Cabaret

Hiya,

Now I hate giving negative reviews.. But I just saw one show and I just can not keep my mouth shut.

Cabaret.

My god. I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Bored!!!

Ok first of all. Todd Surprised me. I expected Boy from oz and got a pretty decent Emcee. Vocally and Physically good. He performed well.

The real let down? The story of Cliff and Sally.

Oh MY GOD!!!

The guys from Pageant know what I'd say about their performances.. It was - (LET ME HEAR YA MICHAEL AND DREW) BULL%#$^


Talk about half assed and lacking any 1. Emotion. 2. Stage Presence. 3. Flair or anything remotely interesting.

Like that song from Buffy and like what I saw the young lad in Mamma Mia in Sydney doing - Going through the motions. Done it before and doin it again is how it felt.

He was so stereotypically American with annoying register to boot (prolly direction I dunno). He looked down or was covered face wise for half the show - the half he was in - And lacked any spunk or credibility. Just a whining git if ya ask me.(I should know cos I am one myself) Which would explain why Young Ms Beck's Sally Bowles would go for him. SHe lacked any Pezazz herself. Some nice moments but ultimately a let down and hard to watch without the eyes wandering onto my star of the show and Drew's gonna love me - TEXAS!!!!. She rocked. So much power and stage presence. I was in awe of her confidence and her verasity. SHe really got into it.

I honestly don't think Tina or Lisa could have done any better - but that comes from recycling good little Kathy Seldon types for the meaty roles such as Sally. You want someone to play a tough as nails slutty type who loves sleeping round and being promiscuous. Get a woman who can do it - like Liza. Though theres prolly no beating her.

You can't base a show like this on a goody two shoes type and a man who never shows his face.

The rest of the cast were great! Frau and Frauline were brilliant though Nadine Rocked the show especially with her Act One send off. The first Lead performer (besides Todd) who gave it an oomph. But too late for me and I think a lot of the audience. By the time Act Two came round, people were noticeably fidgeting and coughing. Never a good sign and my eyes were wandering to take in the ceiling of the Burswood theatre, wondering who would survive if the place caught on fire. - Sounds silly but it's true. I was that bored.

The sets were brilliant, the band rocked as did the dancers. But that was half the problem.. They were two good and outshone the stars on several occassions.

Like the supporting casts and the band - I;'d like to see more cycling through of actors for the leads, rather than seeing people who are talented, but not suited to the cast be sent back over to us time after time.

All up - I've seen better shows done around Perth with seamless dialogue that didn't drag, people held captivated by the production and a portion of the production values. And they've been "Amateurs".

I know I wasn't the only one to feel this way and I wish now I had seen David Gardette's Verison of the show (this was the first time I've seen Cabaret the whole way through but from the snippets I've seen I desired more).

It's not the worst show, but far from the best I have seen.

GO TEXAS!!!!!

[%sig%]

Anthony Harwood wrote:

> My god. I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Bored!!!
> The real let down? The story of Cliff and Sally.
> Oh MY GOD!!!
> The guys from Pageant know what I'd say about their
> performances.. It was - (LET ME HEAR YA MICHAEL AND DREW)
> BULL%#$^ Talk about half assed and lacking any 1. Emotion. > 2. Stage Presence. 3. Flair or anything remotely interesting.

Where were your seats Anthony? That so called "theatre" is completely inappropriate for this show (actually, ANY show). Its original production was in the Donwar Warehouse in London (something around the size of the Studio in the Subiaco Theatre Centre), so there is no way it would work in the Burswood "Theatre". Even the American production was at Studio 54. It is designed to be an intimate show. I saw this show twice, once in C row and again in AA row (ie. front row) and it was fantastic. I could see the little details of costuming/make up and subtle facial expressions. Being seated anything further away than 10 rows would have made anyone miss this.

As for lack-lustre performances - I didn't pick it - however, if anyone did think that then its probably supposed to be that way. The characters in the Cabaret are supposed to be performing night after night in some dingy hole to survive, affected by drugs and alcohol and the rest of the sleaze, not to mention being mistreated and abused by both customers and owners..... do you think they'd be fresh and joyous each night? Just the expression on their faces (which no-one could see past 10 rows), their badly applied makeup and their teared costumes should demonstrate that they've probably been performing the same act for years and years.

> Cliff was so stereotypically American with annoying register to
> boot (prolly direction I dunno). He looked down or was
> covered face wise for half the show - the half he was in -
> And lacked any spunk or credibility. Just a whining git if
> ya ask me.(I should know cos I am one myself)

Cliff is supposed to be whiny. I think he's the most boring and annoying character of the lot. He is, after all, just the observer, therefore isn't supposed to be a 'spunky' romantic lead. The lowered face (which I didn't notice either) could have been a natural reaction of shyness to the whole situation that Cliff is in.

>Which would explain why Young Ms Beck's Sally Bowles would go for >him. SHe lacked any Pezazz herself. Some nice moments but
> ultimately a let down.

Sally Bowles isn't the lead in this production - I don't know if that is because other performances shone more brightly or because the show has been re-written so it doesn't feature her as much. Again, Sally isn't supposed to be the romantic lead either. She is a fake character, and obviously not particularly nice (drugtaking, abortion, sleeping around, etc.). Although I LOVE Rachael Beck, I don't think this is her role. The acting seems fine (especially the second act), but I think her voice is too pretty and not strong enough for Sally. Saying that, I agree that Tina and Lisa wouldn't do any better (Lisa especially - what is it with her??). I personally would have like to have seen Nadine Garner in the role - whoah! what a voice!

>Get a woman who can do it - like Liza. Though theres prolly no >beating her.

Or her weight. :-p

> By the time Act Two came round, people were
> noticeably fidgeting and coughing. Never a good sign and my
> eyes were wandering to take in the ceiling of the Burswood
> theatre, wondering who would survive if the place caught on
> fire. - Sounds silly but it's true. I was that bored.

I think a lot of the audience didn't "get it". Perth audiences really need to be educated more (and I'm not talking about mobile phones, bringing kids(!?) and LOLLIES!!!!!!!!!). In the first show I saw, people were laughing at the Emcee holding the grammophone playing "Tomorrow Belongs To Me"! I mean, what the hell? He was just kneeling there, not doing anything. They obviously have no idea that it's a Nazi anthem...... anyhoo. Another point - the Emcee comes on wearing a dress (cue giggling). So what? And boys kissing? How can people be that shocked after nearly the whole cast is virtually nude and dancing crassly using bad language? I mean geez.......

And another - Sally staggers on to sing "Cabaret" with smeared makeup, sweaty and looking like @!#$ - and people laughed!? Hmmm.... she's just had an abortion.... so.....why isn't she singing like Liza? :-p

I mean, people laugh as a reaction because that is their way of coping, but keep it to yourself.......Anyhoo......

The movie of Cabaret has done damage to the real show. It's not glitter and gold. The real story is nasty. The original production in the 1960's was basically a censored version because people couldn't cope with such confrontation. Another appeared in the 1980's, only slightly censored. The show (now) seems be the full version, and revolves not around Sally Bowles, but around the sleazy Kit Kat Club, the rise of Nazism and the disintegration of society. I personally think this production (despite specific performances) is fantastic and just in terms of concept is excellent theatre.

People these days need to accept things for what they are, and not what they want things to be.

But that is just my opinion.....

Love you both, but I'm with Anthony on this one.

IMHO, I thought it was a very badly cast version of a very good production, in a completely inappropriate and oversized venue.

I was very familiar with this production prior to seeing it, so I knew exactly what to expect, and I was in the first few rows, but the cast just didn't fulfil my expectations.

When Anthony said, 'lack lustre', I don't think he meant he would rather have seen smiling, energetic, happy cabaret girls and boys. I agree with him actually - they were dingy, lolling and horrible the way they were meant to be, but they just lacked the *performance* energy required. If you notice, Todd had oodles of 'energy' - something you need even if you're playing a dead person on stage - but, was still lolling and disgusting (I also agree - he was better than I expected, but still not great). I actually think it has more to do with the fact that we're seeing the cast at the end of a year-long, eight-show-a-week run so they're tired, tired of the show, and it's showing - Todd's just come in so he's bright eyed and bushy tailed. Judi Connelli and Henry Szeps struck me as particularly lack lustre and slow on the uptake, mainly, I felt, because they're just tired. Having just finished a four and a half month, three-show-a-day touring show, I have some idea of what they feel like, and can fully understand where they're coming from. No matter how professional you are, there's no way of avoiding it, and there's really nothing they can do about it short of re-casting. That's our lot, unfortunately, of being in Perth and getting the ends of runs.

And I honestly thought Cliff was badly acted, although the head-down thing didn't bother me either - he's not meant to be whiny, and I actually think Ian Stenlake would be disappointed if he realised he was giving that impression. If you read 'I Am A Camera' the original play by John van Druten that Cabaret is based on, the character of Cliff (or in that case Chris, or in the case of the movie Brian) is a very intelligent and articulate man, observing the horror of what is happening around him, while at the same time coming to terms with his own sexuality. Nothing whiny about him at all. Just coz he don't sing, Simon, doesn't mean you can't like him ;-)

And Anthony, David Gardette's Cabaret was an unabashedly Sam Mendes tribute show. I think you'd find (and David, you'd acknowledge?) that it was a re-creation of the very production that's on at Burswood now, with, for once in Hackett Hall's life, an appropriately sized space, with very similar costuming. And probably a better cast.

I totally agree with Simon, though, that Nadine Garner should have played Sally. SHE'S kept up the performance energy, despite the long run, while still being horrible that I think Anthony was after, and had the guts, horror and history that Rachel Beck just couldn't get.

In my mind, though, no one can go past Natasha Richardson (NOTHING like Liza but just as good if not, dare I say, better) and Alan Cummings on the Broadway cast recording. That is what music theatre is all about to me - no beautiful voices, but getting to the absolute guts of the text, which is what the Sam Mendes production (but not this Perth leg of it) is all about.

[%sig%]

I think I replied and only sent it to Amanda - So sorry to have done that. And I was stupid enough not to save a copy so hey I'm lost for words.

The Gist -

Amanda knew what I meant (As she has a tendency to be one of the few people that does). And I'm not just saying that to sound smart. Parts of my commentary were taken a tad too literally by Simon (But he's a smart one anyhoo).

I agree with the Nadine Idea. She Rocked as I pointed out with the end of Act one comment.

I don't care if this is a copy of the film or not. Make it entertaining. And to do they you make interesting characters you either love or hate or love/hate. And the leads did not inspire this in me. Granted. Long season may have worn them down but if they want to be professionals - give up when yer through. Bloomin Todd kept his energy for Boy From Oz. Why couldn't these guys - and the show was hardly riding on their backs - or was it? Cos it was them that let me down.

I babbled something about if it is meant to be meant for a smaller venue - which is quite obviously the case as stated by Simon and Amanda, then why not stage it in an appropriate theatre? So what not big enuff crowds? They'd still make money and people could actually enjoy the show (Yes I was sitting a fair way back but thats never been a problem in the past - I( enjoyed Fame [strike me down] sitting in the back row)) But money breeds money and breeds money holding patrons who don't get off their upper class butts (or mock upper class butts) and go see the finer theatre in life in the smaller venues around them. THATS WHAT I HATE.

Wow. I think I found me voice. And I think I should have done a second draft on the one I think I sent Amanda. This one sounds a bit more coherent - as I am known to babble and talk lotsly about turtles and frogs.

Drive carefully everyone and watch out for Turtles hogging the roads!!!

[%sig%]

Anthony Harwood wrote:

> ...why not stage it in an appropriate
> theatre? So what not big enuff crowds? They'd still make
> money and people could actually enjoy the show

No, they probably wouldn't make their money, unless they charged even more for the tickets - and they're slugging $70 per ticket as it is. Granted, Burswood doesn't cost much to hire (who'd use it otherwise?) but they still have to pay the sizeable cast and crew at Equity rates, plus living away allowance, plus provide Equity standard accommodation (or equivalent living fee), plus their airfares, plus set transportation...it goes on. And being International Concert Attractions, I'm sure they do want to make a tidy profit, but if that means they're able to keep bringing us rippers like The Trocks and The Hollow Crown (both also ludicrously priced, but worth every cent), then I don't mind sitting through, and paying for, a sub-standard Cabaret, to be honest. I guess better known shows like Cabaret are going to be their bigger audience pullers too, since Mr & Mrs 'Ooh Todd's Wearing a Frock!', have heard of it unlike The Trocks or Sir Derek.

> Drive carefully everyone and watch out for Turtles hogging
> the roads!!!

Find help, and quickly.

And to pick up on a point of Simon's that I didn't address:

> The movie of Cabaret has done damage to the real show. It's
> not glitter and gold. The real story is nasty.

Are we talking about the same movie here? That film still gives me the horrors and I've seen it an awful lot. Yes, Liza wears a few pretty frocks, but the Kit-Kat girls are pretty feral - I think Sam Mendes' costumes are a nod to the ripped undies, hickies, and ghoulish make-up of the film. Bob Fosse's choreography (especially for Money) is gloriously depraved - I think even more so because he completely understates it, whereas Rob Marshall appeared to go for let's-grab-the-crotch-and-show-our-botties-lots which I thought was great for the first few numbers, but got a little tedious after a while. I seem to recall the dog of the young Jewish aristocratic woman being strangled by Hitler youth and left on her doorsteop. Sally still had her abortion in the film, smoked opium, and the hideously chilling 'If You Could See Her Through My Eyes' is also in there. Tomorrow Belongs to Me sung by a beautiful blonde tenor, then having the camera pan slowly back to reveal his red armband? Gives me chills thinking about it. And that final shot of the swastikas, dotted around the room, reflected in the wall of the Kit Kat club is one of the great scenes of film history. We must talk soon so you can remind me of the glitzy, toned down bits, because to be honest, I can't really think of any.

The other strength I think the film has, and this is compared to the stage version of the script as a whole, not the Sam Mendes one specifically, is I prefer the sub-plot of the younger, afore mentioned Jewish aristocratic woman becoming involved with the other student that Cliff/Brian/Chris takes on, who we find out later is a Jew in hiding - not least of which is because it's true. These were two people who actually existed and who Christopher Issherwood (the real man behind Cliff) wrote about in his memoirs. I'm quite puzzled as to why they turned it into the older couple for the stage which, I felt, never really made the point it was trying to (or was that just Judi and Henry? I never once believed they were in love, to be honest, and that they just decided to get married because they were old and lonely). And their songs are highly forgettable - I KNOW you agree with me on that Simon, although I warmed to 'Married' once Nadine 'Marlene' Garner chimed in. I'm not exactly sure why Sam Mendes felt he had to pull them out of the trunk for this production because, in my opinion, they add nothing.

That's all I have to say for this hour...

[%sig%]

Anthony Harwood wrote:
>
>" TEXAS!!!!. She rocked. "

> Glad to hear it. A sensitive and sensible young man that Anthony Harwood, I've always said that! Awww, doesn't everyone love Texas. Carm awn!
>

I saw Cabaret the other day and overall I really enjoyed it.

I thought Todd McKenney was magnificent, as always, and it really shows how versatile he is considering the major differences between The Boy from Oz/Singin' In The Rain etc.

I do agree with some previous comments, in that some cast members at some points looked a little tired and that perhaps this downtrodden feeling went beyond that intended?! However on the other hand I think the sleazy, miserable nature of the Cabaret and the times was represented really well.

I liked the set, dazzling lighting effects also added a lot to the numbers. Also loved the glowing pineapple-lantern type things. :)

I haven't been able to get "Mein Herr" out of my head. I think this one in particular was done well. I also liked Rachael Beck's performance of the title song, it was really powerful. Also loved Two Ladies, the great instrumental at the start of act two, ummm, I Don't Care Much and Tomorrow Belongs to Me, which really gave me chills.

Rachael Beck has got such a great voice, though, what someone else said about her not being quite gutsy or sort of hard-core enough I can take on board. However, it does show the sensitive side of Sally Bowles though which is nice.

I really thought Nadine Garner was so so good, hilarious and a great voice. Maybe this is silly but her character reminded me of Julie Walters when she played Victoria Woods mother in a British sitcom called Dinnerladies? Perhaps a stupid comment but you'll know what I mean if you've seen it. :)

I understand all the dark and miserable themes of Cabaret and perhaps this is just me loving a big send off in a show but I was left wanting more at the "stark" ending. The silence-drum thing was amazing but then they just sort of walked off and I really wanted a big finale number. :) However thats just me, and I'm sure it added to the true meaning of the whole piece.

I wish that people had of turned off their mobile phones, stopped giggling, talking, coughing and eating!!! :D It was so distracting. I often think its so sad, because nowadays you can't go to the theatre without hearing mobiles going off at least once. Even if its just the sms beeping its so irritating and disrespectful to the performers. I don't mean to have a whinge, but it was really starting to bother me after the same persons phone rang over and over. You'd think theyd have turned it off after the first time. :) Whinge over... sorry about that!

Loved the show, its really worth going along to see it.

Thou bootless rump-fed lout!

I saw the show a few weeks ago, and I have to say I didn't mind it. First time I'd ever seen Cabaret (never seen the whole film either), so I have nothing else to compare it to, and I thought the whole piece worked, including the 'non-musical' ending.
The book of most musicals is usually pretty naff anyway so I guess I wasn't being too discerning about the character parts; they didn't bother me. Thought Rachael's title number was a little weak but maybe that's my expectations (the Minnelli comparison factor) and I thought she played the rest fine. Really loved Nadine. Liked the story in that the romantic part is given to the old couple, and the obvious young romantic roles never really happen...all the actors seemed to convey this for me. Great that the chorus is also a highly talented orchestra, enjoyed the staging, and first time I've seen Todd but he was very well cast in a masterful role. Was it just me or was the diction in "Money" a bit muddy? Great idea that "Two Ladies" was done with two guys. Only complaint was the nature of the venue, but I was in the cheap seats, so I even wore that gracefully. And it certainly worked there, it just would've been much nicer more intimate.

Let's install metal detectors in every foyer that beep as people with mobile phones pass through...


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Well i really enjoyed Cabaret. Rachael Beck was great but i dont think she could ever top her performance from "Hey Dad". That was such a deep and intense role for her, being Mr Kelly's daughter, so someone as 2 dimensional as Sally Bowles just doesnt work.
Also, i took lollies becoz they are the mad note.

ummm, I feel the need to point out that this is a completely different Mel, not associated in any way shape or form with myself.

Mel

PS I voted for ya Anthony!

I had a real problem with this show. I really didn't like the way it was performed. I felt the actors didn't really grasp the plot and the transition between singing and speaking wasn't handled very well by any of them. It was strange, because while they were speaking some of them seemed to make a reasonable fist of being in 'action' - actually having some sort of intent, but as soon as they started singing it was all lost. Me and my friends actually started to dread the little piano lead-up that would signal someone was about to sing because it signalled the end of action. It just became boring. People just standing there singing, or in other cases dancing and singing but not actually DOING anything with their song.
Anyway, that's my two cents.

Amanda Chesterton wrote:
> The other strength I think the film has, and this is compared
> to the stage version of the script as a whole, not the Sam
> Mendes one specifically, is I prefer the sub-plot of the
> younger, afore mentioned Jewish aristocratic woman becoming
> involved with the other student that Cliff/Brian/Chris takes
> on, who we find out later is a Jew in hiding - not least of
> which is because it's true. These were two people who
> actually existed and who Christopher Issherwood (the real man
> behind Cliff) wrote about in his memoirs. I'm quite puzzled
> as to why they turned it into the older couple for the stage
> which, I felt, never really made the point it was trying to...

Ah...
Amanda, you lovely literate thing you!

I've always thought that Cabaret the film was not really a version of the stage show, it definitely comes across more as a film of "I Am A Camera" with the songs from Cabaret inserted for good measure.
And that is where I think it's strength lies.
Lets be honest here, dramatically Camera is a far more powerful version of Isherwood's original than Cabaret is, it's just that the songs are so catchy.

When talking about definitve Sally Bowles, apparently Liza was nothing as compared to Judi Dench in the original English Production.

As to the old couple.
The landlady was originally played by Lotte Lenya, the wife of composer Kurt Weill (Threepenny Opera, Mahagonny, One Touch of Venus, etc). A real live Berlin cabaret singer from that period, and a star at that!
One wonders whether the chance to cast Lenya in the show wasn't the driving force behind beefing her character up considerably from the original.
The clincher for me is the love duet about the pineapple. One cannot help but wonder whether it is almost a blatant reference to Weill's "Der Silbersee", where a pineapple is also used as a major plot device.

I didn't see the recent production on the strength of comments from a friend who saw it in Melbourne. To quote: "Sally Bowles is supposed to be a talentless nobody who can't really sing trying desperately to make a name for herself, Lisa McCune was perfectly cast!" [saucer of milk, table two!] As far as he was concerned the best part of the show was the perv value of the guy from Human Nature playing the Emcee.
Call me old fashioned, call me a closet case, but sometimes I prefer my gay subtexts to BE subtexts, it makes me feel smarter than the average bear.
The X-Men movies, now THAT'S what I call a real gay subtext!!!!

Am looking forward to someone doing "I Am A Camera" in Perth again. I was in it last time up at Marloo, and it is a truly great play. And I wouldn't mind being given the chance to SEE it this time.
[warning to actors considering it - the part of Chris is almost NEVER offstage, even when he's got nothing to do!]

BTW I've also often felt that "Breakfast at Tiffany's was also just another version of "I Am A Camera", Holly Golightly and Sally Bowles the same character? think about it!

Paul Treasure

Paul Treasure wrote:

> When talking about definitve Sally Bowles, apparently Liza
> was nothing as compared to Judi Dench in the original English
> Production.

I have heard this too, and would give my right arm (well...maybe my left...and then have it quickly re-attached) to be able to time warp and see this. Bitchy comments aside, I think this:

> "Sally Bowles is supposed to be a talentless nobody who can't
> really sing trying desperately to make a name for herself..."

...is what defines the casting of Sally for me. As soon as you put someone who is primarily a singer (Tina Arena, and, to a point, Rachel Beck) into this first and foremost, actors' role, you've already killed the production. If Sally can sing well, what the fark is she doing in the Kit-Kat Club and why would she have been fired?! This is why I love the Natasha Richardson recording - she can't sing (which for me adds to the tragedy of the story), but she gets the absolute guts of the text, and I'm sure the rest of it would have well and truly measured up.

> Call me old fashioned, call me a closet case, but sometimes I
> prefer my gay subtexts to BE subtexts, it makes me feel
> smarter than the average bear.

Here, here! (Hear, hear?) All, not just the gay thing, of what was originally subtext in Cabaret was brought well and truly to the fore in this production which I thought was a great shame (see my comment on the choreography in an earlier rant on this subject) - I think a general rule in theatre is that the power of suggestion is so much greater (and creepier and more depraved) than shoving it in our faces.

And crg, 'Two Ladies' was done with a boy and a girl (recent WAAPA music theatre grad, Sharni Page), not two boys, unless they did a one-off casting switch the night you were there!

[%sig%]

Amanda Chesterton wrote:

>
> And crg, 'Two Ladies' was done with a boy and a girl (recent
> WAAPA music theatre grad, Sharni Page), not two boys, unless
> they did a one-off casting switch the night you were there!
>


No, that's what I meant. Two boys in the threesome rather than two girls.



Also.....did you see in the papers how many awards Cabaret took in the recent Helpmann Awards? At least 5 or 6...someone must've liked it.

crg

[%sig%]

Have just located this page and read these reviews. Not sure of the age of the reviewers but my guess is 'young'. Just to put my two bobs worth in.

Firstly, I saw the original production in New York many moons ago - I saw this production last week and sat in C row. The closeness did not give me the feeling I had anticipated in respect of most of the cast -there was a remarkable lack of it!!

The Emcee, Todd McKenny produced the goods in most parts, big let down in "Money" where he was obviously hindered by the accent.

A couple of the girls in the Kit Kat Club gave terrific performances, typical of the tiredness and sadness of their situation. Nadine Garner's portrayal was excellent and I felt she could have handled the role of Sally Bowles far better than Rachel Beck.

Now to that point, I agree Simon, Sally is not the lead, however, she is the one that blends the story line together and is supposed to create some feelings in the audience,whether it's love, hate or both. Instead I found myself wondering just what impression she was trying to give.
She just didn't fit the bill!! Poor love should stick to the nice girl roles of Maria (sound of music) and Kathy (singin in the rain).

Her offsider Cliff was just as miscast and obviously had no idea of his character. He is not supposed to be whiny. Naive in a lot of ways yes, but actually quite an intelligent observer, after all, he is aware of the nazi situation long before the others.

The biggest let down for me was the 'in your face' sleaziness throughout. Pity with Theatre these days is it leaves little to the imagination and has to spell the lot out!! With good acting this is not necessary, so one has to wonder if the Producer/Director knew they had problems right at the beginning thus necessitating the crude choreography.

Finally, the movie is vastly different to the play and cannot be compared to it, but I think alot could be learned by watching it and seeing the expressions on Liza's face, the Kit Kat Club shows, Joel Gray's MC, and the way these create the right feeling for the audience with regard to the way of life in those days. One would also notice that the Kit Kat Club 'girls' are not all female - the reason Hitler did, after all close the Clubs down and execute so many homosexuals before starting on the Jews!!

Having seen many shows on Broadway, West End, Sydney and Perth, this one will not go down in my 'favourite memories' rather to the bottom of the pile.

I did however see 'Pageant' on it's penultimate performance and presume Anthony who wrote the first crit for this was one of the actors.
Brilliantly funny, extremely well acted and deserving of a better theatre.
One of the better shows I've seen in a long time.

deb norman wrote:

> Have just located this page and read these reviews. Not sure
> of the age of the reviewers but my guess is 'young'.

Interesting call, as I assume you're equating 'young' with a naive assessment of the show...?

I think you'd find that the two youngest posters on this topic (me and Anthony - both under 25), in fact, concur with you the most.

Just an interesting observation, but I wholeheartedly agree with your review.

[%sig%]

Cheers Amanda,
No I didn't mean 'young' as in naivity or experience in reviews, but in years as I am in my senior years. Have read all review comments and agree with you and Anthony. Can't in all honesty see how anyone could say they enjoyed this show. I went with a group of 18 ranging in age from 18 to 87 and not one of them enjoyed it at all.

It is my strongest opinion that what a person brings to performance adversely affects their interpretation of the text. As for me I saw the production in Brisbane - starring Lisa McCune as the licentious Sally and Tobby Allen as the awe-powerful MC. This performance was exciting and dazzingly fresh, and I did very much enjoy the magnificant show. However your class, race, herritage, sexuality and indeed theatrical naivity affects your 'understanding' and enjoyment of the show. The show should be graded not on 'inspirational' or prima facie merrits, but on in depth reflection and recount. For then and only then have you done the show justice. For what an audience sees is only 10 per cent of the actual show - and to analysise that alone is to give the show a one dimensional facade rather than three. However I do understand that Cabaret is not everyone's cup-of-tea and in limited circumstances has the power to offend, but the musical is based on a book published at the time the musical is trying to imitate - seedy 1930s Berlin. Christopher Isherwood's novel - The Berlin Stories - was an accurate reflection of the rapidly changing times. We are looking at the Weimar Republic, rise of Nazism, and social decadence of the Carabet Bohemian lifestyle. And Sam Mendes' production does Isherwood, John van Druten (who wrote the play - I am a Camera - based on the novel), Joe Masteroff (wrote Cabaret), John Kander & Fred Ebb justice. It is this that should be kept in mind, rather than selfish undertones of aestheticism and storylines. At its heart the story is one of social morality and the will of man. And with this in mind the musical is powerful, poignant and enjoyable as it touches so many raw human emotions.

Andy Robinson wrote:
>
> The show should be graded not on 'inspirational'
> or prima facie merrits, but on in depth reflection and
> recount. For then and only then have you done the show
> justice. For what an audience sees is only 10 per cent of the
> actual show - and to analysise that alone is to give the show
> a one dimensional facade rather than three.


Not quite sure what you mean here, unless you're suggesting the audience be allowed to attend rehearsals and wander backstage....what an audience sees is ONE HUNDRED percent of the actual show.
Granted, there's a lot of unseen effort and stuff that goes on in the background to create a production, which is important for the artists involved; but the SHOW part, the only bit that counts in the end, is only that bit that the audience sees.

There may be all sorts of historical context, and important social/political/moral issues...but the only opinions that can be judged valid are those of the punter in the crowd. If the show doesn't hold up by itself without the external knowledge, that's a failing.


(Having said this, I've stated before that I didn't mind the Perth production.)







deb norman wrote:
>
> No I didn't mean 'young' as in naivity or experience in
> reviews, but in years as I am in my senior years. Have read
> all review comments and agree with you and Anthony. Can't in
> all honesty see how anyone could say they enjoyed this show.
> I went with a group of 18 ranging in age from 18 to 87 and
> not one of them enjoyed it at all.


Not taking issue with your opinion of the show...but if you didn't intend "young" to mean "naive" or "inexperienced" ...what WAS the point of starting your review that way??



Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Well, it is too late for me to be writing a detailed, intelligent reply, so this will have to do.

I saw Cabaret here in Adelaide a few nights ago.

It was AMAZING. I loved it.

Todd was fabuolus as the Emcee. As sleazy as those jokes were, I found him to be the star of the show (my opinion only).

Rachael Beck has an amazing voice. I loved when the song 'Cabaret' really took off. She was fabulous. Personally, I think her voice was strong enough for the role. But opinions always differ.

And as someone else said, Cliff really was annoying. But, to me, it seemed as if he was meant to be portrayed this way.

I have nothing more to say, except that I was extremely impressed with Cabaret.

Willkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome!

Hi!
I saw this most wonderful production. It was so entertaining! I saw anotther drama production the other day! Fabulous! Gotta Go!
Tamasan Engrovy

Katharina wrote:
>
> Well, it is too late for me to be writing a detailed,
> intelligent reply, so this will have to do.
>
> I saw Cabaret here in Adelaide a few nights ago.
>
> It was AMAZING. I loved it.
>
> Todd was fabuolus as the Emcee. As sleazy as those jokes
> were, I found him to be the star of the show (my opinion only).
>
> Rachael Beck has an amazing voice. I loved when the song
> 'Cabaret' really took off. She was fabulous. Personally, I
> think her voice was strong enough for the role. But opinions
> always differ.
>
> And as someone else said, Cliff really was annoying. But, to
> me, it seemed as if he was meant to be portrayed this way.
>
> I have nothing more to say, except that I was extremely
> impressed with Cabaret.
>
> Willkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome!

Has this production closed or is it still on in Adelaide

Perhaps this critic should go back to Hollywood and stay there. I saw the show in Adelaide and thought it was great. Todd McKenny and Rachel Back are brilliant together.