a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 06:05 pmWalter Plinge52 posts in thread
a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 06:05 pmIf you like the musical "Cabaret" you will probably enjoy the current production from Gosford Musical Society, running from late October to early November.
There is much to like: Leigh Collins' sturdy stage setting has 2 staircases, 1 spiral staircase and a fireman's pole, and it consists of 5 discrete areas of the Kit Kat Club, on 2 levels. Once this set was built, it was not going to be moved, so other scenes have to be partially flown in from above ; this leaves a central problem that the club is still visible, as are its many patrons, and this is distracting ; in fact, even in the club scenes, there is so much activity, that it can be hard to pick out the major characters in their scenes.
There is also the usually high standard of lighting from Damian Rice ; always effective but never obtrusive. There is even a strobe segment where the effect is continued for a decent time (as a child of the 60s I love strobe and am always disappointed if timorous directors cut strobes off after a few seconds).
Suzanne Ohrt's characterization of Fraulein Schneider is a revelation, as is her soft-shoe dancing, and her meticulous German pronunciation.
The onstage appearance of Leo Del Oleo onstage with accordion and Tyrolean hat.
Sally Bowles, played by Toni Williams, has breathless dialogue delivered at rapidfire pace, but her speech is always intelligible.
Even the gentle lilting of a slide guitar in "The Pineapple Song".
Chris King has directed the production and it is a formidable tour de force. Chris is a well-known TV actor, and runs a talent school on the Coast. In this production we have characters moving into the audience, moving out from the audience, a ventriloquist (regrettably not speaking!), flashing telephones, even a descending filmscreen which features a great black and white sequence made for the occasion. It simulates a German train trip and for me was the highlight (some trainspotters may quibble over the NSW PTC logo on the upholstery!).
Yet the show was missing something ; was it me, or was it the script itself? Times have changed, and as s & m has moved into the mainstream, the sight of leather and lace doesn't really convey decadence, and certainly not sultriness ; the emcee was menacing, but I couldn't fathom to what purpose ; the overly-familiar risqué jokes and the groping of genitalia and other body parts was less shocking than clumsy, and not titillating at all . I came away impressed by the effects, but not the story ; insead there was a sequence of good performances that were seemingly unrelated, with noone grabbing the vacant position of "Star of the show" ; at no point did the hair rise on the back of the neck.
Don't let my feelings put you off, though ; go and judge for yourself, as there is still much to appreciate, and many in the audience seemed to like it. I can only say that I still don't know how the story ends -- I left at interval.
There is much to like: Leigh Collins' sturdy stage setting has 2 staircases, 1 spiral staircase and a fireman's pole, and it consists of 5 discrete areas of the Kit Kat Club, on 2 levels. Once this set was built, it was not going to be moved, so other scenes have to be partially flown in from above ; this leaves a central problem that the club is still visible, as are its many patrons, and this is distracting ; in fact, even in the club scenes, there is so much activity, that it can be hard to pick out the major characters in their scenes.
There is also the usually high standard of lighting from Damian Rice ; always effective but never obtrusive. There is even a strobe segment where the effect is continued for a decent time (as a child of the 60s I love strobe and am always disappointed if timorous directors cut strobes off after a few seconds).
Suzanne Ohrt's characterization of Fraulein Schneider is a revelation, as is her soft-shoe dancing, and her meticulous German pronunciation.
The onstage appearance of Leo Del Oleo onstage with accordion and Tyrolean hat.
Sally Bowles, played by Toni Williams, has breathless dialogue delivered at rapidfire pace, but her speech is always intelligible.
Even the gentle lilting of a slide guitar in "The Pineapple Song".
Chris King has directed the production and it is a formidable tour de force. Chris is a well-known TV actor, and runs a talent school on the Coast. In this production we have characters moving into the audience, moving out from the audience, a ventriloquist (regrettably not speaking!), flashing telephones, even a descending filmscreen which features a great black and white sequence made for the occasion. It simulates a German train trip and for me was the highlight (some trainspotters may quibble over the NSW PTC logo on the upholstery!).
Yet the show was missing something ; was it me, or was it the script itself? Times have changed, and as s & m has moved into the mainstream, the sight of leather and lace doesn't really convey decadence, and certainly not sultriness ; the emcee was menacing, but I couldn't fathom to what purpose ; the overly-familiar risqué jokes and the groping of genitalia and other body parts was less shocking than clumsy, and not titillating at all . I came away impressed by the effects, but not the story ; insead there was a sequence of good performances that were seemingly unrelated, with noone grabbing the vacant position of "Star of the show" ; at no point did the hair rise on the back of the neck.
Don't let my feelings put you off, though ; go and judge for yourself, as there is still much to appreciate, and many in the audience seemed to like it. I can only say that I still don't know how the story ends -- I left at interval.
Re: Losing the plot
Sat, 13 Nov 2004, 03:25 ambeckj wrote:
>
> im not sayin that richards opinion of the first half isnt
> valid but he was talkin bout the show in general...he says
> "Yet the show was missing something ; was it me, or was it
> the script itself?"
> haha what a joke..the thing that was missin 4 u mate was the
> second half...and has for the storyline....cabaret, for me,
> delt with issues that may disturb some audience members and
> for the majority of the cast who would have never experienced
> such horrific circumstances as the nazi times....they
> believeably pulled off each of their characters.
> if richard has seen the original show of cabaret he would
> have notice that the GMS cast and crew put a lot of effort
> into making it their own..."well done guys!!!"
> theres no harm at all in givin an opinion but u cant speek
> about the storyline if u havent experienced the whole thing...
Hi beckj
We obviously differ in our comprehension of what richard actually said.
I thought his objections were: that the concept of sleazy leather & lace costuming to convey is dated; that gratuitous groping and innuendo seems clumsy today rather than shocking; and that the several good performances (notice he paid them a compliment!) did not seem unified, nor did there seem to be a 'star vehicle'. Then he asked the question, 'Was this just his interpretation, or was it a result of the script itself?"
He is actually paying the production a huge compliment, by laying all the blame for his dissatisfaction on the story itself. Now, here is where we probably disagree, but I happen to think he has gotten the whole gist of it pretty well, because to tell you the truth, I saw a production here at Burswood last year for the first time, and I had many of the same thoughts. Yes, in the 60's the theatre production may have seemed risque, and for a story set in 1930's Berlin the sexual aura would have been realistic and decadent, but for me in 2004 there was absolutely nothing with the power to shock. I had an impression in my mind of Liza Minelli being the 'star of the show', and was surprised to find that Sally Bowles was not really the main character, that the character of Cliff was a lot weaker than I expected, and the MC seemed to be the best character but he is totally disconnected from the actual storyline.
I came to exactly the same conclusion when I saw 'Hair' ten years ago...I love the music and the lyrics, but to see the stage production for the first time I was disappointed by how it was trying to be shocking, but even with full nudity it just couldn't have the same effect on a 90's audience as it would have had in the late 60's. The play was probably extremely powerful and relevant in the era of the Vietnam War, but just didn't satisfy me as a piece of theatre today. Now, was that me, or was it the story? I didn't need to see the whole show to realise that it was relevant to me only as a period piece, that it really didn't have the power anymore to move me...I asked the same question Richard did, and knew the answer before I returned from interval to sit through the second half. The show was missing something....a reason for being.
That's how I interpret richard's statements....there is something not quite satisfactory about Cabaret, and it has nothing to do with the performance, or even the plot. That's the difference between our interpretations...you think he was talking about PLOT, about 'WHAT happens'. You only know the full plot by watching or reading the whole play. The story of Cabaret is that a female girlie club entertainer in Weimar Republic era Berlin romances two men while the Nazi Party rises to power around them. So yes, perhaps you're right, he's not qualified to piece it all together, having only seen the first half.
But I think he was talking about STORY, about WHY it happens. The story of Cabaret is the embodiment of carefree individualism, set in a political/historical context and juxtaposing style. You can get a feel for this very quickly in the play. Everything in the context of richard's review suggests that this is what he has trouble coming to grips with. He doesn't need to know the full sequence of events to realise that the style and structure of the piece are dated, and that this is nobody's fault but the script itself.
But of course, you obviously have the advantage of seeing the production in question, so you probably know better what he meant to say.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> im not sayin that richards opinion of the first half isnt
> valid but he was talkin bout the show in general...he says
> "Yet the show was missing something ; was it me, or was it
> the script itself?"
> haha what a joke..the thing that was missin 4 u mate was the
> second half...and has for the storyline....cabaret, for me,
> delt with issues that may disturb some audience members and
> for the majority of the cast who would have never experienced
> such horrific circumstances as the nazi times....they
> believeably pulled off each of their characters.
> if richard has seen the original show of cabaret he would
> have notice that the GMS cast and crew put a lot of effort
> into making it their own..."well done guys!!!"
> theres no harm at all in givin an opinion but u cant speek
> about the storyline if u havent experienced the whole thing...
Hi beckj
We obviously differ in our comprehension of what richard actually said.
I thought his objections were: that the concept of sleazy leather & lace costuming to convey is dated; that gratuitous groping and innuendo seems clumsy today rather than shocking; and that the several good performances (notice he paid them a compliment!) did not seem unified, nor did there seem to be a 'star vehicle'. Then he asked the question, 'Was this just his interpretation, or was it a result of the script itself?"
He is actually paying the production a huge compliment, by laying all the blame for his dissatisfaction on the story itself. Now, here is where we probably disagree, but I happen to think he has gotten the whole gist of it pretty well, because to tell you the truth, I saw a production here at Burswood last year for the first time, and I had many of the same thoughts. Yes, in the 60's the theatre production may have seemed risque, and for a story set in 1930's Berlin the sexual aura would have been realistic and decadent, but for me in 2004 there was absolutely nothing with the power to shock. I had an impression in my mind of Liza Minelli being the 'star of the show', and was surprised to find that Sally Bowles was not really the main character, that the character of Cliff was a lot weaker than I expected, and the MC seemed to be the best character but he is totally disconnected from the actual storyline.
I came to exactly the same conclusion when I saw 'Hair' ten years ago...I love the music and the lyrics, but to see the stage production for the first time I was disappointed by how it was trying to be shocking, but even with full nudity it just couldn't have the same effect on a 90's audience as it would have had in the late 60's. The play was probably extremely powerful and relevant in the era of the Vietnam War, but just didn't satisfy me as a piece of theatre today. Now, was that me, or was it the story? I didn't need to see the whole show to realise that it was relevant to me only as a period piece, that it really didn't have the power anymore to move me...I asked the same question Richard did, and knew the answer before I returned from interval to sit through the second half. The show was missing something....a reason for being.
That's how I interpret richard's statements....there is something not quite satisfactory about Cabaret, and it has nothing to do with the performance, or even the plot. That's the difference between our interpretations...you think he was talking about PLOT, about 'WHAT happens'. You only know the full plot by watching or reading the whole play. The story of Cabaret is that a female girlie club entertainer in Weimar Republic era Berlin romances two men while the Nazi Party rises to power around them. So yes, perhaps you're right, he's not qualified to piece it all together, having only seen the first half.
But I think he was talking about STORY, about WHY it happens. The story of Cabaret is the embodiment of carefree individualism, set in a political/historical context and juxtaposing style. You can get a feel for this very quickly in the play. Everything in the context of richard's review suggests that this is what he has trouble coming to grips with. He doesn't need to know the full sequence of events to realise that the style and structure of the piece are dated, and that this is nobody's fault but the script itself.
But of course, you obviously have the advantage of seeing the production in question, so you probably know better what he meant to say.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···