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.
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 06:05 pm
If 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.
GMS_BOIMon, 1 Nov 2004, 08:08 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
I saw cabaret yesterday and yes there were some things that i would have changed, but to leave a interval is just stupid. the action onstage get s alot beter so to review it only after seeing half the show is NOT doing it justice!!!!! the stage space was limited by the set yes but it was effective. I am a student of Mr Kings so I know how he directs and casts and I thought he did a terrific job it out did my expectations! I personally think you need to re- think your review and mention some of the possitive's like Mr Darrel Davis (Herr Shults) he was pure hevan to listn to I have seen many of his show and ben casted in a few and i think he deserves a metion for his terrific job!!! The Kit Kat Klub Band deserves a mention and ir you had stayed for the rest of the show you would have seen a few more song all of wich ould have raised th hair on the back of your neck ecpeially th rendition of " tomorrow balongs to me" . who are you ti critisise the script dur its THE SCRIPT its Cabaret this reviewer obviously was ethier haveing a bad day or has a really a not so good an eye for shows as the person who hired him thought so to give this show te kind of reveiw he has needs to have a look at how he reviews shows !!!!!!
thanks
thanks
reedleMon, 1 Nov 2004, 08:17 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Gosfords Musical Society's current production of Cabaret is, in my humble opinion, an outstanding success. How a person could write a review of a show in which they only watched one half could be an indication of an inflated ego.
The casting, costuming, set design, choreography, orchestration, on- stage band, lighting, special effects (yes including the video clip of the train scene) and general ambience combine to create an evening of light hearted enjoyment tempered by the pervasion of the story of the rise of the Third Reich.
Richard, the script for Cabaret was not invented by Gosford Musical Society nor Chris King - this script and story have been around for a long time and relates to the 1930's period of decadence in Germany in which the French cabaret style club gained ascendancy!
No stardom eh? What about the scintillating performance by Darryl Davis in his role as Herr Schultz? He held the audience spellbound as he created the illusion of an ageing Jew falling in love with the boarding house owner, whilst at the same time maintaining an innocence in the face of impending disaster. Darryl's acting and singing ability would have done justice to a professional company, and his soft shoe shuffle with Suzanne Ohrt was heart-warming and endearing. These two characters were brought to life beautifully by Darryl and Suzanne.
Had you stayed for the second half Richard, you would have been privileged to witness a truly impressive rendition of "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" in which a little boy soprano and the cast did indeed have the hairs standing up on the back of the neck.
There were too many positives in this excellent production for such a review to be published. Fortunately the public does not agree with Richard as all the show's performances are an absolute sellout.
The casting, costuming, set design, choreography, orchestration, on- stage band, lighting, special effects (yes including the video clip of the train scene) and general ambience combine to create an evening of light hearted enjoyment tempered by the pervasion of the story of the rise of the Third Reich.
Richard, the script for Cabaret was not invented by Gosford Musical Society nor Chris King - this script and story have been around for a long time and relates to the 1930's period of decadence in Germany in which the French cabaret style club gained ascendancy!
No stardom eh? What about the scintillating performance by Darryl Davis in his role as Herr Schultz? He held the audience spellbound as he created the illusion of an ageing Jew falling in love with the boarding house owner, whilst at the same time maintaining an innocence in the face of impending disaster. Darryl's acting and singing ability would have done justice to a professional company, and his soft shoe shuffle with Suzanne Ohrt was heart-warming and endearing. These two characters were brought to life beautifully by Darryl and Suzanne.
Had you stayed for the second half Richard, you would have been privileged to witness a truly impressive rendition of "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" in which a little boy soprano and the cast did indeed have the hairs standing up on the back of the neck.
There were too many positives in this excellent production for such a review to be published. Fortunately the public does not agree with Richard as all the show's performances are an absolute sellout.
GMS_BOIMon, 1 Nov 2004, 09:27 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
right on this is a crappy reveiw
Thou impertinent earth-vexing lout! ( richard)
Thou impertinent earth-vexing lout! ( richard)
Walter PlingeMon, 1 Nov 2004, 11:34 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Whoa there!! Go easy on someone who is just expressing his view!! I'm glad Mary and Jamie enjoyed the show. Many other people I have spoken to have also really enjoyed it, and about 5,000 have booked or seen the show, and there are absolutely no tickets left. What I say or think will have little or no impact. Please have another look at my review to see all the positives I did point out. I see no point in being totally negative about any theatre -- especially when so many people put so much effort into it with no financial remuneration. Have a look through my previous reviews and you'll see that I try to praise good theatre.
I have also spoken to others who had similar reservations to myself -- and my review was partly a way of trying to find out why I found it unsatisfactory -- not pinning the blame on the director, or the cast, but perhaps it is the musical itself. I still feel part of the problem (for me, guys, for me) is that Cabaret was an out-there musical, but to get the same out-there response today, you would have to venture into very tricky territory. The end result is one that skids perilously close to cliché.
As for leaving at interval, if the show hasn't got me by half-time, I'm outta there!
Big ups to all involved though, and as I said in my review, don't let my feelings stop you from seeing the show.
I have also spoken to others who had similar reservations to myself -- and my review was partly a way of trying to find out why I found it unsatisfactory -- not pinning the blame on the director, or the cast, but perhaps it is the musical itself. I still feel part of the problem (for me, guys, for me) is that Cabaret was an out-there musical, but to get the same out-there response today, you would have to venture into very tricky territory. The end result is one that skids perilously close to cliché.
As for leaving at interval, if the show hasn't got me by half-time, I'm outta there!
Big ups to all involved though, and as I said in my review, don't let my feelings stop you from seeing the show.
GMS_BOIMon, 1 Nov 2004, 05:02 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
yes richard we know you were exspersing your views but may i point out that it was AMATURE theatre so yes if its so border line on cliche` than why call it "a diffrent kind of cabaret" eh'
thanks jamie
thanks jamie
Grant MalcolmMon, 1 Nov 2004, 07:50 pm
Re: life is a...
Hi Jamie
jamie mckenzie wrote:
> yes richard we know you were exspersing your views but may i
> point out that it was AMATURE theatre so yes if its so border
> line on cliche` than why call it "a diffrent kind of cabaret"
> eh'
I thought richard's write up was particularly complimentary with respect to almost every aspect of the production he mentioned. He went to considerable lengths to point out that his problem with the performance was probably a crisis of faith with respect to the script.
While I haven't seen the production in question, I share some of his concerns regarding the script. I've seen some excellent productions with superb casts but never felt as engaged by the characters or their desparate situation as I perhaps should. I'm sure good productions of Cabaret will always find an audience, but I suspect the recent re-inventions may be face-lifts for a script that might not age so well.
Perhaps it's unfortunate that the subject was raised in the context of this particular production, but I think it's a discussion worth having regardless.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
jamie mckenzie wrote:
> yes richard we know you were exspersing your views but may i
> point out that it was AMATURE theatre so yes if its so border
> line on cliche` than why call it "a diffrent kind of cabaret"
> eh'
I thought richard's write up was particularly complimentary with respect to almost every aspect of the production he mentioned. He went to considerable lengths to point out that his problem with the performance was probably a crisis of faith with respect to the script.
While I haven't seen the production in question, I share some of his concerns regarding the script. I've seen some excellent productions with superb casts but never felt as engaged by the characters or their desparate situation as I perhaps should. I'm sure good productions of Cabaret will always find an audience, but I suspect the recent re-inventions may be face-lifts for a script that might not age so well.
Perhaps it's unfortunate that the subject was raised in the context of this particular production, but I think it's a discussion worth having regardless.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeTue, 2 Nov 2004, 10:16 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
I called it "a different kind of Cabaret" because on this review site there was a review of another musical society's Cabaret right before this one -- I was indicating this was a different topic (hence the subtitle: Gosford Musical Society)
GMS_BOIWed, 3 Nov 2004, 11:19 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
ok but for an amature production i thought it was exsteamly well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but there are stars of the show "the vacant position of "Star of the show"." there were pleanty the kit kat klub girls for one Darrel davis the people who stared as mcee, sally bowls & clifford bradshaw?
but there are stars of the show "the vacant position of "Star of the show"." there were pleanty the kit kat klub girls for one Darrel davis the people who stared as mcee, sally bowls & clifford bradshaw?
Walter PlingeWed, 3 Nov 2004, 03:41 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
jamie mckenzie wrote:
>
> ok but for an amature production i thought it was exsteamly
> well
> done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I hate to butt in not having seen the show, but such a thing does not exist, Jamie.
There is only really one area of a production that should be markedly different between amateur and professional, and that is in the technical area, and even then only because of the vast differences in budget size.
exsteamly well done (sic) for an amateur production as far as performers go is, and should be, professional standard, and not an inch less!
>
> ok but for an amature production i thought it was exsteamly
> well
> done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I hate to butt in not having seen the show, but such a thing does not exist, Jamie.
There is only really one area of a production that should be markedly different between amateur and professional, and that is in the technical area, and even then only because of the vast differences in budget size.
exsteamly well done (sic) for an amateur production as far as performers go is, and should be, professional standard, and not an inch less!
Walter PlingeMon, 8 Nov 2004, 10:23 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
I wholeheartedly agree with Paul on his comments on what the definition of "Well done . . . for an amateur musical" is.
Having seen the Gosford show as well, i must say that it is a different show to others that i have seen over the years.
In fact- every cabaret experience has been different. Because every show is just a different interpretation.
The recent revival was more of a "shock" production with a classic musical being turned on it's head
I went to see one done in Melbourne and that one had more of a comic twist to it, making it more of a variety show review
Mosmans Cabaret was more of an emotion rollercoaster where you were sucked into the show
and Gosford, well, Gosford was all Glitz. It is by far the best looking cabaret show i have seen. But i just wasnt scared. Wasnt scared for the characters due to the Nazis coming to power. I couldnt give a @!#$ whether they were in big trouble. Which i think is most important for a show . . any show . . is that you drag the audience up and down with you along the way. It just never happened.
Well done to the Emcee, Sally, and to Kost who were all wonderful, plus the use of the german language in the music was fantastic.
Having seen the Gosford show as well, i must say that it is a different show to others that i have seen over the years.
In fact- every cabaret experience has been different. Because every show is just a different interpretation.
The recent revival was more of a "shock" production with a classic musical being turned on it's head
I went to see one done in Melbourne and that one had more of a comic twist to it, making it more of a variety show review
Mosmans Cabaret was more of an emotion rollercoaster where you were sucked into the show
and Gosford, well, Gosford was all Glitz. It is by far the best looking cabaret show i have seen. But i just wasnt scared. Wasnt scared for the characters due to the Nazis coming to power. I couldnt give a @!#$ whether they were in big trouble. Which i think is most important for a show . . any show . . is that you drag the audience up and down with you along the way. It just never happened.
Well done to the Emcee, Sally, and to Kost who were all wonderful, plus the use of the german language in the music was fantastic.
GMS_BOIWed, 10 Nov 2004, 12:04 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
well i wa just meerly pointing out the problems with richards review so that s my oppinion.....
Walter PlingeWed, 10 Nov 2004, 01:18 pm
Re: Cabaret Controversy
I really enjoyed Richard's review and I applaud people who're confident enough to post here at the risk of pricking a few egos. This website is for creative discussion and learning and personally, I would MUCH prefer to have someone tell me my faults than to piss in my pocket after a production. It's great to hear the good stuff - and Richard provided many positives - but I'll line up any day for some constructive criticism. How else can we learn?
I'd like to add that Richard's review would not put me off seeing the show. Heard the old adage "any publicity's good publicity"? Just look at the string of posts attached to Richard's!
Good luck taking some of that constructive criticism to the next production.
I'd like to add that Richard's review would not put me off seeing the show. Heard the old adage "any publicity's good publicity"? Just look at the string of posts attached to Richard's!
Good luck taking some of that constructive criticism to the next production.
crgwllmsThu, 11 Nov 2004, 11:47 pm
Re: Cabaret Controversy, or "If You Could See Her"
Jamie, your first post asked Richard to speak about positives: I really get the feeling you didn't read what he said. Let me quote all of these positives from his review...
>If you like the musical "Cabaret" you will probably enjoy the current production from Gosford Musical Society
>There is much to like (1): Leigh Collins' sturdy stage setting....
>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 (...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.
>There is much to like(2): The onstage appearance of Leo Del Oleo onstage with accordion and Tyrolean hat.
>There is much to like (3): Sally Bowles, played by Toni Williams, has breathless dialogue delivered at rapidfire pace, but her speech is always intelligible.
>There is much to like (4): 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.
>There is much to like (5): 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.
>there is...much to appreciate, and many in the audience seemed to like it.
All this sounds pretty positive to me.
And then you misquoted him, and blamed him for it, when you mistakenly accused him of saying 'a different kind of Cabaret', when the title was simply 'a different Cabaret'.
Could it be you were blinded by your main objection, that Richard left at interval? Perhaps his reviewing a show after only seeing half is no worse than your criticising his review while only noticing a very small part of what he actually said...?
I notice, however, these interesting words you have invented...
"beter, possitive's, hevan, listn, ben, casted, metion, ir, wich, ould, th, ecpeially, balongs, ti, critisise, ethier, haveing, te, reveiw, exspersing, AMATURE, diffrent, exsteamly, pleanty, stared, wa, meerly, oppinion"
That, coupled with the number of times you rated your own posts with 5 stars, leads me to believe perhaps you don't really look at most of what YOU write either..!
Cheers,
Craig
PS Several of us have added our own star rating to some of these posts, which has made the average rating somewhat more realistic...
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeFri, 12 Nov 2004, 08:44 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
I was one of the Kit Club Girls in Cabaret and i would just like to say that each and everyone of the cast, crew and production team had an absolute ball throughout rehursals and the run of the show. I don't seem to understand though how someone can write a review on something when they didn't see all of it...
Walter PlingeFri, 12 Nov 2004, 01:44 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
as a backstage crew member at gms i have to say ive seen some pretty dodgey shows and the resent production of cabaret is not one of them.....richard....to sit through 1/2 a show and complain about the storyline....no wonder u dont get it mate....of course there are things that could have been change but thats the same with every show...the cast in that show are some of the most talented on the coast and told that storyline to the best of their ability through their passion for acting, dance and singing....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....
crgwllmsFri, 12 Nov 2004, 06:54 pm
Re: Half Cut
beckj 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
Walter PlingeFri, 12 Nov 2004, 09:44 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
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...
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...
crgwllmsSat, 13 Nov 2004, 03:25 am
Re: Losing the plot
beckj 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
crgwllmsSat, 13 Nov 2004, 09:59 am
Re: Losing the plot - typos
crgwllms wrote:
Sorry, should have proof-read.
> I thought his objections were: that the concept of sleazy
> leather & lace costuming to convey is dated;
should read:
I thought his objections were: that the concept of sleazy leather & lace costuming to convey decadence is dated;
And, for the sake of clearer argument,
>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
should read:
The plot of Cabaret is....
See? I even criticise myself sometimes.
Cheers,
Craig
Sorry, should have proof-read.
> I thought his objections were: that the concept of sleazy
> leather & lace costuming to convey is dated;
should read:
I thought his objections were: that the concept of sleazy leather & lace costuming to convey decadence is dated;
And, for the sake of clearer argument,
>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
should read:
The plot of Cabaret is....
See? I even criticise myself sometimes.
Cheers,
Craig
Walter PlingeSat, 13 Nov 2004, 09:02 pm
Re: Losing the plot - typos
Careful, you could set a precedent whereby we become our own worst critic - heaven forbid we should see fault in ourselves!
Walter PlingeMon, 15 Nov 2004, 09:31 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Making it their own???
Yes i do agree it's all great that GMS made characters their own, but what i was annoyed about was the choreography.
"mama" had GREAT choreography, BUT . . . . whats the deal with "money" having almost the same Chorie from the movie? and the same as alot of the mannerisms during "cabaret"s final moments were seemed to have been directly taken from the movie.
German accents needed alot of work too. (although the actual use of the language was wonderful)
Now im all for tribute and homage to past shows, BUT, i just thought it was lazy work to not come up with something new for numbers such as Money. It all just looks very amateur i guess.
As for everyone slagging off Richard.
It's a review!!!
NOT a personal attack,
so why is every tom dick and harry treating it like it is.
It's criticism sure, maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but the way this has all been carrying on is VERY unprofessional.
I too agreed that i felt 'something missing' from the show, but so fricken what?!?!?
Someone damaged your ego and said that your perfect show wasnt so perfect? let it go.
Nobodys perfect. The professional revival wasnt perfect.
Its an amateur society.
Just take it with a grain of salt and move on. You finished the show, it's over, you had a great time, you had a lot of positive feedback on it, and barely any negatives.
Just move on.
By the way, well done, congrats and all that, it was a great show.
I wonder why there isnt anything like this happening to Mosmans Cabaret? I guess no one is really taking offense to anything from it's review.
Anyway on lighter news . . . .Seussical is available for Musical Societies to do. Sounds like fun!!
Yes i do agree it's all great that GMS made characters their own, but what i was annoyed about was the choreography.
"mama" had GREAT choreography, BUT . . . . whats the deal with "money" having almost the same Chorie from the movie? and the same as alot of the mannerisms during "cabaret"s final moments were seemed to have been directly taken from the movie.
German accents needed alot of work too. (although the actual use of the language was wonderful)
Now im all for tribute and homage to past shows, BUT, i just thought it was lazy work to not come up with something new for numbers such as Money. It all just looks very amateur i guess.
As for everyone slagging off Richard.
It's a review!!!
NOT a personal attack,
so why is every tom dick and harry treating it like it is.
It's criticism sure, maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but the way this has all been carrying on is VERY unprofessional.
I too agreed that i felt 'something missing' from the show, but so fricken what?!?!?
Someone damaged your ego and said that your perfect show wasnt so perfect? let it go.
Nobodys perfect. The professional revival wasnt perfect.
Its an amateur society.
Just take it with a grain of salt and move on. You finished the show, it's over, you had a great time, you had a lot of positive feedback on it, and barely any negatives.
Just move on.
By the way, well done, congrats and all that, it was a great show.
I wonder why there isnt anything like this happening to Mosmans Cabaret? I guess no one is really taking offense to anything from it's review.
Anyway on lighter news . . . .Seussical is available for Musical Societies to do. Sounds like fun!!
Walter PlingeTue, 16 Nov 2004, 06:15 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
well johnno, i think the chore was fantastic. yeh so what a bit of it was from the movie. the choreographer probably was inspired by it. and i dont recall seeing other dancers in the movie so it wasnt exactly the same. my fav was the opening number. well done to the cast and crew. overall i thought cabaret was amazing. and as for toni she is far better than tina arena.
GMS_BOITue, 16 Nov 2004, 06:58 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
i also think th chore was terrific only the smallest part was from the film and it was to add authenticity to the stage production and as for my spelling crgwllms its actually problems with my hand and not being able to type properly. and we WERE NOT slagging off richards "review" we were merly pointing out some missing part he left out sooooo*blows rasberry* and the whole "ego" sh#t what a load we are just commited to tell people what it was really like and i STILL believe that people need to be mentioned for their outstandingjob WELL DONE!!
crgwllmsTue, 16 Nov 2004, 11:15 am
Re: a different planet
jamie mckenzie wrote:
> and as for my spelling crgwllms its actually
> problems with my hand and not being able to type properly.
> and we WERE NOT slagging off richards "review" we were merly
> pointing out some missing part he left out sooooo*blows
> rasberry* and the whole "ego" sh#t what a load we are just
> commited to tell people what it was really like and i STILL
> believe that people need to be mentioned for their
> outstandingjob WELL DONE!!
Look, you're as entitled to your argument as I am to mine, but I find it hard to believe that you're not slagging us ALL off with your attitude and your raspberry blowing. Read your first post again...more than half of it is a personal attack on richard. If you had simply posted your alternate viewpoint you might have been more convincing, but when your second post just said "right on this is a crappy reveiw (sic)" , I'm afraid you lost all credibility.
And I'm sorry about your hand but as an experiment I put my keyboard on the floor and typed this entire reply, including using and clicking the mouse, with my two big toes (true!)...so I don't really accept your excuse.
Cheers,
Craig
> and as for my spelling crgwllms its actually
> problems with my hand and not being able to type properly.
> and we WERE NOT slagging off richards "review" we were merly
> pointing out some missing part he left out sooooo*blows
> rasberry* and the whole "ego" sh#t what a load we are just
> commited to tell people what it was really like and i STILL
> believe that people need to be mentioned for their
> outstandingjob WELL DONE!!
Look, you're as entitled to your argument as I am to mine, but I find it hard to believe that you're not slagging us ALL off with your attitude and your raspberry blowing. Read your first post again...more than half of it is a personal attack on richard. If you had simply posted your alternate viewpoint you might have been more convincing, but when your second post just said "right on this is a crappy reveiw (sic)" , I'm afraid you lost all credibility.
And I'm sorry about your hand but as an experiment I put my keyboard on the floor and typed this entire reply, including using and clicking the mouse, with my two big toes (true!)...so I don't really accept your excuse.
Cheers,
Craig
Walter PlingeWed, 17 Nov 2004, 08:55 am
Re: Cabaret Controversy
AUDIENCE NUMBERS for Cabaret were well up - very high indeed.
Was it word of mouth? I don't think so the show was virtually sold out before the opening night. Has anybody ever heard about MARKETING.
There were huge ads in both the Express Advocate and the Coast supplement in the Daily Telegraph every week for 6 weeks before the show.
When you're talking about whether a show was am, pro/am or professional its important to bear in mind that the marketing for this show was intense and absolutely professional - it is afterall what puts bums on seats.
Just thought you should all know just how hard the sponsorship effort was for Cabaret - thanks to The Central Coast Express Advocate & 2GO and others
Was it word of mouth? I don't think so the show was virtually sold out before the opening night. Has anybody ever heard about MARKETING.
There were huge ads in both the Express Advocate and the Coast supplement in the Daily Telegraph every week for 6 weeks before the show.
When you're talking about whether a show was am, pro/am or professional its important to bear in mind that the marketing for this show was intense and absolutely professional - it is afterall what puts bums on seats.
Just thought you should all know just how hard the sponsorship effort was for Cabaret - thanks to The Central Coast Express Advocate & 2GO and others
Walter PlingeTue, 23 Nov 2004, 10:36 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Dear Richard
Thankyou for reviewing the GMS production of Cabaret that I directed. Naturally I appreciate the positive comments and will fully analyse and evaluate the negative ones when I have “free” time from my busy production and entertainment schedule. I have only just been pointed to your review and have not read all the other comments and reply’s etc. In brief I can only point out that in all productions I produce, direct, act or entertain in I am totally audience and market focused. In this production of Cabaret I was very mindful of the Musical Societies target audience and therefore the level of "decadence, jokes, violence, etc” was aimed to primarily target that particular demographic. The show was sold out (officially 99.65%). Both myself and other cast and crew members were overwhelmed by the positive response from literally hundreds of people most of whom I have never met. Their comments consistently expressed delight at being both entertained and deeply touched by the production particularly the SECOND HALF. Interestingly most comments complemented the believability and depth of characterisation of all the principals especially Shane Caufield (Emcee) whom they found much more than "menacing" but authentically the Master of the Club. As Emcee he is the "captain of the ship" linking the story and the musical numbers together with amazing energy vocal ability and wonderful timing. 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. As far as the set goes Leigh and I had the same general concept before we got together to decide the final look. The end result was a practical authentic and workable space that Leigh had put a great deal of time into researching. I to shared concerns about the club patrons being visible during non club sequences, however Leigh was adamant about the concept and after the preview night and the subsequent season my fears were allayed as most people I talked did not find this aspect distracting.
In closing I must severely “take you to task” for not staying to the end of the show. I’m not “Robinson Crusoe” in grappling with the notion of validating a review that is by your own admission (of leaving at interval) fundamentally incomplete and flawed. In Cabaret especially the fabric of the story is intensely and deliberately woven into both parts of the story. The characters, mood, script, performances, mood, music, all take on new dimensions vital to appreciating the complete story and the whole point of Cabaret. In reading your review and identifying you criticism I believe you would have found answers to some of the points you raised. i.e. Stunning interpretation of the songs Mein Herr and Cabaret from Toni Williams at her star studded best. Chris Gracia’s up beat yet sensitive performance as Clifford, Melinda Middleton as the feisty Frau Kost, Darryl Davis, Noel Borger both showing their comic and dramatic skills. Also the fantastic work of MD Ros English and her on stage band and orchestra and the diversity of Choreography from Lauren Miller all highlighted in BOTH halves of the show. However I do acknowledge your honesty in stating publicly you did not see the second half.
I would be most interested in discussing this further with you and I am sure like others finding out about you, your background and connection to theatre. Rightly or wrongly we are not subject to the same anonymity that you are. So please feel free to contact me at info@chrisking.com.au.
Thankyou again for taking the time to review the first half of Cabaret and I look forward to future communication and debate with you.
Sincerely
Chris King
Thankyou for reviewing the GMS production of Cabaret that I directed. Naturally I appreciate the positive comments and will fully analyse and evaluate the negative ones when I have “free” time from my busy production and entertainment schedule. I have only just been pointed to your review and have not read all the other comments and reply’s etc. In brief I can only point out that in all productions I produce, direct, act or entertain in I am totally audience and market focused. In this production of Cabaret I was very mindful of the Musical Societies target audience and therefore the level of "decadence, jokes, violence, etc” was aimed to primarily target that particular demographic. The show was sold out (officially 99.65%). Both myself and other cast and crew members were overwhelmed by the positive response from literally hundreds of people most of whom I have never met. Their comments consistently expressed delight at being both entertained and deeply touched by the production particularly the SECOND HALF. Interestingly most comments complemented the believability and depth of characterisation of all the principals especially Shane Caufield (Emcee) whom they found much more than "menacing" but authentically the Master of the Club. As Emcee he is the "captain of the ship" linking the story and the musical numbers together with amazing energy vocal ability and wonderful timing. 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. As far as the set goes Leigh and I had the same general concept before we got together to decide the final look. The end result was a practical authentic and workable space that Leigh had put a great deal of time into researching. I to shared concerns about the club patrons being visible during non club sequences, however Leigh was adamant about the concept and after the preview night and the subsequent season my fears were allayed as most people I talked did not find this aspect distracting.
In closing I must severely “take you to task” for not staying to the end of the show. I’m not “Robinson Crusoe” in grappling with the notion of validating a review that is by your own admission (of leaving at interval) fundamentally incomplete and flawed. In Cabaret especially the fabric of the story is intensely and deliberately woven into both parts of the story. The characters, mood, script, performances, mood, music, all take on new dimensions vital to appreciating the complete story and the whole point of Cabaret. In reading your review and identifying you criticism I believe you would have found answers to some of the points you raised. i.e. Stunning interpretation of the songs Mein Herr and Cabaret from Toni Williams at her star studded best. Chris Gracia’s up beat yet sensitive performance as Clifford, Melinda Middleton as the feisty Frau Kost, Darryl Davis, Noel Borger both showing their comic and dramatic skills. Also the fantastic work of MD Ros English and her on stage band and orchestra and the diversity of Choreography from Lauren Miller all highlighted in BOTH halves of the show. However I do acknowledge your honesty in stating publicly you did not see the second half.
I would be most interested in discussing this further with you and I am sure like others finding out about you, your background and connection to theatre. Rightly or wrongly we are not subject to the same anonymity that you are. So please feel free to contact me at info@chrisking.com.au.
Thankyou again for taking the time to review the first half of Cabaret and I look forward to future communication and debate with you.
Sincerely
Chris King
crgwllmsTue, 23 Nov 2004, 01:54 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -
Chris 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
Walter PlingeWed, 24 Nov 2004, 07:16 am
Re: a different Cabaret -
No No Craig - you missed the point - the TV show analogy doesn't hold water. Cabaret is a show with an unfolding plot line that needs to be appreciated as a WHOLE piece. One whole piece, properly concluded piece. I think the work is brilliant personally BUT the show has a first half and a concluding half for good reason. It is a total thing.
Walter PlingeWed, 24 Nov 2004, 08:05 am
Re: Half Cut
I haven't seen Cabaret either, so I'm not commenting on the show. However, I will agree that a show SHOULD grab you before interval. If it doesn't, it has failed in some quintessential way. I am someone who will sit through the whole thing in good faith that it will get better and also as a courtesy to the people on stage, ESPECIALLY in amateur productions because it is about COMMUNITY SPIRIT. Richard, I think walking out is kind of arrogant behaviour given the spirit of the production. If I was sitting in a professional theatre watching a professional show and it was sub-standard, I most certainly would leave because the production would not be doing its job well enough and I have certain expectations of a professional production which I have paid good money to see. Community theatre is not the same thing and to treat it the same way is not as acceptable or appropriate, it is merely callous. The people on that stage were there to have fun and if you had welcomed that sentiment I think you could have fund some joy in it too. I have seen some shockers, but if the cast are there to enjoy themselves and the audience is empathetic enough to recieve and reciprocate that joy, than even a show of the most appalling artistic standard can be wonderful to watch. Again, I respect your right to leave if you are not enjoying it, but I think community theatre needs to be recieved with different expectations.
I will say, however, that richards' review is largely positive and some of us are getting carried away... this is just my philosophy, not by judement of the show.
I will say, however, that richards' review is largely positive and some of us are getting carried away... this is just my philosophy, not by judement of the show.
crgwllmsWed, 24 Nov 2004, 04:24 pm
Re: a different Cabaret - Maybe this time
Ross Stagg wrote:
>
> No No Craig - you missed the point - the TV show analogy
> doesn't hold water. Cabaret is a show with an unfolding plot
> line that needs to be appreciated as a WHOLE piece. One whole
> piece, properly concluded piece. I think the work is
> brilliant personally BUT the show has a first half and a
> concluding half for good reason. It is a total thing.
Hi Ross.
I probably expressed myself better the first time, a few posts previously: ('Half Cut' http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=24&i=2539&t=2493 ).
I still maintain that regardless of it being a theatre piece, a novel, a film, an episodic TV series, or whatever; you CAN have an opinion of an excerpt, and that opinion is worth sharing.
When I was asked to judge the semi-finals of Storm The Stage recently, the other judges and I were shown a lot of three-to-four-minute excerpts from a random selection of plays, all taken out of context, most of which I was completely unfamiliar with, and not all the excerpts necessarily explained the plotline or were 'properly concluded'....yet it was understood and expected that we would have valid and critical opinions based purely on the small extracts we were shown. Are you guys trying to argue that we could not express proper judgment merely because we did not see the whole piece? I'm sorry, but I don't think THAT argument holds water.
After all, that's what an audition is. There's no point saying "yeah, but you would've enjoyed it better if I'd shown you the whole play". Those moments we see are all you've got. In a full length play, I reckon you still need to take the same attitude...every beat you deliver needs to be engaging, and if you're deferring the payoff until the audience has seen the whole package, I reckon you're taking too big a liberty with the audience's patience....and risking them reaching for the car keys at interval.
Now this is NOT to say that this was the case with Gosford's Cabaret. I can't say whether it was good bad or otherwise; that's not the point.
The fact that Richard left at interval is a separate issue, which some people may find harsh and some practical...that's also a whole separate argument I don't want to enter into.
But I do still believe that you can't dismiss an opinion merely because that person is only (and openly) reviewing just the part they saw.
There have been plenty of other people who have offered their own contrasting opinion in full support of this show. You guys ought to be happy and leave it at that. The more you try to use 'only seeing an excerpt' as an excuse to dismiss the valid criticism it contains, the more insecure about it you sound.
Regardless of how popular, how eloquent, or how well justified the opinion was or wasn't, it's still just one opinion. So you can put that in perspective against all the others who have said otherwise.
But you can't dismiss it as not valid.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> No No Craig - you missed the point - the TV show analogy
> doesn't hold water. Cabaret is a show with an unfolding plot
> line that needs to be appreciated as a WHOLE piece. One whole
> piece, properly concluded piece. I think the work is
> brilliant personally BUT the show has a first half and a
> concluding half for good reason. It is a total thing.
Hi Ross.
I probably expressed myself better the first time, a few posts previously: ('Half Cut' http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=24&i=2539&t=2493 ).
I still maintain that regardless of it being a theatre piece, a novel, a film, an episodic TV series, or whatever; you CAN have an opinion of an excerpt, and that opinion is worth sharing.
When I was asked to judge the semi-finals of Storm The Stage recently, the other judges and I were shown a lot of three-to-four-minute excerpts from a random selection of plays, all taken out of context, most of which I was completely unfamiliar with, and not all the excerpts necessarily explained the plotline or were 'properly concluded'....yet it was understood and expected that we would have valid and critical opinions based purely on the small extracts we were shown. Are you guys trying to argue that we could not express proper judgment merely because we did not see the whole piece? I'm sorry, but I don't think THAT argument holds water.
After all, that's what an audition is. There's no point saying "yeah, but you would've enjoyed it better if I'd shown you the whole play". Those moments we see are all you've got. In a full length play, I reckon you still need to take the same attitude...every beat you deliver needs to be engaging, and if you're deferring the payoff until the audience has seen the whole package, I reckon you're taking too big a liberty with the audience's patience....and risking them reaching for the car keys at interval.
Now this is NOT to say that this was the case with Gosford's Cabaret. I can't say whether it was good bad or otherwise; that's not the point.
The fact that Richard left at interval is a separate issue, which some people may find harsh and some practical...that's also a whole separate argument I don't want to enter into.
But I do still believe that you can't dismiss an opinion merely because that person is only (and openly) reviewing just the part they saw.
There have been plenty of other people who have offered their own contrasting opinion in full support of this show. You guys ought to be happy and leave it at that. The more you try to use 'only seeing an excerpt' as an excuse to dismiss the valid criticism it contains, the more insecure about it you sound.
Regardless of how popular, how eloquent, or how well justified the opinion was or wasn't, it's still just one opinion. So you can put that in perspective against all the others who have said otherwise.
But you can't dismiss it as not valid.
Cheers,
Craig
Walter PlingeThu, 25 Nov 2004, 10:26 am
Re: a different Cabaret -- Gosford Musical Society
Why must everything NEGATIVE be rebutted and the person saying something negative being told that THEY ARE WRONG and made to feel bad.
I think it's rather immature to be just poo pooing someone's REVIEW.
It's not a debate.
It's what i believe i saw in the show, so i said it.
Yet all of a sudden . . . IM WRONG. And your right i guess . . . . . .
Whatever happened to freedom of speech???
Just let me have my opinion, and you have your opinion.
If i were anything like you, i would have told you off for saying something nice about the show.
yet i did't.
Once again, sorry to have hurt your ego, but just accept that it's not perfect . . . .
AND DONT SHOOT PEOPLE DOWN IF THEY DONT THINK YOUR SHOW IS PERFECT.
We all know what you think of the show, let other people have their say without being shot down for having a voice.
We're only human.
We are all different
GET OVER IT
(sorry, im a drama lecturer and if i get treated like a child, then i just give it straight back.)
PS: read the rest of my comments, i DID LIKE THE SHOW
cheers big ears
-Johnno
I think it's rather immature to be just poo pooing someone's REVIEW.
It's not a debate.
It's what i believe i saw in the show, so i said it.
Yet all of a sudden . . . IM WRONG. And your right i guess . . . . . .
Whatever happened to freedom of speech???
Just let me have my opinion, and you have your opinion.
If i were anything like you, i would have told you off for saying something nice about the show.
yet i did't.
Once again, sorry to have hurt your ego, but just accept that it's not perfect . . . .
AND DONT SHOOT PEOPLE DOWN IF THEY DONT THINK YOUR SHOW IS PERFECT.
We all know what you think of the show, let other people have their say without being shot down for having a voice.
We're only human.
We are all different
GET OVER IT
(sorry, im a drama lecturer and if i get treated like a child, then i just give it straight back.)
PS: read the rest of my comments, i DID LIKE THE SHOW
cheers big ears
-Johnno
Walter PlingeThu, 25 Nov 2004, 10:43 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -
Mmmmmm, i think this is the stuff that separates the professionals from the amateurs. I dont think i have ever seen STC performers write into the Herald when they get ripped to shreds by its reviewer. Nor have i seen Robin Nevin attempt to rebutt or sway a reviewer. The actors and director let their art do the talking and let the individual interpret the art for themselves. That's the beauty of it.
The theatre is a tough place and if you cant handle criticism, both constructive and destructive, then maybe its time to reconsider...
The theatre is a tough place and if you cant handle criticism, both constructive and destructive, then maybe its time to reconsider...
Walter PlingeTue, 30 Nov 2004, 06:35 am
Re: a different Cabaret - Maybe this time
LETS JUST PUT THIS TO BED ALREADY ALL OF YOU (MYSELF INCLUDED) ARE WRECKING THE "MEMORIES" THAT CABARET WOULD HAVE LEFT BEHIND BUT MAY I PUT ONE LAST THING ONE THE TABLE FOR RICHARD IF GMS DOES A SECOND SEASON WILL YOU REVIEW THE WHOLE SHOW OR NOT WORRY ABOUT REVIWING IT?
CHEERS JAMIE
CHEERS JAMIE
Walter PlingeTue, 30 Nov 2004, 09:14 am
Re: a different Cabaret - Maybe this time
oh dear
im afraid that was a bad way to END this discussion, as YOU ended it but then your the one thats asking the final question, none of us gets the chance
yes, lets put this to rest
Im sick of people being petty about other people's viewpoints and slamming them for HAVING a viewpoint (my viewpoints too)
grow up, get over it, or some sh*t like that
now im back to the lecture room to tell students in my performance class that egos get you NOWHERE
MY LAST POST ON THIS MATTER
im afraid that was a bad way to END this discussion, as YOU ended it but then your the one thats asking the final question, none of us gets the chance
yes, lets put this to rest
Im sick of people being petty about other people's viewpoints and slamming them for HAVING a viewpoint (my viewpoints too)
grow up, get over it, or some sh*t like that
now im back to the lecture room to tell students in my performance class that egos get you NOWHERE
MY LAST POST ON THIS MATTER
Walter PlingeTue, 30 Nov 2004, 07:40 pm
Re: a different Cabaret - Maybe this time
Jamie, I'm frightened that if I review the whole show it will generate twice as many responses! :-)
You are right, though -- many different topics have been profitably discussed, but this correspondence has gone on longer than the show itself.
I have had plenty of opportunity to hear other people's views and take them on board, and have responded privately to Chris King -- whom I admire for his success in show biz, and his willingness to stick his neck out in other fora that the public may never hear about ...
Ultra big ups to all -- yo!
You are right, though -- many different topics have been profitably discussed, but this correspondence has gone on longer than the show itself.
I have had plenty of opportunity to hear other people's views and take them on board, and have responded privately to Chris King -- whom I admire for his success in show biz, and his willingness to stick his neck out in other fora that the public may never hear about ...
Ultra big ups to all -- yo!
Walter PlingeWed, 1 Dec 2004, 02:30 pm
Richard Missed the Point
I haven't gone over everyone's posts, so I am hoping no one has already addressed what I am about to mention re: Richard's initial review of GMS's Cabaret.
I refer to Richard's original letter:
"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"
Richard - mate. The musical is set in 1931, not 2004. That's an obvious enough point to absorb, but let me go on. I'm not sure what kind of shows you're used to (perhaps you need to wear a trenchcoat?) but GMS is always very mindful of the general demographic of its audience. The Central Coast is often affectionally called "God's Waiting Room". At one matinee performance, a couple of Little Old Ladies were so distressed by their perceived raunchiness of the show, that they walked out straight after "Two Ladies". Horses for courses buddy. Chris King remained faithful to the spirit of the film and original staging of the show and didn't find it necessary to make it 'contemporary' as it is a pertinent historical piece, based on the autobiographical writings of Christopher Isherwood. Sorry you weren't titillated, but plenty of other audience members were. Your decadence threshhold says more about your own private life than it does about that of the hoi poloi at which the show was directed. Your positive comments are duly noted - but I agree with most folks here who would suggest that unless you've seen an entire show - what's the point in reviewing it? It's hardly constructive criticism when it's so half-baked and ill-considered. As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but as a barometre of artistic appreciation and perspective, I find your gauge unreliable at best..
I refer to Richard's original letter:
"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"
Richard - mate. The musical is set in 1931, not 2004. That's an obvious enough point to absorb, but let me go on. I'm not sure what kind of shows you're used to (perhaps you need to wear a trenchcoat?) but GMS is always very mindful of the general demographic of its audience. The Central Coast is often affectionally called "God's Waiting Room". At one matinee performance, a couple of Little Old Ladies were so distressed by their perceived raunchiness of the show, that they walked out straight after "Two Ladies". Horses for courses buddy. Chris King remained faithful to the spirit of the film and original staging of the show and didn't find it necessary to make it 'contemporary' as it is a pertinent historical piece, based on the autobiographical writings of Christopher Isherwood. Sorry you weren't titillated, but plenty of other audience members were. Your decadence threshhold says more about your own private life than it does about that of the hoi poloi at which the show was directed. Your positive comments are duly noted - but I agree with most folks here who would suggest that unless you've seen an entire show - what's the point in reviewing it? It's hardly constructive criticism when it's so half-baked and ill-considered. As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but as a barometre of artistic appreciation and perspective, I find your gauge unreliable at best..
Walter PlingeMon, 6 Dec 2004, 11:45 am
Re: a different Cabaret - Maybe this time
Craig Mate - audiences aren't interested in wham- bam- thank- you -
Mam auditions. They're interested in a journey. Auditions are just professional's (or not) "shorthand". You can be as interested as you like in auditions BUT audiences pay to take a journey. Maybe there would be more successful contemporaneous shows if theatre people simply concentrated on the .....
Ross
Mam auditions. They're interested in a journey. Auditions are just professional's (or not) "shorthand". You can be as interested as you like in auditions BUT audiences pay to take a journey. Maybe there would be more successful contemporaneous shows if theatre people simply concentrated on the .....
Ross
crgwllmsMon, 6 Dec 2004, 02:03 pm
Re: Killing me softly with his suspense
Ross Stagg wrote:
>
> Craig Mate - audiences aren't interested in wham- bam- thank-
> you -
> Mam auditions. They're interested in a journey. Auditions are
> just professional's (or not) "shorthand". You can be as
> interested as you like in auditions BUT audiences pay to take
> a journey. Maybe there would be more successful
> contemporaneous shows if theatre people simply concentrated
> on the .....
>
> Ross
Ross Buddy Cobber Old Pal
I agree with you but you have not refuted my point, which is that we can all have a valid opinion of whatever our experience is of that journey, regardless of where we choose to step off the train.
I too am interested in a journey. I don't go to the theatre to see an audition piece. And if I've paid to be taken on a journey then that's what I expect....so by YOUR very same analogy, if it comes to interval and nobody's taken me anywhere, an obvious option for me to get that journey I so crave is to pick myself up and drive elsewhere.
It's no excuse for a show to not have taken me somewhere by interval, regardless of how good the second half is supposed to be. Obviously for someone in that audience, Cabaret only had a first half, and they were happy to (literally) leave it at that.
Having said that, I really like the point you make with your (not) concluding sentence (...although is 'contemporaneous' the right future tense? I'd suggest 'contemporary' is better..?)
Perhaps you were going to totally stun and surprise me with the final few words of that sentence, when I return after interval? Maybe so. But I rather get the general impression that I understand where your argument is going, we can all have a reasonable opinion of your argument so far, and regardless of how brilliant you intend to be in the concluding half of your sentence, I'm not sufficiently motivated by what I've read so far to stick around for it.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> Craig Mate - audiences aren't interested in wham- bam- thank-
> you -
> Mam auditions. They're interested in a journey. Auditions are
> just professional's (or not) "shorthand". You can be as
> interested as you like in auditions BUT audiences pay to take
> a journey. Maybe there would be more successful
> contemporaneous shows if theatre people simply concentrated
> on the .....
>
> Ross
Ross Buddy Cobber Old Pal
I agree with you but you have not refuted my point, which is that we can all have a valid opinion of whatever our experience is of that journey, regardless of where we choose to step off the train.
I too am interested in a journey. I don't go to the theatre to see an audition piece. And if I've paid to be taken on a journey then that's what I expect....so by YOUR very same analogy, if it comes to interval and nobody's taken me anywhere, an obvious option for me to get that journey I so crave is to pick myself up and drive elsewhere.
It's no excuse for a show to not have taken me somewhere by interval, regardless of how good the second half is supposed to be. Obviously for someone in that audience, Cabaret only had a first half, and they were happy to (literally) leave it at that.
Having said that, I really like the point you make with your (not) concluding sentence (...although is 'contemporaneous' the right future tense? I'd suggest 'contemporary' is better..?)
Perhaps you were going to totally stun and surprise me with the final few words of that sentence, when I return after interval? Maybe so. But I rather get the general impression that I understand where your argument is going, we can all have a reasonable opinion of your argument so far, and regardless of how brilliant you intend to be in the concluding half of your sentence, I'm not sufficiently motivated by what I've read so far to stick around for it.
Cheers,
Craig
Walter PlingeTue, 7 Dec 2004, 06:37 am
PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST
PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST
please you ppl are pathetic let it go as for ricard he is entiteled to his opinion he and chris have sorted this out so leave it along already!!!
please you ppl are pathetic let it go as for ricard he is entiteled to his opinion he and chris have sorted this out so leave it along already!!!
Grant MalcolmTue, 7 Dec 2004, 06:55 am
Re: sleeping dogs?
an anonymous coward shouted and flooded:
> PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO
> REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS
> TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT
Just as this matter was quietly putting itself to bed, it's rudely awakened by this little rant.
> please you ppl are pathetic let it go as for ricard he is
> entiteled to his opinion he and chris have sorted this out so
> leave it along already!!!
Almost as pathetic as an anonymous, barely literate, childish whiner who floods this message board with a request to 'leave it along [sic]' nearly a week after the last contribution?
Let sleeping dogs lie?
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
> PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO
> REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS
> TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST PLEASE CAN WE PUT
Just as this matter was quietly putting itself to bed, it's rudely awakened by this little rant.
> please you ppl are pathetic let it go as for ricard he is
> entiteled to his opinion he and chris have sorted this out so
> leave it along already!!!
Almost as pathetic as an anonymous, barely literate, childish whiner who floods this message board with a request to 'leave it along [sic]' nearly a week after the last contribution?
Let sleeping dogs lie?
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeWed, 8 Dec 2004, 03:19 pm
Re: a different Cabaret -
Cheers.
That was perhaps the best response to the entire lot. Well stated chum. The show is to bed, the set non-existant, the costumes put away and the cast all moved to the next production.
And Richard, your honesty is valuable regardless of your background. Your most important attribute is that you were in the audience and you were affected. Above that you were brave enough to express your thoughts both positive and negative.
Good on you.
Leigh
That was perhaps the best response to the entire lot. Well stated chum. The show is to bed, the set non-existant, the costumes put away and the cast all moved to the next production.
And Richard, your honesty is valuable regardless of your background. Your most important attribute is that you were in the audience and you were affected. Above that you were brave enough to express your thoughts both positive and negative.
Good on you.
Leigh
Walter PlingeWed, 8 Dec 2004, 07:06 pm
Re: PLEASE CAN WE PUT THIS TO REST
Hmmm... Shades of Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining'.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wok and no play makesd Jack a dull boy
All work and nop play makes Jack a dull boy...
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wok and no play makesd Jack a dull boy
All work and nop play makes Jack a dull boy...
Walter PlingeFri, 10 Dec 2004, 11:30 am
Re: Killing me softly with his suspense
Touche' - A most enjoyable exchange
Ross
Ross
Walter PlingeFri, 10 Dec 2004, 11:38 am
Re: Richard Missed the Point
I actually found this post rather hilarious!
I do think you need to have read the messages in the thread.
Or actually, no, you shouldnt have . . . .
(Johnno, leave the poor horse alone, it doesnt need to be beaten when it's already dead)
and now from something completely different
2 asylum patients escape from their cells, one of them shines a light up to the very top of the high wall and says to the other . .
"listen mate, i'll keep this light going, and you walk up the light beam to the top of the wall ok?"
the other one replies . . .
"what?!? are you crazy? Im totally sure you are crazy! You've gotta be an absolute lunatic to ask me to walk up the light beam to the top of the wall. . . .
you're gonna bloody turn it off when i'm half way up it!"
I do think you need to have read the messages in the thread.
Or actually, no, you shouldnt have . . . .
(Johnno, leave the poor horse alone, it doesnt need to be beaten when it's already dead)
and now from something completely different
2 asylum patients escape from their cells, one of them shines a light up to the very top of the high wall and says to the other . .
"listen mate, i'll keep this light going, and you walk up the light beam to the top of the wall ok?"
the other one replies . . .
"what?!? are you crazy? Im totally sure you are crazy! You've gotta be an absolute lunatic to ask me to walk up the light beam to the top of the wall. . . .
you're gonna bloody turn it off when i'm half way up it!"
Walter PlingeMon, 20 Dec 2004, 06:45 pm
Re: Richard Missed the Point
i like the relavence (sorry cant spell) there johnno...lol
Walter PlingeThu, 6 Jan 2005, 07:25 am
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP VERBAL WRESTLING - CRAIG V ROSS
In the red corner weighing in with name-dropping and theatrical connections we have Craig - arguing that an excerpt is worthy of review - even if the excerpt is not sufficiently illustrative of the final product to warrant mention.
In the Blue Corner, weighing in with passion, loyalty and an admirable attachment to the 'completion thing' we have Ross, arguing that no one cares what someone thinks of half a play, after all - most people go to a play intending to see the entire thing.
The palsy affectations, grammatical parries and existential thrusts have been a bonus but a few things have been overlooked...and they are, in no particular order:
Auditions are there to give a director an indication of the acting ablity of the candidate, as well as the physical suitablity for a role. The director is looking for an 'x' factor - he or she is not looking for the entire story, because that should already be in his or her head - to be conveyed to the actor during the course of rehearsals.
And Craig, you could only review what you saw when Judging that thing, so your point isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. You couldn't judge the whole thing, just the excerpts you saw.
I could name any number of movies that I wasn't overly fussed on in the first half, only to be pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie in retrospect, once it reached it's stunning/ironic/comical/tragic/illuminating(etc) conclusion.
Richard felt entitled to his opinion, and everyone who disputed his opinion also felt entitled to their's, but have been rapped over the knuckles for having their opinions about Richard's opinion (how is that fair?). No one was really arguing the negativity or positivity of his opinions, just the validity and relevance. An opinion is really only valid, if someone's absorption of a point is complete and comprehensive - otherwise it's mere speculation based on an undercooked understanding.
One would think...but then consider this:
I saw 'that' Barry White concert in 2000, and had I walked out at half time (which I wanted to do, but was praying to God things would get better) I would have received a refund for my ticket. I stuck it out - and feel perfectly justified in calling it the worst concert I ever witnessed.
But you know what? Some people actually enjoyed it - there's no accounting for expectations, summed up in the timeless quote: "I don't know a lot about art, but I know what I like". The purpose of Art is to move and those of us that seek to be the arbiter of good taste should give ourselves an uppercut.
This is merely a healthy debate and who doesn't enjoy a good mass debate? Certainly not us wankers who frequent this site.
Time to not take ourselves too seriously - it's not rocket surgery ya know.
: )
In the Blue Corner, weighing in with passion, loyalty and an admirable attachment to the 'completion thing' we have Ross, arguing that no one cares what someone thinks of half a play, after all - most people go to a play intending to see the entire thing.
The palsy affectations, grammatical parries and existential thrusts have been a bonus but a few things have been overlooked...and they are, in no particular order:
Auditions are there to give a director an indication of the acting ablity of the candidate, as well as the physical suitablity for a role. The director is looking for an 'x' factor - he or she is not looking for the entire story, because that should already be in his or her head - to be conveyed to the actor during the course of rehearsals.
And Craig, you could only review what you saw when Judging that thing, so your point isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. You couldn't judge the whole thing, just the excerpts you saw.
I could name any number of movies that I wasn't overly fussed on in the first half, only to be pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie in retrospect, once it reached it's stunning/ironic/comical/tragic/illuminating(etc) conclusion.
Richard felt entitled to his opinion, and everyone who disputed his opinion also felt entitled to their's, but have been rapped over the knuckles for having their opinions about Richard's opinion (how is that fair?). No one was really arguing the negativity or positivity of his opinions, just the validity and relevance. An opinion is really only valid, if someone's absorption of a point is complete and comprehensive - otherwise it's mere speculation based on an undercooked understanding.
One would think...but then consider this:
I saw 'that' Barry White concert in 2000, and had I walked out at half time (which I wanted to do, but was praying to God things would get better) I would have received a refund for my ticket. I stuck it out - and feel perfectly justified in calling it the worst concert I ever witnessed.
But you know what? Some people actually enjoyed it - there's no accounting for expectations, summed up in the timeless quote: "I don't know a lot about art, but I know what I like". The purpose of Art is to move and those of us that seek to be the arbiter of good taste should give ourselves an uppercut.
This is merely a healthy debate and who doesn't enjoy a good mass debate? Certainly not us wankers who frequent this site.
Time to not take ourselves too seriously - it's not rocket surgery ya know.
: )
Walter PlingeThu, 6 Jan 2005, 07:38 am
Re: Half Cut
quote:
"I'd be more inclined to criticise his opinions if he'd stayed".
Huh? Wow, that really hurts my brain.
So in leaving half way, he was more entitled to his review than if he'd seen the whole show?
hahahaha. Good one Craig.
"I'd be more inclined to criticise his opinions if he'd stayed".
Huh? Wow, that really hurts my brain.
So in leaving half way, he was more entitled to his review than if he'd seen the whole show?
hahahaha. Good one Craig.
crgwllmsThu, 6 Jan 2005, 07:23 pm
Re: Cut back
Rose Cooper wrote:
>
> quote:
>
> "I'd be more inclined to criticise his opinions if he'd
> stayed".
>
>
> Huh? Wow, that really hurts my brain.
>
> So in leaving half way, he was more entitled to his review
> than if he'd seen the whole show?
No, no more entitled, and no less.
But I would have been more inclined to criticise him if he'd hated it yet stayed.
Sorry the logic of that hurts your brain so much.
crg
>
> quote:
>
> "I'd be more inclined to criticise his opinions if he'd
> stayed".
>
>
> Huh? Wow, that really hurts my brain.
>
> So in leaving half way, he was more entitled to his review
> than if he'd seen the whole show?
No, no more entitled, and no less.
But I would have been more inclined to criticise him if he'd hated it yet stayed.
Sorry the logic of that hurts your brain so much.
crg
crgwllmsThu, 6 Jan 2005, 07:51 pm
Don't know if you've noticed...WWF is all acting anyway!
Rose Cooper wrote:
> And Craig, you could only review what you saw when Judging
> that thing, so your point isn't really relevant to the issue
> at hand. You couldn't judge the whole thing, just the
> excerpts you saw.
Oh? I really thought that WAS the point? Whether or not you should be allowed to judge what you see...?
> Richard felt entitled to his opinion, and everyone who
> disputed his opinion also felt entitled to their's, but have
> been rapped over the knuckles for having their opinions about
> Richard's opinion (how is that fair?). No one was really
> arguing the negativity or positivity of his opinions, just
> the validity and relevance. An opinion is really only valid,
> if someone's absorption of a point is complete and
> comprehensive - otherwise it's mere speculation based on an
> undercooked understanding.
>
Whoa! Hang on!
On one hand, you say everyone should be entitled to their opinion, and that it should be fair for others to then have their own counter opinion.
On the other hand, you approve of someone deciding an opinion is not valid or relevant....therefore they should not be entitled to it ??
Aren't these completely contradictory philosophies..?
To disagree with the content (ie positivity or negativity, as you say) is a matter of taste; but to quote Thomas Jefferson, I think we should "defend to the death your right to say it".
That's all I've been saying all along. Whether anyone's content is right or wrong, I am in no position to judge, and hell, it's just an opinion. I may or may not have a differing opinion.
But as for allowing them to say it; I think that is a basic right...and WHETHER OR NOT the content is thought to be 'unfounded', they are still entitled to be heard.
Those two opposing viewpoints aside, I'm glad you wrote your article because it was very entertaining!
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
> And Craig, you could only review what you saw when Judging
> that thing, so your point isn't really relevant to the issue
> at hand. You couldn't judge the whole thing, just the
> excerpts you saw.
Oh? I really thought that WAS the point? Whether or not you should be allowed to judge what you see...?
> Richard felt entitled to his opinion, and everyone who
> disputed his opinion also felt entitled to their's, but have
> been rapped over the knuckles for having their opinions about
> Richard's opinion (how is that fair?). No one was really
> arguing the negativity or positivity of his opinions, just
> the validity and relevance. An opinion is really only valid,
> if someone's absorption of a point is complete and
> comprehensive - otherwise it's mere speculation based on an
> undercooked understanding.
>
Whoa! Hang on!
On one hand, you say everyone should be entitled to their opinion, and that it should be fair for others to then have their own counter opinion.
On the other hand, you approve of someone deciding an opinion is not valid or relevant....therefore they should not be entitled to it ??
Aren't these completely contradictory philosophies..?
To disagree with the content (ie positivity or negativity, as you say) is a matter of taste; but to quote Thomas Jefferson, I think we should "defend to the death your right to say it".
That's all I've been saying all along. Whether anyone's content is right or wrong, I am in no position to judge, and hell, it's just an opinion. I may or may not have a differing opinion.
But as for allowing them to say it; I think that is a basic right...and WHETHER OR NOT the content is thought to be 'unfounded', they are still entitled to be heard.
Those two opposing viewpoints aside, I'm glad you wrote your article because it was very entertaining!
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]