Movie Review – Rent (2005)

Overall 2.0 / 3.0
Gay content 2.0 / 3.0
Gay positivity 1.5 / 3.0

I have some serious criticisms of the movie “Rent,” which I shall detail momentarily. But first, let me say I enjoyed the movie overall. The urban cinematography was compelling, and the cast appealingly photogenic. The overarching story of urban bohemian life clashing with the urban corporate upper crust meshed well with the drug abuse, AIDS, and artist-cum-protester sub-plots, creating an engaging tapestry of story-telling.

If you don’t know the story of “Rent,” where have you been? It depicts the lives of several twenty-somethings living in a ghetto in New York over the course of one year. I really enjoyed the music, as well, particularly the high-energy “Tango Maureen” and “La Vie Boheme.” I am not typically a big fan of soundtracks, even for musicals, but I have seriously considered purchasing the soundtrack for this movie. I would mildly recommend this movie.

“Mildly?” you ask. I suggest watching the movie with eyes wide open. I find “Rent” to be misleading on several levels. For one thing, it does not present as much diversity in its characters and stories as a viewer probably thinks at first glance. Yes, they are all over the board in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation. But the characters portrayed are all far, far more alike than they are different. Even the characters who are not indigenous to a lower socio-economic stratus (Maureen and her girlfriend, played by Idina Menzel and Tracie Thoms, respectively) are completely assimilated into it; their backgrounds seem to give them no different perspective on events from that of the other counter-culture characters.

Indeed, Maureen is the ultimate representation of counter-culture in the movie, staging an important protest, and her lawyer girlfriend is adopted by the group and identifies completely with their position.

The implication is that alternative sexuality automatically places a person into a counter-culture sphere of experience. While not entirely untrue, I still find that position to be naive and disingenuous – it’s just not that black-or-white.

Meanwhile, the antagonists of the story, reflected by Benni, are presented as one-dimensional cardboard cutouts.

For my part, I felt a tremendous disconnect from both the characters and the story. I come from a profoundly suburban background. I have never known anyone in my life whom I knew to have AIDS, which means that even though AIDS is a big part of the overall gay story, it is not really part of my own story as a gay man. After seeing a movie like “Rent,” I almost feel as though I should apologize for that, as though I’m offending the gay community for only distantly and peripherally sharing in this collective tragedy. In the end, being gay isn’t enough for me to identify fully with this story.

Which brings me to the “Gay Content” and “Gay Positivity” scales on which I rated this movie.

My point-of-view seems mildly controversial among my circle of friends, most of whom absolutely adore this play. As I said, I mostly enjoyed “Rent,” and in the interest of full-disclosure, this really isn’t my favorite kind of movie to begin with. I also think the movie’s portrayal of gay characters/stories is important and positive in several ways.

For example, it presents gay characters and life in a (relatively) normative way for mainstream audiences (though I would suggest the audience pre-selects itself for liberal leanings). I love seeing two gay characters singing a love song and kissing on-screen. I love that Angel, a gay character, is presented as such a strong and unifying force within the story. When Angel meets Mark and his roommate, while dressed in Santa-esque drag, he (she?) is strong and economically powerful enough to be handing out money.

I would also argue that, whatever my criticism of the movie’s portrayal of things gay, it is a work of art, and as such has intrinsic value. But I also see a bit of propaganda in it. Disenfranchised counter-culture rebels are good; corporate upper class suits are bad. Socialist manifesto cum performance art? The propaganda oversimplifies a complex situation, and muddies the value of the work as art. See Walter Chaw assessment in his review of the movie for http://filmfreakcentral.net: “[Rent's] politics are obvious and unchallenged, and its characters are broad stereotypes engaged in shallow versions of complex issues.”

Indeed, Hollywood remains perpetually uneasy about movies that portray gay characters and gay life unless the portrayal falls into certain, pre-determined “safe” categories. The gay characters must be stereotypically, flamboyantly gay (portrayed via cross-dressing or effeminate behavior) or they must be disempowered (metaphorically represented by being diseased and/or marginalized). Although “Rent” has strong gay characters and stories, it clearly falls into both these categories. No new ground is broken here.

(**Note – this rest of this review contains minor plot spoilers.)

Look first at Tom Collins (Jesse L. Martin) – he’s named after a drink, for God’s sake! His annual Christmas gift is a bottle of Stoli. Yes, it’s true that many gay people drown their sorrows and self-destruct over bottles of Stoli. Let’s face it – most stereotypes are born in reality and contain a grain of truth. That doesn’t make them authentic or positive. And! In the first five minutes, Tom is beaten senseless by thugs on Christmas (Jesus hates fags, right? Give me a break.).

Movies, television and books are overwhelmingly full of imagery suggesting that if you’re gay, either (1) you are bad, or (2) bad things will happen to you. Interestingly, Mimi (Rosario Dawson) walks the same mean streets in a stripper’s minimal clothing with no problem. Go figure. Oh, and then there’s that interesting scene where Angel dies, and Mimi seems dead, but then comes back to life. Angel just stays dead.

One friend argues that mainstream audiences won’t accept as realistic gay characters with HIV unless the effects of HIV are real, i.e., terminal. I’m not sure I agree; but even so, I would just call that pandering. Besides, realistic? When was the last time you spontaneously broke into song walking down the street? On second thought, don’t answer that…

When I complained to her that most gay-themed movies (especially the mainstream ones) contribute to the stereotype that if you’re gay, either you are bad or bad things will happen to you, my friend offered a thought-provoking response: there are different kinds of dying. A death can be positive if it brings the survivors together, and if the deceased is remember fondly, with compassion and respect. Which is definitely the case with Angel’s death in the film. Indeed, Mimi’s return to life is even attributed to Angel’s intervention in the afterlife.

I cannot deny that Angel (Wilson Heredia) is probably the most positive character in the film. He is strong and loving, and brings the other characters together. He is also afflicted with HIV, and spends most of the movie in drag. Despite his positive qualities, he is still a stereotype. Even when he and Tom kissed on-screen, I couldn’t help but notice that Angel was a pretty girl in drag at the time.

I do recognize that this movie puts on film the story of a lot of gay people. HTV/AIDS is an important part of gay history and community and, through the literally life-and-death political movement the epidemic has given birth to, has done a lot for gay folks like me who have no direct experience of it (knock on wood). And our drag queens have been at the forefront of the gay rights movement from day one. It is important that these stories be told. But just telling the story is no longer sufficient to be considered progressive.

That criticism is more serious than it might appear on the surface. In fact, that’s precisely why it’s more serious. “Rent” is a regressive view of gay life presented as progressive. People watch this movie thinking they’re being forward-thinking, and as a result, they come to view this kind of portrayal as forward-thinking. But it’s not. If anything, it’s at least one large step backwards. This movie strikes me as reminiscent of “Boys in the Band.”

As lesbian writer Sarah Schulman (who admittedly has her own gripes with the movie – see the fascinating interview on Slate.com) states, “At this point, to simply represent or acknowledge that gay people exist is no longer inherently progressive, and to depict gay people as people who have no agency is retrogressive.” In other words, the gay characters are all disenfranchised and disempowered by circumstance, economics, disease, and their own self-destructive behaviors. Yes, they exist. They even love and kiss. I reiterate, that’s no longer enough to say the portrayal is positive.

In the end, this is one of the most multilayered films I’ve ever reviewed for its presentation of gay characters and stories. First, it portrays loving gay characters in loving relationships. That’s good for mainstream audiences to see. Score one for the film. Second, the film tells an important story. However tragic it may be, HIV/AIDS is part of the gay community’s history. This movie tells that story in a raw and forceful way. Score two for the film.

But in the end, the portrayals are still stereotypical and negative. To that morass of imagery that Holly has amassed over its years of gay characters, stories and movies, this film does, in fact, add more negative imagery. While the negativity may be offset by the positive layers/levels, at the end of the day, this movie still presents gay characters and stories epitomized by assaults, disease, death, and self-destructive behavior.

I’ve spent most of this review dwelling on the things gay in the film, and really “Rent” is about much more than that. I have glossed over Mimi’s struggle with drug addiction and her difficult but burgeoning relationship with HIV-positive heterosexual Roger (Adam Pascal). I have barely mentioned the lesbians in the film (I’m sorry!), although they are two of the most interesting characters in the work.

Nor have I discussed the thematic impact of the “Rent” story being a year-in-the-life documentary by a counter-culture filmmaker (Mark) who ultimately, in his own view, sells out to the mainstream.
This has already been an unusually long review, and I could easily write “Rent: the Review Part 4: the Rest of the Movie.”

As for the overall quality of the film, I refer you back to the beginning of the review – I mildly recommend the movie. How could I not recommend a movie so thought-provoking that I wrote a review this long!? But again, I urge you not to take this film at face value.