Well, let’s slow down.  First of all, I think we can all agree that the ‘good guys’ in this show are Mark, Roger, Collins, Angel, Maureen, Joanne, and Mimi.  And the ‘bad guys’ are AIDS and Benny (and his father-in-law, to a lesser extent).

So, here’s my problem:  When I actually stop and pay attention to what’s going on, I realize that the ‘good guys’ are usually behaving in ways that range from irrational to immoral, and the ‘bad guys’ don’t actually do anything wrong.

Let’s start near the beginning: in the movie, there is a powerful and dramatic moment where the put-upon starving artists of East Village are hanging out of windows and off of the fire escapes of their apartments, dropping burning eviction notices into the streets and onto the Range Rover of their fat-cat oppressor, Benny, all while passionately crying out “We’re not gonna pay rent!”  It’s an incredible moment.  You really get worked up over the plight of these people, just trying to get by, dealing with their AIDS and trying to create something beautiful out of squalor; and he expects them to have rent money?

Well, yes, actually, he does.  You see, Benny owns the building.  He allows people to live in his building, and in return, he expects payment, which I’m sure was all explained to them before they moved in.  When you don’t pay, you get evicted.  That’s life.  Sure, it’s sad when you can’t afford your rent and have nowhere else to go.  I’m not heartless; I acknowledge that it’s sad.  But why is it Benny’s fault?  Why all the Benny-hate?  That would be the same as me not having money to buy food, but trying to shoplift from the grocery store while singing “I’m not paying for EGGS!”  Yes, it’s sad that I’m hungry, and there should be some kind of system that can help me get back on my feet, but does that make it okay to rip off the store owner while singing angrily at him and setting his car on fire?

The only characters who have the right to be angry about getting evicted are Mark and Roger, because Benny promised they could stay for free, but everyone else?  Quit hating on Benny.  He isn’t charging rent because he’s evil; it’s how he makes his living.

The same argument applies to the lot where the Homeless have set up a tent city.  Again, it’s sad to lose your home, but that lot is not your home.  They didn’t even have an agreement the way the renters and Benny did; they were just living on his land for free.  But, now he wants to build something there, so it’s time for them to move.  Again, I’m not heartless.  I care about the homeless, a lot, but Benny’s not wrong.  He absolutely has the right to do whatever he wants with that lot.  It’s the homeless people living there who are trespassing.  If the main characters have a problem with the homeless being homeless, then maybe they should use all that spare time they usually devote to not working to helping find homes for them.  Try to solve the problem, not attack someone who isn’t even the cause of the problem.  After all, Benny isn’t the reason those people are homeless.  If I found a homeless person living in a tent in my driveway and made them move because that’s my driveway and they are in my way, would that make me evil?  Can I now be blamed for that person’s homelessness?

Benny later even says “You make fun, yet I’m the one attempting to do some good.  Or do you really want a neighborhood where people piss on your stoop every night?”  This line makes me wonder; well, do they?  They never correct him when he implies that their home is a dump, so what are they saying?  That they like it that way?  The crime, filth, drugs, and violence?

I get it, though.  Rent needs a villain, and Benny represents “The Man”, the affluent character who could never understand the struggle of the poor artists, and so must be pitted against them.  But this only brings up another question:

What the hell is Joanne doing, singing about “la vie bohéme”?  She’s a lawyer, educated at an Ivy League school, with wealthy parents.  How is Benny “The Man”, but not Joanne?  And, by the way, Benny at least used to be one of our hapless starving artists.  He married into wealth.  Joanne was raised in it.  How could she be considered one of them, when she has only experienced their lives through interacting with them.  She’s never known the struggles they’ve faced.  Sure, she’s a lesbian, so you could say that she must’ve faced oppression and struggle at certain points in her life.  And that’s a fair point.  But isn’t it also a fair point to maintain that a well-heeled woman such as herself still could never truly relate to the lives of those living “la vie bohéme”?  Our heroes, by shunning Benny but embracing Joanne, are hypocrites.

Even if you think that Benny is yuppie scum, but Joanne’s awesome, I still have bad news: the protagonists of Rent are jerks, anyway.  “What?  No!” you may say, stupidly, to your computer screen, “The main characters are strong-willed, independent, bohemian artists, courageously struggling to make it in an increasingly corporate-controlled world, man!”  To which I would eloquently reply “Screw you, hippie.  Now, shut up and listen.”  That is, that is what I would say if you understood that I couldn’t hear you through the computer screen and you had had the good sense to call me with your outrage.  Now shut up and listen.

Do you remember the part where Mark films the cop harassing that homeless woman, and she chews Mark out for trying to use her life to make a name for himself?  She even says that he’s trying to use her to “kill his guilt”.  Before walking away, she asks him if he’s got a dollar.  He stands there helplessly, and she leaves, noting that she hadn’t expected him to.  This moment is incredibly evocative and full of lessons: for one, Mark learns that not everyone he encounters wants him to exploit their hardship for the sake of what he considers art, and that maybe his intentions up to this point haven’t been as high-minded and honorable as he had considered them to be.  He quickly turns over a new leaf; respecting those he encounters enough to use their stories for nobler purposes, not for his ego’s sake… Wait, no, that’s not what happens at all.  Actually, he continues recording personal and difficult moments in the lives of others, such as those in the Life Support group for people with AIDS, apparently for no greater purpose than to mix into his little home movies so he can show everyone what an awesome filmmaker he is at the end.  Way to go, Mark!  All the while, still considering himself a sell-out for actually getting a job to pay his bills while working on his personal video project.

But that’s not the worst part.  Focus on the moment where the woman asks him for a dollar.  It’s a great moment, right?  She really drives home the fact that he’s no better than her; that he may be an ‘artist’, but neither of them have a dollar in their pocket, right?  Yeah, except for, like, five minutes ago, when Angel was bragging about her dog-murder skills and stuffing bundles of cash into everyone’s hands.  Where did all that money go since then?  It is at this moment that you realize the horrifying truth: it wasn’t that Mark, like the homeless woman, didn’t have even a dollar in his pocket; it was that he had plenty of dollars, and was not willing to give her even one.  Yes, our loveable protagonist is actually a heartless miser.  What if every time he couldn’t pay for something in the movie; whether it was the rent, tea at the Life Café, or delectable Girl Scout cookies, it wasn’t because he was broke, but because he simply couldn’t bear to part with his delicious, delicious money?  For all we know, Mark could be richer than Bill Gates and stingier than Scrooge McDuck.  We can’t trust him.

I could go on and on.  There’s Maureen’s protest which, like Benny points out, is clearly more about losing her performance space than homeless people being forced out of a lot.  Or Roger and Mimi who, in the musical, disappear for a while (Roger to Santa Fe, Mimi to wherever while in the midst of a heartbreak-fueled drug binge), all the while receiving frantic calls from their mothers, who have no idea where their children are or what they’re up to.  These people are so self-absorbed and self-involved that they can’t be bothered to tell their own mothers what’s going on.  Also, Angel straight-up murdered a dog.  Doesn’t that bother anyone?

So, I guess my point is this:  I love Rent’s boppy songs and its portrayal of friendships so strong they make a family out of a rag-tag group, but when I look too closely, I see a band of young losers who prefer sitting around and getting high while blaming the world’s problems on their more successful friends to working for a living or being productive human beings in any way, and I’m not sure if that’s a message I can really relate to…

Wait, wait; no.  I’ve changed my mind.  I’m all about this movie’s message.

Viva la vie bohéme!