AIDS in Rent, or How Are We Supposed to Know What Isn't Even Implied?
Recently while reading marksykins truly wonderful Rentfic, The Ballad of Mark and Roger, I was struck by the fact that in the story everyone has AIDS. Roger has AIDS. Collins does. Mimi does. Angel obviously does. Pretty much everyone except Mark and the lesbians have AIDS. So I'm reading this fic and I'm like, marksykins, what are you thinking? Mimi is just an ADDICT, she doesn't have AIDS! Roger certainly doesn't! Collins, huhwha?
But I was silly to doubt. Suspicious, mainly because I've always wondered what that AZT break thing was about and then heard something on NPR relating it to the Cocktail, I headed over to the official Rent website, where I discovered that yes, in fact, EVERYONE in the musical has AIDS except Mark and the lesbians, who somehow remain unscathed. Upon discovering this, I find myself severely disappointed in the musical in a way I never had been before.
And here's the thing. I get that the musical is political. I get that it's about AIDS, that it's about AIDS regardless of sexual orientation. It's about people trying to make their way in the world and fucking up and crawling out of holes and not giving in and living for today and all of that. Bohemian lifestyle, Freedom, beauty, truth and love, etc. But come ON. The idea that fucking EVERYONE they know or meet has AIDS is just ridiculous. Even Angels in America doesn't take it that far.
I love Rent, I really do. I love the music and the message. But I loved it a lot more when I thought it was about more than just one thing. Before I thought it was about different KINDS of illnesses, addictions, horrors... but now I know it's really just about AIDS and even the drug addiction is just a vehicle for giving Roger and Mimi the disease. It also completely changes my perception of Roger's character and his relationship with Mimi. Whereas before I thought it was more subtle--Roger reluctant to start something new because of April's suicide, not wanting to get involved with an addict, fearing that slippery slope--instead it's really about him having AIDS and not knowing that she does too. BAH.
And like... how the hell are we supposed to KNOW that Collins has AIDS? Do they ever mention is in the musical? I can't remember, it's been a long time since I saw it, and they don't imply it in the film, but apparently he does. So then I ask the question (to writers everywhere)--if it's not implied or stated in the text, how do we know things? If no one ever mentions Collins has AIDS, can we really just take the writer's word for it in like, the background synopsis? How much of a character is determined by what he or she actually does or is IN the text, and how much can we just take for granted? For my part, I think something as important as a life-threatening disease needs to at least be IMPLIED within the text for it to actually be true.
Anyway. So there's my beef with Rent. Now I need to reconceptualize my vision of it and come to terms with the fact that it really is pretty much only about AIDS. Sigh.
But I was silly to doubt. Suspicious, mainly because I've always wondered what that AZT break thing was about and then heard something on NPR relating it to the Cocktail, I headed over to the official Rent website, where I discovered that yes, in fact, EVERYONE in the musical has AIDS except Mark and the lesbians, who somehow remain unscathed. Upon discovering this, I find myself severely disappointed in the musical in a way I never had been before.
And here's the thing. I get that the musical is political. I get that it's about AIDS, that it's about AIDS regardless of sexual orientation. It's about people trying to make their way in the world and fucking up and crawling out of holes and not giving in and living for today and all of that. Bohemian lifestyle, Freedom, beauty, truth and love, etc. But come ON. The idea that fucking EVERYONE they know or meet has AIDS is just ridiculous. Even Angels in America doesn't take it that far.
I love Rent, I really do. I love the music and the message. But I loved it a lot more when I thought it was about more than just one thing. Before I thought it was about different KINDS of illnesses, addictions, horrors... but now I know it's really just about AIDS and even the drug addiction is just a vehicle for giving Roger and Mimi the disease. It also completely changes my perception of Roger's character and his relationship with Mimi. Whereas before I thought it was more subtle--Roger reluctant to start something new because of April's suicide, not wanting to get involved with an addict, fearing that slippery slope--instead it's really about him having AIDS and not knowing that she does too. BAH.
And like... how the hell are we supposed to KNOW that Collins has AIDS? Do they ever mention is in the musical? I can't remember, it's been a long time since I saw it, and they don't imply it in the film, but apparently he does. So then I ask the question (to writers everywhere)--if it's not implied or stated in the text, how do we know things? If no one ever mentions Collins has AIDS, can we really just take the writer's word for it in like, the background synopsis? How much of a character is determined by what he or she actually does or is IN the text, and how much can we just take for granted? For my part, I think something as important as a life-threatening disease needs to at least be IMPLIED within the text for it to actually be true.
Anyway. So there's my beef with Rent. Now I need to reconceptualize my vision of it and come to terms with the fact that it really is pretty much only about AIDS. Sigh.