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: a different Cabaret -
Tue, 23 Nov 2004, 01:54 pmChris King wrote:
> As far as not having a "star of the show" I must say that I disagree emphatically. In my opinion the show was the “star”, as we had intended
> thanks to starring performances from each and every principal
> and a strong energised committed ensemble company.
Is this not a contradiction?
Is it a star vehicle or an ensemble production? I'm not certain it can be both..?
And you make great points Chris, but I still feel everybody is amazingly oversensitive about somebody just reviewing the part of the show they saw. It was made obvious to everybody from the review that it was only dealing with the first half, so it should be read in the same light. Why is that any less valid than a reviewer who sees more and therefore reviews more?
I saw the first episode of Channel 10's 'The Cooks' a few weeks ago (mainly because I used to be good friends with Kate Atkinson and I enjoy her work), but my review of the show would have been that it didn't appeal to me and I wasn't interested in seeing more. It might become the Australian version of 'Friends' for all I know, but the initial episode didn't entice me to watch further. If I was reviewing that first episode I could give you more details, including what I thought was good, what I thought was confusing, and what I thought was underdeveloped. I'd have to acknowledge that this was the first episode of a series and things obviously may develop further, but without that future information anything I said about what I saw is still valid, and there'd be no reason why my review would not be appropriate in a forum like TV Guide, were I employed by them.
So why is everyone chucking a fit about an opinion of the first episode (half) of a theatre show? What is the big difference?
There's a certain good grace in accepting what people say in reviews with a grain of salt, and not getting overworked about it...regardless of whether you think it's true or not.
Cheers
Craig
> As far as not having a "star of the show" I must say that I disagree emphatically. In my opinion the show was the “star”, as we had intended
> thanks to starring performances from each and every principal
> and a strong energised committed ensemble company.
Is this not a contradiction?
Is it a star vehicle or an ensemble production? I'm not certain it can be both..?
And you make great points Chris, but I still feel everybody is amazingly oversensitive about somebody just reviewing the part of the show they saw. It was made obvious to everybody from the review that it was only dealing with the first half, so it should be read in the same light. Why is that any less valid than a reviewer who sees more and therefore reviews more?
I saw the first episode of Channel 10's 'The Cooks' a few weeks ago (mainly because I used to be good friends with Kate Atkinson and I enjoy her work), but my review of the show would have been that it didn't appeal to me and I wasn't interested in seeing more. It might become the Australian version of 'Friends' for all I know, but the initial episode didn't entice me to watch further. If I was reviewing that first episode I could give you more details, including what I thought was good, what I thought was confusing, and what I thought was underdeveloped. I'd have to acknowledge that this was the first episode of a series and things obviously may develop further, but without that future information anything I said about what I saw is still valid, and there'd be no reason why my review would not be appropriate in a forum like TV Guide, were I employed by them.
So why is everyone chucking a fit about an opinion of the first episode (half) of a theatre show? What is the big difference?
There's a certain good grace in accepting what people say in reviews with a grain of salt, and not getting overworked about it...regardless of whether you think it's true or not.
Cheers
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···