Last night I had the unfortunate experience of seeing RENT, directed by Chris Columbus. Now, let me start by saying that I was a big fan of the musical when I first heard it in 1997. I saw a traveling production of it in Atlanta and then I saw the Broadway show in NY during my freshman year of college. Let me also say that I wasn't in the best frame of mind going into the film, having arrived just before it started (due to events outside my control) and ending up seated in the front row of the theater.
I wanted to like the movie. I wanted to see an adaptation that was true to the original musical while still creating something new and exciting on film. I was open to possible cuts and changes, because I understand how difficult it is to take a very stylized musical and make a realistic movie out of it. But as you've probably guessed by now, I was disappointed.
I'm not going to place the entire blame on the director. I think that part of the problem was that the material has become, at least for me, a little dated. When the musical first opened in 1996 addressing AIDS was still relatively new. The debate over where America, as a culture, was going was still topical. Nowadays, to argue against virtual reality and a computer center called "Cyber-arts" seems, well, 10 years ago.
That being said, there was still a good movie to be made here, and Chris Columbus just wasn't the man to do it. This is a man who made his name as a director with films like Adventures in Babysitting and Home Alone (everyone smack your hands to your cheeks and scream... you know you want to). He is the king of bland, cookie-cutter directing (see the first and second Harry Potter movies). He does a fine job with pretty much everything. He's faithful to the source material, but he makes all safe choices and lacks any sort of real creative vision. The adaptations that he has directed have added nothing to their respective source materials.
For the Harry Potter franchise this was unfortunate but not tragic. The HP books, though very enjoyable, are bubble-gum pop literature. They are entertainment, pure and simple. RENT, on the other hand, bears the weight of being an icon. Like it or not, it became to generation X what "Hair" was to the 70's (or so I've been told). Additionally, it gave itself the importance of bringing the AIDS epidemic to the front of the cultural radar. It dared our culture to speak out and fight instead of hiding behind ignorance and shame.
This is a movie that had a lot of potential. There are plenty of people in this country who haven't had a chance to see the musical and who aren't likely to go out and buy the original cast recording. There are people who aren't into musicals but who'd see the movie. And there's still room for discussion about AIDS and how we as a nation and a culture are going to respond. But this movie makes even AIDS seems anachronistic - like a relic of a decade ago - and that's beyond unfortunate; it's downright irresponsible.
I don't know exactly what could or should have been done differently to make this movie better. Less sweeping crane shots and more hand-held realism. A New York street that doesn't look like a soundstage in LA. This was the least dangerous image of 1990 NYC slums that I've seen. Law & Order looks more real. Finally, figure out a better way to integrate the musical with the film. Chicago did a remarkable job with this, largely because it was made by a very capable director who wasn't afraid to go out on a limb every once in a while.
Chris Columbus is fine. He does a perfectly competent job with pretty much every movie he directs. Unfortunately, this time around someone gave him a film that had to be all or nothing, and he couldn't rise to the challenge. If you want to experience the show as it should be, go buy the Original Cast Recordings. They carry far more emotional weight than this film.