Penny Presents... RENT by Jonathon Larson for the AIDS Trust (14th October, 2pm) ACT 1 Review

Penny Presents – RENT – by Jonathon Larson Sunday 14th October, 2pm performance RENT is one of those shows… something that people either love or hate, and the nuances of interpretation can make all the different between a terrible and a great performance. The current production of RENT, by the profits-to-charity amateur society, Penny Presents at the Tom Mann Theatre in Surry Hills has a fresh interpretation, strong cast, and emotional depth not often matched in amateur theatre. The story opens (as we all know) “December 24th, 9pm, EST” on the standard looking 90s East Village set – scaffolding upstage, band stage right under it, and the table in Mark and Roger’s apartment downstage centre. The set is unspectacular, but completely functional – after all, RENT should be a showcase for a strong cast, not an exercise in frivolity by a set designer. However, special mention should be made of Angel’s Christmas tree – which is all junkyard charm. Whether a production is going to be a success or not rests largely on the shoulders of the two men in the apartment at the opening of the show. Mark – played less strongly than one would like, but with pizzaz by Luke Murphy; and Roger, played by John Hogan. John is the standout of the pair – with an incredible look, and a voice to match. These young men portray the desperate friendship of Mark and Roger with unusual strength: Mark’s coddling versus Roger’s rigid isolationism. The vocal duels of the title song and “What You Own” in Act Two are really well balanced between anger, angst, and redemption. Although why on earth are they both standing still for the latter? Roger’s showpiece comes so quickly after the beginning of the show that it always takes me by surprise. John manages to skilfully avoid the plagues of “whinging Roger” (which is a constant burden, because as we all know, Roger spends quite a lot of the story whining about his lot in life), but rather delivers Glory with lots of emotion and true notes throughout. John’s interpretation of Roger goes from strength to strength, vocally, dramatically and emotionally throughout the show, culminating in (what appeared to be), genuine tears in Your Eyes. Even that so-tragic-that-it’s-corny “Nooooo!” as Mimi is brought in at the close of Act II was delivered with believable pain. (My theatre partner burst into tears at this point this afternoon). After Glory, and a problem with a sound cue (the first of a few, unfortunately), we get our first glimpse of Mimi in Light My Candle – and she is certainly no disappointment in this production! In fact, the undisputed stars of the show are the girls – Mimi, played by the sultry yet fragile Caitlin Street; Maureen was brought to life with real skill by Penny Horsfield; and the straight-laced lesbian lawyer, Joanne, was belted out by a buxom brunette, Annette Vietta (who sadly stepped aside today for the second Joanne of the company – who has an extraordinary act to follow). The gorgeous Ms Street vamps her delectable backside into Roger’s life with a vocal performance which would be at home on any professional stage in the country. But moreover, the required chemistry (which has been often lacking in both amateur and professional productions of RENT in NSW) between these leads in palpable. Their attraction to each other boils off the stage, and makes the audience truly ache for these sad, mixed up characters to end up together. It is a spark that none of the other couples on stage come close to matching, and the whole show is worth watching just to see these two young actors relate. After Candle, the audience is treated to the most beautiful Angel ever to grace a stage – Jayr Tinaco. Many of the audience at interval (the more gullible ones, perhaps) were convinced that Angel was not being played by a man! But Jayr sparkles, shimmies and smiles his way into the heart of a convincingly smitten Collins (Ed Mafi). It was a shame that for this performance, Jayr’s voice was showing the strain of a full weekend of shows as some of the expected harmonies in I’ll Cover You were not delivered. Jayr seemed a little unsure of a few entries, but without a conductor, these problems will always happen. One weak spot in this couple was the costuming of Collins – Mr Mafi looked washed out and was in great danger of fading into the background in a horrible beige combination – some rescue work on this point would be appreciated!! Our first real chance to hear the belty voice of Joanne comes up in Tango Maureen. I must confess, the staging feels clunking in this segment. The individual tango type movements are an effective metaphor, but they commence at the beginning of the song with no real motivation. With more forethought here (perhaps the fiddling with the equipment is tango-fied, moving then into a proper separated tango, then to the neat couple work at the end), this scene would have been much more effective. As it was, Mark struggled with the more powerful voice of Joanne (yet another example of poor sound work from the desk here), but his utter “Markiness” carried him through. The ensemble cast begins to make its presence felt with the initial Life Support Meeting scene, although standing on the upper scaffold platform was not terribly well thought out. There are a collection of heads which are half-in, half-out of lights, as well as this high position drawing attention to the hanging lights on the upstage lighting bar. Although theatregoers are aware that they are at a theatre, and not playing voyeur in the East Village, small touches such as this interfere greatly with the suspension of reality for an audience to really get into a show. The ensemble has an eclectic mix of actors, and characters - all physical sizes, and all voice standards. This was a refreshing and probably more accurate rendition of the street dwellers in NY than seen in other recent productions. In general, the ensemble provided good vocal support to the leads, and all ensemble soloists coped well with their moments. Special mention should be made of the choreography – particularly the 3-piece dancing bums in Santa Fe. I don’t think any of the audience watched Collins, Mark or Angel at all during this number – all eyes were on the bums! Sadly, the ensemble suffered from inadequate sound support (is there a theme emerging here?), particularly for the solo lines in the full cast numbers. After Life Support, the pace speeds up into the brilliantly delivered double act of Out Tonight and Another Day. The only disappointment in Out Tonight was the lack of the traditional blue pants for Mimi. At the very least, if the pants cannot be managed, there should have been a more spectacular costume change – but Mimi appears here in her street clothes from earlier: something more appropriate would’ve given the scene a further touch of sauciness. Mimi’s dance was of the normal ilk, but very well performed. Parts could have been raunchier, but in general it was a worthy rendition. As Mimi approaches Roger for the kiss between these two songs, Roger did convincing job of looking slightly petrified, yet greatly keen on the idea. The smooch was quickly forgotten in his completely venomous delivery of Another Day. Roger is bordering on schizophrenic as he moves between denial of his attraction and screaming out his self-righteous diatribe in this number. Strong support from the rest of the cast makes this piece one of the best in the first act. The ensemble shines further in the Will I round, which slides neatly into Santa Fe and I’ll Cover You. After the disappointment of Collins’ costume, I admit to not expecting much from Mr Mafi, however there is a richness in this voice which is reminiscent of the spectacular Jesse L. Martin. Collins’ greatest moment comes up in Act Two at Angel’s memorial, and there were quite literally tears all over the place – on stage and off, as Ed sang to farewell his love. The power and emotion in the song was (sadly) not at all reflected in any physical chemistry between the pair, but with the quality of Collins’ voice I got the feeling that so long as he was singing, anyone would be happy to be with him forever! And what is RENT without that awfully cringe-worthy performance piece? Actually, it would be marvellous. Although I see so much theatre, I abhor the need which directors and casts seem to have to make an audience feel “involved” through audience participation. If I wanted to participate, I would have auditioned, thanks all the same. However, the performance of Penny Horsfield as Maureen was utterly flawless. From clear, pure, sung tones, perfectly pitched monologue, snarky, sexy attitude, and evocative hand movements, I had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about mooing with the rest of the cows in the audience. Maureen presented fabulously every moment on stage, and when coupled with her very natty Joanne, the power of these two women seemed unstoppable. Again (sadly), there was no physical chemistry between this pair, but they were committed to their characters, and were convincing none-the-less. Outstanding. The showstopper of RENT is, to my mind, La Vie Boheme. Although lacking the melodic charm of Seasons of Love, the power of the Act 2 finale, or the downright passion of the title song, La Vie Boheme is one of the cleverest moments in modern musical theatre. The lyrics are all Sondheim, with more than a small tribute paid to the patter-songs of Gilbert and Sullivan. In Penny Presents, it was clear that every member of the cast was having the time of their lives. The lyrics were delivered cleanly, and the choreographed movements by the table sitters were very effective. Benny (played with not quite enough attitude by Larry Ruiz) smarmed his way around the diners, taunting their ideals, but never quite gave the vocal or dramatic performance that I would expect from this role. Occasionally, this song did not live up to my expectations – some moments were far too contrived. The traditional move of having Mimi humping Angel was not well executed. It took Mimi far too long to get into position for what was clearly going to be the “dildoes” line. The power of that word and that move is in the shock value – yet, when Mimi is made to spend 3 or 4 lines clambouring on, that impact is completely lost. The Director should have refined this clunky and clichéd move and found something more innovative. The “Dorothy and Toto” line, by contrast, was a clever piece of staging, which worked very well. Sandwiched between La Vie Boheme A and B comes the resolution to the first Act romance, with Roger and Mimi brought together at the AZT break. Again, where on earth was the sound effect for this moment?? Vocally sound, although you could hear both actors were tiring, and Roger maintained a little too much anguish to be convincingly romantic. Once La Boheme B took off around them, though, Roger and Mimi put on the most sensual display I have seen in live theatre. The small touches, and smiles were electric. When Mark delivers his “Mimi and Roger, oblivious to all this…” he had never spoken a truer word. At this performance, Mimi and Roger’s sharing of a “small lovely kiss” resolved considerable tension; there was a flurry of feminine murmurs, and blokes shifting in their seats around the theatre as the Act came to a close.

Theatre_Buff - What drugs were you on when you watched this show? Because I want to take some every time I see an amateur show, if THIS is how DRASTICALLY it improves one's perception! My Opinion - Roger was one of the 2 worst performers on the stage - NO emotion, NO commitment to the character OR the audience - The only time his facial expression and demeanour changed, was when he came out for the bows, it looked like RELIEF on his face - maybe he had time just before that to run out to the toilet??? Would explain the constantly constipated expression on his face for the entire show... I also want to respond to most of your comments: > RENT is one of those shows… something that people either love or hate, and the nuances of interpretation can make all the different between a terrible and a great performance. The current production of RENT, by the profits-to-charity amateur society, Penny Presents at the Tom Mann Theatre in Surry Hills has a fresh interpretation, strong cast, and emotional depth not often matched in amateur theatre. I believe this production had all the emotional depth of a bowl of jello. > The story opens (as we all know) “December 24th, 9pm, EST” on the standard looking 90s East Village set – scaffolding upstage, band stage right under it, and the table in Mark and Roger’s apartment downstage centre. The set is unspectacular, but completely functional – after all, RENT should be a showcase for a strong cast, not an exercise in frivolity by a set designer. However, special mention should be made of Angel’s Christmas tree – which is all junkyard charm. The tree was nice. > Whether a production is going to be a success or not rests largely on the shoulders of the two men in the apartment at the opening of the show. Mark – played less strongly than one would like, but with pizzazz by Luke Murphy; and Roger, played by John Hogan. John is the standout of the pair – with an incredible look, and a voice to match. These young men portray the desperate friendship of Mark and Roger with unusual strength: Mark’s coddling versus Roger’s rigid isolationism. The vocal duels of the title song and “What You Own” in Act Two are really well balanced between anger, angst, and redemption. Although why on earth are they both standing still for the latter? A: Constipation. > Roger’s showpiece comes so quickly after the beginning of the show that it always takes me by surprise. John manages to skilfully avoid the plagues of “whinging Roger” (which is a constant burden, because as we all know, Roger spends quite a lot of the story whining about his lot in life), but rather delivers Glory with lots of emotion and true notes throughout. John’s interpretation of Roger goes from strength to strength, vocally, dramatically and emotionally throughout the show, culminating in (what appeared to be), genuine tears in Your Eyes. Even that so-tragic-that-it’s-corny “Nooooo!” as Mimi is brought in at the close of Act II was delivered with believable pain. (My theatre partner burst into tears at this point this afternoon). True notes? TRUE NOTES? Having to SCREECH to reach the top part of your vocal register is NOT SINGING... > After Glory, and a problem with a sound cue (the first of a few, unfortunately), we get our first glimpse of Mimi in Light My Candle – and she is certainly no disappointment in this production! In fact, the undisputed stars of the show are the girls – Mimi, played by the sultry yet fragile Caitlin Street; Maureen was brought to life with real skill by Penny Horsfield; and the straight-laced lesbian lawyer, Joanne, was belted out by a buxom brunette, Annette Vietta (who sadly stepped aside today for the second Joanne of the company – who has an extraordinary act to follow). I feel that Mimi, while looking great, was far to hard and masculine in her performance of this sexy, alluring YOUNG girl. She came across as a hardened ex-stripper that has to turn to drugs to keep herself happy... this is NOT how I see the character at all. Mimi is supposed to have a sweet innocence that makes her very attractive to the men, and a wild fun streak that she lets out when taking drugs. This is why she becomes an addict, because she wants to have FUN, not wants to escape reality. > The gorgeous Ms Street vamps her delectable backside into Roger’s life with a vocal performance which would be at home on any professional stage in the country. But moreover, the required chemistry (which has been often lacking in both amateur and professional productions of RENT in NSW) between these leads in palpable. Their attraction to each other boils off the stage, and makes the audience truly ache for these sad, mixed up characters to end up together. It is a spark that none of the other couples on stage come close to matching, and the whole show is worth watching just to see these two young actors relate. Roger spent 80% of the song NOT LOOKING AT HER! There was ZERO chemistry between Roger and ANYONE on the stage. > After Candle, the audience is treated to the most beautiful Angel ever to grace a stage – Jayr Tinaco. Many of the audience at interval (the more gullible ones, perhaps) were convinced that Angel was not being played by a man! But Jayr sparkles, shimmies and smiles his way into the heart of a convincingly smitten Collins (Ed Mafi). It was a shame that for this performance, Jayr’s voice was showing the strain of a full weekend of shows as some of the expected harmonies in I’ll Cover You were not delivered. Jayr seemed a little unsure of a few entries, but without a conductor, these problems will always happen. THIS IS ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS. Any MD worth their salt will drill a cast to KNOW their entrances if the cast is not able to see a conductor. Especially in such a musically driven piece as Rent - there is hardly a spoken line in the show! The issue of the cast not being able to see the MD/conductor certainly never affected other amateur production of RENT that I have seen. That brings me to another issue - the orchestra. PLEASE PLEASE get someone that KNOWS the piece to MD - the band sounded like they were playing the score from sight for the first time - the delay between staged moments, waiting for the songs to start was TORTUROUS for not only the cast but the audience as well..., the mis-played chords in the band were also not doing the cast any favours, their mostly correctly sung harmonies ended up sounding wrong, because the band was playing the wrong chords. > Our first real chance to hear the belty voice of Joanne comes up in Tango Maureen. I must confess, the staging feels clunking in this segment. The individual tango type movements are an effective metaphor, but they commence at the beginning of the song with no real motivation. With more forethought here (perhaps the fiddling with the equipment is tango-fied, moving then into a proper separated tango, then to the neat couple work at the end), this scene would have been much more effective. As it was, Mark struggled with the more powerful voice of Joanne (yet another example of poor sound work from the desk here), but his utter “Markiness” carried him through. TOTALLY agree. The Tango 'choreography' (I use quotes because it ended up looking like a saluting contest) was so distracting, that you lost all the plot points that the song was trying to make. > The ensemble cast begins to make its presence felt with the initial Life Support Meeting scene, although standing on the upper scaffold platform was not terribly well thought out. There are a collection of heads which are half-in, half-out of lights, as well as this high position drawing attention to the hanging lights on the upstage lighting bar. Although theatregoers are aware that they are at a theatre, and not playing voyeur in the East Village, small touches such as this interfere greatly with the suspension of reality for an audience to really get into a show. If THIS was your only distraction during that some, then I DEFINITELY want some of the drugs you were on! On a positive - the guy that played 'Steve' during the 'Will I?' solo - I think you should have played Roger. > The ensemble has an eclectic mix of actors, and characters - all physical sizes, and all voice standards. This was a refreshing and probably more accurate rendition of the street dwellers in NY than seen in other recent productions. In general, the ensemble provided good vocal support to the leads, and all ensemble soloists coped well with their moments. Special mention should be made of the choreography – particularly the 3-piece dancing bums in Santa Fe. I don’t think any of the audience watched Collins, Mark or Angel at all during this number – all eyes were on the bums! Sadly, the ensemble suffered from inadequate sound support (is there a theme emerging here?), particularly for the solo lines in the full cast numbers. EXTRA SPECIAL mention to the Auslang Signing guy from that dancing trio - so refreshing to see male ensemble members that can actually dance... BUT - Having choreographed dancing ensemble members during that song was a TOTAL distraction from the 3 leads - again the audience missed the point of the song, due to bad staging. > After Life Support, the pace speeds up into the brilliantly delivered double act of Out Tonight and Another Day. The only disappointment in Out Tonight was the lack of the traditional blue pants for Mimi. At the very least, if the pants cannot be managed, there should have been a more spectacular costume change – but Mimi appears here in her street clothes from earlier: something more appropriate would’ve given the scene a further touch of sauciness. Mimi’s dance was of the normal ilk, but very well performed. Parts could have been raunchier, but in general it was a worthy rendition. > As Mimi approaches Roger for the kiss between these two songs, Roger did convincing job of looking slightly petrified, yet greatly keen on the idea. The smooch was quickly forgotten in his completely venomous delivery of Another Day. Roger is bordering on schizophrenic as he moves between denial of his attraction and screaming out his self-righteous diatribe in this number. Strong support from the rest of the cast makes this piece one of the best in the first act. Nope, Roger did convincing job of looking constipated again. I (and my theatre partner) did not detect a single emotional or even facial expression change from Roger during the entire show. > The ensemble shines further in the Will I round, which slides neatly into Santa Fe and I’ll Cover You. After the disappointment of Collins’ costume, I admit to not expecting much from Mr Mafi, however there is a richness in this voice which is reminiscent of the spectacular Jesse L. Martin. Collins’ greatest moment comes up in Act Two at Angel’s memorial, and there were quite literally tears all over the place – on stage and off, as Ed sang to farewell his love. The power and emotion in the song was (sadly) not at all reflected in any physical chemistry between the pair, but with the quality of Collins’ voice I got the feeling that so long as he was singing, anyone would be happy to be with him forever! I feel that Collins gave heaps of emotion towards Angel, during the entire show, even when they were just background (for e.g. in Christmas Bells), but Angel never gave any back to Collins. This is where I believe the lack of chemistry between them stems from. > And what is RENT without that awfully cringe-worthy performance piece? Actually, it would be marvellous. Although I see so much theatre, I abhor the need which directors and casts seem to have to make an audience feel “involved” through audience participation. If I wanted to participate, I would have auditioned, thanks all the same. However, the performance of Penny Horsfield as Maureen was utterly flawless. From clear, pure, sung tones, perfectly pitched monologue, snarky, sexy attitude, and evocative hand movements, I had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about mooing with the rest of the cows in the audience. Maureen presented fabulously every moment on stage, and when coupled with her very natty Joanne, the power of these two women seemed unstoppable. Again (sadly), there was no physical chemistry between this pair, but they were committed to their characters, and were convincing none-the-less. Outstanding. The only STANDING that I wanted to do during that song was to get OUT, so I guess I felt it was OUT STANDING, too. There was no passion in the delivery. Whilst every note was on, I felt nothing of the anger/passion she was trying to portray in the PROTEST piece. There was no rise/fall in the delivery at all. It was monotone. > The showstopper of RENT is, to my mind, La Vie Boehme. Although lacking the melodic charm of Seasons of Love, the power of the Act 2 finale, or the downright passion of the title song, La Vie Boehme is one of the cleverest moments in modern musical theatre. The lyrics are all Sondheim, with more than a small tribute paid to the patter-songs of Gilbert and Sullivan. In Penny Presents, it was clear that every member of the cast was having the time of their lives. The lyrics were delivered cleanly, and the choreographed movements by the table sitters were very effective. Benny (played with not quite enough attitude by Larry Ruiz) smarmed his way around the diners, taunting their ideals, but never quite gave the vocal or dramatic performance that I would expect from this role. Benny sort of floated into and out of every scene he was in, not really noticed by the audience, even in You'll See, his solo. I kept looking around the stage and not realising he was even singing. > Occasionally, this song did not live up to my expectations – some moments were far too contrived. The traditional move of having Mimi humping Angel was not well executed. It took Mimi far too long to get into position for what was clearly going to be the “dildoes” line. The power of that word and that move is in the shock value – yet, when Mimi is made to spend 3 or 4 lines clambouring on, that impact is completely lost. The Director should have refined this clunky and clichéd move and found something more innovative. The “Dorothy and Toto” line, by contrast, was a clever piece of staging, which worked very well. The “Dorothy and Toto” line's staging was quite cute, but if I dint know the libretto already, I would have NO idea what was going on. This is true for the whole show, the vocals from the leads was almost always never heard above the band/ensemble. The sound was a shambles. > Sandwiched between La Vie Boehme A and B comes the resolution to the first Act romance, with Roger and Mimi brought together at the AZT break. Again, where on earth was the sound effect for this moment?? Vocally sound, although you could hear both actors were tiring, and Roger maintained a little too much anguish to be convincingly romantic. Once La Boehme B took off around them, though, Roger and Mimi put on the most sensual display I have seen in live theatre. The small touches, and smiles were electric. When Mark delivers his “Mimi and Roger, oblivious to all this…” he had never spoken a truer word. At this performance, Mimi and Roger’s sharing of a “small lovely kiss” resolved considerable tension; there was a flurry of feminine murmurs, and blokes shifting in their seats around the theatre as the Act came to a close. I think the shifting in their seats was due to something else. An urge to leave at intermission, and never, ever return. It certainly was for me.

Perhaps you saw the wrong session? Everyone went off last night!

So, Jo, are you a performer? Any theatre degrees? Pissed off that you can't get any roles?

Sorry, why does someone have to be a performer or have theatre degrees to review a show?

So in order to have any critical opinion of this show, I have to be a performer, with a theatre degree, and regular work? Get over yourself. I have every right not to like certain aspects of this show, and for you to deny me this right smacks of arrogance. Yes I am a performer. No I don’t have any theatre degrees. I do get regular roles. I just also know what I like and am not one of the sycophantic many that will tell someone their show was good, when I thought it was not.

Before I start, let me just say that I am saying this as a personal response and not as a member of Penny Presents... Anything I say doesn't neccessarily reflect the attitude that the company holds. I'm sorry if you thought my comment was arrogant, but your "critique", to put it simply, gave me the shits. I use quotation marks to indicate that your little diatribe about the show was merely a worthless attack on what was otherwise a well recieved show. Sure, it wasn't a professional affair, but then again, it never purported to be. However, what it did purport to be was an AMATEUR show that was performed FOR CHARITY. And you're right, you don't need a theatre degree or loads of theatre experience to critique a show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, to post up something like that as a review, something that is designed to influence people as to whether they want to watch the show, is quite offensive, as most of what you said was just inflammatory bullshit (my personal opinion) and some was just steeped in personal opinion. For example... I personally can't stand it when people attack a show for a difference in directorial vision... "I feel that Mimi, while looking great, was far to hard and masculine in her performance of this sexy, alluring YOUNG girl. She came across as a hardened ex-stripper that has to turn to drugs to keep herself happy... this is NOT how I see the character at all. Mimi is supposed to have a sweet innocence that makes her very attractive to the men, and a wild fun streak that she lets out when taking drugs. This is why she becomes an addict, because she wants to have FUN, not wants to escape reality." Therefore, if someone has a different vision for the character to you then it's the WRONG vision. I also liked that you seemingly mistook strength for masculinity... how feminist of you. "The Tango 'choreography' (I use quotes because it ended up looking like a saluting contest) was so distracting, that you lost all the plot points that the song was trying to make." "Having choreographed dancing ensemble members during that song was a TOTAL distraction from the 3 leads - again the audience missed the point of the song, due to bad staging." Once again, the show not being performed as it has been before... and before that... and before that... and before that. How do you speak for the collective audience (I know you did get the point of the song considering you've seen the show at least three times before at Rockdale, Penrith and Canberra) as to whether they 'got' the song. The dance may have been used to reflect what was going on in the song (This was the intention anyway). Which brings me to my favourite line... "I believe this production had all the emotional depth of a bowl of jello." Probably the most offensive moments of your 'critique' and the moment where your true arrogance is revealed. Whilst Theatre_Buff's review wasn't entirely positive, I can still respect their opinion, and the fact that it is one persons opinion. In fact, I know that a lot of the cast read Theatre_Buff's review and took some of the criticisms on board. However, the same can't be said about your 'critique', as ultimately, not much was said that could be taken seriously. All I can really say is I would LOVE to come see a performance of yours. Please, send me any details of a performance your in and I will be there with bells on. You can send it through to my email at redropelicorice(at)gmail(dot)com. On another note, I would also love if you came along and critiqued Assassins, which I am directing in May 2008. Hell, why not come audition for it! I apologise for possibly being overly-sensitive to your response, as I am a cast member and did feel that, whilst not perfect, this production was at par with the other productions of RENT I have seen (Some audience members who have seen the show on Broadway and on the West End even commented that some cast members hold their own against their professional counterparts). And, after all, I suppose you did end up supporting the company and the AIDS Trust of Australia through purchasing a ticket, and possibly even purchasing a program or candy bar items, so why should I complain? - Disgruntled cast member

Hi RRR If you cannot accept that any members of your audience could walk out of your show with a negative opinion of the directorial vision, then I don't think you are in the right person to be directing Assassins, one of Sondheim's most controversial, and audience-opinion-splitting shows. Life is all about differences. Many different opinions, many different options. YES, I didn't like some things about your production. YES, I *did* like some things about your production. Should I have patronised your cast and myself by writing that I thought you were excellent, when I don't think that you were? I simply disagreed with Theatre_Buff's opinion, as you disagree with mine. Should I forgive what I saw as lacklustre performances from most of the cast, because it was for charity? Ultimately, any review posted about ANY production that has ever been performed, of any show in history, is 100% personal opinion. That's what a review is. One persons personal opinion of their experience. For anyone to expect otherwise is naive. If you have an issue with the STYLE of the post giving my opinion, that, alas, is also your personal preference. How I can speak for the collective audience? I AM PART of the collective audience. I am the one that paid money, sat facing that dark cramped stage, and waited to be WOWed. I so wanted to be wowed. I love the show and the emotional journey that it is designed to give an audience. I believe that a lot of directorial and chorographical decisions prevented these emotional triggers from being picked up by the audience, as did the members of the groups I saw the show with, and other friends that saw it on other nights. I believe that in ANY production of RENT, be it for charity or otherwise, that Mark, Roger, Mimi and Angel have to be very, VERY strong. They are the main emotional crux of the show. My opinion of your shown may have been a little strong, but I believe it is because I have seen so many different productions of Rent, and feel I have a good basis to compare the different 'interpretations' that each one had. Would you like me to go into further detail about what I though of the performance of each of these 4? Yes I might prefer RENT to be staged/directed a particular way, but this is because I think that it works, when done a particular way, the way it was done on Broadway. When anyone changes what I expect RENT to be, I don't like it. Might come across as arrogance, but it is my personal preference. I don't see anyone trying to repaint the Mona Lisa and still pass it off as brilliant... Here's what I think Penny Presents should do... and please remember that this entire post is just my personal opinion. If the aim of Penny Presents is to make as much money for charity as possible, they should stage the old bums-on-seats shows, such as the Gilbert and Sullivans, Rodgers & Hammersteins, the Kander & Ebbs. They can take as much directorial and chorographical licence as they like, because these sorts of shows lend themselves to re-interpretation, and could possibly have new life breathed into them. RENT does not. It's a snapshot of a year in time from the mind of a man who lived with it all around him. I believe that if Jonathan Larson was still alive, he would either decline for the show to be performed by amateurs, or have it written into the contract that it be staged and danced a particular way. This show is still running on Broadway for a damn good reason, because the way it is presented is close to perfection. Your production made me which that they still waited decades to release shows to amateur. With the professional production still so fresh in my head, and the many clips and photos of it available in this digital world, your production came off as second best - and let's face it, if if was up to the same quality, then the performers and creative team would be doing it as their full time job, not in the amateur arena. This is just my opinion.

Oh and you need to be realistic... You say you show was otherwise well received... You seem to think that my review is the only negative one that exists... Isn't it quite possible that you have only heard positive reviews because traditionally only positive things are said to cast members? The most vocal of these being from friends and family? People are too worried about hurting people's feeling by saying negative things? Think about it. History is written by the vocal (and often sycophantic) majority.

I would LOVE for you to go into detail of what you thought of the four leads... Actually, just critique my performance (Mark) as I'd love to hear your thoughts...

Jo, I don't see your "review" as a review of sorts at all... all you did was critique someone else's review, (which might i add was a damn sight better than yours as it had all elements of a decent review rather than just hormonal 8th grade english skills) and give no elements of an actual review. You can't honestly say to me, taht you hated the show that much that you sat through it and didn't leave? Come on now. If i don't like something, i find something better with my time. But yet... you stuck it out?? Wowee! And bravo! Hope you feel a big person for being able to post rubbish up on a site... practically at the end of the run! Do you feel a big person? Do you? awww there there, no one else thinks you are :) xox

All I can say after reading the volumes here, is that when all the squabbling is over, and the Aids trust send out a nice thankyou letter to the production crew,the cast may feel that nice squishy feeling one gets when one does something good for mankind. And did the cast enjoy themselves? I'll bet they had a hoot! So does it really matter, if the guy in the 22nd row didn't spot Marilyn? Rise above it guys and take another small step for mankind. Johnny Grim A lad in sane productions

Jo, I would just like to say a big thank you to you - you made me laugh when I well and truly needed it. I read your "review" just before our last few performances, and I was very flat, but you picked me right back up again. If all you can do is nit pick and bitch and moan, find somewhere else to do it. And by the way, if you think EVERY production of RENT must be identical to Broadway....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh, and thanks for supporting the AIDS Trust too!! RENT Cast Member... Oh, YAY FOR RED ROPE LICORICE!!

what an entertaining read... i stumbled across this by accident, and seeing as i saw the show i thought i'd peruse...gave me a fair bit of entertainment! yes, there were some things about the show i didn't like, there were some bits i adored! bottom line, the cast clearly had a ball, and the raised their charity money, so good job to those involved!