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: Half Cut
Fri, 12 Nov 2004, 06:54 pmbeckj wrote:
> richard....to sit through 1/2 a show and
> complain about the storyline....no wonder u dont get it
> mate....i can see that ur passion
> for theatre lacks if u cant even sit though one show and give
> it a chance......at least then ur review might of had some
> meaning....
I wonder about this line of argument...What's the big problem?
If you started a really thick novel, and got halfway through it but just weren't engaged by it, there's a good chance most of us would lose interest and would put the book down, and go off and read something else. Why continue wrestling with something in the off-chance it will improve in the last few pages? Obviously you gamble with the chance that the second half might be the most amazing thing you'd ever read...but is that REALLY likely given the first half was simply not your cup of tea? And even if you do 'give it a chance' and it turns out to be better in the second half, is that enough to redeem the fact that the entire first half of it bored you?
And yet, you'd still be capable of giving an opinion on the half you'd read. You could probably give quite rational arguments about what was good about it, what in your opinion worked or didn't work, what others may find entertaining about it, and why it simply didn't appeal to you...regardless of whether you knew how it ended or not.
Your argument, of course, ought to be framed in context by admitting that you didn't read through til the end...
Isn't this what Richard has done?
I bet most of us could admit to a similar situation watching a movie or mini-series on TV...the first episodes might keep us watching for a while, but if we get halfway and find it just doesn't appeal, we probably won't set the video recorder for the last seven episodes. We may never learn about the thrilling blockbuster final episode; we've simply had enough. But we can still talk with authority and perhaps even fondness about the acting and the storyline of that first pilot episode.
Is that opinion any less valid?
It would seem to me a rather stupid decision, actually, to keep watching something that I really didn't enjoy. Don't you agree? Whereas to demonstrate that you have some understanding of the style, design, storyline (whether the full story or just the plot of a few scenes) , and believability of a piece of theatre; and then to recognise that it has its good points as well as its faults; but that ultimately it's just not the sort of thing that floats your boat...this all seems to me to be demonstrating some rational thought and intelligence, no?
I don't hear anyone really arguing that Richard didn't put forward some intelligent observations. What surprises me is the number of people who totally discount his intelligence because he chose to leave halfway. But as I have just pointed out, I consider that another intelligent choice. I'd be more inclined to criticise his opinions if he'd stayed.
Cheers,
Craig
> richard....to sit through 1/2 a show and
> complain about the storyline....no wonder u dont get it
> mate....i can see that ur passion
> for theatre lacks if u cant even sit though one show and give
> it a chance......at least then ur review might of had some
> meaning....
I wonder about this line of argument...What's the big problem?
If you started a really thick novel, and got halfway through it but just weren't engaged by it, there's a good chance most of us would lose interest and would put the book down, and go off and read something else. Why continue wrestling with something in the off-chance it will improve in the last few pages? Obviously you gamble with the chance that the second half might be the most amazing thing you'd ever read...but is that REALLY likely given the first half was simply not your cup of tea? And even if you do 'give it a chance' and it turns out to be better in the second half, is that enough to redeem the fact that the entire first half of it bored you?
And yet, you'd still be capable of giving an opinion on the half you'd read. You could probably give quite rational arguments about what was good about it, what in your opinion worked or didn't work, what others may find entertaining about it, and why it simply didn't appeal to you...regardless of whether you knew how it ended or not.
Your argument, of course, ought to be framed in context by admitting that you didn't read through til the end...
Isn't this what Richard has done?
I bet most of us could admit to a similar situation watching a movie or mini-series on TV...the first episodes might keep us watching for a while, but if we get halfway and find it just doesn't appeal, we probably won't set the video recorder for the last seven episodes. We may never learn about the thrilling blockbuster final episode; we've simply had enough. But we can still talk with authority and perhaps even fondness about the acting and the storyline of that first pilot episode.
Is that opinion any less valid?
It would seem to me a rather stupid decision, actually, to keep watching something that I really didn't enjoy. Don't you agree? Whereas to demonstrate that you have some understanding of the style, design, storyline (whether the full story or just the plot of a few scenes) , and believability of a piece of theatre; and then to recognise that it has its good points as well as its faults; but that ultimately it's just not the sort of thing that floats your boat...this all seems to me to be demonstrating some rational thought and intelligence, no?
I don't hear anyone really arguing that Richard didn't put forward some intelligent observations. What surprises me is the number of people who totally discount his intelligence because he chose to leave halfway. But as I have just pointed out, I consider that another intelligent choice. I'd be more inclined to criticise his opinions if he'd stayed.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···