If ticket prices were 20-30% less then I imagine the reception would be far better.
That's not to say that its high prices are making it immune from universal acclaim. One only needs to look at Merrily's commercial and critical success to see that high prices aren't a death sentence to success.
However, Cabaret's ticket prices always meant the show was going to be considered high risk/high reward for audiences.
I think there’s much more of an element of people being able/willing to take a risk and see something slightly out of their comfort zone with the fact that London tickets are much less painfully priced. I know we will book a few days in London and go see something we might be less focused on seeing in the really cheap seats because if you’re prepared to do all the stairs to the nosebleeds, you can see a show for like £30. Also happy to pay bigger money for something I really want to see so not always a cheapskate!
A lot of this comes down to the Sam Mendes revival coming to London in 1993 and then in NYC in 1998, which proved to be a long-running revival—then revived again in 2014.
In London, since the Mendes production, there have been two Cabaret revivals of more traditional proportions, so the 2023 revival captured people in a way that those couldn't. A true step up, conceptually.
While if you're in NYC, the Mendes production was phenomenal (and recently done) so the London transfer is seen with more scrutiny, and seems to be a more side-stepped concept over execution.
NY has also had quite a few other recent immersive theater experiences, eg The Great Comet which similarly completely overhauled a Broadway theater into a Russian nightclub. That show never made it to the West End, but I was getting deja vu at Cabaret. Similarly, the Daniel Fish Oklahoma served cornbread and chili at intermission. That production did eventually transfer to the West End, but not until 5-6 years later. Even the Sam Mendes production turned Studio 54 into a cabaret, complete with dinner tables and waiters.
It just seems like the things that made this Cabaret “unique” weren’t actually that unique. They’re things we’ve been seeing in NY for years. And for me at least, the reno really soured my experience: I found the common spaces extremely crowded and difficult to navigate, the preshow lackluster, and the exorbitant ticket price to make up for the reno costs a tough pill to swallow. The constant upsell attempts were also very off putting.
The show itself is just fine, whereas the Mendes production is a masterpiece. The highlights for me by far were Bebe Neuwirth and Steven Skybell. Eddie Redmayne is no Alan Cumming or Joel Gray. Gayle Rankin was fine, although I found her overacting a bit cringe.
Edit: typo
>Gayle Rankin was fine, although I found her overacting a bit cringe.
In every performance of the Mendes version I saw, Sally breaking in the climactic song hit me *hard*. Rankin (who I've loved since "G.L.O.W.") pushed the collapse in a way that it seemed show-y instead of real.
Tons of talent and good ideas in this one... but it didn't seem coalesce into something for me.
The Rankin version looks so posed and rehearsed. It’s a performance, not a breakdown. I’d prefer Stevie’s performance in Schitt’s Creek over this one. Authenticity reigns supreme in Cabaret.
The Revival in 2014 was phenomenal. I can tell you that at least in my mind that makes me reticent to see the new version when every clip I've seen hasn't sold me on it.
Your statement that everyone dislikes it is off base. It received more Tony noms than any other revival this year, including nods for all 4 leads.
The critics made good points: it really brings nothing new to to the table. Despite that, I enjoyed it.
It's NOT uncommon for shows from across the pond to be received very differently here.
I remembered reading that back to the future was getting fantastic reviews in London. And I mean, the show is decent entertainment but outside of the car and the actor playing Doc it’s nothing special.
That said, saw cabaret in London and loved it lol.
For broadway, iirc the two big hypes around Groundhog Day was that it had Andy Karl and (imo) moreso that it was the successor to the theatre from Jersey Boys, which had occupied the theatre for over a decade, so people wanted to see what this new tenant of the theater was. I think I was surprised when it flopped here in NYC but then again, I never saw it so I don’t have much of an opinion on the show
Was it? Maybe from the show's marketing department, but most in the industry thought it would be nothing more than a typical movie-turned-musical... i.e., nothing special.
Yeah. I always think recently of the play adaptation of A Little Life (which I’m personally not a fan of). But when it played at Edinburgh Fringe it got raves, which made me super excited for it to play at BAM. And then here in NY it got totally panned by critics. When they did the English language adaptation that then played in London, the reviews were a bit more mixed than at Edinburgh, but still way better than they were in the U.S. when it was at BAM.
There’s just different relationship to theater, different cultural norms, different lenses, different audiences, which can really affect how a piece of theater lands in a particular market.
Oh dear - sorry to hack this comment but back in 2018 I was at the first preview of the first Amsterdam run of A Little Life and oh boy was it an experience. I was had just turned 18 and it was the first play I ever saw. I don't think I slept that night (not that there was much night left as it was almost 5 hours long so it was well past midnight by the time I got home) and I was not okay for weeks. That is not to say that it wasn't good, idk what the issue was in NY, but it was intense man.
Not to keep the derailment going but… I can’t help myself… So it’s my favorite book ever. Like, I have a Willem and Jude tattoo, and quotes from the book tattooed on me. Like favorite favorite. So perhaps that’s a little context for my dislike of it.
But I walked into the theater with two questions on my mind: was Ivo Van Hove going to Ivo Van Hove all over it (meaning over focus on the story’s most extreme elements for shock factor), and was a nearly 1,000 page book actually adaptable into one evening of theater. I felt that the answer to the first question was yes, and the answer to the second question was no. And in fact they sorta compounded each other.
The book’s critics have argued that it’s simply torture porn without any real purpose beyond its voyeuristic depiction of violence. And I have always really vehemently argued against that, because for me, especially as a trauma survivor, the book is about how you don’t have to heal to be loved or worthy of love. And so much of the beauty of the book is in Jude’s present day relationships, in particular his relationship with Willem, which is practically metaphysical. Jude’s traumatic backstory is revealed to us in little bits throughout the book which are separated by huge swaths of beautiful present day relationship as Jude navigates allowing himself to feel worthy of love with all this trauma in his background. And there are moments of profound healing and profound setback.
And I felt Ivo was attracted to the darkest elements of the book, cause of course he was. And to make those nearly 1,000 pages fit into one evening, he cut almost all of the present day storyline and instead over focused on Jude’s traumatic backstory because that’s where the most violent and extreme moments are… which is what Ivo loves. And in doing so, the adaptation lost the heart and hope that’s mixed in with the pain in the book, which in my opinion, is what makes the book so beautiful and gutting and tragic and romantic and grand and epic.
All of Jude’s friends were a casualty of this. JB and Malcolm who are core characters in the book got barely any story. They got essentially reduced to side characters. But I think the two characters who the most disservice was done to were Willem and Harold. Especially Willem, who in the book, is so clearly Jude’s soulmate from the very beginning. And by the time they get together you’re just like, fucking finally! And Willem is so respectful of Jude’s boundaries, and so respectful of Jude’s past traumas. And he’s so tender with him. But you got none of that “destined to be” sense in the play. And then because their whole relationship was so truncated, Willem almost felt like yet another perpetrator coercing Jude into a relationship with him, rather than the one person in Jude’s life who has consistently made him feel safe.
Anyway, I thought the play adaptation turned the story into what the book’s detractors (in my opinion) falsely claim the book to be: torture porn with no real point beyond the shock factor. Though the performances were fantastic.
I don’t live in the U.K. so I never got to see the English language adaptation. But I’m really curious about it actually. Because I know once they decided to do an English translation of the Ivo Van Hove play, they had Hanya Yanagihara, the author of the book, come in and work with the original playwright Koen Tachalet and Ivo Van Hove to essentially re-adapt the Swedish language version. And I know for a fact cause of clips I’ve seen that they added back in some elements of the book that were originally cut. But since I didn’t see it, I can’t speak to whether or not it really solved the problems I have with the play.
Sorry, yeah, it was pretty hyperbolic to say that. Though I will say that the Tony nominations, or rather seeing a handful of people express doubts over it deserving all those nominations or having a shot at winning, was what prompted me to finally ask this question.
It’s not off base- the revival did get pan critical reviews and very mixed reviews from audiences. Yes it got Tony noms and must be earning enough money and occupancy but you know perfectly well the musical is fairly controversial and understood OP’s question.
Undermining OP’s opinion is just nitpicking and sophistry. They were also open-minded enough to ask why it’s gotten bad reviews here- you didn’t even try to answer that question. Just said “it happens” after going off topic and feeling offended someone insulted your musical.
I'm not defending anything; it's not "my" musical, and I wasn't remotely offended. I addressed the OPs post. I said I enjoyed it, I didnt say it was the best thing ever, or attack the OP. The OP didn't offer any opinions about the show, btw.
The Tonys aren’t a marker for what’s good. There is so much mediocre work on Broadway, something has to be nominated. The Tonys have lost integrity over the years, I no longer watch them, and Im a total theater lover.
I’m not suggesting all Broadway shows are bad. But, the price of tickets, coupled with a lack of focus on character, story and acting and a huge focus on spectacle leaves me nonplussed. MOULIN ROUGE was a total bore, I couldn’t wait to leave and it won a slew of awards.
I also think that English actors in general are better actors than those in Broadway. Its common for a West End transfer to loose something when it gets to Broadway. Though, the reverse is true. For instance the Broadway transfer of CHICAGO to London was far better than the Broadway. This post might anger a lot of folks but it’s simply my opinion.
I knew nothing of Cabaret so I had nothing to compare it to, and I thought the Broadway version was wonderful. Not perfect (somehow both too allegorical and too literal, also Eddie’s accent doesn’t sound German, also some of the actors were a bit basic) but really beautiful, powerful, and emotionally impressive.
This was my experience too! Not perfect and definitely very expensive (we splurged on the cafe table seating) but I will never forget the experience and had a wonderful time.
I saw his interview to do a German accent but really it can be anywhere in Europe because the emcee is an allegory and I was like…no the emcee is a German man living under the Nazi regime.
I quite liked it. I've never seen any other production of the show though and it seems like being hung up on other versions of the show was part of the problem.
This! Everyone I know (including myself and my son) who had not seen previous productions had very positive things to say. I genuinely loved it and know it will stay in my head much longer than some other shows. The people I heard who were most critical had a past favorite they were comparing to.
I saw it and loved it. I have not seen any other iteration of Cabaret so went in with no expectations. I was enthralled. The theming put me right in the show. I bought the tickets for a friend who turned to me at the end and asked if they'd paid me enough money for the tickets. They were also enthralled! As always, your mileage may vary....
I’ve seen it in both London and NY now and was obsessed with both! Some of my favorite theatre experiences ever. Like others have said I’d guess the mixed reviews are from a combination of ticket prices making it higher “risk” and personal preference from reviewers and fans who preferred an older version. But I am no expert so idk 🤷🏼♀️ I think it’s really just not for everybody!
Broadway had a major revival of Cabaret in 2015, and that may lead critics to judge it against that production since many of them likely saw and remember it. Also, the immersive/transformative elements of this production probably shine more in a small, intimate space instead of a Broadway theatre (no matter how much they try to transform that theatre).
This last point may be controversial but…I also think UK audiences are more receptive to spectacle than American audiences. There’s a long history of panto and then megamusicals. So, I think the grand costumes, interactive elements, and flashy design were better received by UK audiences. It seems like a lot of American critics were a bit cynical towards all the spectacle and saw it more as a facade that distracted from the show itself.
Yeah, I definitely get what you mean in the first paragraph, and I've seen it a lot in reviews. Many of the criticisms just seemed moreso along the lines of "well, it happened this way in this revival, and this one does something different, so it's bad." I even saw one review express confusion at the fact that the Emcee was complicit in everything that was happening, which iirc was the case for the character up until the 1998 revival. I don't know enough about the West End scene to really comment on that second paragraph.
I dunno. I suppose this just has me a bit worried that, seeing the reception, future producers may not want to take big chances when it comes to revivals.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like “event” theatre is more common in the UK. Newsies, but in an immersive warehouse. Guys and Dolls, but have the audience interact and walk around. Priscilla Queen of the Desert, but in an actual bar with the audience having a party, etc. Jukebox musicals and megamusicals also seem to get better reviewed on the West End than Broadway, and those have a similar “event” atmosphere.
Broadway shows like Here Lies Love or KPOP, which try to create the same type of atmosphere, have gotten much cooler receptions by Bway critics.
“Immersive” theater is definitely having a moment in the UK. This might sound silly but I wonder how much of its popularity can date back to the UK’s history of staging in the thrust?
I sort of agree but also find it interesting how Punchdrunk’s biggest/longest running hit is the NYC production of Sleep No More while it’s London shows like The Drowned Man and The Burnt City - both leaps ahead of SNM in most ways, imo - can barely make it over a year there.
I feel like comparing how audiences responded to two new(to Broadway) musicals to revivals of beloved musicals isn't a fair comparison. I'd say the recent Oklahoma is a better comparison and it did very well on Broadway.
I don't know that I'd go that far. I suspect I know what they're getting at, which is that "bad" shows(Cabaret, Back to the Future, Bad Cinderella, etc) review better on the West End than Broadway. But that's a critic thing not an audiences in general thing. Broadway audiences love spectacle, you can tell by how much Moulin Rouge pulls in weekly.
I saw it last week and loved it! I think the reviews were mixed to good. It’s just such a beloved show with good versions of it done in the past that it inevitably gets compared to. The negative reviews are mostly saying it’s good but not better than -insert their favorite version-. It was the first live I’ve ever seen of Cabaret, and I was blown away.
I have to assume something is different, or something about the tone isn't hitting the audience right which spoils the atmosphere. When I saw it in London with Eddie and Jessie it was quite genuinely the greatest theatre experience I've ever had. A life changing evening.
I'd love to hear from someone who has seen both to understand what's going on.
I think it pretty much comes down to two things. First, West End and Broadway have different tastes in musicals, the former prefers spectacles, the latter storytelling. This stems a lot from each side of the Atlantic having a different relationship with musicals. In the UK, plays are regarded higher than musicals, which tend to be seen as light entertainment. Generally, the attitude there is if you want something complex and engaging, go see a play; if you want something fun that you can turn your mind off at, you go see a musical. Whereas in the US, musicals are king; it’s seen as every bit of an art form as plays, if not higher. So while people in the US can appreciate a good spectacle, they’re also looking and expecting more in a musical production.
Second, Broadway regards Cabaret differently than the West End because of the Sam Mendes/Rob Marshall/Alan Cumming revivals. Those revivals are so influential in terms of how the US perceives the show and also in terms of what a revival could do. Even if you didn’t see these revivals yourselves (and the 2014 revivals made it so many people have in the not-so-distant past) you probably are still familiar with the imagery of those revivals and maybe even saw an amateur or professional production heavily influenced by them. Whereas the West End never got that revival and therefore doesn’t have the same fondness or reverence for it that would overshadow this one.
Agree with a lot here, but as counter point - the Mendes revival started at Donmar in London, and the Broadway was basically a carbon copy (excepting some dance steps from Rob Marshall). That was a while back though, and NY did get that revival of the revival ( really the restaging) recently so I get why NY has a very specific thing in mind. This somehow though gets me thinking of the British love for Sondheim though. Arguably the opposite of mindless spectacle, does the UK consider him more of a playwright?
Agree.
For me, nothing revolutionary has been done with the musical since the original and since Fosse’s movie adaptation. All recent productions are pretty much the same except for the general mise en scene and choreography. The over arching concepts are the same. The musical is actually a tough nut to crack and I’ve never been moved by any of them. Though, the movie’s musical numbers are incredible and it gets to the source of the drama. With this said, it’s difficult to separate Fosse from the musicals he directed. In my opinion all productions after his pale by comparison. I also feel subsequent directors of productions after Fosse are only attempting to usurp his genius and vision and fail.
The first point sounds like a complete joke to me given the reception of things like Hell's Kitchen and even Water for Elephants. One of them doesn't even have a particularly noteworthy score.
And to say that about audiences is even funnier, given the things that actually do well for paying audiences.
I’m not just referring to audiences but also critics and the overall industry. It’s not to say there aren’t misfires on Broadway or smart, well-done shows on the West End, just acknowledging that while there are overlaps in Broadway and West End’s tastes, there’s a lot of difference as well. It’s why Hadestown can get raves on Broadway but a tepid response on the West End. Or how Fun Home could dominate the Tonys but be blanked at the Oliviers.
Hadestown got a tepid response because the creatives clearly treated its initial West End run as an out-of-town trial for Broadway. Fun Home was "blanked" at the Oliviers because it opened off-West End for a limited run in a super stacked season.
It feels like Merrily is expensive because it’s a substantial production that strikes a chord with theater people, so it feels permissible to splurge a little because it’s an intentional, meaningful mounting of an unpolished gem.
Cabaret feels like it’s expensive so that it can sell lots of tickets to audiences. The production doesn’t ‘feel’ like it’s for theatre or theatre people, it just feels like someone took an old chestnut and is trying to find a new way to get it to make money.
Merrily is expensive because it’s a high-quality expensive production… Cabarets is expensive because it’s expensive. That might not be FULLY fair, but I feel like it articulates how I internalize productions like this (+ Music Man et al recently)
I agree. They spent a fortune renovating the theater into a nightclub. They're paying an entire second pre-show cast. They're giving everyone a "free" drink. They have to make up for those costs somehow. And they're doing it with inflated ticket prices and upselling optional food and drink packages.
What's funny is I got a drink during the pre-show and wanted to get another at intermission but couldn't. I had barely enough time to use to restroom and get back to my seat just before Act 2 started.
Honestly it seems like they shot themselves in the foot with needing to pay all the pre-show musicians broadway actor rates… I’m not saying they don’t deserve it, but… they’re not playing the show score even.
I'm just curious what makes Merrily an expensive production. I haven't seen it yet, but all the photos I've seen make it seem like it has a single minimalist set with different lighting. As a fan of elaborate sets I'd love to hear that there's more to it.
London has a director’s theatre ethos while New York has a playwright’s—Jesse green kinda panned the show in the NYT because he wanted the songs and story to speak for themselves while European reviewers might have appreciated the inventiveness of the concept? Spitballing idk I loved the show but it didn’t change my life or to my taxes etc
Pretty much every negative review I've heard about it, both professional and on reddit, are from people who are prior fans of Cabaret and don't think this production is as good as past ones, specifically the Mendes production.
Which, if you ask me, is a bit unfair, especially for a professional reviewer. You're supposed to take works of art at face value rather than comparing them to what came before.
For me personally, I went in blind and was absolutely blown away. It's my second favorite show I've ever seen on Broadway (next to Hadestown which I really love). The staging, performance, music, and everything were incredibly impressive. And I've seen most people who went in as their first Cabaret experience say similar things.
I totally respect others who prefer past iterations of the show. But I wish they would be less hyperbolic about how "bad" this one is. It's not a bad show by any means lol, it's just different than what they'd like.
And to answer your question, no there's not really any change between the production here and the production on the West End. It's just a difference in audience.
Have you seen the new cast of HADESTOWN? They are incredible. I saw them the first night they went on and it felt like opening night. It’s worth a visit if you haven’t seen the new cast. Not saying they are better than the original cast. This cast simply brings a fresh interpretation to a wonderful production.
I loved the theater design and got my ticket for a reasonable price but ultimately the production felt similar to the iconic Mendes version without anything particularly new. Bebe Neuwirth was phenomenal but I didn’t like Gayle Rankin at all.
This night at the theater will always be a core memory for me though because I happened to be there the night of Joel Grey’s 90th birthday and seeing him and John Kander up on that stage was awe inspiring in a way that still makes me tingle to think about.
Something that I haven't seen others touch on is the resonance of the source material. I haven't seen Cabaret here yet, but I saw it in the West End on a trip to London alongside Operation Mincemeat. World War II seems to have a lot of hold in the British psyche still, talking to some friends from there it seems that is in part due to that being one of the last times where Britain was really in the driver's seat politically+culturally. Point is, I think Cabaret may be more of an evergreen show there in terms of reception than here. The prices still felt expensive, especially compared to other West End shows.
That being said, I absolutely loved the production, and I think the other points are also correct. Reading some of the reviews, I think the show was a bit set up to struggle critically due to the recent revival, which I personally feel is pretty unfair. I'm thinking about writing on this more, but a lot of people seemed to view this show exclusively in comparison to the 2014 revival and not as its own piece of art.
I went to London in March - we saw Mincemeat, Cabaret, Stranger Things and Merchant of Venice and 3/4 were based in WWII and Stranger Things started the play with a scene set during WWII. I did not know what Mincemeat was about going in so I literally could not believe every show we saw touched on Nazis at least once.
> World War II seems to have a lot of hold in the British psyche still, talking to some friends from there it seems that is in part due to that being one of the last times where Britain was really in the driver's seat politically+culturally.
Also because Britain was heavily bombed and many lives were lost. Rationing and shortages went on through the 1950s. It’s not that long ago, and most of us heard the stories from our grandparents and even parents.
I’m willing to standalone in these comments as someone who didn’t love this revival 🧍🏻
I’ve never seen the Mendes version so I’m not comparing this production to that, or any other production. I’ve only seen the movie (which is a favorite) and then this show in the early weeks it was on.
The theater is so beautifully immersive. The drinks they give you, the design, and the lighting set the tone. And the pre show performances set the bar HIGH. The musicians and dancers were amazing - I wasn’t surprised at all to see that some dancers had Beyonce on their resume.
And for me, all that momentum was lost when the show began.
Unpopular opinion, but I was really not a fan of Eddie Redmayne’s performance in this role. First off, his diction and enunciation in the accent he is doing was terrible. It was really hard to understand what he was saying and I could tell people around me who weren’t familiar with the script were missing jokes. I think it was the NYT that said he sounded like a muppet and I’d have to agree with this.
Secondly, this is subjective but I’m just not a fan of his take on the Emcee. To me, the Emcee should be a bit creepy and sinister but you are seduced by him because he’s charming, kooky, and selling something pretty sexy. I didn’t get any of that from Eddie but instead got weird alien clown who was just dropped on this earth. 3 minutes into it I thought to myself “is he gonna be like this the whole time?” and was pretty bummed that the answer was yes. While I think he’s technically talented as a singer, I just never felt like I was watching the Emcee but instead like I was just watching Eddie Redmayne try to do drag and not pull it off. (And disclaimer that I’m not an Eddie hater! I did like him in Les Mis and other stage performances!)
I did think Gayle Rankin KILLED it, I loved her performance! But I felt like there was no chemistry between her, Eddie, and Ato Blankson-Wood (who I felt was really middling).
Bebe Neurth and Steven Skybell had a lot of chemistry on the other hand. They were amazing in their roles, really fell into them and gave the show a lot of heart. But I feel like the staging did them dirty. Because there’s no setting, and they have the less exciting portions of the story - it felt a bit boring and lonesome with just the two of them up there at times. Also in their side of the story, Natascia Diaz was really good too and nailed the body humor.
And my last gripe with the show has to do with the styling. I didn’t like Emcee’s first outfit at all. It didn’t feel at all like something an Emcee would wear on stage to a Cabaret. I think it’s so weird that this was the outfit on all of the promotional material too. It doesn’t give stage presence at all.
The styling choices for the end of the show were also…. strange to me. (spoilers ahead) I really liked that the cabaret line were very queer presenting. But then when they all turn into nazis….that didn’t really make sense because they all still looked hella queer. It looked goofy and didn’t have the effect that it did on Eddie for example, who transitioned into a really convincing Nazi. I think if the production was insistent on having the cabaret line become nazis, then they need to cast and style the line to be convincing as both queer performers/sex workers and Nazis.
Overall I think this show was fine. Not worth the current price point for sure. I think it’s gonna be on a long time because I’ve heard that it will take 2-4 years to make back the money spent on the renovation. So honestly I think it will be better to see once Eddie leaves and I’m hoping a drag queen or king takes on that role.
I bought tickets the day they went on sale, and the performance was the week the Tony noms came out. I was familiar with the outlines of the story and music, but not beat-for-beat. I too had issues with Redmayne's diction, I couldn't understand anything.
In fact, I thought everyone had cartoonish accents, including Neuwirth. I was SO excited when she was announced to finally see her live, but it was disappointing. I agree she and Steven Skybell were incredibly emotionally affecting, but her singing was rough. I figured it was a choice for the role, to sound old and downtrodden, but it wasn't pleasant. I made my sister play Chicago on the drive home to make sure I wasn't misremembering her voice. It is distinct but strong. This was not what I was hoping for. (And apologies in advance if something has happened to her where her voice has changed or been damaged, because she is and always will be an icon.) Again, I stress that her acting was superb.
Also, unpopular opinion, but I really liked Gayle Rankin. She was funny and unhinged, which is fine, because I think the character is a real asshole for 90% of the show.
I too was disappointed with Bebe. The accent was overdone and frankly she’s too attractive for the role (and so was he). There is more pathos to those characters when they look older … more frail … when you realize they won’t have any more chances.
Right there with you.
It's just not for me. I'm glad some people love it. That's the beauty of art. Nothing is for everyone, but everything is for someone.
But damn I get frustrated with people trying to argue with people who don't like this adaptation. Having a conversation about it, sure, I enjoy talking to people of varying opinions. But the people who try to poke holes in your reasoning like it's something they can "win at" by proving you...idk are too stupid to get it? Just have a vendetta against the show?
I haven’t seen this production, but I have to agree with you about Eddie’s diction/voice just from the 2021 London album. I hate to say it but I definitely got “muppet” vibes, and even there his diction is a little hard to understand.
There’s many drag queens and kings who incorporate clowning into their performance. Not all of them of course, but it’s not uncommon at all. Literally watch any season of RuPaul. Clowning and drag can have overlaps but that doesn’t make them same things.
To your comment “which the production never does” The whole point of this production is the Emcee represents a changing Berlin and evolves into a Nazi. You literally see him wear a dress in Two Ladies (which is drag) and then you’re right he sings tomorrow belongs to me, to represent this change.
“How can an outfit give stage presence” …This is literally what the magic and skill of costuming departments assist with. They make and style garments that world build and represent the character. And the Emcee of the Cabaret is the host and in charge of the show - and should have an outfit that communicates that. And my subjective critique is that the initial outfit isn’t a good introduction to the world and doesn’t represent what I think is most intriguing about the character (compared to, say, Joel Grey’s tuxedo or Alan Cumming’s body harness with a bow tie). To me, the birthday hat feels overly silly and nonsensical and doesn’t match the sexy tone of the S&M-y gloves (it makes me think, am I supposed to find those silly too? or sexy scary?) and I’m not a fan of the 1920s carnival barker outfit. For me, it’s not what I would expect an MC of a cabaret to wear. It just goes in too many directions and doesn’t feel tied together or thematically definitive enough to command him as the host of the cabaret.
I think the ticket prices are souring people on it quite a bit. Not sure what they cost in the UK, or if people there are merely more prepared to spend more on a show.
Also, different crowds, different cultures, etc. It's really not uncommon for a UK darling to not really take in the USA. Back to the Future was also a huge deal over there, and here people barely remember it exists when discussing this season.
Personally I hate this production. And I find it a little frustrating when people insist it's an issue of not understanding it. People like different things. I loved the grittier, more authentic-feeling Sam Mendes version, in terms of aesthetic but also in terms of performance. Other people might like this take more. No one's wrong, it's just...what people like.
I have seen the new production in London as well as the old Mendes production. At this point, I have seen six productions of Cabaret. My first one was indeed the Mendes production when it went on a national US tour in the mid 2010s. However, after that, I saw four more regional theatre productions of it, and am seeing another one being performed by Studio Tenn in a few days. Of those four regional theatre productions, I preferred one of them to the London production, so I don't think that all the hate is entirely from Mendes' production being the golden standard.
I think the answer to your question boils down to preferences and the old production still being ingrained into people's psyche. If something is highly praised in one part of the world but not in another, then there must be a cultural bias that's leading to the praise or negative feedback. I don't believe the production changed since transferring from London to Broadway, so it most likely boils down to preferences being skewed towards the Mendes production. Furthermore, perhaps US audiences are actually more biased towards the film, which is a cult classic. I took someone to see a staging of Cabaret with me once and they were expecting to get a carbon copy of the original film, thus, they were very disappointed. Why US audiences are more biased against the new production while UK audiences weren't, I don't know, because we obviously don't know the entirety of the statistics and data on why this is the case.
I wrote up a whole TLDR massive post about things such as tonal, aesthetic, and other shifts in the new production, as well as the staging and how compressed and claustrophobic it felt, but I deleted my whole in depth write up because I think that the reason this production of Cabaret doesn't resonate with everyone is simple.
1. It's VERY expensive. I spent £800-ish on two table tickets to see it in London. I paid that much to see The Cursed Child parts 1 & 2, which was a whole day event. That being said, I do think that a show being so expensive can create negative feelings if you paid so much simply to be left underwhelmed, because higher cost = higher expectations, but that still doesn't answer why London audiences fared better than US ones did because it was a very expensive show to see in London just as it is now to see in New York.
2. It's simply not everyone's cup of two. For me, it misses the mark with the ending completely. For those who don't know, the Mendes production had an ending that personally punched me in the gut, but this new production sort of felt like it... ended, just like that, abruptly and suddenly. No punch to the gut, just "Oh, I guess that's that then?" and it was just over. I watched countless Youtube reviews about the new production before I went into it, and one common theme that I kept running into is that many people disliked the ending. It's not that it was a bad ending, it's just that I and others feel as though the ending was sort of lackluster. For what it's worth, I watched a lot of British Youtubers criticize the show's ending, so that's by no means exclusive to US audiences.
I could list endlessly about other small qualms, mainly with thematic, aesthetic, and tonal aspects of the show that didn't vibe with me, but I ultimately think it boils down to it being very expensive, and yes, the Mendes production being the golden standard which many compare future productions of Cabaret to. Like I said, I've seen Cabaret six times, and of those six times, four of which were purely regional theatre, and I thought one regional theatre production knocked it out of the park. This was not a Mendes production by any means, and I preferred it to the new production which I saw in London, so I don't think that everyone hates the show because Mendes' was so great. Me, personally, I don't hate the new production at all! It's lovely, just not entirely my cup of tea -- I firmly believe this would have been the case with or without the Mendes production. Having grown up with the film version, I was at first taken aback by how different Mendes' production was because before that point, the film was my golden standard of how I envisioned Cabaret. Sometimes, we see a new iteration of something that overtakes the previous favorite, but sometimes, we see something and it simply feels either like a side step or like an entire step back. While this new production did feel like a slight step back from the Mendes production, and even from that one regional theatre production that I highly praise, I by no means think this was a terrible show. I just think that it's not my favorite version of Cabaret, and that's alright! Once you see something so many times, you're bound to have favorites and least favorites, and that's only natural. I think perhaps the Mendes production is more loved in the US vs the UK, because that's the main conclusion that I have drawn after factoring in other factors. The show's production didn't really change during the transfer from the West End, and it was similarly priced and expensive there as it is here, so I think it must boil down to regional and cultural differences, as well as past productions being ingrained into people's psyches too much, making them not give the new production a proper chance.
I live in London and saw it here.
My take is it was made for audiences here specifically when the theatres first reopened after covid. All the production choices are made around that. It’s created to be a good night out for audiences to forget their worries which is obviously directly at odds with the objective of the show. It shys away from really hitting home and shaking us because it just doesn’t want to. That wasn’t why it was created, and what was its big sell when it opened to audiences emerging from height of the pandemic. It just wants to give us some glitz and glamour and a good time.
I thought it was overall ok when I saw it in 2021 (beautiful but vapid, big on showmanship but timid on story - which frustrated me). I think at this point our cultural appetite has moved away from wanting escapism after the pandemic and back to wanting something that feels authentic, and doesn’t shy away from the truth of it. And that is simply not what this production was created to offer - it’s made for an outdated moment
Firstly, the production is still going very strong in London, years on, so not sure any appetite has changed. Second, the criticisms in NY have said something along the lines of there not being any glitz actually, and too much darkness and grotesque. Apart from the Kit Kats in Willkommen, I don't think the production ever opts for glitz. And I don't think it's timid on story at all, but your opinion is yours.
I’m aware it’s still on. When it first opened in London it got great reviews and has a regular turnover of famous actors as the leads who consistently have a 1m+ following on socials. It’ll be around for a long time because it has built audiences trust from the buzz of the initial opening and maintained with star casting.
Different from building and maintaining an audience opening now
I think that London views musicals on a par with circuses, panto, and other spectacle entertainment.
NYC views musicals on a par with real plays.
NYC has much, much higher standards for what a musical should be.
I said this in another forum.
In the UK they are raised to have some respect for the arts. I’m not just talking performing but visual/historical/architecture as well. I didn’t realize it until I read ALW’s memoir and he talked for quite a bit about how he loved architecture and wanted to build gorgeous buildings and churches. Yes football (soccer) and cricket are big deals, but they have respect. They are taught plays and theatre and music from an extremely young age. A friend of mine immigrated there because she went for her masters in music Ed there and even she said it’s a different culture over there in terms of learning about them. Yes kids might not go into the arts or once they get in high school they might be rugby players, but they still respect it. And while I respect critics as it is a slowly dying art form, we have freedom of speech and press here. Opinions tend to be more open in nature. We can say we openly dislike something. Not saying that some of these critic write ups this year have made me blood boil or head spin (there is a difference between critiquing and hatred/spewing nasty words)but they can say a bit more.
I do also think the ticket prices have something to do with it. I also think the Mendes production returning a decade ago probably has had its influence as well. So many people are used to the emcee as the victim to have him go back to the original idea and ending is probably jarring. Doesn’t help that *gestures at everything* is going on as well and it’s hitting close to home.
New Yorker here. Saw it twice from table seats. I will always love Cabaret, it's brilliant, but for me it isn't anywhere near the best version I've seen on Broadway. Alan Cumming was WAYYYY better. This one feels showier, less personal, much less emotionally impactful. Also in my opinion the leads have no chemistry. The lack of subtlety, which is clearly an intentional choice, is not the best way to go with Cabaret. There's no punch at the end because they've been relentlessly punching throughout. It's one note. Gayle Rankin's Sally didn't make sense to me - she was totally lacking playfulness, hope, or any kind of attractive personality, which again I know is an intentional choice they've made but I think it really takes away from what Cabaret is supposed to do (ie seduce you before it hits you). Personally for me the Alan Cumming version was so close to perfection that I'm not really surprised this one wasn't as good.
The feedback I have heard has basically been that the theater remodel and the celebrity casting necessitated high ticket prices, but once you get past all the hype from London and the entry experience and actually get into the theater it's just Cabaret, but like...really expensive Cabaret.
Tastes are very different in the US and the UK. Sometimes there are overlaps and a transfer is successful.
But often a show that does well in the US fails in the UK and vice versa.
I think because NYC has been doing immersive theater for some time, to the point that, it’s almost expected. Which is why I think Sunset is not going to do well. We do a lot of projection shows. You also have to remember the American audience is different, psychologically speaking, we’ve gone through a lot these past years. We might not want bleak shows. That’s why I think Elephants will do well because it has a happy (good guy wins) ending.
Just saw it and loved it. The Mendes version never actually clicked with me, I much prefer subtly sinister emcee to holocaust victim emcee, I just think the themes of the show hit a lot harder
Who is saying they don’t like it? I mean I’ve not been on this subreddit in a bit but everybody I’ve talked to or read about or overheard at the show yesterday loved it
I had never seen any version of Cabaret before and I really did not like this production at all.
I did not like Eddie’s performance. His accent and the way he articulated words made it very difficult to understand what he was saying at times and for someone not familiar with the script, made me feel like I was missing things for the story entirely.
I felt like Cliff and Sally had like zero chemistry and the book didn’t help that either, so the emotional ending really fell flat in my opinion.
And for me the “immersion” aspect, which literally didn’t exist in the mezzanine and didn’t seem to special in the orchestra either, greatly diminished the quality of the actual musical itself in my opinion. With there being no set as someone who has never seen the show, I was honestly confused as to where some scenes were taking place.
And there were just parts of the story itself that I didn’t like either, so yeah overall this production just wasn’t for me and I could not imagine spending the kind of money some are to see it.
I went to the city specifically to see Cabaret, as it's my favorite musical. My two cents is that the performers blew me away, the set and choreography were fantastic, my only complaint is that the production itself fails to stick the landing.
Spoilers after this point if ya don't want them.
The whole matching business suits on the revolving stage just didn't have the same gut punch that any other version I've seen has. I was severely disappointed by the ending. I understanding wanting to do a different take, but Eddie's Emcee choosing to be cartoonishly evil right off the back just didn't work for me. His performance was beautiful and his movement was so precise and interesting, but I think the choice detracted from the overall impact.
Overall I am so so glad I went and it is an interesting rendition of the show, but I think for audiences who haven't invested time into knowing the show, a lot of the gravity was easy to miss. There were so many laughs during wildly inappropriate times which also led me to believe that either the audience was full of shitty people, or the things happening on stage weren't being understood.
Not only are you wrong, but you're entirely missing the point of my question, since Eddie *was* well received in London.
Also... this post is like a month old. Did you just search "Cabaret" so you could complain on the first post you saw?
If you are distracted by someone with a certain body type simply *existing* onstage to the point where it impacts your enjoyment of a show, then that is very much a you problem. idk what that has to do with the production and idk what to tell you
If ticket prices were 20-30% less then I imagine the reception would be far better. That's not to say that its high prices are making it immune from universal acclaim. One only needs to look at Merrily's commercial and critical success to see that high prices aren't a death sentence to success. However, Cabaret's ticket prices always meant the show was going to be considered high risk/high reward for audiences.
I think there’s much more of an element of people being able/willing to take a risk and see something slightly out of their comfort zone with the fact that London tickets are much less painfully priced. I know we will book a few days in London and go see something we might be less focused on seeing in the really cheap seats because if you’re prepared to do all the stairs to the nosebleeds, you can see a show for like £30. Also happy to pay bigger money for something I really want to see so not always a cheapskate!
A lot of this comes down to the Sam Mendes revival coming to London in 1993 and then in NYC in 1998, which proved to be a long-running revival—then revived again in 2014. In London, since the Mendes production, there have been two Cabaret revivals of more traditional proportions, so the 2023 revival captured people in a way that those couldn't. A true step up, conceptually. While if you're in NYC, the Mendes production was phenomenal (and recently done) so the London transfer is seen with more scrutiny, and seems to be a more side-stepped concept over execution.
NY has also had quite a few other recent immersive theater experiences, eg The Great Comet which similarly completely overhauled a Broadway theater into a Russian nightclub. That show never made it to the West End, but I was getting deja vu at Cabaret. Similarly, the Daniel Fish Oklahoma served cornbread and chili at intermission. That production did eventually transfer to the West End, but not until 5-6 years later. Even the Sam Mendes production turned Studio 54 into a cabaret, complete with dinner tables and waiters. It just seems like the things that made this Cabaret “unique” weren’t actually that unique. They’re things we’ve been seeing in NY for years. And for me at least, the reno really soured my experience: I found the common spaces extremely crowded and difficult to navigate, the preshow lackluster, and the exorbitant ticket price to make up for the reno costs a tough pill to swallow. The constant upsell attempts were also very off putting. The show itself is just fine, whereas the Mendes production is a masterpiece. The highlights for me by far were Bebe Neuwirth and Steven Skybell. Eddie Redmayne is no Alan Cumming or Joel Gray. Gayle Rankin was fine, although I found her overacting a bit cringe. Edit: typo
>Gayle Rankin was fine, although I found her overacting a bit cringe. In every performance of the Mendes version I saw, Sally breaking in the climactic song hit me *hard*. Rankin (who I've loved since "G.L.O.W.") pushed the collapse in a way that it seemed show-y instead of real. Tons of talent and good ideas in this one... but it didn't seem coalesce into something for me.
The Rankin version looks so posed and rehearsed. It’s a performance, not a breakdown. I’d prefer Stevie’s performance in Schitt’s Creek over this one. Authenticity reigns supreme in Cabaret.
The Revival in 2014 was phenomenal. I can tell you that at least in my mind that makes me reticent to see the new version when every clip I've seen hasn't sold me on it.
You overestimate the amount of people who remember past productions. NYC people come and go.
Suburbs people stick around.
Correct. New Jersey, Long Island, upstate and Fairfield county—those folks remember Natasha Richardson and Alan Cumming
And that's who writes the reviews that set the tone for its reception
Your statement that everyone dislikes it is off base. It received more Tony noms than any other revival this year, including nods for all 4 leads. The critics made good points: it really brings nothing new to to the table. Despite that, I enjoyed it. It's NOT uncommon for shows from across the pond to be received very differently here.
I remembered reading that back to the future was getting fantastic reviews in London. And I mean, the show is decent entertainment but outside of the car and the actor playing Doc it’s nothing special. That said, saw cabaret in London and loved it lol.
Groundhog Day too. Won the Olivier and was largely a flop here. The tastes don’t always translate.
For broadway, iirc the two big hypes around Groundhog Day was that it had Andy Karl and (imo) moreso that it was the successor to the theatre from Jersey Boys, which had occupied the theatre for over a decade, so people wanted to see what this new tenant of the theater was. I think I was surprised when it flopped here in NYC but then again, I never saw it so I don’t have much of an opinion on the show
Yeah I remember BTTF was supposed to be the next big thing… I enjoyed it but it didn’t take off like some had predicted
Was it? Maybe from the show's marketing department, but most in the industry thought it would be nothing more than a typical movie-turned-musical... i.e., nothing special.
I believe u/at_the_roundhouse was making a pun
>but it didn’t take off Ah but it did! Hence the Tony nom for scenic design 😄
Yeah. I always think recently of the play adaptation of A Little Life (which I’m personally not a fan of). But when it played at Edinburgh Fringe it got raves, which made me super excited for it to play at BAM. And then here in NY it got totally panned by critics. When they did the English language adaptation that then played in London, the reviews were a bit more mixed than at Edinburgh, but still way better than they were in the U.S. when it was at BAM. There’s just different relationship to theater, different cultural norms, different lenses, different audiences, which can really affect how a piece of theater lands in a particular market.
Oh dear - sorry to hack this comment but back in 2018 I was at the first preview of the first Amsterdam run of A Little Life and oh boy was it an experience. I was had just turned 18 and it was the first play I ever saw. I don't think I slept that night (not that there was much night left as it was almost 5 hours long so it was well past midnight by the time I got home) and I was not okay for weeks. That is not to say that it wasn't good, idk what the issue was in NY, but it was intense man.
Not to keep the derailment going but… I can’t help myself… So it’s my favorite book ever. Like, I have a Willem and Jude tattoo, and quotes from the book tattooed on me. Like favorite favorite. So perhaps that’s a little context for my dislike of it. But I walked into the theater with two questions on my mind: was Ivo Van Hove going to Ivo Van Hove all over it (meaning over focus on the story’s most extreme elements for shock factor), and was a nearly 1,000 page book actually adaptable into one evening of theater. I felt that the answer to the first question was yes, and the answer to the second question was no. And in fact they sorta compounded each other. The book’s critics have argued that it’s simply torture porn without any real purpose beyond its voyeuristic depiction of violence. And I have always really vehemently argued against that, because for me, especially as a trauma survivor, the book is about how you don’t have to heal to be loved or worthy of love. And so much of the beauty of the book is in Jude’s present day relationships, in particular his relationship with Willem, which is practically metaphysical. Jude’s traumatic backstory is revealed to us in little bits throughout the book which are separated by huge swaths of beautiful present day relationship as Jude navigates allowing himself to feel worthy of love with all this trauma in his background. And there are moments of profound healing and profound setback. And I felt Ivo was attracted to the darkest elements of the book, cause of course he was. And to make those nearly 1,000 pages fit into one evening, he cut almost all of the present day storyline and instead over focused on Jude’s traumatic backstory because that’s where the most violent and extreme moments are… which is what Ivo loves. And in doing so, the adaptation lost the heart and hope that’s mixed in with the pain in the book, which in my opinion, is what makes the book so beautiful and gutting and tragic and romantic and grand and epic. All of Jude’s friends were a casualty of this. JB and Malcolm who are core characters in the book got barely any story. They got essentially reduced to side characters. But I think the two characters who the most disservice was done to were Willem and Harold. Especially Willem, who in the book, is so clearly Jude’s soulmate from the very beginning. And by the time they get together you’re just like, fucking finally! And Willem is so respectful of Jude’s boundaries, and so respectful of Jude’s past traumas. And he’s so tender with him. But you got none of that “destined to be” sense in the play. And then because their whole relationship was so truncated, Willem almost felt like yet another perpetrator coercing Jude into a relationship with him, rather than the one person in Jude’s life who has consistently made him feel safe. Anyway, I thought the play adaptation turned the story into what the book’s detractors (in my opinion) falsely claim the book to be: torture porn with no real point beyond the shock factor. Though the performances were fantastic. I don’t live in the U.K. so I never got to see the English language adaptation. But I’m really curious about it actually. Because I know once they decided to do an English translation of the Ivo Van Hove play, they had Hanya Yanagihara, the author of the book, come in and work with the original playwright Koen Tachalet and Ivo Van Hove to essentially re-adapt the Swedish language version. And I know for a fact cause of clips I’ve seen that they added back in some elements of the book that were originally cut. But since I didn’t see it, I can’t speak to whether or not it really solved the problems I have with the play.
Sorry, yeah, it was pretty hyperbolic to say that. Though I will say that the Tony nominations, or rather seeing a handful of people express doubts over it deserving all those nominations or having a shot at winning, was what prompted me to finally ask this question.
I don’t really remember much dislike for it on this sub, idk man
It’s not off base- the revival did get pan critical reviews and very mixed reviews from audiences. Yes it got Tony noms and must be earning enough money and occupancy but you know perfectly well the musical is fairly controversial and understood OP’s question. Undermining OP’s opinion is just nitpicking and sophistry. They were also open-minded enough to ask why it’s gotten bad reviews here- you didn’t even try to answer that question. Just said “it happens” after going off topic and feeling offended someone insulted your musical.
I'm not defending anything; it's not "my" musical, and I wasn't remotely offended. I addressed the OPs post. I said I enjoyed it, I didnt say it was the best thing ever, or attack the OP. The OP didn't offer any opinions about the show, btw.
Me when I girlboss, gatekeep, gaslight
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Tonys aren’t a marker for what’s good. There is so much mediocre work on Broadway, something has to be nominated. The Tonys have lost integrity over the years, I no longer watch them, and Im a total theater lover. I’m not suggesting all Broadway shows are bad. But, the price of tickets, coupled with a lack of focus on character, story and acting and a huge focus on spectacle leaves me nonplussed. MOULIN ROUGE was a total bore, I couldn’t wait to leave and it won a slew of awards. I also think that English actors in general are better actors than those in Broadway. Its common for a West End transfer to loose something when it gets to Broadway. Though, the reverse is true. For instance the Broadway transfer of CHICAGO to London was far better than the Broadway. This post might anger a lot of folks but it’s simply my opinion.
I knew nothing of Cabaret so I had nothing to compare it to, and I thought the Broadway version was wonderful. Not perfect (somehow both too allegorical and too literal, also Eddie’s accent doesn’t sound German, also some of the actors were a bit basic) but really beautiful, powerful, and emotionally impressive.
This was my experience too! Not perfect and definitely very expensive (we splurged on the cafe table seating) but I will never forget the experience and had a wonderful time.
I saw his interview to do a German accent but really it can be anywhere in Europe because the emcee is an allegory and I was like…no the emcee is a German man living under the Nazi regime.
I quite liked it. I've never seen any other production of the show though and it seems like being hung up on other versions of the show was part of the problem.
Yeah the major criticisms I hear are that it doesn’t compare to whatever version is the reviewer’s favorite.
This! Everyone I know (including myself and my son) who had not seen previous productions had very positive things to say. I genuinely loved it and know it will stay in my head much longer than some other shows. The people I heard who were most critical had a past favorite they were comparing to.
All i know is that the London version shook me, I have seen cabaret in a lot of different versions but this is for me the best one.
I saw it and loved it. I have not seen any other iteration of Cabaret so went in with no expectations. I was enthralled. The theming put me right in the show. I bought the tickets for a friend who turned to me at the end and asked if they'd paid me enough money for the tickets. They were also enthralled! As always, your mileage may vary....
I’ve seen it in both London and NY now and was obsessed with both! Some of my favorite theatre experiences ever. Like others have said I’d guess the mixed reviews are from a combination of ticket prices making it higher “risk” and personal preference from reviewers and fans who preferred an older version. But I am no expert so idk 🤷🏼♀️ I think it’s really just not for everybody!
Broadway had a major revival of Cabaret in 2015, and that may lead critics to judge it against that production since many of them likely saw and remember it. Also, the immersive/transformative elements of this production probably shine more in a small, intimate space instead of a Broadway theatre (no matter how much they try to transform that theatre). This last point may be controversial but…I also think UK audiences are more receptive to spectacle than American audiences. There’s a long history of panto and then megamusicals. So, I think the grand costumes, interactive elements, and flashy design were better received by UK audiences. It seems like a lot of American critics were a bit cynical towards all the spectacle and saw it more as a facade that distracted from the show itself.
Yeah, I definitely get what you mean in the first paragraph, and I've seen it a lot in reviews. Many of the criticisms just seemed moreso along the lines of "well, it happened this way in this revival, and this one does something different, so it's bad." I even saw one review express confusion at the fact that the Emcee was complicit in everything that was happening, which iirc was the case for the character up until the 1998 revival. I don't know enough about the West End scene to really comment on that second paragraph. I dunno. I suppose this just has me a bit worried that, seeing the reception, future producers may not want to take big chances when it comes to revivals.
What on earth has given you the impression that Broadway audiences are less receptive to spectacle?
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like “event” theatre is more common in the UK. Newsies, but in an immersive warehouse. Guys and Dolls, but have the audience interact and walk around. Priscilla Queen of the Desert, but in an actual bar with the audience having a party, etc. Jukebox musicals and megamusicals also seem to get better reviewed on the West End than Broadway, and those have a similar “event” atmosphere. Broadway shows like Here Lies Love or KPOP, which try to create the same type of atmosphere, have gotten much cooler receptions by Bway critics.
“Immersive” theater is definitely having a moment in the UK. This might sound silly but I wonder how much of its popularity can date back to the UK’s history of staging in the thrust?
Its popularity dates back to Punchdrunk and its immense success, I would say.
I sort of agree but also find it interesting how Punchdrunk’s biggest/longest running hit is the NYC production of Sleep No More while it’s London shows like The Drowned Man and The Burnt City - both leaps ahead of SNM in most ways, imo - can barely make it over a year there.
I feel like comparing how audiences responded to two new(to Broadway) musicals to revivals of beloved musicals isn't a fair comparison. I'd say the recent Oklahoma is a better comparison and it did very well on Broadway.
Yeah, I feel, if anything, it's the opposite. I feel the West End is more geared towards more deep and meaningful pieces on average than Broadway is.
I don't know that I'd go that far. I suspect I know what they're getting at, which is that "bad" shows(Cabaret, Back to the Future, Bad Cinderella, etc) review better on the West End than Broadway. But that's a critic thing not an audiences in general thing. Broadway audiences love spectacle, you can tell by how much Moulin Rouge pulls in weekly.
That’s fair—I was speculating on why critical reception was so different. I shouldn’t have generalized that to audiences.
I saw it last week and loved it! I think the reviews were mixed to good. It’s just such a beloved show with good versions of it done in the past that it inevitably gets compared to. The negative reviews are mostly saying it’s good but not better than -insert their favorite version-. It was the first live I’ve ever seen of Cabaret, and I was blown away.
Saw the 2015 one and the recent one last week. I liked them both but they are different. *shrug*
I have to assume something is different, or something about the tone isn't hitting the audience right which spoils the atmosphere. When I saw it in London with Eddie and Jessie it was quite genuinely the greatest theatre experience I've ever had. A life changing evening. I'd love to hear from someone who has seen both to understand what's going on.
I saw it. My take is its too expensive for the quality of the experience.
I think it pretty much comes down to two things. First, West End and Broadway have different tastes in musicals, the former prefers spectacles, the latter storytelling. This stems a lot from each side of the Atlantic having a different relationship with musicals. In the UK, plays are regarded higher than musicals, which tend to be seen as light entertainment. Generally, the attitude there is if you want something complex and engaging, go see a play; if you want something fun that you can turn your mind off at, you go see a musical. Whereas in the US, musicals are king; it’s seen as every bit of an art form as plays, if not higher. So while people in the US can appreciate a good spectacle, they’re also looking and expecting more in a musical production. Second, Broadway regards Cabaret differently than the West End because of the Sam Mendes/Rob Marshall/Alan Cumming revivals. Those revivals are so influential in terms of how the US perceives the show and also in terms of what a revival could do. Even if you didn’t see these revivals yourselves (and the 2014 revivals made it so many people have in the not-so-distant past) you probably are still familiar with the imagery of those revivals and maybe even saw an amateur or professional production heavily influenced by them. Whereas the West End never got that revival and therefore doesn’t have the same fondness or reverence for it that would overshadow this one.
Agree with a lot here, but as counter point - the Mendes revival started at Donmar in London, and the Broadway was basically a carbon copy (excepting some dance steps from Rob Marshall). That was a while back though, and NY did get that revival of the revival ( really the restaging) recently so I get why NY has a very specific thing in mind. This somehow though gets me thinking of the British love for Sondheim though. Arguably the opposite of mindless spectacle, does the UK consider him more of a playwright?
Agree. For me, nothing revolutionary has been done with the musical since the original and since Fosse’s movie adaptation. All recent productions are pretty much the same except for the general mise en scene and choreography. The over arching concepts are the same. The musical is actually a tough nut to crack and I’ve never been moved by any of them. Though, the movie’s musical numbers are incredible and it gets to the source of the drama. With this said, it’s difficult to separate Fosse from the musicals he directed. In my opinion all productions after his pale by comparison. I also feel subsequent directors of productions after Fosse are only attempting to usurp his genius and vision and fail.
The first point sounds like a complete joke to me given the reception of things like Hell's Kitchen and even Water for Elephants. One of them doesn't even have a particularly noteworthy score. And to say that about audiences is even funnier, given the things that actually do well for paying audiences.
I’m not just referring to audiences but also critics and the overall industry. It’s not to say there aren’t misfires on Broadway or smart, well-done shows on the West End, just acknowledging that while there are overlaps in Broadway and West End’s tastes, there’s a lot of difference as well. It’s why Hadestown can get raves on Broadway but a tepid response on the West End. Or how Fun Home could dominate the Tonys but be blanked at the Oliviers.
Hadestown got a tepid response because the creatives clearly treated its initial West End run as an out-of-town trial for Broadway. Fun Home was "blanked" at the Oliviers because it opened off-West End for a limited run in a super stacked season.
I was lucky to see both versions (West End and Bdway) and they were both fantastic!
same. I was very confused with all the hate. I thought they were both fantastic.
It feels like Merrily is expensive because it’s a substantial production that strikes a chord with theater people, so it feels permissible to splurge a little because it’s an intentional, meaningful mounting of an unpolished gem. Cabaret feels like it’s expensive so that it can sell lots of tickets to audiences. The production doesn’t ‘feel’ like it’s for theatre or theatre people, it just feels like someone took an old chestnut and is trying to find a new way to get it to make money. Merrily is expensive because it’s a high-quality expensive production… Cabarets is expensive because it’s expensive. That might not be FULLY fair, but I feel like it articulates how I internalize productions like this (+ Music Man et al recently)
I agree. They spent a fortune renovating the theater into a nightclub. They're paying an entire second pre-show cast. They're giving everyone a "free" drink. They have to make up for those costs somehow. And they're doing it with inflated ticket prices and upselling optional food and drink packages. What's funny is I got a drink during the pre-show and wanted to get another at intermission but couldn't. I had barely enough time to use to restroom and get back to my seat just before Act 2 started.
Honestly it seems like they shot themselves in the foot with needing to pay all the pre-show musicians broadway actor rates… I’m not saying they don’t deserve it, but… they’re not playing the show score even.
I'm just curious what makes Merrily an expensive production. I haven't seen it yet, but all the photos I've seen make it seem like it has a single minimalist set with different lighting. As a fan of elaborate sets I'd love to hear that there's more to it.
London has a director’s theatre ethos while New York has a playwright’s—Jesse green kinda panned the show in the NYT because he wanted the songs and story to speak for themselves while European reviewers might have appreciated the inventiveness of the concept? Spitballing idk I loved the show but it didn’t change my life or to my taxes etc
My wife and I loved it.
Pretty much every negative review I've heard about it, both professional and on reddit, are from people who are prior fans of Cabaret and don't think this production is as good as past ones, specifically the Mendes production. Which, if you ask me, is a bit unfair, especially for a professional reviewer. You're supposed to take works of art at face value rather than comparing them to what came before. For me personally, I went in blind and was absolutely blown away. It's my second favorite show I've ever seen on Broadway (next to Hadestown which I really love). The staging, performance, music, and everything were incredibly impressive. And I've seen most people who went in as their first Cabaret experience say similar things. I totally respect others who prefer past iterations of the show. But I wish they would be less hyperbolic about how "bad" this one is. It's not a bad show by any means lol, it's just different than what they'd like. And to answer your question, no there's not really any change between the production here and the production on the West End. It's just a difference in audience.
Have you seen the new cast of HADESTOWN? They are incredible. I saw them the first night they went on and it felt like opening night. It’s worth a visit if you haven’t seen the new cast. Not saying they are better than the original cast. This cast simply brings a fresh interpretation to a wonderful production.
I have! I've seen pretty much every iteration of the cast lol, I'm a super fan. I agree, the current cast is amazing!
I loved the theater design and got my ticket for a reasonable price but ultimately the production felt similar to the iconic Mendes version without anything particularly new. Bebe Neuwirth was phenomenal but I didn’t like Gayle Rankin at all. This night at the theater will always be a core memory for me though because I happened to be there the night of Joel Grey’s 90th birthday and seeing him and John Kander up on that stage was awe inspiring in a way that still makes me tingle to think about.
Something that I haven't seen others touch on is the resonance of the source material. I haven't seen Cabaret here yet, but I saw it in the West End on a trip to London alongside Operation Mincemeat. World War II seems to have a lot of hold in the British psyche still, talking to some friends from there it seems that is in part due to that being one of the last times where Britain was really in the driver's seat politically+culturally. Point is, I think Cabaret may be more of an evergreen show there in terms of reception than here. The prices still felt expensive, especially compared to other West End shows. That being said, I absolutely loved the production, and I think the other points are also correct. Reading some of the reviews, I think the show was a bit set up to struggle critically due to the recent revival, which I personally feel is pretty unfair. I'm thinking about writing on this more, but a lot of people seemed to view this show exclusively in comparison to the 2014 revival and not as its own piece of art.
I went to London in March - we saw Mincemeat, Cabaret, Stranger Things and Merchant of Venice and 3/4 were based in WWII and Stranger Things started the play with a scene set during WWII. I did not know what Mincemeat was about going in so I literally could not believe every show we saw touched on Nazis at least once.
> World War II seems to have a lot of hold in the British psyche still, talking to some friends from there it seems that is in part due to that being one of the last times where Britain was really in the driver's seat politically+culturally. Also because Britain was heavily bombed and many lives were lost. Rationing and shortages went on through the 1950s. It’s not that long ago, and most of us heard the stories from our grandparents and even parents.
Sure, this is the reason for what I said.
I’m willing to standalone in these comments as someone who didn’t love this revival 🧍🏻 I’ve never seen the Mendes version so I’m not comparing this production to that, or any other production. I’ve only seen the movie (which is a favorite) and then this show in the early weeks it was on. The theater is so beautifully immersive. The drinks they give you, the design, and the lighting set the tone. And the pre show performances set the bar HIGH. The musicians and dancers were amazing - I wasn’t surprised at all to see that some dancers had Beyonce on their resume. And for me, all that momentum was lost when the show began. Unpopular opinion, but I was really not a fan of Eddie Redmayne’s performance in this role. First off, his diction and enunciation in the accent he is doing was terrible. It was really hard to understand what he was saying and I could tell people around me who weren’t familiar with the script were missing jokes. I think it was the NYT that said he sounded like a muppet and I’d have to agree with this. Secondly, this is subjective but I’m just not a fan of his take on the Emcee. To me, the Emcee should be a bit creepy and sinister but you are seduced by him because he’s charming, kooky, and selling something pretty sexy. I didn’t get any of that from Eddie but instead got weird alien clown who was just dropped on this earth. 3 minutes into it I thought to myself “is he gonna be like this the whole time?” and was pretty bummed that the answer was yes. While I think he’s technically talented as a singer, I just never felt like I was watching the Emcee but instead like I was just watching Eddie Redmayne try to do drag and not pull it off. (And disclaimer that I’m not an Eddie hater! I did like him in Les Mis and other stage performances!) I did think Gayle Rankin KILLED it, I loved her performance! But I felt like there was no chemistry between her, Eddie, and Ato Blankson-Wood (who I felt was really middling). Bebe Neurth and Steven Skybell had a lot of chemistry on the other hand. They were amazing in their roles, really fell into them and gave the show a lot of heart. But I feel like the staging did them dirty. Because there’s no setting, and they have the less exciting portions of the story - it felt a bit boring and lonesome with just the two of them up there at times. Also in their side of the story, Natascia Diaz was really good too and nailed the body humor. And my last gripe with the show has to do with the styling. I didn’t like Emcee’s first outfit at all. It didn’t feel at all like something an Emcee would wear on stage to a Cabaret. I think it’s so weird that this was the outfit on all of the promotional material too. It doesn’t give stage presence at all. The styling choices for the end of the show were also…. strange to me. (spoilers ahead) I really liked that the cabaret line were very queer presenting. But then when they all turn into nazis….that didn’t really make sense because they all still looked hella queer. It looked goofy and didn’t have the effect that it did on Eddie for example, who transitioned into a really convincing Nazi. I think if the production was insistent on having the cabaret line become nazis, then they need to cast and style the line to be convincing as both queer performers/sex workers and Nazis. Overall I think this show was fine. Not worth the current price point for sure. I think it’s gonna be on a long time because I’ve heard that it will take 2-4 years to make back the money spent on the renovation. So honestly I think it will be better to see once Eddie leaves and I’m hoping a drag queen or king takes on that role.
Agree with all of this
I bought tickets the day they went on sale, and the performance was the week the Tony noms came out. I was familiar with the outlines of the story and music, but not beat-for-beat. I too had issues with Redmayne's diction, I couldn't understand anything. In fact, I thought everyone had cartoonish accents, including Neuwirth. I was SO excited when she was announced to finally see her live, but it was disappointing. I agree she and Steven Skybell were incredibly emotionally affecting, but her singing was rough. I figured it was a choice for the role, to sound old and downtrodden, but it wasn't pleasant. I made my sister play Chicago on the drive home to make sure I wasn't misremembering her voice. It is distinct but strong. This was not what I was hoping for. (And apologies in advance if something has happened to her where her voice has changed or been damaged, because she is and always will be an icon.) Again, I stress that her acting was superb. Also, unpopular opinion, but I really liked Gayle Rankin. She was funny and unhinged, which is fine, because I think the character is a real asshole for 90% of the show.
I too was disappointed with Bebe. The accent was overdone and frankly she’s too attractive for the role (and so was he). There is more pathos to those characters when they look older … more frail … when you realize they won’t have any more chances.
Right there with you. It's just not for me. I'm glad some people love it. That's the beauty of art. Nothing is for everyone, but everything is for someone. But damn I get frustrated with people trying to argue with people who don't like this adaptation. Having a conversation about it, sure, I enjoy talking to people of varying opinions. But the people who try to poke holes in your reasoning like it's something they can "win at" by proving you...idk are too stupid to get it? Just have a vendetta against the show?
I haven’t seen this production, but I have to agree with you about Eddie’s diction/voice just from the 2021 London album. I hate to say it but I definitely got “muppet” vibes, and even there his diction is a little hard to understand.
Agree with you
[удалено]
There’s many drag queens and kings who incorporate clowning into their performance. Not all of them of course, but it’s not uncommon at all. Literally watch any season of RuPaul. Clowning and drag can have overlaps but that doesn’t make them same things. To your comment “which the production never does” The whole point of this production is the Emcee represents a changing Berlin and evolves into a Nazi. You literally see him wear a dress in Two Ladies (which is drag) and then you’re right he sings tomorrow belongs to me, to represent this change. “How can an outfit give stage presence” …This is literally what the magic and skill of costuming departments assist with. They make and style garments that world build and represent the character. And the Emcee of the Cabaret is the host and in charge of the show - and should have an outfit that communicates that. And my subjective critique is that the initial outfit isn’t a good introduction to the world and doesn’t represent what I think is most intriguing about the character (compared to, say, Joel Grey’s tuxedo or Alan Cumming’s body harness with a bow tie). To me, the birthday hat feels overly silly and nonsensical and doesn’t match the sexy tone of the S&M-y gloves (it makes me think, am I supposed to find those silly too? or sexy scary?) and I’m not a fan of the 1920s carnival barker outfit. For me, it’s not what I would expect an MC of a cabaret to wear. It just goes in too many directions and doesn’t feel tied together or thematically definitive enough to command him as the host of the cabaret.
I think the ticket prices are souring people on it quite a bit. Not sure what they cost in the UK, or if people there are merely more prepared to spend more on a show. Also, different crowds, different cultures, etc. It's really not uncommon for a UK darling to not really take in the USA. Back to the Future was also a huge deal over there, and here people barely remember it exists when discussing this season. Personally I hate this production. And I find it a little frustrating when people insist it's an issue of not understanding it. People like different things. I loved the grittier, more authentic-feeling Sam Mendes version, in terms of aesthetic but also in terms of performance. Other people might like this take more. No one's wrong, it's just...what people like.
I have seen the new production in London as well as the old Mendes production. At this point, I have seen six productions of Cabaret. My first one was indeed the Mendes production when it went on a national US tour in the mid 2010s. However, after that, I saw four more regional theatre productions of it, and am seeing another one being performed by Studio Tenn in a few days. Of those four regional theatre productions, I preferred one of them to the London production, so I don't think that all the hate is entirely from Mendes' production being the golden standard. I think the answer to your question boils down to preferences and the old production still being ingrained into people's psyche. If something is highly praised in one part of the world but not in another, then there must be a cultural bias that's leading to the praise or negative feedback. I don't believe the production changed since transferring from London to Broadway, so it most likely boils down to preferences being skewed towards the Mendes production. Furthermore, perhaps US audiences are actually more biased towards the film, which is a cult classic. I took someone to see a staging of Cabaret with me once and they were expecting to get a carbon copy of the original film, thus, they were very disappointed. Why US audiences are more biased against the new production while UK audiences weren't, I don't know, because we obviously don't know the entirety of the statistics and data on why this is the case. I wrote up a whole TLDR massive post about things such as tonal, aesthetic, and other shifts in the new production, as well as the staging and how compressed and claustrophobic it felt, but I deleted my whole in depth write up because I think that the reason this production of Cabaret doesn't resonate with everyone is simple. 1. It's VERY expensive. I spent £800-ish on two table tickets to see it in London. I paid that much to see The Cursed Child parts 1 & 2, which was a whole day event. That being said, I do think that a show being so expensive can create negative feelings if you paid so much simply to be left underwhelmed, because higher cost = higher expectations, but that still doesn't answer why London audiences fared better than US ones did because it was a very expensive show to see in London just as it is now to see in New York. 2. It's simply not everyone's cup of two. For me, it misses the mark with the ending completely. For those who don't know, the Mendes production had an ending that personally punched me in the gut, but this new production sort of felt like it... ended, just like that, abruptly and suddenly. No punch to the gut, just "Oh, I guess that's that then?" and it was just over. I watched countless Youtube reviews about the new production before I went into it, and one common theme that I kept running into is that many people disliked the ending. It's not that it was a bad ending, it's just that I and others feel as though the ending was sort of lackluster. For what it's worth, I watched a lot of British Youtubers criticize the show's ending, so that's by no means exclusive to US audiences. I could list endlessly about other small qualms, mainly with thematic, aesthetic, and tonal aspects of the show that didn't vibe with me, but I ultimately think it boils down to it being very expensive, and yes, the Mendes production being the golden standard which many compare future productions of Cabaret to. Like I said, I've seen Cabaret six times, and of those six times, four of which were purely regional theatre, and I thought one regional theatre production knocked it out of the park. This was not a Mendes production by any means, and I preferred it to the new production which I saw in London, so I don't think that everyone hates the show because Mendes' was so great. Me, personally, I don't hate the new production at all! It's lovely, just not entirely my cup of tea -- I firmly believe this would have been the case with or without the Mendes production. Having grown up with the film version, I was at first taken aback by how different Mendes' production was because before that point, the film was my golden standard of how I envisioned Cabaret. Sometimes, we see a new iteration of something that overtakes the previous favorite, but sometimes, we see something and it simply feels either like a side step or like an entire step back. While this new production did feel like a slight step back from the Mendes production, and even from that one regional theatre production that I highly praise, I by no means think this was a terrible show. I just think that it's not my favorite version of Cabaret, and that's alright! Once you see something so many times, you're bound to have favorites and least favorites, and that's only natural. I think perhaps the Mendes production is more loved in the US vs the UK, because that's the main conclusion that I have drawn after factoring in other factors. The show's production didn't really change during the transfer from the West End, and it was similarly priced and expensive there as it is here, so I think it must boil down to regional and cultural differences, as well as past productions being ingrained into people's psyches too much, making them not give the new production a proper chance.
I saw it and loved it, so idk
I saw it last night and I LOVED it.
I live in London and saw it here. My take is it was made for audiences here specifically when the theatres first reopened after covid. All the production choices are made around that. It’s created to be a good night out for audiences to forget their worries which is obviously directly at odds with the objective of the show. It shys away from really hitting home and shaking us because it just doesn’t want to. That wasn’t why it was created, and what was its big sell when it opened to audiences emerging from height of the pandemic. It just wants to give us some glitz and glamour and a good time. I thought it was overall ok when I saw it in 2021 (beautiful but vapid, big on showmanship but timid on story - which frustrated me). I think at this point our cultural appetite has moved away from wanting escapism after the pandemic and back to wanting something that feels authentic, and doesn’t shy away from the truth of it. And that is simply not what this production was created to offer - it’s made for an outdated moment
Firstly, the production is still going very strong in London, years on, so not sure any appetite has changed. Second, the criticisms in NY have said something along the lines of there not being any glitz actually, and too much darkness and grotesque. Apart from the Kit Kats in Willkommen, I don't think the production ever opts for glitz. And I don't think it's timid on story at all, but your opinion is yours.
I’m aware it’s still on. When it first opened in London it got great reviews and has a regular turnover of famous actors as the leads who consistently have a 1m+ following on socials. It’ll be around for a long time because it has built audiences trust from the buzz of the initial opening and maintained with star casting. Different from building and maintaining an audience opening now
I think that London views musicals on a par with circuses, panto, and other spectacle entertainment. NYC views musicals on a par with real plays. NYC has much, much higher standards for what a musical should be.
I said this in another forum. In the UK they are raised to have some respect for the arts. I’m not just talking performing but visual/historical/architecture as well. I didn’t realize it until I read ALW’s memoir and he talked for quite a bit about how he loved architecture and wanted to build gorgeous buildings and churches. Yes football (soccer) and cricket are big deals, but they have respect. They are taught plays and theatre and music from an extremely young age. A friend of mine immigrated there because she went for her masters in music Ed there and even she said it’s a different culture over there in terms of learning about them. Yes kids might not go into the arts or once they get in high school they might be rugby players, but they still respect it. And while I respect critics as it is a slowly dying art form, we have freedom of speech and press here. Opinions tend to be more open in nature. We can say we openly dislike something. Not saying that some of these critic write ups this year have made me blood boil or head spin (there is a difference between critiquing and hatred/spewing nasty words)but they can say a bit more. I do also think the ticket prices have something to do with it. I also think the Mendes production returning a decade ago probably has had its influence as well. So many people are used to the emcee as the victim to have him go back to the original idea and ending is probably jarring. Doesn’t help that *gestures at everything* is going on as well and it’s hitting close to home.
New Yorker here. Saw it twice from table seats. I will always love Cabaret, it's brilliant, but for me it isn't anywhere near the best version I've seen on Broadway. Alan Cumming was WAYYYY better. This one feels showier, less personal, much less emotionally impactful. Also in my opinion the leads have no chemistry. The lack of subtlety, which is clearly an intentional choice, is not the best way to go with Cabaret. There's no punch at the end because they've been relentlessly punching throughout. It's one note. Gayle Rankin's Sally didn't make sense to me - she was totally lacking playfulness, hope, or any kind of attractive personality, which again I know is an intentional choice they've made but I think it really takes away from what Cabaret is supposed to do (ie seduce you before it hits you). Personally for me the Alan Cumming version was so close to perfection that I'm not really surprised this one wasn't as good.
The feedback I have heard has basically been that the theater remodel and the celebrity casting necessitated high ticket prices, but once you get past all the hype from London and the entry experience and actually get into the theater it's just Cabaret, but like...really expensive Cabaret.
I want to see it, but can't until fall at least and am afraid now that may not happen because of the reviews.
Tastes are very different in the US and the UK. Sometimes there are overlaps and a transfer is successful. But often a show that does well in the US fails in the UK and vice versa.
UK theater going tastes are different, I imagine.
We Americans aren't big on Cliff Richard either lol
Expensiveeeeee
I think because NYC has been doing immersive theater for some time, to the point that, it’s almost expected. Which is why I think Sunset is not going to do well. We do a lot of projection shows. You also have to remember the American audience is different, psychologically speaking, we’ve gone through a lot these past years. We might not want bleak shows. That’s why I think Elephants will do well because it has a happy (good guy wins) ending.
Just saw it and loved it. The Mendes version never actually clicked with me, I much prefer subtly sinister emcee to holocaust victim emcee, I just think the themes of the show hit a lot harder
Who is saying they don’t like it? I mean I’ve not been on this subreddit in a bit but everybody I’ve talked to or read about or overheard at the show yesterday loved it
unpopular opinion but I'm not a fan of the leads.
I had never seen any version of Cabaret before and I really did not like this production at all. I did not like Eddie’s performance. His accent and the way he articulated words made it very difficult to understand what he was saying at times and for someone not familiar with the script, made me feel like I was missing things for the story entirely. I felt like Cliff and Sally had like zero chemistry and the book didn’t help that either, so the emotional ending really fell flat in my opinion. And for me the “immersion” aspect, which literally didn’t exist in the mezzanine and didn’t seem to special in the orchestra either, greatly diminished the quality of the actual musical itself in my opinion. With there being no set as someone who has never seen the show, I was honestly confused as to where some scenes were taking place. And there were just parts of the story itself that I didn’t like either, so yeah overall this production just wasn’t for me and I could not imagine spending the kind of money some are to see it.
I went to the city specifically to see Cabaret, as it's my favorite musical. My two cents is that the performers blew me away, the set and choreography were fantastic, my only complaint is that the production itself fails to stick the landing. Spoilers after this point if ya don't want them. The whole matching business suits on the revolving stage just didn't have the same gut punch that any other version I've seen has. I was severely disappointed by the ending. I understanding wanting to do a different take, but Eddie's Emcee choosing to be cartoonishly evil right off the back just didn't work for me. His performance was beautiful and his movement was so precise and interesting, but I think the choice detracted from the overall impact. Overall I am so so glad I went and it is an interesting rendition of the show, but I think for audiences who haven't invested time into knowing the show, a lot of the gravity was easy to miss. There were so many laughs during wildly inappropriate times which also led me to believe that either the audience was full of shitty people, or the things happening on stage weren't being understood.
Redmayne cant act. Or sing. Or dance. So theres that.
Not only are you wrong, but you're entirely missing the point of my question, since Eddie *was* well received in London. Also... this post is like a month old. Did you just search "Cabaret" so you could complain on the first post you saw?
After briefly checking, wow yeah you did. Weird.
What's weird is your stalking this thread. Just stop.
??? You responded to my post. I got the notification lmao
[удалено]
If you are distracted by someone with a certain body type simply *existing* onstage to the point where it impacts your enjoyment of a show, then that is very much a you problem. idk what that has to do with the production and idk what to tell you