Kost actually jumps in in the middle of Married as well in the 1998 version where she’s singing German while Schultz is singing to Schneider. So that isn’t something that’s new to just this new revival.
I really appreciated this revival. My biggest critique was the pre-show, which felt like a glorified tourist trap. It was overcrowded, and about half as impressive as any gay bar in this city. I opted to go right to my seat (which was a nightmare to find). I think that this staging of the production is best to see after you’ve seen a few others. The most striking moment of the show was the group of tipsy tourists clapping and cheering during “Cabaret”, unaware of their jarring irony. Talk about life imitating art! LOL! But in all seriousness, I found the staging to be innovative, impactful, and worth the ticket price. I sat in the newly built mezzanine and wouldn’t change my seat if I saw it again. It is closer to the stage than the original mezz and gives a great visual perspective. This staging is a fully realized piece of art, and I think that the audience headspace needs to be prepared to take in nuance. This would be something great to see alone. Thank you for sharing this review!
This revival isn't half as innovative as it thinks it is. The 1998/2014 revivals also drew the audience immersively into the world of the Kit Kat Klub at Studio 54-- AND with the SUPERB Alan Cumming!! This revival obviously tips its hat too early, and thinks it is so daring and provocative. It looks so much WORSE than other superior revivals.
I also loved the 1998 version. I saw it on tour with the great Norbert Leo Butz (who was great but not yet legendary). It was in LA with the full Kit Kat Klub transformation of the theater. Teri Hatcher was Sally. Then I saw it in Dallas with Butz and Lea Thompson. Then I saw it on Broadway with no one special in the lead roles, but Blair Brown as Fr. Schneider. Finally I saw the relaunch with Cummings and Michelle Williams. That’s more than I’ve seen any show other than Always, Patsy Cline. I don’t see the point of the changes in this version. Though I haven’t seen it and I’m only going from reviews and promotions. I don’t see the point of the updates to Sunset Blvd. I kind of see the point of the recent Oklahoma! I really didn’t get the point of that Sweeney Todd production that was set in an insane asylum and the characters played all the instruments, but I did see that one and it had Patti LuPone so of course I enjoyed it!
'It' thinks it is innovative does it? I think 'it' just thinks that doing carbon copies of shows which come before it and bowing down to nostalgia will be the death of theatre.
Originally, Kost sings Tomorrow Belongs To Me at the engagement party at the end of act one but it would make and make no sense for her to be interrupting the love song, Married, between Schultz and Schneider. It would be a plebeian choice to suddenly make her want a husband.
Saw it in London ... I thought the brown suits worked well. It's certainly the bitterest performance of "Cabaret" that I've heard, but it was undeniably powerful. The seats in the circle were agony.
The ending has entirely lost it's punch in this version - where previously the Emcee would reveal an Auschwitz uniform before whispering "Life is a Cabaret" and the theater crashing to black - we now have Eddie spoofing Trump while the chorus is dressed like kids who raided their Sears sales rep Dad's closet.
In the Brazil production,it is way more immersive,every seat is a table to look like you are on the club but the chairs aren't comfortable,great review!
Question: having seen this show I don’t know that I agree with your statement that it’s highly immersive or that I would recommend to see it even in the mezzanine. You pay upwards of $200 for nosebleeds and you get a better view than the tables or anywhere else but then it doesn’t matter because Redmayne is mumbling half his lines or speaking like French Kermit. Lots of choices seem to be made for shock value only? The clown suit and skeleton confused the hell out of me and my partner, so much so we are still trying to figure out what they are going for. Cliff is boring and one note, sally scream songs like everything, the only part of the show that was truly exceptional was the portrayal of Herr Shultz, who clearly gave everything he had to the role and it paid off in spades. Trying to understand how you could say that you did and then in the very last second turn around and recommend a show you couldn’t see half of. If anything this production takes some enormous swings that don’t hit the mark. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but yours is in conflict with itself.
Partner here. We were talking about how some movies are “bad” and some are “fun bad” this morning. We think this version of Cabaret is “fun bad” IF $200 means absolutely nothing to you (plus getting into/out of the city, sleeping accommodations, etc.). Poking fun at Eddie Redmayne is justified when we’ve all spent $200+ to see Cabaret and got something that feels dissonant from the themes of the text. I think we feel a little ripped off, especially because we saw a production in Rochester two weeks ago for $40 per ticket that knocked our socks off. Imo Herr Shultz was the best of the lot and knew what show he was in. Ernst did too. I’m not sure about everyone else. It’s like…when people decide to do Shakespeare the weirdest way they can, and then it doesn’t work? This feels like that.
Thanks for your question/comment! In all my reviews I finish with a reason why someone might want to see the show. If I think a show has nothing worthwhile for an audience then I won't review it. I agree that Stephen Skybell as Herr Schultz was great. I also loved Bebe Neuworth as Frauline Schneider. I think they make the show worth seeing as well as the opportunity to experience the interesting choices made for this immersive production. The ticket buyer has to decide if seeing Stephen and Bebe's performances are worth the $200 price tag. As @austensg9596 pointed out, $200 means different things to different people. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I did NOT pay $200 to see the show. I was given a comp ticket during previews.)
I love Cabaret. This version, however, left me pretty cold. I get that art is subjective and that this version is not going to be universally loved, but I felt that they were just so on the nose about the message at the end that they missed all the elements of why people would get sucked in. They started out hard from the start that this was a bad place where bad things were about to happen and as the audience, we're all complicit. Instead of seeing the denizens of the cabaret - the queer and the outcasts - who will eventually become the victims of the Nazis, they made the members of the troop Nazis in the end. It just didn't work for me. And I just didn't enjoy the aesthetic. If the Kit Kat Club was supposed to be a somewhat disreputable, seedy place for naughty fun, this was glitzy and over the top and the styling seemed completely divorced from the setting. I get that they were trying to make this a more modern, timeless retelling of the story, but without the grounding of that era, it just felt like spectacle for spectacles sake.
I didn't love or hate it, but my review as I left the theater last week was that it's "overly reimagined". Didn't help that there's no chemistry between Sally and Cliff and his queer experience is brushed aside completely. In fact, all the queer elements have been so flattened out that they are barely a blip in this production. A disappointing production overall...
Thanks for joining the convo. Yeh, that's what I love about the movie adaptation and how Bob Fosse delved into Cliff's bisexuality. But Bob was always about the SEX.
@@MatthewHardyMusical Bob indeed WAS always about the SEX. I never saw the original onstage - only the revival with Alan Cumming and Natasha Richardson - which was BRILLIANT - and of course the film (a zillion times), but the friend I saw this current one with and I are both former agents, so we're harsh critics and we both felt the same way, so I think we were spot on. We also thought the pre-show was absurd...
@@cripbabe111 Yeh the pre-show is strange. I don't like pre-show music for musicals because it never matches with the shows score. I agree the Alan/Natasha revival was SO good. They raised the bar and it's going to be difficult for a production to top that.
I think that's the correct interpretation. I just didn't like how it looked on Sally for her big number. You'd think she'd be wearing a cabaret outfit for a song that declares her love of the Cabaret.
@@MatthewHardyMusical Way too oblique of an ending - needed the sucker punch of the known ending to really drive the point home, especially in this day and age.
@@jeffreywillstewart Interesting, I've never considered Eddie as a leading man. I thought it was an unusual choice when he was cast as Marius in Les Mis.
@@donnyslader9025 Neither Americans nor Brits are a monolith. You will find a variety of reactions to theatrical productions on both sides of the pond. Also remember that the Broadway production is not a carbon copy of the West End production. Many times I have enjoyed a production more on the west end than I have on broadway and vice versa.
@@MatthewHardyMusical I JUST SAW THIS 'CABARET' IN LONDON ON 5/11/24. AN AMERICAN THEATER PROFESSIONAL SINCE 1975, I FOUND THIS NEW VERSION OF 'CABARET' THE MOST BIZARRE TWISTED PIECE OF SHIT I'VE EVER SEEN, AND THAT SAYS QUITE A LOT. THEY HAVE TURNED AN ICONIC HISTORY MAKING BROADWAY MUSICAL OF 1965 INTO A SICK, MORBID, HORROR STORY.
@@larryabramsky1214 Thanks Larry! It is dark and bizarre. But hey, maybe that's what some people are into? And truthfully, the rise of the Nazis was a sick, morbid horror story. But I get it, I like a little more light and joy in my theater experience before being plunged into the darkness and despair.
Kost actually jumps in in the middle of Married as well in the 1998 version where she’s singing German while Schultz is singing to Schneider. So that isn’t something that’s new to just this new revival.
Thanks for dropping the knowledge. What do you think the purpose is? Is it to show us that Kost longs to be married?
I really appreciated this revival. My biggest critique was the pre-show, which felt like a glorified tourist trap. It was overcrowded, and about half as impressive as any gay bar in this city. I opted to go right to my seat (which was a nightmare to find). I think that this staging of the production is best to see after you’ve seen a few others. The most striking moment of the show was the group of tipsy tourists clapping and cheering during “Cabaret”, unaware of their jarring irony. Talk about life imitating art! LOL! But in all seriousness, I found the staging to be innovative, impactful, and worth the ticket price. I sat in the newly built mezzanine and wouldn’t change my seat if I saw it again. It is closer to the stage than the original mezz and gives a great visual perspective. This staging is a fully realized piece of art, and I think that the audience headspace needs to be prepared to take in nuance. This would be something great to see alone. Thank you for sharing this review!
This is a great comment Andrew. Thanks for sharing.
This revival isn't half as innovative as it thinks it is. The 1998/2014 revivals also drew the audience immersively into the world of the Kit Kat Klub at Studio 54-- AND with the SUPERB Alan Cumming!! This revival obviously tips its hat too early, and thinks it is so daring and provocative. It looks so much WORSE than other superior revivals.
I LOVED the Alan Cumming revival. there's a reason why they remounted it again on Broadway.
I also loved the 1998 version. I saw it on tour with the great Norbert Leo Butz (who was great but not yet legendary). It was in LA with the full Kit Kat Klub transformation of the theater. Teri Hatcher was Sally. Then I saw it in Dallas with Butz and Lea Thompson. Then I saw it on Broadway with no one special in the lead roles, but Blair Brown as Fr. Schneider. Finally I saw the relaunch with Cummings and Michelle Williams. That’s more than I’ve seen any show other than Always, Patsy Cline.
I don’t see the point of the changes in this version. Though I haven’t seen it and I’m only going from reviews and promotions.
I don’t see the point of the updates to Sunset Blvd.
I kind of see the point of the recent Oklahoma!
I really didn’t get the point of that Sweeney Todd production that was set in an insane asylum and the characters played all the instruments, but I did see that one and it had Patti LuPone so of course I enjoyed it!
I dont see the point in people commenting on shows they havent seen...
'It' thinks it is innovative does it? I think 'it' just thinks that doing carbon copies of shows which come before it and bowing down to nostalgia will be the death of theatre.
@@yedis1750 we both have points we don’t see.
Originally, Kost sings Tomorrow Belongs To Me at the engagement party at the end of act one but it would make and make no sense for her to be interrupting the love song, Married, between Schultz and Schneider. It would be a plebeian choice to suddenly make her want a husband.
Yeh, it was confusing. I didn't get why. Maybe someone else who has seen the show can make sense of that choice.
Saw it in London ... I thought the brown suits worked well. It's certainly the bitterest performance of "Cabaret" that I've heard, but it was undeniably powerful. The seats in the circle were agony.
Thanks for sharing! If I go back I'm going to sit in the mezzanine!
The ending has entirely lost it's punch in this version - where previously the Emcee would reveal an Auschwitz uniform before whispering "Life is a Cabaret" and the theater crashing to black - we now have Eddie spoofing Trump while the chorus is dressed like kids who raided their Sears sales rep Dad's closet.
Is that what Eddie was doing? It was lost on me. Yes, the 2014 revival had such a chilling ending. Hard to surpass.
In the Brazil production,it is way more immersive,every seat is a table to look like you are on the club but the chairs aren't comfortable,great review!
I'm buying my ticket to Brazil!
@@MatthewHardyMusicalI'm late but if you are interested,i posted videos of the Brazil production!
Thanks! I'll check it out!
I thought it was too deconstructed and self knowing the pre-show is a gimmick- have seen better Carbarets
But have you had a better Cabernet?
Question: having seen this show I don’t know that I agree with your statement that it’s highly immersive or that I would recommend to see it even in the mezzanine. You pay upwards of $200 for nosebleeds and you get a better view than the tables or anywhere else but then it doesn’t matter because Redmayne is mumbling half his lines or speaking like French Kermit. Lots of choices seem to be made for shock value only? The clown suit and skeleton confused the hell out of me and my partner, so much so we are still trying to figure out what they are going for. Cliff is boring and one note, sally scream songs like everything, the only part of the show that was truly exceptional was the portrayal of Herr Shultz, who clearly gave everything he had to the role and it paid off in spades.
Trying to understand how you could say that you did and then in the very last second turn around and recommend a show you couldn’t see half of. If anything this production takes some enormous swings that don’t hit the mark. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but yours is in conflict with itself.
Partner here. We were talking about how some movies are “bad” and some are “fun bad” this morning. We think this version of Cabaret is “fun bad” IF $200 means absolutely nothing to you (plus getting into/out of the city, sleeping accommodations, etc.). Poking fun at Eddie Redmayne is justified when we’ve all spent $200+ to see Cabaret and got something that feels dissonant from the themes of the text. I think we feel a little ripped off, especially because we saw a production in Rochester two weeks ago for $40 per ticket that knocked our socks off.
Imo Herr Shultz was the best of the lot and knew what show he was in. Ernst did too. I’m not sure about everyone else. It’s like…when people decide to do Shakespeare the weirdest way they can, and then it doesn’t work? This feels like that.
Thanks for your question/comment! In all my reviews I finish with a reason why someone might want to see the show. If I think a show has nothing worthwhile for an audience then I won't review it. I agree that Stephen Skybell as Herr Schultz was great. I also loved Bebe Neuworth as Frauline Schneider. I think they make the show worth seeing as well as the opportunity to experience the interesting choices made for this immersive production. The ticket buyer has to decide if seeing Stephen and Bebe's performances are worth the $200 price tag. As @austensg9596 pointed out, $200 means different things to different people. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I did NOT pay $200 to see the show. I was given a comp ticket during previews.)
While it was flashy, I have seen better productions with the story.
But have you seen flashier productions? :-)
I love Cabaret. This version, however, left me pretty cold. I get that art is subjective and that this version is not going to be universally loved, but I felt that they were just so on the nose about the message at the end that they missed all the elements of why people would get sucked in. They started out hard from the start that this was a bad place where bad things were about to happen and as the audience, we're all complicit. Instead of seeing the denizens of the cabaret - the queer and the outcasts - who will eventually become the victims of the Nazis, they made the members of the troop Nazis in the end. It just didn't work for me. And I just didn't enjoy the aesthetic. If the Kit Kat Club was supposed to be a somewhat disreputable, seedy place for naughty fun, this was glitzy and over the top and the styling seemed completely divorced from the setting. I get that they were trying to make this a more modern, timeless retelling of the story, but without the grounding of that era, it just felt like spectacle for spectacles sake.
Thx for the comment. I think a lot of people share your reaction to this production.
I didn't love or hate it, but my review as I left the theater last week was that it's "overly reimagined". Didn't help that there's no chemistry between Sally and Cliff and his queer experience is brushed aside completely. In fact, all the queer elements have been so flattened out that they are barely a blip in this production. A disappointing production overall...
Thanks for joining the convo. Yeh, that's what I love about the movie adaptation and how Bob Fosse delved into Cliff's bisexuality. But Bob was always about the SEX.
@@MatthewHardyMusical Bob indeed WAS always about the SEX. I never saw the original onstage - only the revival with Alan Cumming and Natasha Richardson - which was BRILLIANT - and of course the film (a zillion times), but the friend I saw this current one with and I are both former agents, so we're harsh critics and we both felt the same way, so I think we were spot on. We also thought the pre-show was absurd...
@@cripbabe111 Yeh the pre-show is strange. I don't like pre-show music for musicals because it never matches with the shows score. I agree the Alan/Natasha revival was SO good. They raised the bar and it's going to be difficult for a production to top that.
I interpreted the suits at the end as them blending in with the n@zis rather than trying to fight them
I think that's the correct interpretation. I just didn't like how it looked on Sally for her big number. You'd think she'd be wearing a cabaret outfit for a song that declares her love of the Cabaret.
@@MatthewHardyMusical Way too oblique of an ending - needed the sucker punch of the known ending to really drive the point home, especially in this day and age.
Eddie is too,alpha male to get the humor.
Epilepsy behavior apparently.
Huh?
I don't know if I'd describe Eddie as Alpha.
@@MatthewHardyMusical he is a leading man. I like the role when played by s character actor. As damaged as Sally!
@@jeffreywillstewart Interesting, I've never considered Eddie as a leading man. I thought it was an unusual choice when he was cast as Marius in Les Mis.
FLOP!
Awww. Don't say that. It was a hit in London! I hope it has a decent run. I want theater people to get paid!
@@MatthewHardyMusical So American's either don't see true art or the British have low standards! :)
@@donnyslader9025 Neither Americans nor Brits are a monolith. You will find a variety of reactions to theatrical productions on both sides of the pond. Also remember that the Broadway production is not a carbon copy of the West End production. Many times I have enjoyed a production more on the west end than I have on broadway and vice versa.
@@MatthewHardyMusical
I JUST SAW THIS 'CABARET' IN LONDON ON 5/11/24. AN AMERICAN THEATER PROFESSIONAL SINCE 1975, I FOUND THIS NEW VERSION OF 'CABARET' THE MOST BIZARRE TWISTED PIECE OF SHIT I'VE EVER SEEN, AND THAT SAYS QUITE A LOT. THEY HAVE TURNED AN ICONIC HISTORY MAKING BROADWAY MUSICAL OF 1965 INTO A SICK, MORBID, HORROR STORY.
@@larryabramsky1214 Thanks Larry! It is dark and bizarre. But hey, maybe that's what some people are into? And truthfully, the rise of the Nazis was a sick, morbid horror story. But I get it, I like a little more light and joy in my theater experience before being plunged into the darkness and despair.
Terrible show. Stinker.
Was there nothing you liked?
Reviewed as "The Worst Musical on Broadway"...
Who said? Did they not see Heart of Rock and Roll?
@@MatthewHardyMusical Reviewers.
They must have reviewed it before Heart of Rock and Roll opened.
CABARET sucks! Leave it alone already!!! It's been OVERDONE NOW!!! 🤮
Not till every Hollywood actor has played the MC on Broadway!