Random Thought: I really hate Rent

Musicals are really tricky things. Sure there are some good ones. A lot of good ones. Some phenomenal ones actually. Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, Book of Mormon, more recently Hamilton, Sweeney Todd and my personal favorite, Wicked. On the other end, there are some musicals that don’t work as well. Grease, Young Frankenstein, and today’s entry, Rent. With all of these musicals, I’ve noticed one common theme amongst those that were good, and those that sucked. The ones that were really good, already had an existing story, a ground to build off of. Since Les Mis and Wicked were already stories to begin with, they just needed to translate it to the stage. And so the songs were written to advance the story and develop the characters. Same goes for Hamilton. So that’s why in a lot of cases the songs by themselves come off as alright, but when you actually know the context that the song is taking place in, then it just makes the song so much better. The best example I can think of is someone who I follow on facebook said that they listened to the soundtrack to Wicked years ago, thought it was alright, and didn’t really come back to it. Years later, he saw the show, came home, and tore up his house trying to find the soundtrack. A little context goes a long way. The story helped give meaning to the songs, and the songs helped intensify the emotions of the scene. Each worked for the other, improving the quality of the other, and benefiting as a result. Thus we have an audience that is more invested.

                The same cannot really be said for a musical such as Grease. In that show, the songs were all written first, and the story was filling in the blanks. The story was slave to the songs and as a result we have a musical with some good songs, but that’s it. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Book of Mormon wasn’t based on anything, and that was enjoyable. Young Frankenstein was based on a movie, and that fell flat on its ass. Sweeney Todd is very loosely based on a real person, more an urban legend than anything else, and that was one of my favorite musicals. I dislike Grease for a lot of the same reasons my mother despises The Little Mermaid. Basically, I think the characters are all stupid and selfish and don’t really know what they are talking about. Granted, this is high school, but they act like this is the end game, like this will define who they are as adults forever, and as immature as we all were in high school, I think we were all aware that the story didn’t end with graduation. But I digress. You’ll have to ask my mother why she dislikes Little Mermaid.

                See, Rent falls into that category that I think Grease falls into. Good songs, crap story. And what’s more is that Rent not only tries to tell a story, but tries to make a statement about society, and I don’t think it does a very good job of it. So before people want to label me as homophobic or anti-lgbt, or say that I’m the kind of person who says people with AIDS are suffering God’s wrath, you can put that one away too, because like I said, it has a point to make, it doesn’t do a good job of making it though. One thing that Rent has in common with a lot of musicals is that it features a lot of people who are left behind by the system, the outcasts, the dregs of society, people that don’t fit in with society’s view of what things should be. Characters like that are at the center of Phantom, Les Mis, Wicked, and most recently, Hamilton. Ex cons, freaks of nature, lower class levels of society, sons of whores and and a scotsman, orphan bastards, you get the idea. All are people who cannot help the situation they are in, they were dealt a bad hand in life and now have to do the best with what they got. The same can be said for (some of) the characters in Rent. The same can also be said about the characters in Philadelphia and Angels in America. Both stories about homosexuals living with AIDS, both become social outcasts and exiled. And both stories handle these themes much better than Rent.

Here’s the difference: The people in Philadelphia and Angels in America are generally good people, or at least in Roy Cohn’s case, he gets what’s coming to him and has something resembling redemption. It’s complicated and I can’t fully get into it right now. In Rent, most of the characters are terrible people. Maureen is manipulative and emotionally abusive who cheats on both partners she has in the story, Angel (while generally a likable character) gets money after he kills a dog. Throughout the rest of the show she’s alright, but I can’t get over the fact that she killed a dog at the very beginning. How has Peta not said anything about this? Not only did a character kill an animal, but got wealthy off the deed. Mimi is a very self destructive type, which doesn't really make her a bad person, but she also enables her love interest which is cause for concern for me.

The other case that stands out to me is Mark. The self described artist who just films people in every day life. He says he shoots without a script, but then again, so do I whenever I use snapchat. Can I be an artist? He also films group therapy sessions of people who have AIDS. Sure, his buddy Collins is okay with it, but I don’t imagine other people would be. They have a hard enough time opening up, and now they are supposed to open up in front of a guy with a camera. A little sensitivity is all I’m asking. He also films a homeless person getting harassed by the cops. He gets called out on this, basically getting told he’s exploiting someone else’s tragedy for his gain, and it doesn’t change anything. The scene goes on like nothing happened. The thing that bugs me about characters like him and Maureen is that they act like they are in the gutter with the others who have HIV/AIDS, but in reality, neither of them are sick, and there’s no reason for them to be broke, they both come from wealthy families who are supportive. So stop acting like you guys have it rough. Also, stop acting like being broke and having weird ideas makes you a genius that society can’t handle. It doesn’t. Mark is not an artist because he shoots without a script, he’s just making home movies on the streets of New York. Again, does using snapchat make me an artist?

                It also bugs me to no end that he romanticizes poverty when he has the option to not live in poverty, while all around he’s surrounded by homeless people who don’t exactly have a way out. Really makes him seem like a dick for romanticizing their plight. Compare that to Marius in Les Mis. Yes, he comes from a wealthy family, yes he decided to reject that, but only because he saw a problem with society and decided to actually do something about it. He fought and nearly got killed trying to help his broke student friends create a better world. He is a man of action. Mark is not. Now in the grand scheme of things, Marius and his friends didn’t really accomplish much but at least they tried to do something. Mark won’t because he just wants to film, and he won’t try to market that film because he sees that as selling out. He gets a job in journalism and he sees that as selling out. He also lives in an apartment rent free and demonizes the person that lets him do so. Okay, so the guy is a friend of his from back in the day who sold out and joined the system. Translation: he got a stable job. But to someone as revolutionary and visionary as Mark, he may as well be Benedict Arnold, or Lucifer. A traitor to our movement, even though you extended an olive branch and let me live rent free in a building that you own. I am now entitled to this because I am an artist and because I do not fit the mold of society, I therefore should not follow the rules of society, and therefore, I must not be allowed to be charged rent. God I want to punch Mark in the face. Also, calling him Benedict Arnold was a history reference for those of you ‘artists’.

                You want to know how you can fix a character like Mark? Write him so he is actually part of a movement. During the 80’s there were plenty of these, particularly groups who protested the government’s inaction to the AIDS crisis, which some would argue is what caused the disease to spread as much as it did. These people took action, they tried to wake people up to the issue that many were blind to. Let Mark use his art for an actual purpose, other than to let him call himself an artist. This is what would make him more like a character like Marius, it would make him someone who sees an issue with the world around him and the way society is treating it, and did something about it, or at least tried. Instead, he’s a preppy whiner who only does that. Carries a camera and whines about issues that he doesn’t suffer from and is doing nothing to change.

                With all this said, I should say that I don’t hate everything about Rent, like I said before, I like the music a lot, the two best songs being No Day but Today and Seasons of Love. Take Me or Leave Me is also pretty good, even if Idina Menzel is using it to justify cheating on her partners.  And I can appreciate that it was trying to say something, I just think it went about it all wrong. 

Historical Figures Who Deserve Their Own Movie: Mystery/Thriller Edition.

After I wrote my post about people who deserve their own theatrical tributes, it came to my attention that there are several people out there that I, like the rest of the world, had overlooked. And the more that I thought about it, the more I began to realize that these people could all fit into the same genre, that being mystery and thriller. So, since last time, I talked about people who would be the subject of epic war movies, this time, we are going to talk about people whose mystery continues to baffle historians to this day, as well as potential audiences

#5- DB Cooper

Of all the people who are overdue for their own theatrical tribute (and I can think of at least 5), few deserve it more than DB Cooper. Who is DB Cooper you ask? Isn't that the million dollar unanswerable question. DB Cooper was a hijacker from the early 1970's whose hijacking of a plane and disappearance sparked intrigue, controversy, and about a dozen thrillers all taking place on planes. To this day, his true identity remains a mystery, along with Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, and whoever wanted to cast Nick Cage as Superman. For all we know, he was the first recruit for the Men in Black.

Why do we need this movie?

Because quite frankly, we are over due for one. And because we have two directors that are prime for this kind of movie: David Fincher, whose credits include Zodiac, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Se7en, all about people trying to solve unanswerable mysteries. The second is Ben Affleck, who has really established himself as one of the finest working directors today, making the criminally underrated The Town and Argo.

 #4- Lafayette Baker

Who is he? Oh, only the guy who led the investigation that led to the capture of the Lincoln conspirators. That and he was a spy during the American Civil War. Apart from that, he was just a shady dude. To this day, there are still a number of unanswered questions surrounding the death of Abraham Lincoln, and my guess is that he knew some of it because he was killed by poisoning less than five years after Lincoln's assassination. Was it revenge from a disgruntled southern sympathizer or was someone ensuring his silence?

 #3- Inspector Frederick Abberline

This entree with the most white-sounding name this side of Benedict Cumberbatch has a claim to fame that, while it may not have been entirely successful, you have to give him credit for trying. Inspector Abberline's biggest exploit was the investigation of this guy...

 You understand what I mean by giving the guy credit for trying? Like DB Cooper, the true identity of Jack the Ripper remains a mystery, even after 125 years and truth be told, I don't think the mystery will ever be solved. But going back to Abberline, he was known to be quite the eccentric policeman with quite the enthusiasm for disguises, not unlike Sherlock Holmes. It would be interesting to see a movie about his starting out as a detective and how the Ripper case impacted his life and career.

#2- Wild Bill Donovan 



You ever heard of the CIA? Well, a lot of its existence is owed to this guy. Initially, he was a soldier and medal of honor recipient, and then he was appointed head of the OSS during World War II by FDR. He then went on the be a central figure of the Nuremberg trials for Nazi war criminals... He was also shady as all get out. In his time as America's number one spy, he was less like Captain America and more like Walter Donovan from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He played people on both sides of the line for his own benefit, he did everything he could to cement a legacy for himself, a lot of time at other people's expense, he ordered a number of political murders, and it is even believed that he had a hand in the death of General George S Patton. That last part has never been confirmed, but the rest of his resume is enough to warrant some kind of biographical film. It would be interesting to say the least.

#1-  HH Holmes



This one might be cheating because rumor has it that Leo Dicaprio is in talks to play HH Holmes. Who was he? Oh, nobody. Only a master of insurance fraud, a man with many lives, and he was also America's first known serial killer. To this very day, there isn't an exact estimation on just how many people Holmes killed, but authorities at the time figured it to be at least 200. A movie about his capture would be truly fascinating as well as a dive into the psychology of one of America's first known psychopaths.

Random Thought: the danger of remastering old games

So with the new next-gen consoles finally catching their stride, I've noticed a new trend coming on. That is a studio taking a game that was really popular back in the day, and just re-releasing it. It first started when the original Halo got an update for the Xbox 360. HOwever that had a specific reason behind it. That being that Halo had recently been taken over by a new studio, and understandably, fans of the series were not really sure what would happen with the franchise, since this was years after Halo 3 came out, and there were really only whispers about what would happen if and when we would get Halo 4. So the new studio decided to put our fears to rest by going back to the beginning, taking the original masterpiece that we knew and loved, and updating the graphics for the new age. It was their way of saying "listen, we know what you are all thinking, so let us show you that we are actually fans of the series, we are going to take it seriously... and we are also looking to make a ton of money" Yeah, I'm not gonna deny that it was essentially a cash grab. Though when it came out, it was sold for a reduced price than what a normal game gets priced at, so it wasn't a complete cash grab. They did something similar with the Xbox One, only this time they released all four of the original games, with 2 getting the update treatment. And again, they offered it at $60 (the typical price for one game) for all 4 games, so it didn't feel like a total rip off. And the nice part was that you could easily switch back and forth between old graphics and new graphics with the push of a button, you don't even have to pause the game. It was a nice way of revisiting the game we grew up playing online and at friends' houses while also seeing how far we've come. I'll admit, I love the way they made everybody look in the new Halo 2, but at times, I couldn't help but go back to the original Xbox graphics. There was a charming nostalgia factor to it.

But then trouble hit.

Over the past year, I've been noticing more and more game series are deciding to forgo making original material for the fans and are instead just rereleasing old titles. Only now instead of doing what Halo did and making some kind of update, there appears to be little to no change in the games. Gears of War for example, I had played quite a bit when it was on the 360, and had enjoyed it enough that I decided to get the remastered version when I saw it had come out. I was kind of expecting something similar with Halo. Yeah I'm playing the same game but I can play it with an updated look... But that wasn't the case either. I went so far as to look up gameplay from the original Gears and I noticed little to no difference in the graphics. Normally I wouldn't have been bothered because the graphics were pretty kick ass to begin with, but I paid $60 for this game! And it wasn't the whole series as was the case with Halo, it was just the first game. Needless to say I felt kind of ripped off. The same thing happened later that year with the Bioshock series. The only difference is that I kept that, because I'm a fan of the games. Well, 2 of them anyway.

And now it appears that more games are doing this. Taking a game that was already good, and just rereleasing it for the next gen consoles. From Grand Theft Auto to Elder Scrolls to Call of Duty to Assassins Creed, we've been seeing a ton of franchises putting out old games with the "remastered' label slapped on. My issue comes down to this, if we keep buying old games for new consoles, then there really wasn't a point to us buying new consoles to begin with. Many of us probably still have the games that we are buying again. I don't want a remastered Assassins Creed 2 or Brotherhood, I want a NEW Assassins Creed game. Yeah, CoD 4: Modern Warfare was awesome, but let's get a new Call of Duty (don't worry, I'll address that issue later too). If we keep buying old games with the remastered label, then studios will think thats all we want and will continue to put out less and less new material until we aren't getting anything. It's exactly what people are saying is wrong with the movie industry, except here it's even more frustrating because even less effort is being put into the product, they are just copying and pasting on a different disc.

Some of these games aren't even that old either. Skyrim was released in 2011, it's barely half a decade old. GTA 5 and Bioshock Infinite were both released in 2013. None of these games have been around long enough that people are pointing out how dated the graphics look. We could do that with Halo cause the original has been around since 2001, and the second came to us in 2004, there was enough of a gap that we could see how much time had passed.

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal of this than I should, but there is no denying that we are seeing more and more of it. If we want to justify the new consoles we all spent money on, then we need something to justify it with, and a game that I first played less than 10 years ago doesn't really warrant.