Finally saw this yesterday and have to say I really enjoyed it. I know it's not perfect and I understand some of the issues others have had, but I think it takes a lot of risks and makes interesting choices that mostly pay off. I loved how the show slowly gets stripped of color and life and found the final tableau haunting. The lobby and main space transformation is absolutely gorgeous and immediately transported me to a sort of dream-like place. My main issue was that Ato's performance as Cliff was not horrible, but didn't rise up to the level of all the other main cast members. I felt like I was seeing an understudy who was not full prepared. I thought Gayle was fantastic - her Sally is more manipulative and cunning than any other I've seen. Anyway I'd like to see this again, possibly later in the run depending on who they get for replacements.
I have two tickets to tonight’s show at 7:30pm. Mezz J seats 2 and 4. I’m sick and the last thing I want to do is sit in a theatre for three hours. I can send asap via seat geek.
I doubt that Skybell nor Neuwirth get notices for their planned absences as they aren't above the title. Their names are no where to be seen on the home page of their website, either. (I didn't do a detailed look, however.)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
steven22 said: "I have two tickets to tonight’s show at 7:30pm. Mezz J seats 2 and 4. I’m sick and the last thing I want to do is sit in a theatre for three hours. I can send asap via seat geek.
Asking for what I paid $350 total for the pair."
Ended up going and really enjoyed it. I saw the most recent Alan Cumming revival and didn’t like it. I’m glad I gave this show another shot.
"I say the [Tony] nominating committee, which bizarrely nominated the wretched, decontextualized and spectacularly overpriced revival of "Cabaret" in many categories when only Steven Skybell and Bebe Neuwirth were actually any good, should reacquaint itself with genuine feeling, which is why folks shell out the big bucks to come to the "Cabaret."
"I say the [Tony] nominating committee, which bizarrely nominated the wretched, decontextualized and spectacularly overpriced revival of "Cabaret" in many categories when only Steven Skybell and Bebe Neuwirth were actually any good, should reacquaint itself with genuine feeling, which is why folks shell out the big bucks to come to the "Cabaret.""
Chris Jones seems to be positioning himself to become the newly anointed version of John Simon -- negative, needlessly bitchy and increasingly irrelevant to the conversation.
Really? Chris Jones, whose reviews are overwhelmingly positive, finds one show offensive, an opinion that's completely in line with the critical consensus, and he's "negative" and "needlessly bitchy"?
According to Did They Like It, of the last 20 shows to open on Broadway he gave:
15 Positive Reviews: Illinoise, Mother Play, Mary Jane, Heart of Rock and Roll, Patriots, Hell's Kitchen, Stereophonic, Suffs, Wiz, Enemy of the People, Water for Elephants, Notebook, Days of Wine and Roses, Doubt, Appropriate
If he's trying to be negative and needlessly bitchy, he's clearly not trying that hard. More likely, as with most critics, he recognized that the emperor here has no clothes.
I saw this production a couple of weeks ago and have been sort of grappling with my feelings.
To preface, I saw this production twice in London with Fra Fee/Amy Lennox as the Emcee and Sally and was positively bowled over by it. I remember such specific details of both the experience and their performances, as well as those of the supporting cast I saw. I have been eager for it to come to NY and was looking forward to seeing Eddie Redmayne and Gayle Rankin, whom I loved in the last revival.
But something seems to have been lost in the transfer. Almost across the board I felt like I was watching people who had been given the direction of other actors/performers and were just trying to make it work. An ensemble of traditional musical theatre performers--incredibly talented ones!--trying to come off as edgy and cool and decidedly NOT traditional musical theatre performers. The production felt like it was trying so hard to be different and to shock you (why does Sally seemingly put a cigarette up her skirt and then smoke it?), without actually trying to bring the audience in or have any sort of humanity to the evening.
At the center are Eddie and Gayle.
Gayle I found utterly exhausting to watch. For every moment of truly brilliance, there were moments of random screaming and shouting and jumping that took me right out of it. Her Sally, to me, lacked a center of any kind. There was nothing about the performance that to me felt like we were peeling back the layers of this woman. There's a brief moment of stillness in Maybe This Time, but it gets walked back by an overwrought ending where she tries to speak-sing through tears that just rang so false to me. We were on the journey of the song with you, you had us, you don't need to do the extra bits and bobs.
Redmayne is giving a smug, self-satisfied performance that seems more intent on finding a gesture or a movement for every line over creating some through line for the role. I understand what he's going for, I think it is deeply unsuccessful. Whole lines and lyrics get lost in his swallowed German accent and he left little to no positive impact for me. I was watching Eddie Redmayne trying to impress an audience with everything he can do.
The supporting cast fares better. Steven Skybell is warm and lovely, one of probably 3 actors in the whole piece playing a consistent character from scene to scene. The keys for his songs seem a bit high for him at times, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of his performance. Oddly, I found Ato Blankson-Wood rather good. I do not entirely understand the decision to cast Cliff of all characters in the piece with a man of color, but I thought Ato brough a pathos and simplicity to the role/evening. Henry Gottfried is solid, German accent is a little sloppy, but he plays an Ernst that you understand why these people all like him, he doesn't play the twist right from the start.
Bebe Neuwirth is of course a legend, and seeing her perform at all is such a gift. But I was left very...whelmed by her performance. Act 1 I was simply confused by what direction she was given. She seems to have been told to play Schneider as cutesy and coquettish, and as that's just not who Ms. Neuwirth is, I wasn't buying it (iffy accent aside). In act 2, when she is able to dig into the role and deliver quintessential Bebe, it's thrilling. "What Would You Do" is easily the musical highlight of the entire night.
Natascia Diaz is fine if unmemorable, and I do not understand why they gave her a wig that looks like Anna Jane Casey's hair.
Overall, I'm a little baffled by what exactly happened when bringing the show across the pond. I spent most of intermission just sad because I hold my experiences of seeing this show in London so dear and was really looking forward to seeing it in NY. But the whole thing just left me rather disappointed.
Many have gotten truly angry at what they’ve done to our beloved CABARET — and I understand that — but honestly, I was too bored to care (full disclosure—I saw it well into the London run when the original and replacement casts had long gone.)
"To those defending the performance, saying it’s unsubtle because it’s meant for a live theater and not TV, and furthermore, it’s taken out of context: I have seen this performance in its context at the August Wilson Theatre. It is just as frightening because he is there in the room with you.
To those saying that American audiences simply don’t understand the dark and grotesque themes that Redmayne & Co. are getting at (this production is a London import): au contraire, mon cher. These themes are made very clear in the book and score of this musical; it’s just that other productions and performers trust audiences to figure it out for themselves, whereas this team thinks they need to spoon-feed and scream the “banality of evil” messaging at you. By holding audience members’ hands and guiding them through upsetting material encased in the enticing, friendly form of a musical, this production is far less radical than it thinks."
Saw the show a few weeks ago. Bored throughout and still trying to understand the hype around it. The theatre is impressive and everyone’s very talented. It’s just a very boring show. I will give all my praise to Eddie Redmayne. To me, he saved me from leaving at intermission. He was fun to watch and made the show worth staying for. I’m glad I only paid $112 for my seat because if I paid anything more, I’d be extremely disappointed.
I wonder if this will be a case of 'any publicity is good publicity'. Surely this is reaching people that may not have even known Eddie Redmayne was in a Broadway show at all and may be intrigued. Many people want to see things that are bizarre, scary or polarizing. I know for myself when Sunset Blvd with Nicole Scherzinger had it's first preview I saw someone on twitter post that the show was 'Bat-sh*t crazy' and I immediately bought tickets lol. I guess time will tell...
The prices have long turned many people off or moved them into the “hesitant buyer” category.
If people saw the performance and/or read the reviews, I think it might do more harm, if only because less-than-casual theatregoers/tourists (which make up a lot of sales) are going to be more risk-averse
Check out my eBay page for sales on Playbills!!
www.ebay.com/usr/missvirginiahamm
Yeah, I don't think you can significantly rely on Morbid Curiosity when tickets are priced this high.
That the show is doing THIS well continues to surprise me and I just wonder how long it lasts (through his whole run? Does the audience dry up in a couple weeks? Does it continue doing great after he leaves even if his replacement is of lesser name value?)
stagepotato said: "Saw the show a few weeks ago. Bored throughout and still trying to understand the hype around it. The theatre is impressive and everyone’s very talented. It’s just a very boring show. I will give all my praise to Eddie Redmayne. To me, he saved me from leaving at intermission. He was fun to watch and made the show worth staying for. I’m glad I only paid $112 for my seat because if I paid anything more, I’d be extremely disappointed."
I found this show to be very dull as well. Eddie's shouting and grating "singing" kept me from falling asleep. The real disappointment was Ato who just read his lines with zero emotions or any effort to act. Gayle was wonderful but couldn't save the glaring lack of chemistry. I don't regret seeing this production but I very much miss those nearly $200 that I could have spent on a much better show or few.
At least if we do make it to a replacement cast, it'll be likely better leads (hopefully/maybe) while it bleeds out money for a couple months before they pull the plug. When it'll be priced at a level I'm willing to entertain.
RippedMan said: "I would imagine it'll run for a while. The production is the star. Are they even advertising it around the city?"
Is it? Because we can take a look at how the sales are doing for next Monday's performance without Eddie versus the following day with him and it is a stark contrast of availability.