CABARET at the Kit Kat Club Previews- Page 12

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/12/24 at 2:28pm

Broadway Flash said: "The wonderful Stellene Volandes posted many pics of the birthday party at Cabaret on her Instagram account. So much for the sticker"

 

What a special treat for Joel and yes the wonderful Stellene being EiC  -  T&C sitting in her stage front dining seats shared some great shots! Thanks for sharing! Do you think they would put a sticker on her phone and they won't be putting a sticker on Anna Wintours phone when she attends the opening night!

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 8:13am

Saw this Weds night, house left, mezz EAST  (original mezz), Row K (first row behind the break). Sound, sightlines were excellent.

The theater IS stunning and it was rather exciting traipsing around to get to your destination which gave the feeling of going somewhere hidden and tawdry. However, I didn't feel the preshow really added that much more. 

(Obligatory phone sticker comment, I took mine off upon getting to my seat, placed it on my Playbill, no residue. I have a new phone and case. My son left his on, and easily removed the residue with an alcohol swab back at the hotel. No, I didn't take pix, so no scoldings allowed.)

There was much to like about the night and was our favorite show of the 4 we caught this trip (Mother Play, Lempicka & Suffs were the others). I loved Redmayne, Rankin, Skybell and Neuwirth, would not be surprised if all 4 rec'd noms, and I'll be rooting for Bebe to win - easily the best Fr Schneider I've ever witnessed . I thought Ato Blankson-Wood was better then many here have opined, but a bit wooden. I've always thought that Cliff was the most boring character in this show. 

I thought the show was lit beautifully and staged very well, giving all sides a fairly even view.  I did find the choreo a bit redundant.  I did love the range of physical casting for the Kit Kat Club Kids .

I did find the ending left me a bit cold and unemotional (which is surprising for me). I think I understood the concept behind the suits for all, but feel that undermines the tragedy. (Just conform -or hide- and life stays beautiful) Maybe I'm off.

Audience behavior was, overall, excellent.

 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:20am

I posted a few weeks ago that I had no interest in seeing this based on the Olivier performance, but the SeatGeek discount code, the positive reports about the stage mezzanine seating, and Bebe were enough to tempt me. So there’s my initial bias upfront if anyone wants to dismiss the following, but this review is mostly for anyone else who was skeptical or is open to another opinion.

Am I glad I saw it? Yes. Was it entertaining? For the most part. Was it great, or revelatory? No. This is a case where most of the directing choices add nothing to the piece, and in some cases work against it. But most of the cast is very good, it’s still Cabaret, and the inherent strengths of the work are still there and mostly shine through the gratuitous business piled on top of it. (I also barely remember the Mendes production from when I saw it 25 years ago, so I’m not speaking out of affection for that.)

 

-      For most of the first act, the only moment that really stood out was “Maybe This Time,” which was quiet and subtle (when little else was) and utterly devastating. Otherwise I spent the first act thinking this was a very slick, stylish, and shallow Cabaret. It has a lot of flashy design elements and directing choices that look cool, but don't really feel like they're serving the piece and are keeping it really surface-level. Then the end of Act I came, and I started to cry. That scene and those final moments were very well staged and performed, and actually felt like the choices were serving the piece. That Act I ending and "Maybe This Time" are what I'll carry from this production the most and may have made it worth seeing for those alone. The other time when I felt like one of the flashier directing choices really enhanced and served the story was the end of the final scene between Schneider and Schultz. Otherwise this production has too much pointless gimmickry and flash over substance.

 

-     I thought Rankin was very good, right up until the title number, when she couldn't overcome what she was directed to do. The song does make more sense in context than it did in the Olivier performance, and I didn’t laugh at the number like I did at the video. I also didn’t feel anything and wasn’t moved. I just thought, "She's certainly working very hard.” It’s possible to show emotional devastation without all the stomping and flailing about and frantic mugging, by just...singing the song. It was just too much, a very performative version of "This is what a woman having a complete breakdown looks like" instead of an actual convincing version of a woman having a complete breakdown. I'm sure she'll get kudos for it, since too often the Most acting is considered the Best acting, but it didn't work for me.

 

-     I have no idea what Redmayne was doing. He has an impressive physicality and accent work…but to what end? I didn’t feel like there was any coherent vision for this emcee and what his role was in this piece other than “Eddie Redmayne showing off.” The emcee has these ridiculously elaborate costumes that make no sense (those flashy design elements...). I spent most of the time he was onstage wondering what the point of his choices and his costumes and everything he was doing actually was, since most of them seemed wholly unnecessary.

 

-     The concept behind this production also made no sense to me. The Kit Kat Club is supposedly a third-rate, seedy club in the desperately poor Berlin of the 1930s. The Kit Kat Club the August Wilson has been transformed into is not that. The theater looks absolutely beautiful, and sure, I enjoyed seeing it and being there. But it very much looks and feels like a fully decked-out space where theatergoers can be charged exorbitant amounts for a night out, NOT the Kit Kat Club of Cabaret. So…what’s the dramatic purpose for this luxe setting? Is there one, or is it really just to be able to charge more?

 

-     I thought Neuwirth and Skybell were both great, and I didn’t have any of the issues with Blankson-Wood others have. He was perfectly fine, if not a revelation, as Cliff. I also found Henry Gottfried and Natascia Diaz quite good. Of course most of these actors were largely dealing with the more grounded and human elements of the story, so they didn’t have to fight through all the excess to make an impact.

 

-      I understood the point of the ending, and it should have been chilling. It wasn’t. I felt nothing.

As negative as most of this sounds, I did enjoy it in that very surface-level way (with a few moments when it managed to transcend that). It's certainly not the Best version of Cabaret, but it may be the Most version of Cabaret, and is entertaining in that respect (and I'm not surprised many people love that). I was able to appreciate how strong Cabaret is as a piece of musical theater, even if what was done with it here was less than it can, or should, be.

Updated On: 4/14/24 at 12:20 AM

[Skip23]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:29am

MemorableUserName said: "I posted a few weeks ago that I had no interest in seeing this based on the Olivier performance, but the SeatGeek discount code, the positive reports about the stage mezzanine seating, and Bebe were enough to tempt me. So there’s my initial bias upfront if anyone wants to dismiss the following, but this review is mostly for anyone else who was skeptical or is open to another opinion.

Am I glad I saw it? Yes. Was it entertaining? For the most part. Was it great, or revelatory? No. This is a case where most of the directing choices add nothing to the piece, and in some cases work against it. But most of the cast is very good, it’s still Cabaret, and the inherent strengths of the work are still there and mostly shine through the gratuitous business piled on top of it. (I also barely remember the Mendes production from when I saw it 25 years ago, so I’m not speaking out of affection for that.)



- For most of the first act, the only moment that really stood out was “Maybe This Time,” which was quiet and subtle (when little else was) and utterly devastating. Otherwise I spent the first act thinking this was a very slick, stylish, and shallow Cabaret. It has a lot of flashy design elements and directing choices that look cool, but don't really feel like they're serving the piece and are keeping it really surface-level. Then the end of Act I came, and I started to cry. That scene and those final moments were very well staged and performed, and actually felt like the choices were serving the piece. That Act I ending and "Maybe This Time" are what I'll carry from this production the most and may have made it worth seeing for those alone. The other time when I felt like one of the flashier directing choices really enhanced and served the story was the end of the final scene between Schneider and Schultz. Otherwise this production has too much pointless gimmickry and flash over substance.



- I thought Rankin was very good, right up until the title number, when she couldn't overcome what she was directed to do. The song does make more sense in context than it did in the Olivier performance, and I didn’t laugh at the number like I did at the video. I also didn’t feel anything and wasn’t moved. I just thought, "She's certainly working very hard.” It’s possible to show emotional devastation without all the stomping and flailing about and frantic mugging, by just...singing the song. It was just too much, a very performative version of "This is what a woman having a complete breakdown looks like" instead of an actual convincing version of a woman having a complete breakdown. I'm sure she'll get kudos for it, since too often the Most acting is considered the Best acting, but it didn't work for me.



- I have no idea what Redmayne was doing. He has an impressive physicality and accent work…but to what end? I didn’t feel like there was any coherent vision for this emcee and what his role was in this piece other than “Eddie Redmayne showing off.” The emcee has these ridiculously elaborate costumes that make no sense (those flashy design elements...). I spent most of the time he was onstage wondering what the point of his choices and his costumes and everything he was doing actually was, since most of them seemed wholly unnecessary.



- The concept behind this production also made no sense to me. The Kit Kat Club is supposedly a third-rate, seedy club in the desperately poor Berlin of the 1930s. The Kit Kat Club the August Wilson has been transformed into is not that. The theater looks absolutely beautiful, and sure, I enjoyed seeing it and being there. But it very much looks and feels like a fully decked-out space where theatergoerscan be charged exorbitant amounts for a night out, NOT the Kit Kat Club of Cabaret. So…what’s the dramatic purpose for this luxe setting? Is there one, or is it really just to be able to charge more?



- I thought Neuwirth and Skybell were both great, and I didn’t have any of the issues with Blankson-Wood others have. He was perfectly fine, if not a revelation, as Cliff. I also found Henry Gottfried and Natascia Diaz quite good. Of course most of these actors were largely dealing with the more grounded and human elements of the story, so they didn’t have to fight through all the excess to make an impact.



- I understood the point of the ending, and it should have been chilling. It wasn’t. I felt nothing.

As negative as most of this sounds, I did enjoy it in that very surface-level way (with a few moments when it managed to transcend that). It's certainly not the Best version of Cabaret, but it may be the Most version of Cabaret, and is entertaining in that respect (and I'm not surprised many people love that). I was able to appreciate how strong Cabaret is as a piece of musical theater, even if what was done with it here was less than it can be."


yeah - this was pretty negative - But still, you say you liked it - OK……..

Maybe Rankin was experimenting on Thursday night because when she did Cabaret, it was pulled in and it worked in spades

and I agree - Maybe This Time was stunning.

Thank God, I only (only!!!) paid $100 for this

Every bit as good as Dead Outlaw and Oh Mary. 

[lopside]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 2:09am

There is so much I want to write in disagreement with all your points, and I do believe that you went in with an inbuilt disdain that you never overcame, because when you mention things like costuming making no sense, when everything about the choreography, the ensemble around helps reinforce it, makes me feel like you weren't willing to be anything but dismissive ( sorry, how does Money not make sense!).

You might not remember the Mendes cabaret, but clearly it colors your perception about what the cabaret venues could look like. There was nothing like the Kit Kat Club anyways, it is an amalgam of many places. It is meant to capture something of the time, a mirror image of the way we live now, and a something of a Grosz rendering come to life; so many of these establishments catered to the middle class too. If you saw the documentary on Eldorado on Netflix, with its recreation of that, you'll notice this one would look nary out of place. And there were plenty others. The whole point is the interplay between reality and unreality, the extent to which a whole society can become captive to a hallucination. 





I'm just going to post a series of photographs because I can't get over the fact that everything is dismissed as 'flash'. The kind of 'grotesque' dances that Valeska Gert did would entirely be in line with the performance of Cabaret (And I don't know what you saw, but it's clearly not a breakdown, more like a last desperate, willful anthem.) Some of the movement work throughout is so abundantly clear here!





 Even with her 'grotesque performance art', Gert was kind of a sensation in the cabaret and arts communities of 1920s Berlin. She was associated with nearly every avant-garde movement of her day, as well as Dadaism and surrealism. 

I could very easily find you of examples of other artists and their work that have made their way into this production. It was one of the joys of getting to watch it. To find people being so closed off from the first mark is disappointing, all dismissed under the umbrella term of 'flashy', and 'gimmickry', which is why this post might feel so personal. 

[Ensemble1696584123]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 3:35am

Someday I'll dig up that wonderfully researched paper that had made the point that the kind of depictions that Fosse's film and Mendes leaned into for the club, emphasising degradation, completely lacking in vigor and vitality, were actually barely above the Nazi propaganda about them. Though Fosse's film at least framed the customers of the establishment being fairly well-to-do

 

[kingslim]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 9:01am

Saw the show last Tuesday and I was blown away. If you’re looking for a fun night, this is the show to see. I agree with most about Cliff being the weakest but there is time for him to grow into the role. Eddie for me was the standout. He is giving a fantastic performance, one of the best performances I’ve seen on stage in awhile, and very different from Alan which is refreshing. I can see him walking away with the Tony. The cast is great, the set design and costumes were different but great. I will definitely see this again 

Updated On: 4/14/24 at 09:01 AM

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 11:36am

Ensemble1696584123 said: "Someday I'll dig up that wonderfully researched paper that had made the point that the kind of depictions that Fosse's film and Mendes leaned into for the club, emphasising degradation, completely lacking in vigor and vitality, were actually barely above the Nazi propaganda about them. Though Fosse's film at least framed the customers of the establishment being fairly well-to-do."

I agree, the reason Isherwood and his fictional characters were in Berlin wasn't because it was "decadent". They were there because it was progressive and tolerant of queer people. Isherwood did not love most of the adaptations of his Berlin Stories. "Boys dressing as girls and girls dressing as boys is fun, not decadent. Decadence is blood on marble." 

The Nazis and the conservatives propagandized "decadence" in their successful culture wars against the communists and the social democrats. 

What I find funny about all these Cabaret revivals from Mendes on is how conservative they are. Cabaret is basically stuck in the place Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals were stuck in twenty years ago. 

[lopside]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:03pm

I'd argue this production does not do that. It's explicitly positioned as a hotbed of expression and queer expression and their demise is due to them trying to cater to the changing landscape and those who will be willing to pay, rather than reinforcing and strengthening their satire and mockery. 

[yyys]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:05pm

Why is Cliff cast as a black man? It doesn't make sense that a Nazi would befriend a black man...

[Ensemble1696584123]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:16pm

You do know that many Black performers were out in Berlin during the 1920s at that time right, and the influence of jazz was big? That Nazi also has no problem frequenting the Kit Kat Club, all the while working to put in place an ideology that wants most of them there dead. He's just using people as a means to an end; it's not like he cares about any of them.

And to the point in repsonse to my earlier comment, I did not mean this production. Even the vaguely exploitative nature of the Two Ladies number from nearly every iteration before this one has been liberated.

Updated On: 4/14/24 at 12:16 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:25pm

He sees him as a means to an end.  A naive and lost soul that might be willing to do "odd jobs" for the cause.

 

Also: I think this is simply colorblind casting - Im not sure he was cast BECAUSE he was a black actor. Was Cliff played by a black actor in the London production, and if originally cast has it remained a black actor throughout?

[yyys]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:30pm

In the London production I did not see the original cast. The Cliff that I got in 2022 was white. I believe he was an understudy.

[yyys]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:34pm

Anyway this is a strong Broadway cast. I think I prefer Fra Fee in London over Eddie Redmayne though. 

[butlervyer]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:44pm

As always this thread throws up some of the most baffling takes. Why no one bothers googling for a second to clear a couple of things up, I don't know. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:50pm

dramamama611 said: "He sees him as a means to an end. A naive and lost soul that might be willing to do "odd jobs" for the cause.



Also: I think this is simply colorblind casting - Im not sure he was cast BECAUSE he was a black actor. Was Cliff played by a black actor in the London production, and if originally cast has it remained a black actor throughout?"


They have only cast black actors in that role in the current UK production. I was unaware of anyone non black playing the role so far. 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 1:02pm

MemorableUserName said: "I posted a few weeks ago that I had no interest in seeing this based on the Olivier performance...So there’s my initial bias upfront if anyone wants to dismiss the following, but this review is mostly for anyone else who was skeptical or is open to another opinion.

lopside said: "There is so much I want to write in disagreement with all your points..."

Yes, when I admitted the potential bias so that those who love this production could go ahead and dismiss my opinion if they wanted, I was specifically referring to you, one of the Ensemble(string of number) posters, and the others who've been so sneeringly dismissive of anyone with anything but raves for this ("discerning theatergoers think it's the best"! - Rex Ere). 

Your response was actually less mean than I expected, so rather than argue further--and needless to say I disagree with most of your rebuttal points as well (are those lovely photos really of seedy, third-tier clubs?)--I'll just say I'm glad you love this production so much. I felt otherwise, and if that makes me closed-minded or simple or uninformed or lacking discernment, as some posters have implied about any naysayers, so be it. It clearly means a great deal to you--while your post history is hidden, I thought I remembered you joined the board to discuss the West End production; a Google search confirms that's the case and you don't appear to have commented on anything but this production of Cabaret. We should all be so lucky to find a show and production that speaks to us as this one does to you.

[lopside]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 1:24pm

If you haven't seen me post anywhere else, that's clearly because you didn't care as long as you can use my adoration of this production as something to render my opinion lesser since it suggests to you blind love. I have only ever expressed disagreement with things I point to be factually incorrect based on what I see as evidence. I'll never post about it again, if it only makes people be dismissive, when the opposite is never considered to be the same. 

[djoko84]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 6:25pm

Count me in as one of the people who didn't like the production. I was very underwhelmed and didn't like many of the choices they made. Eddie Redmayne was the best part, but still couldn't save it. I could've done without all the pre-show entertainment.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 7:03pm

JLO went to the Kit Kat Club.  Is she preparing for SpiderWoman?
 

JLO at Cabaret

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 7:14pm

Spiderwoman began filming about a week ago in NJ.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 8:19pm

Jordan Catalano said: "dramamama611 said: "Also: I think this is simply colorblind casting - Im not sure he was cast BECAUSE he was a black actor. Was Cliff played by a black actor in the London production, and if originally cast has it remained a black actor throughout?"


They have only cast black actors in that role in the current UK production. I was unaware of anyone non black playing the role so far."

Hm. Interesting.  Then I suppose there IS a specific reason, that I didn't see.  (I didn't CARE, either.)  

[Wick3]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 12:24pm

dramamama611 said: "Jordan Catalano said: "dramamama611 said: "Also: I think this is simply colorblind casting - Im not sure he was cast BECAUSE he was a black actor. Was Cliff played by a black actor in the London production, and if originally cast has it remained a black actor throughout?"


They have only cast black actors in that role in the current UK production. I was unaware of anyone non black playing the role so far."

Hm. Interesting. Then I suppose there IS a specific reason, that I didn't see. (I didn't CARE, either.)"

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/nov/18/omari-douglas-after-its-a-sin-ive-realised-that-i-was-always-supported-for-who-i-was

Cliff is from Harrisburg, PA.  Director Rebecca Frecknall did some research and found that sizable % of the population in Harrisburg then and now is Black/African-American. 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 12:28pm

And yet both of the understudies appear to be Latino, so Cliff being Black doesn't appear to be key to this production.

https://kitkat.club/cabaret-broadway/cast/pedro-garza/

https://kitkat.club/cabaret-broadway/cast/julian-ramos/

[yyys]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 12:32pm

Actualy the Cliff understudy I got in London was also Latino.  I can't figure out who though.

 

MemorableUserName said: "And yet both of the understudies appear to be Latino, so Cliff being Black doesn't appear to be key to this production.

https://kitkat.club/cabaret-broadway/cast/pedro-garza/

https://kitkat.club/cabaret-broadway/cast/julian-ramos/"