanence of life. Look at the lyrics to "What You Own." "I don't own emotion, I escape, and ape, content. I don't own emotion I rent" The song then goes on to discuss the night that is the subject of the first act, that one fleeting moment when everything clicked, and the fact that you can't hold on to that. Consequently we don't own things, but rent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.62.178 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Song list

The list of songs for the first act is missing the song On The Street, I believe. It should be between Will I? and Santa Fe. RoganTaigra (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary; critical reception

The Plot summary is 'way too long. Can't anyone tame it? Also, the article states that critical reception of the show was good, but there is no critical reception section -- There really should be such a section quoting the major initial reviews of the show, and also reviews of revivals/tours. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Broadway closing

The Broadway closing is being given a lot of prominence in the article. See WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a current events forum. I guess it's no big deal to leave it there for now, but once the show closes, the section should be converted into a sentence at the end of the Broadway production info, and the extension will no longer be notable. Lots of shows get extended, because when you announce that a show is closing, it gets press and people buy tickets. The Fantasticks stayed open for years by constantly announcing new closing dates. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

The first sentence is weak - "Rent can be considered a rock musical..." Rent IS a rock musical; I'm changing it to "Rent is a rock musical (sometimes considered a rock opera)..." That should work. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush tickets

Should some mention be made of the fact that RENT started the rush ticket system? For those who don't know, when RENT first started playing its ticketing was unique for the fact that the tickets for the first two rows of the orchestra went on sale the day of the show for $20 each. The majority of the people willing to wake up early and wait in line all day ended up being local students. Eventually this policy spread to other shows, so now most Broadway shows have a rush ticket policy where you can get highly discount seats (usually $20-$40) on a first come, first served basis a few hours before the show opens. Most also have a special student ticket rush where a certain number of rush tickets are reserved for people who present valid student IDs. Maybe this could go under the cultural impact section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.131.232 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is worth noting. GreenReaper (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stuff at bottom of page

At the very bottom of the page, right before the categories is something that reads "[[vm:α▼YΘ:gú²b}╜]] (musical)]]". Does anyone have any idea what this is, and, if so, could you either fix it if it's something that needs to be fixed or remove it if it's something that doesn't need to be there? Thanks! —MearsMan ^talk 06:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... It's structured like an interwiki link, but there's no ISO code using "vm", so I removed it. If that was the wrong thing to do, someone should fix it. — MusicMaker5376 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Character page

I was thinkng, shouldn't the characters have their own Wikipedia page (not necessarily one page per character, but y'know, a list of the characters in depth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.1.77 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The important information about the characters should be described in the plot summary. Anything that doesn't influence the plot significantly is not important enough to be necessary in an encyclopedia article. Some shows have such detailed character info, but it is not encyclopedic information, and the only purpose of having those pages, IMO, is to placate fans so that they won't clutter up the main page for the musical. See: WP:Fancruft and WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A list of the characters, though, should give out character info, but not too much

Since the point was made 2 years ago (see above), but never acted upon, let me point it out again: Character descriptions should not exist in a separate list - they should be incorporated into the plot summary, as per WPMT. One of these days I will get around to doing it, unless someone else does it first - which seems unlikely since no one bothered over the intervening 2 years. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Maureen: lesbian or bisexual?

Almost every day, editors (mostly anon) change the info on Maureen's sexuality from lesbian to bisexual and back again. This is not very entertaining anymore. Can anyone give a citation and the exact quote here to prove which it is, and then we can put a comment in the text with the cite and reference to this talk page? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched a library database of newspaper articles for "Maureen" "bisexual" "Jonathan Larson", and then for "Maureen" "lesbian" "Jonathan Larson". I found a dozen or so articles (here's one that's available online) that refer to Maureen as a "bisexual performance artist". Three articles I found referred to Maureen and Joanne as "a lesbian couple", and only one article actually referred to Maureen as "lesbian", and that one was only in a photo caption. Also, see this search of Google News archives. Based on this, I'd say it's best to have this article refer to her as "bisexual". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maureen is lesbian. Jonathon Larson, from the veeeeery first draft of the rock opera, intended for her to be lesbian. She went from heterosexual, with Mark Cohen, to homosexual with Joanne Jefferson. Maureen is too dramatic of a person to change from hetero to homosexual. It's simply too subtle for her taste. In Anthony Rapps novel Without You: A Memoir of Love, Loss, and The Musical RENT he stated many times that she was lesbian. In a song that was from a early workshop and later cut from the show Mark and Maureen are fighting. He thinks she's just going through a phase but she keeps telling him she is lesbian. So no, she is not bisexual. I'm not too fimiliar with Wikipedia yet so don't know how to link. Sorry! But siteforrent.com, Anythony Rapps book, and the documentary on the second disc of the movie version state this. And in Anthony Rapps book he quotes from the cut song and I can almost guarantee it says it in there somewhere! But I am 100 % positive she is lesbian! --ThankYouJonathon

OK, on what pages does Rapp discuss Maureen's sexuality? I'm going to add this book to the reference list: Rapp, Anthony. Without You: A Memoir of Love, Loss, and the Musical Rent (2006) Simon & Schuster ISBN 0-7432-6976-4 -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All that I could find is two mentions on page 19: In discussing the song "Over It", Rapp writes that it is for me to sing with my ex-girlfriend-turned-lesbian, Maureen.[2] And, later: The joke of the song was that I was telling Maureen she was going to get over being a lesbian, and she was telling me that I was going to get over being in love with her.[3] One of the Maureen's lyrics is Don't be so blind! Can't you see? All my life I've known who I was meant to be!.[4] Not a reliable source for that last link; is this sufficient? Is this invoking original research? I have no strong opinion about it myself. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference to page 19 of Rapp's book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added what I think is a stronger reference for Maureen's sexuality, the Libretto published in 1997 which includes extensive interviews from friends family, cast director, etc. Here is the relevant passage, from director Michael Greif, Larson's friend Lisa Hubbard and and photograph of one of Larson's notes, where he writes: "Musetta – a lesbian performance artist" (Musetta being Maureen's La Bohème counterpart. Here is the full passage, on page 25):

"The main structure, characters and music were already in place. But [Jim] Nicola and [Michael] Greif felt that some of the subplots were confusing and the characters cardboard. Larson's efforts to be multicultural and inclusive could be clumsily executed; sometimes his own intellect and earnestness got in his characters’ way. At points, he adhered too much to La Bohème, or to his own experience and didn't give the show space to grow. The relationship between Maureen and Joanne, for instance, was problematic: in early versions, Maureen gets back together with Mark in a plot twist that does parallel La Bohème, but comes across as wishful thinking on a straight man's part. In fact, Jonathan had had a girlfriend who left him for a woman.

Michael Greif: Until late in rehearsal, there were a lot of dyke issues. It was my point of view that they were the characters Jonathan had the most distance from, or the least handle on. He wasn't seeing what Jim and I were seeing very clearly, which was that if you're writing a piece that celebrates queer life, then let the women be queer.

Lisa Hubbard: I talked to him a lot about the lesbian characters. I felt at first that he didn't know how pat they were. They didn't feel like they were people, you didn't feel like they were relating to each other, in the same way those kinds of characters often come across in movies – as if they were written by straight men. At first you felt Maureen's connection with Mark more than with Joanne. It was almost like a joke that she'd turned gay. Jonathan needed a little kick in the butt. But we never argued about it. He wanted it to be good. Jonathan was very different; he wasn't like most straight guys. Two or his very closest friends were gay – Matt and me. So he knew a lot about gay life.

Maureen's sexuality is a confusion point for a lot of people, so I think this source that goes at length on the topic enhances the article. And yes I KNOW this discussion is 10 years old, I just wanted on record the source I was adding and my rationale :) Leesandeul (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Leesandeul! (Ack. I can't believe that discussion is 10 years old.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Contralto?

I am very curious as to why the part of Joanne is listed as being played by a contralto? Even more odd, it then goes on to say it could be played by a mezzo-soprano. Maybe I'm missing something, but something seems very wrong. A more likely scenario seems to be alto that could be mezzo-soprano. In all, I'm more inclined to just change it to mezzo-soprano. Alex (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why RENT?

Just curious, why is it often called RENT (in all caps)? What's wrong with just Rent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.229.234 (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably to visually differentiate the musical from paying a landlord. Also, all promotional material has RENT in all caps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.62.178 (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Voice parts

Given that this is a musical, with a heavy emphasis on music, I think that the character list should have the voice parts of the respective characters. I added the parts of the male characters (I can't vouch for the female characters), and I received a message that I entered information that was not encyclopedic or verifiable. I fail to see the objection. In any entry about an opera on here, AND in a number of musicals where there is a great deal of music, such as Les Miserables and Sweeney Todd. If the goal is to provide information on a subject, then why delete information, especially given that this is an article on a performance piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion on HIV/AIDS status of several characters

I've noticed that several times in this article that the HIV/AIDS status flips back and forth, which as far as I know, are not necessarily interchangeable (although HIV almost always develops into AIDS). We know Collins and Angel had AIDS. The problem seems to be with Roger and Mimi. Most mentions of Mimi disease are HIV, although in the Main Characters section it lists her as having AIDS. For Roger, it seems to be an even mention of HIV and AIDS (with the character sections using HIV, and the Plot sections using AIDS). Which is it? -- 204.112.159.179 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"technically" none of the characters are 100% defined, if you take into account the perhaps common interchangable use of HIV and AIDS conversationally; while not technically interchangable, it wouldn't surprise me if, for example, Roger's girlfriend left a note saying "we've got AIDS" meant she tested HIV positive, and not actually that it developed into AIDS. (For one, I don't think her finding out, presumably from an HIV test, could definatively prove that Roger had AIDS: just HIV - and even that would her assuming that just because she had it, he must have it too. The only way she could say they both had AIDS is if they both went for testing together and someone gave her both of their results). I'm not well versed in HIV/AIDS, but based on wikipedia reading, HIV is a testable condition while AIDS is just the last stage in the HIV infection, and that AIDS is only diagnosed by observing certain conditions in an HIV+ person which are consistent with AIDS. It is unlikely that Roger would get a note informing him "we've got AIDS" after already having been to a doctor to assess his HIV condition. So it seems more likely that April really meant they had HIV. That is speculation though.

Angel explicitly says "this body provides a comfortable home for [AIDS]". Collins says "as does mine". Again, on the face this implys both have AIDS, unless they are conversationally using "AIDS" to refer to "HIV". And even if Angel has AIDS, Collins may be referring simply to HIV and not want to bother to make the distinction verbally. Angel does die, and the strong presumption is that it is from AIDS, though never explicitly stated.

Mimi is only known to have HIV at least (due to using AZT). I believe some interpret her near-death at the end as succumbing to AIDS, though I personally could see it just as likely that she is ill from taking drugs and living on the street. It's not made clear. Neither Roger nor Collins show any ill effect of AIDS. I don't think any of the characters can DEFINATIVELY be stated as having AIDS, while I think it is statable that all four are HIV+. It is almost certain that Angel has AIDS, as he is the one who uses the "AIDS" term referring to himself, and most likely dies from AIDS. I'd say all of the other three are HIV+ for sure and that's the most you can say for sure. TheHYPO (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: It occurs to me just now that if you think about it, HIV is not a term used in the musical at all, I don't believe. So it is more likely that in order to avoid audience confusion, and perhaps because at the time this is set (1990ish?) there was less awareness of the nature of AIDS and HIV, that the characters simply refer to HIV as AIDS, even though it technically isn't. TheHYPO (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dawson doing the stage version?

I noticed repeatedly that Rosario's name is on the list of performing on the stage version. Did she? If not, it needs to be removed. Jedi Striker (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, she's never done a stage production, just the movie, but I don't see why it should be removed

Removed CYC section

I removed the paragraph on the CYC being the first youth group to put on a production of Rent. FOr a start, they weren't, I was a member of the cast of the drama society in Dublin City University that put on a production in April 2009. I'm not saying we were the first either but the CYC weren't either. Also, what next,every production gets a section? With the rights on sale, it would make the page much longer than it need be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.19.193 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Well, the Dublin City University isn't a youth theatre. Also, unlicensed productions were not considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.105.134 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Opera?

If you read the Wikipedia article on Rock Operas, you clearly see that Rent is not a rock opera. A rock musical, yes, but not a rock opera. Rock operas only have loose stories, while Rent tells a very exact story. Rock operas are also a form of music albums, while Rent is a form of musical theater. Anyone disagree? Cuardin (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point: I have seen debate on whether or not to consider RENT as a rock opera or rock musical. However, I fail to see how RENT does not fall under the guidelines set by the RENT Wikipedia article. To quote the introductory paragraph for reference:

A rock opera is a musical work that presents a storyline told over multiple parts, songs or sections. A rock opera differs from a conventional rock album, which usually includes songs that are not unified by a common theme or narrative. More recent developments include metal opera and rap opera (sometimes also called hip-hopera). A rock opera tells a coherent story, though details are often vague. A rock opera is similar to a concept album (of which it is a subset), though the latter may simply set a mood or maintain a theme.

• RENT is clearly a musical work with a storyline over MANY parts
• RENT tells a coherent story, yet the details are not vague in RENT; in fact, the details in the musical are quite minute often times. However, I do note that the article itself qualifies the stance, saying "often."

However, to make sure I was not making too many assumptions or misinterpreting Wikipedian standards, I turned to another rock musical/opera on Wikipedia, The Who's Tommy. There, the opera is called a musical. Looking further into the Wikipedia page for rock musicals, I found Tommy classified as an opera performed on stage. From a personal stance, I believe RENT is a rock opera, as is The Who's Tommy. RENT differs from a rock musical (like Spring Awakening, for example) because of its extremely little spoken dialogue, most of dialogue in the musical being sung. Can it be considered both? Surely. If I had to choose, Rock Opera. Lvb314 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Voice Types

Bit confused as to what the voice types are 'cos people keep changing around, and when I looked in the characters section just now no voice types were listed. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the voice types are: Mark - Baritone Roger - Tenor Mimi - Mezzo-Soprano (someone listed her as a contralto which isn't true) Collins - Baritone Angel - Tenor with Falsetto Maureen - Mezzo-Soprano Joanne - Contralto/Mezzo-Soprano (can't decide/remember which) Benny - Tenor (someone said he was a Baritone but I think he is tenor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.71.61 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

School's Edition

I disagree about the item: "In June 2010, Hollywood High School in Hollywood, CA was the first high school to perform the original broadway version of Rent, including the song "Contact," which is omitted in the School Edition."

This may be the case in the US, but certainly not in the UK, I have seen at least two secondary school performances that did the whole original broadway version and one of them was in Spring 2009. There is also no reference for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flower the skunk (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Rent The Musical (Greece) be merged into Rent (musical). Much of the content from Rent The Musical (Greece) appears to have been copied and pasted from Rent (musical), so they're largely redundant. It also appears that consensus on this talk page has been that detailed descriptions of international productions, as well as the proliferation of cast lists, are to be avoided as they are hard to source and tend to take over the whole article. Also, the images used in Rent The Musical (Greece) have some issues; they claim to be free images, but I think they're really copyrighted images that could possibly be justified under fair use but possibly not. MarianWilde (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article simply discusses the Greek productions of Rent (musical). Each musical should have only one main article describing all of the notable information about major productions. I also agree with User:MarianWilde's other points above. I would add that the fact that the information in this article is largely unreferenced shows the wisdom of these points. I think this article should be merged into Rent (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I should note that all four images in the Greek article should not make the jump, as at least two are false own work claims, which does not bode well for the other two. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Very Minor Character

I was wondering whether this very minor character should be added to the list. The character Parpignol in La Boheme is represented by The Man in RENT. Originally the character was named Parpignol in RENT too, but does not have an actual name. The character is described as "Drug dealer" so we can assume it's talking about The Man, who is Mimi's drug dealer and appears in Christmas Bells. It also makes sense as Parpignol and The Man appear in a large group number towards the end of the first half, but have very few lines and are easily ignored by viewers. The source can be found here: http://earbirding.com/3020summer2011/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Over-The-Moon.pdf on page 72.

The character probably won't be added to the main list as he's very minor, but it would be interesting to make this connection. Plus, on the La Boheme wiki page, Parpignol is listed in the characters list even though he has a very small role with a grand total of two lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.28.234 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

I'd like to work more on cleaning this up. There are some dead links. I'd like to see an article on actor Corbin Reid. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Typo??? Under "Sources and inspiration", there's a table of characters. One character is twice referred to as "Collins" and once as "Colline". 132.244.72.6 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, I don't mean the bit in section 8 (Cast). I mean the bit in section 2 (Sources and inspiration). 132.244.72.6 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Collins" is the character in Rent. "Colline" is the character in La bohème. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rent (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420212111/http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html to http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0%2C2545%2CTCP_16736_5609675%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201184518/http://www.firefox.org/news/articles/1995/1/Movie-Review-RENT---Filmed-Live-On-Broadway-2008/Page1.html to http://www.firefox.org/news/articles/1995/1/Movie-Review-RENT---Filmed-Live-On-Broadway-2008/Page1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural references

The Cleveland Show should be added to the shows that showed a reference of RENT, as there is an episode in which one of the characters is seen singing in a school representation of RENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rent - Broadway 2004.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rent - Broadway 2004.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)