CABARET sets closing with Porter and Wallace to star- Page 18

[tacotheatrelover]

Posted: 9/8/25 at 6:49pm

ACL2006 said: "ColorTheHours048 said: "Like like they’ve updated the billing on the show’s site to list Marty Lauter and David Merino alongside Marisha’s name above the title for the last couple weeks of the run. That’s really thoughtful of the producers, and a huge boon for both of those actors."

Lauter was originally scheduled to be out Sept 19 & 20. So Merino should be the Emcee those dates. Otherwise, the rest of the run is TBD. Probably an announcement comes later today?"

per a video today, lauter and merino don't even know themselves. 

I'm excited to see how this all wraps up, and to finally see who's the one who gets to put this show in the ground for good.

okay love you all, back to hollow knight

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 11:25am

Updated On: 9/9/25 at 11:25 AM

[ACL2006]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 2:50pm

David Merino (he/they/she) will play the ‘Emcee’ on Tuesday, September 9 through Thursday, September 11.

Marty Lauter (they/them) will play the ‘Emcee’ on Friday, September 12 through Thursday, September 18.

David Merino (he/they/she) will play the ‘Emcee’ on Friday, September 19 through Sunday, September 21.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 6:09pm

https://deadline.com/2025/09/cabaret-broadway-investor-lawsuit-1236513724/#recipient_hashed=598ef19ae68f0d25fc9ef5f6b388ff107e8577493db5f392d0c6145bd4b2cd2d&recipient_salt=fffb9e9efcb0d359a5fe0b39a3aed428b1f08632d411e5dcce1aa954e6760b13&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exacttarget&utm_campaign=Deadline_BreakingNews&utm_content=632546_09-09-2025&utm_term=7834256?utm_medium=email&utm_source=exacttarget&utm_campaign=1757453001-Breaking+News+Alert&utm_content=632546_9-9-2025&utm_id=632546

[Kad]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 6:15pm

Whatever this production’s faults, I don’t really see this lawsuit as having much merit. The production hasn’t been consistently profitable for months and has a running cost of around $1mil weekly. Even supposing the production had kept pulling in the numbers it did when Redmayne was in, it still wouldve taken at least two years or more for any investors to start seeing returns. 

Updated On: 9/9/25 at 06:15 PM

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 6:59pm

None of that pre-show decor or experience was necessary. I know those performers/extras were non union but it’s still an expense. 

Updated On: 9/9/25 at 06:59 PM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 7:28pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "None of that pre-show decoror experience was necessary. I know those performers/extras were non union but it’s still an expense."

I loved the decor in London and New York, but I could have done the side entrance or the pre-show performers. They just got in the way of flow, especially to and from the bathrooms.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 8:35pm

Kad said: "Whatever this production’s faults, I don’t really see this lawsuit as having much merit. The production hasn’t been consistently profitable for months and has a running cost of around $1mil weekly. Even supposing the production had kept pulling in the numbers it did when Redmayne was in, it still wouldve taken at least two years or more for any investors to start seeing returns."

I haven't read the lawsuit, so probably I shouldn't comment, but might it not be the case that those facts actually support some kind of lawsuit? I assume the lead producers of any production have some obligation to investors to maximize profits or, in this case, minimize losses. If those producers keep a production open when it's clear to a rational observer that this will just result in more losses, they're violating this obligation to investors. If producers make boneheaded decisions that will predictably just lose more money, this seems to me like very good fodder for a successful lawsuit. (Unless, of course, investors sign agreements that render producers immune to such lawsuits, which would be a dumb thing to do.)

[Kad]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 8:49pm

Interestingly, the complaint doesn't entail any of that. The investor is alleging that the producers defrauded him by not sharing profit from the weeks the production was profitable and then alleges they did not provide access to financial records. It frankly just seems like he regrets investing in a flop and is trying to get some of his money back. 

[tacotheatrelover]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 9:29pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "None of that pre-show decoror experience was necessary. I know those performers/extras were non union but it’s still an expense."

I actually like the entire preshow setting, it felt like stepping into another time and feeling like you weren't just in the basement of an nyc theatre on a Wednesday night in the middle of November. I do feel a different space would've done the show a bit better, the august wilson made this show feel swallowed up by all the space in the venue. What was also different was the contrast in quality in the bars, where as London's was large and extravagant, the broadway iteration actually felt more like a ****ty nightclub that the kit kat club was supposed to be.

I do think it was too much, seeing as a majority of the show takes place in some wack-ass studio apartment. But, it was nice for what it was. I would never spend 400$ on it again, god no, but it was really cool for what it tried to be.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 9:34pm

I think the preshow in London felt a bit more "vibey" since they had the performers more distributed throughout, and you really felt like you were going into an underground club since you had to walk down some stairs right at the beginning, but the hallways were cramped and it was hard to get to the bathroom and everything (though that did also add to the club vibe I suppose).  I was laughing at the aisle of trash you walk by for Broadway, but I remember us lining up to go in and we weren't even dressed up all that much, but some random person off the street walked by and asked what club it was we were in line for, so mission accomplished I suppose?

[quizking101]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 10:21pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "None of that pre-show decoror experience was necessary. I know those performers/extras were non union but it’s still an expense."

They had to have been union. Even if only for an hour, they are still part of an Equity production. Some of the performers (like Ida Saki) even have previous Broadway credits. I know a few equity performers who were called in to audition for those featured parts.

If the show was using non-union labor, that’s a major problem.

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/9/25 at 10:32pm

Interesting. Happy to be wrong. I just remember one of the pre show actors posting about his "Broadway debut", looking at his resume online, and it said Non-Union. So perhaps he hadn't updated it.

[MezzA101]

Posted: 9/10/25 at 4:38am

Why Is ‘Cabaret at the Kit Kat Club’ Closing and Being Sued?

https://www.vulture.com/article/billy-porter-cabaret-exit-sepsis-health.html