The fact that you either love or hate what you’re seeing - actually IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF ART! Cabaret or any musical, play, art work. It’s SUBJECTIVE.
That is absolutely NOT the DEFINITION OF ART! ART is NOT SUBJECTIVE! There exists thousands of years of scholarship detailing very clear rules, criteria and interpretation. While some of those rules differ based on culture, there are many overlaps. No one says you can't like whatever you want, but you are entirely wrong about ART.
Honestly, I don't know what people found creepy about that performance. It's a new interpretation, and that's ok. This emcee is more seductive and cheeky. If you look at the whole thing, the emcee becomes a scary, dark monster later on, which sends chills down my spine. That's why people need to see it before making judgments like that.
"Honestly, I don't know what people found creepy about that performance." Two seconds later: "If you look at the whole thing, the emcee becomes a scary, dark monster later on." Soooooo are you acknowledging that it's creepy/scary or not? Because it's confusing try to figure out what you mean when you say "It's not a creepy performance" and then shortly after go, "The character turns into a scary monster"-- which is it? If Redmayne was going for "creepy", "unnerving", "monsterous", I personally think he did a great job because he does a great job at selling his characterization where you feel unnerved and maybe not quite safe around this embodiment of a trickstery fae creature.
@@cannibalisticrequiemDylan here is referring to later in the whole show, not this specific performance. And yes, later on the Emcee grows into an entirely different monster and at the point in the show that was in the Tony Awards, the opening, he's arguably a charismatic and comedic character that dazzles the audience. At least, both of the times when I saw it on the west end were like this.
I think it may just need to be a slower burn (for my liking). That is not to say it is a bad interpretation at all or that Eddie has done anything wrong here. It's simply just a preference I have with the directing.
What I loved most about Eddie's performance is how his movements were inspired by Egon Schiele drawings, which in themselves are very evocative and haunting.
Oh!! That actually makes SO much sense! Thank you for contextualising this!! I still don’t quite like it- I just find it hard to watch- but I do respect it for the bold choices
Those inspirations are true of the original show. Kurt Weill and lotte Lenya are also indicated. The show is based on the "I am a camera ": stories by Christopher Isherwood. Still this newest version of Cabaret looks over staged, mannered and less successful than The Alan Cumming version or the original.
i feel like nowadays there is such a preoccupation with everyone doing anything on screen or on stage HAS to be attractive...pretty crying, pretty screaming, pretty dying. I've seen the difference where in horror movies especially actors are not making "weird" enough faces because everything has to be able to look good. so anytime someone actually goes to weird places and does interesting/realistic things people are way to weirded out
And there's such a fear of "cringe" too, which causes a hesitantion to take chances, because taking a chance to be cringe in the moment but benefit the art for emotionality on the whole, yeah it might not work, but it's something, it's material, its diversification of performance But being scared of someone calling a work "cringe" and embarrassing is causing so much stiltedness. Theater, TV movies, I've even seen it in books printed in the last few years too
Yeah I agree! I seen the 98 version of Cabret on RUclips and some people in the comment section were complaining about Sally not being a good singer when she supposed to be a bad singer and when singers waver their voices to show emotion singing the song. Singing is not supposed to be always pretty and that’s okay.
@@lindakahler4799 So, tiny little Joel Grey in makeup WAS menacing? LOL. The Emcee IS ridiculous... That's what makes it scary at the end of the show. Don't be so precious with performances - Everyone brings something different to EVERY production. Peace.
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the fact that he is almost constantly depicted as a clown throughout this production. Especially since the clown character European theatre to me, goes perfectly hand in hand with the emcee in cabaret, the downtrodden but optimistic character that we as an audience laugh at, sometimes fear, and relate and root for. Particularly within Shakespeare's plays the clown/fool also tends to be the most intelligent character, being the only one who gets to have these moment of blunt truth, as they're the only ones who can get away with saying what they think.
As someone who grew up with just the movie version of Cabaret on TV, the Emcee was *always* a deeply disturbing character to me. Alan Cumming, if anything, played the character with a lot more endearing puckish humanity than was originally shown, where the original Emcee was more of a clear amalgamation and device than a *person*. I think that Redmayne's interpretation is just the right amount of unsettling and big, in a show where every performance on the part of the performers is huge - especially in the relatively small space of the interactively sized theater. They're all a creepy puppet show, including Sally a lot of the time, and that's the point.
FYI, for anyone who wants an additional deep dive into the historical background and role of the Emcee, Matt Baume has a fantastic video out, Cabaret and the Seductive Power of Evil.
I'm super sad that it's been getting so much backlash, I saw the actual production in nyc, and I loved it. He did a fantastic job, and it makes me so sad to see that people are hating on him.
I've only seen clips of the new show, but I experienced Alan Cumming's entire live performance, which was both revelatory and innovative. Thus, while the new version may appear slick and superficial to me, I acknowledge that my comparison might not be entirely fair.
A friend and I saw it on the Friday before the Tony Awards and we both thought he was brilliant. I think some of these people don't really know how deeply disturbing the show is meant to be, socially, politically, everything. The Emcee is not so much a person as he is a window into all the disturbing issues presented in the show.
To me, the Emcee in Frecknall's Cabaret is like a trickster god who is always lurking, always watching. He's not a man but an omniscient being who doesn't care about anything except for power and control. His costumes do a really good job of representing this! As he sees the tides turn in favor of the Nazi regime, he realizes that the skin he had on at the beginning allowed him to control the Kit Kat Club performers, and even Cliff at times wouldn't cut it anymore. He then begins a transformation, starting with Tomorrow belongs to me, to become the Aryan ideal. And it works!! In the end, he can blend in with the book scenes in the same way he could blend in with the Kit Kat Club performers at the beginning of the show. I think he represents how most of the people in power nowadays have the privilege of being able to be a political chameleon or being able to change themselves to hold as much power as possible. This is a huge detour from previous versions of the emcee where he was the victim of the nazi regime. But I think that this version speaks much clearer to our current political climate. It warns its audience to second guess the charismatic leaders who hold power in our world, because as we have seen across the globe it is not our well-being that they have in mind, but their own profit and control.
10 seconds ago is a RECORD for me! 😅 I loved Eddie's performance already, but someone here on RUclips described his performance as both the puppet master and the puppet which I think is just SO amazing
@@ffd214 yeah i am not sitting through a 44 minutes video listening a guy who annoys me talking, but i have watched video of alan cumming's performance, so i do not understand how you could possible say he is not a victim. unless alan cumming was completely off base, in which case i do not think he would have gotten so much praise.
@@claddagh1826 You are supremely dumb and might be an indicator of why the revival was received this way. Alan Cumming offered one interpretation. Joel Grey originally described him as Hitler. He's not a victim in this produdction. Clearly you understand nothing about art or revivals.
@@claddagh1826truly iconic of you to come into comment sections of videos you don’t even watch to display profound lack of understanding of all the elements involved (this performance, the material of the musical and the nature of a production as interpretation just generally) 😂
There is an essential piece of Joel Grey's performance that your are missing: Joel Grey is Jewish. Like really, undeniably, stereotypically, fundamentally Jewish. They didn't need to show him in striped pajamas at the end of the show because this fact was such an essential part of who he is as an actor and performer. He is very sinister, but also, this aspect of his identity looms over his performance. It is very clear what is going to happen to him, even if it is never made explicit. Eddie Redmayne is quite Aryan, and thus, more suitable as a stand in symbol for Berlin.
@@nekusakura6748 I remember liking it. I think there are many legitimate ways to play the part. I just wanted to point out something that was missing from Mickey Jo's (generally excellent) analysis.
@@nekusakura6748i’m pretty sure his concentration pjs at the end has a pink triangle on it, I thought that if he wasn’t Jewish he was probably gay and was a representation of the crazy gay club culture that thrived in Berlin before WWII
I never knew he was Jewish, I have just asked 20 people who also didn’t know , that fact tends to rubbish your point. They all described him as creepy and memorable. Are you calling Jewish people creepy and memorable ?
THANK YOU for doing this video! I loved Eddie’s performance~ I’m so impressed with his passion and ability to turn himself into this character each night. I saw the show on the 14th, so right before the Tony’s. So glad I ignored the noise and trusted what I wanted to see. Just getting started on this video so I may have more to say… lol
I recently saw this production and LOVED it! I genuinely do not understand what critics and haters are so worked up about. Redmayne's Emcee made me think of a meddling shape shifting fey creature. He wasn't so much a human character as a living allegory for the changing world of berlin in the 1930s. Also his costume in "Money" was one of the scariest things i've ever seen on stage. Terrifying.
Stealing a comment from @theoryfruit from the You tube finale of Cumming's emcee "The yellow star symbolized Jewish people, the pink triangle symbolized homosexuals, and the red star symbolized political prisoners/dissenters." He wore all three
I saw the Mendes production at Studio 54 but didn't catch Cumming in the role (although the guy I saw was very good) and I clicked the yellow star and pink triangle but not the red star.
So here's my two cents: I'm currently living in Mexico City, where is currently an originally directed production of CABARET, meaning that this production is not nor aims to be a replica of any particular production. The titular EMCEE in this production is a cisgender actress named Irene Arzuela. Obviously this casting choice was the talk of the mexican thespians and Cabaret lovers when it was announced a few months ago. The reaction was similar to some of what's happening on twitter, as some people were complaining that she was "appropiating" a classicaly queer role. First of all, I don't know if she would identify as queer or not, but also it's not the first time she has played a character out of usual profile (2 years ago she played Hamlet in a production, while leaving the text basically intact), so I wondered but had hoped she could bring something new and exciting to the part. And I'm glad to say she did, I saw the production and was glad to see her leaning (maybe not as much as Eddie) on the corporality, quirkness and fluidity on the character. Her choices are also puppet like, and I would say even more muppet like at times. And though her phisicality certainly stands out there amongst everybody else, the caricature is often questioned. The audience may wonder if she's putting on the character or if such a character could have possibly existed. It's a very fine balance that intrigues and keeps you excited everytime she comes out on stage. I personally enjoyed her a lot, but was a bit dissapointed on the second act because they use "I don't care much" as the soundtrack for other characters moments, instead of letting her explore th vulnerability and the humanity of a character whose humanity you doubt from the beginning. This long explanation drives me to think about the flexibility of the role beyong basically any of the types we've had. I think that's what makes it so interesting and appealing, specially as an actor.
Both Eddie and Rebecca Frecknall have talked about how performance through movement is so important to them. All of Rebecca's productions have had movement work, and she cites Hofesh Shechter and Pina Bausch constantly. Eddie is the only actor from one of her productions who has committed to it in this manner. I don't understand why naturalism is so demanded in acting when it's never the case for other arts. So many countries have traditional theatre practices that are all about eschewing naturalism, Japan and India just being two examples off the top of my head. And Weimar Germany was also leaning into Expressionism in acting and dance, or in Dada practices.
@@Wavinglighternot necessarily. Abstraction allows the expression to take on more fluid meanings and relate to more people. I can connect to a painting that's not naturalistic because of what meanings my own experiences allow the shapes to take on
what i dont understand is when we went from getting excited to see new takes on old rolls to expecting everyone to perform it like that last person did to a tee or they’re untalented/“ruined it”.
I stumbled across Eddie’s Tony performance while scrolling and watched it with zero context and I was so intrigued by his strange voice and puppet movements that I took a deep dive into what Cabaret was about and it reignited my long lost love for musicals and theater. For that I am eternally grateful to Eddie’s art and talent ❤
Saw Eddie's performance in person this weekend. Was mesmerized and thought he was the standout in a revival that didn't wow me much otherwise. His movements, his audience banter, whew! His opening number that comes out of the darkness??? So good (despite the dumb orchestra member who kept their phone on for a few secs, ruining the atmosphere.)
I’m a massive Cabaret fan. So much so, I fought to direct scenes from I Am A Camera for my directing classes in college. I’ve seen the show performed 6 times, 3 different iterations (original, post movie version that made some edits and includes “Maybe This Time”, and the Sam Mendes revival) and would kill to see this interpretation. I was very excited to hear about Eddie Redmaynes casting as the Emcee and was even more interested after the small taste we got at the Tony’s. I was shocked to hear how divisive this performance was. Thank you for doing this thorough breakdown. Also, WHERE did you get those pillows?!??
The best take I've seen was something along the lines of "The people who were creeped out by this probably thought of cabaret as the fun, sexy show, and they were probably actually thinking of chicago or moulin rouge."
Honestly, the resistance of the Americans is kind of troubling even. Some of them are so fixated on the party hat, it's absurd. Like, see the show if you want to know (even then, all productions have the New Year's eve setting? )
I personally felt that the Tony performance’s only issue was the same issue I’ve noticed with other filmed musical performances in recent years; the performer is still playing to the mezzanine while the cameraman is right up in their nostrils. It’s always off-putting and considering that this performance is already meant to be off-putting it’s just that much worse. I don’t know that Eddie should have done any differently though considering he was still on a large stage in a large theater with a large audience even with the camera Right There.
I watched a clip of Eddie Redmayne on Jimmy Fallon in which Redmayne at one point described the Emcee as an 'abstraction' and this completely explains what he's going for in his performance.
All the debate has been absolutely insane and overwhelming. i saw this production on April, and just personally, i made the comment on your other video. it was an absolute dream come true- And i just want to say that in an ocean of melodramatic takes and opinions, your video was very cathartic and refreshing. I really appreciate you and i know you know a lot about this production since 2021 so i just love hearing from someone that has really seen plenty to have an opinion formed on. And on the positive side, something i really really loved is that some people saw the Tony's performance and i read someone that tweeted " I have never seen Cabaret in my life, but now im curious and im going to look for the movie" and im like, YES! it is good that people are wanting to know about the story, specially being a cautionary tale about facism. So , hey if it brings more people into it, it did something right.👍
The Emcee is inherently creepy. Joel Grey's interpretation is pretty damn creepy. Alan Cumming's seems to be more sexually creepy -- not a production I've seen live, clips on RUclips. My impression based on reviews and your videos, is that this production is more Brechtian in some ways, which is appropriate to what was going on in German theater at the time. All three hit deep, though in different ways in context.
I saw Cabaret only once in Italy and the emcee was different from all those 3. It was a yet another kind of creepy. I don't know hot to describe it, but it was more a carnival entertainer/comedian, scary at times. It worked perfectly well for the Italian audience because it's a figure we understand. I'm sure it would never work as well in UK or Broadway. And I'm sure that in Brazil or in the Philippines or Sweden they all adapt the show in different ways. Most people focus on a specific way to portrait something that they consider 'the right way' and miss the point of what is the theatre.
@@LadyGagadriel Since I worked in a U.S. Commedia dell'Arte troupe for awhile, would you say the Emcee was more like Brighella or more of an Arlecchino or Zanni? Just curiosity on my part.
Personally, I was deeply put off by the Eddie Redmayne’s performance and GREATLY ENJOYED IT for that reason. I love Cabaret, and while his take was very different, I enjoyed it for what it was.
And people have so divorced the story from history, both in terms of the socio-political environment and the performance and art. I had someone argue with me that Cliff wouldn't be drawn to Berlin if he knows about the Nazis already or that Sally would not hold any hopes and I had to scream. Hitler had already had a big coup attempt. Cliff is reading Mein Kampf already. The economy is in the toilet and people are suffering a form of national humiiliation following the war. Berlin wasn't all that charmed anwyays, and the most well known artists made dark macabre art about it that the Nazis censored or burned. Even in performance, the kind of expressionist dancing that Eddie was classified as degenerate and banned. Julia Cheng actually mentioned some of those choreographers.
People love to dunk on that performance primarily because they love to dunk on Redmayne tbh. Coupled with the fact that most of the hot-takes are surely from people who haven't seen Cabaret in any way, shape or form (and I'd bet, wouldn't even want to see it), you get this nonsense. I think he did a FANTASTIC job, I was floored by his performance
I haven't seen this version of the show, but I didn't have any issues with the Tony performance and I'm a fan in general of Redmayne. The two Mendes revivals with Alan Cumming though were unbelievable, and the more recent one wasn't that long ago and remains very much in people's consciousness, at least in the states. I was fortunate enough to see the second Mendes revival. I'm open to different people performing a role, of course, but Cumming's performance (and that ending) were so impactful and, at least for me, really tough to top. I still remember sobbing at the end of the show. I think Cumming might be to this role as Streisand is to Fanny Brice? Cumming didn't originate it like Grey but he fleshed out the role and really made it his own. And some people will have a tough time seeing someone else in that role. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I do think it's a reality. I would love to see this revival, it's been really interesting reading comments by people who have seen it!
I like the comparison to Barbara as Fanny I agree with that a lot. I think it’s just a case of people getting attached to one actor in a role/one version of a production which is difficult with live theatre 🤷🏻
Totally agree. Americans hold Alan and Joel very dear, and I believe they miss the Emcee as the touchstone for them, emotionally. Which, as MJ points out, is perhaps a limiting way to experience theatre.
When I was in college I played a character who was more concept than person, much like the Emcee. There are so many different choices an actor can make in a role like that. Physicality, voice, playing extreme actions, etc. It’s disappointing to see such reactionary criticism in response to non-realistic choices. I would LOVE to see more actors making more extreme choices in roles like these. Our culture has been setting realism as the highest possible standard for many art mediums for far too long. Embracing the absurd is so freeing.
I watched the Tony’s but skipped over the Cabaret performance because I knew I was about to see it and didn’t want to even have a preview. (I have it saved on DVR to watch when I get home tonight). Saw it on Broadway yesterday and it was amazing. And Eddie Redmayne was unbelievably creepy and marvelous. The show is quite an “experience”!!!
I like to go into performances blind. I saw Alan 2x on his second run, and I've seen the Liza/Fosse/Joel film. I did know there was an immersive pre-show element, and that we were going to see Eddie & Gayle. I absolutely loved it just as much as, if not more than, previous productions. Alan's emcee will always hold a special place in my heart! And that production moved me to sobbing both times. But I found the overall design, characterizations, etc of this one much more interesting and intellectually stimulating. This review/recap was both very cathartic and enlightening!!! One thing I was kind of obsessed with that I did not hear you or the other reviewers really get into: both the choreo and the costuming for the entire ensemble was very rooted in clowning. I think there's always been a touch of clowning, as well as grittiness, a threatening quality to other performances...but the Fosse choreo and traditional costuming leaned into the traditional sexiness of it all. The gender swapping, the modern living, the queerness. All black and flesh toned wardrobe pieces. This production had brighter colors, alternating with muddy colors. It felt much more androgenous, kink forward, brash, and rooted. Barefoot and work boots instead of character shoes. Grounded, human bodies living grounded, human lives. Even some of the props. All with this delicious grotesque edge. Gayle's performance was also much more brash and masc than previous performances. I thought it was a fabulous choice. I would LIVE to see an androgenous AFAB emcee, or a trans Sally...I felt very inspired by this staging. I really liked what the London reviews said about this emcee embodying Berlin-that really hits for me.
Out of all clips I've seen, Eddie Redmayne is the one I would want to see the most. He's so unique, although a few others also looked very good, he's my top pick.
Hello! Relatively new cabaret fan here. I watched the Alan Cumming 1993 revival on film recently, and I suppose I’ve got a few things to say (fair warning, I may just be yapping and rephrasing things, so apologies!) All of what I refer to will most likely be in reference to the 1993 revival, just fyi- it’s all just my opinion. No hate to anyone who thinks differently! The Emcee, to me at least, starts off like a neutral narrator. His life exists solely through the Kit Kat club, and he is shown as this vulgar, erotic, cheeky, charming figure who puts on these marvelous acts, and has the audience in a whirlwind of feels. His character is a caricature of who this “Emcee” actually is. As you said, we know nothing about him outside of the Kit Kat Club. As the show progresses into the second act, we notice a change. The Cabaret Girls switch from their old, unique personalities, into matching girls including outfits, and hair. The songs at the Kit Kat club turn from silly little jabs at politics and sexuality, to focus more on what the people want to see. As mentioned- The Emcee’s caricature revolves around the club. So as the audience changes (and grows more fond of nazism and facism) the shows lean towards shedding light on interracial relationships between Jews and non Jews in “If you could See her” (as well as mocks Jewish women by having this person dressed in a gorilla suit) along with “Money” which not only plays off the Great Depression, but the anti-Semitic idea that Jewish people are money chasers. (And that they’re the people with all the money.) We eventually get to “I don’t care much,” which is where we end up getting what may be a potential glimpse at Emcee’s wants. “Lips grow cold With the rent to meet” references the fact that he might want love, but because of the Great Depression, as well as the fact he wants to keep the club running, he simply doesn’t have the time. (It also could play off the fact that Emcee has to change the way his show runs to fit Nazi Propaganda; and therefore, keep food on the table.) His character is a caricature. A Narrator of the story, but not in a reliable, or easily plausible way. The Kit Kat Club, as is everything else in Cabaret, highlight the true problems in Berlin through showy, risqué songs, and fun dance numbers. “ Leave your troubles outside! So, Life is disappointing? Forget it! We have no Troubles here! “ The Emcee boasts this at the start during Willkommen, asking the audience to cast their worries aside. But by the end, as Nazi power grows, his show is no longer his. Whether he is in favor of these changes, as well as political problems, is unknown for the most part. (In this specific show, it’s most likely implied that he isn’t in favor, judging by the fact he wears a Star of David in the end.) Alan Cumming is an amazing actor, there is no doubt about it, but to base an up-to-interpretation thing off of one specific, well known performance, is a little bit absurd. Each Emcee is unique, and represents the ideas of both the director, and actor. Headcanons and opinions are wonderful, but there is a line where “friendly discussions and opinions” becomes “this one specific portrayal is the one I know, which means this new one has to be the same. Anyways! Thank you for your time, (if you read all this, that is!)
I hadn’t heard any of the drama, and I’ve only seen cabaret once when I was DEFINITELY too young to be seeing it, but I did recently watch Matt baume’s video on it and it was very interesting. I was too young to grasp the themes when I was watching it the first time, but based on Matt’s description of it I had come to a similar conclusion that the emcee was supposed to be like a metaphor for the attitude of the people as a whole rather than just one guy.
“There is a difference between an opinion which is informed and an opinion which is not (and I don’t mean “educated” and I don’t meant that you’re only allowed to talk about this if you’ve seen the show).” YES. Well-said.
Just finished watching… fantastic video Mickey Jo! Well said! Appreciate you putting these thoughts together. I appreciate what Eddie Redmayne (and Rebecca) have done with this character. The production is pretty amazing in my opinion. I feel really lucky I was able to see this show.
Appreciate you taking the time to make this video! 👏🏻 (Side note: Please do a review of Layton and Rhea - I’m seeing them in September and am curious!)
Great video, thank you for discussing this. I didn't get to see Eddie in the role but have always really enjoyed his vocal performance through the cast recording. I loved Mason's performance when I saw them last summer and am very much looking forward to seeing Layton when I go again next month. I appreciate a range of interpretations in this role and find many varied takes to be interesting, exciting and valid. Regarding whether the Emcee should be specifically played as queer or not...my interpretation of the Emcee has always been that his role/his vignettes are meant to hold up a warped magic mirror to the real world characters - the Gorilla number reflecting the Schlutz and Schneider relationship, I Don't Care Much reflecting Sally's political apathy, and Two Ladies reflecting Cliff's sexual awakening upon coming to Berlin. For me the strongest mirroring is between the Emcee and Cliff as narratively speaking I feel Cliff is positioned as the protagonist more so than Sally; the newcomer experiencing Berlin for the first time. Also Cliff is the only character in the show that ever references the "Master of Ceremonies", so it is possible to think of the Emcee as Cliff's imaginary friend/his spirit guide/a dreamlike through-the-looking-glass being existing only to Cliff. And as Cliff is an explicitly bisexual character, it feels appropriate to me that the Emcee reflects Cliff's queerness, especially if the Emcee is more flamboyantly queer than Cliff would dare to be himself. I think in the Frecknall production you can see the Emcee's slow transformation into an emblem of Nazism as being almost like Cliff's prophetic vision of what he might become if he were to stay in Berlin. I've personally always liked the choice in this revival to have Cliff played by a black actor because (while some might quibble over historical accuracy) it feels very fitting that an African American outsider would be the one who is more awake to the fascist and racist oppression taking over Berlin than many of the white European characters who are sleepwalking into this horrifying societal shift. Given the mirroring that I see between their characters, I am really interested in seeing the latest London cast with Cliff and the Emcee both being played by black actors. Would love to hear your take on the new cast as your Cabaret videos are always very thoughtful and insightful.
The song 'Two Ladies' is meant to be poking fun at the practice of high-ranking members of the Nazi Party havng two female lovers in order to spread their "superior genes" as quickly as possible to build their "master race". There's a line in the song, "you on the left and you on the right and me in the middle..." (a political reference). Maybe it was changed for this revival to be about someone's sexual awakenking, i don't know.
Thank you for doing my video request (though you probably didn't see my comment asking) I had said the whole discourse made me plan to go see it. I can update that I got my ticket!Though in the West End as I'm in Ireland. So excited! 🥳 Ps. Thank you for wearing a party hat, I appreciate the effort. And now I want one too of course.
Such a great video, thank you! So I haven't actually been following The Discourse on this but I did see Eddie and thought he was fantastic. I thought he was completely mesmorising as a physical presence and liked how he was an embodiment of the political situation. One thing I've been wondering: how much of the reaction is because they gave him a super closeup? He basically performed the start directly to the camera. Like you said, it is A Performance and being that close to him probably didn't help the creep factor for those unfamiliar with it. This might be a great example of the difference between a film performance and a stage performance and how they don't necessarily land well interchangeably.
So glad you made this video! I've been getting so frustrated at all the "creepy" comments. People are also constantly saying he's not sexy enough... he's literally not meant to be sexy, that was how Alan Cummings played the role but that's not an intrinsic part of the emcee's character in a general sense 😭 the man more or less represents natzi supremism in this production
It’s interesting the gate keeping for the emcee character and while I adore the way Alan played the role, I think eddie’s interpretation is also fine and works for the production. I think it’s funny that in that same production, Jane Horrocks who plays sally in the mendes production plays her off kilter and not the glamorous character we see her as, but no one has opinions on that because she’s not the quintessential portrayal.
Having watched a handful of clips of the various (famous) interpretations, I wonder if the issue of the backlash to the clip could be partially attributed to how it is filmed The first mid-shot framing with Eddie staring directly into the lens would work well with a more traditional interpretation, but I think the physically of Eddie’s interpretation feels kind of stunted and compressed I feel like it should have been pulled back a bit more, perhaps on an arty-er kind of angle (extreme low or high) to emphasise the playful abstraction of what he’s doing The whole short clip just feels far too claustrophobic for the content it’s capturing - a better choice would be start as mentioned above, and slowly pan up to a slightly higher mid-wide, before pulling back out dramatically to a front/centre wide when the girls’ encircle him I feel like the camera movement is working against everything the cast and choreography are giving
There is a more general tendency for New York reviewers to dislike productions that have garnered significant praise, and awards, in London. This is across both plays, such as The Inheritance, and musicals. Even when a production that has worked in London is praised in New York, such as Merrily, it has to distance itself from the London production (and certainly not contain the same casts/leads), ideally working through off-broadway first. New York reviewers do not welcome a cold opening on Broadway, without out of town or off-Broadway before transfer.
The last Cabaret Interpretation that I saw (in Germany) was a very queer interpretation. like VERY queer. In "Willkommen" the "Ladys.. and gentlemen" changed to "Ladys, Gentleman and everyone in and out of the binary" - really joyful. They changed the "If you could see her through my eyes" into a scene, where they (emcee, and so on) were forced to perform the song by an nazi-soldier/SS, but they protested. The Orchestra didn't play beautifully (but probably still was beautiful :)), the actors weren't even dressed right, while being forced to put on the clothing and keep on performing by that soldier. They sang parts of it - but ended it with "If you could see her through my eyes, you would think she's beautiful too", than storming off the stage "giving up the emcee role". that resistance and feeling of anger, sadness and hopelessness could have been the spirit of the "queer" people of berlin. Their books were burning, their identity erased, there loved ones and themselves were sent into concentration camps. All that, right while/after a time, were the potential of queer acceptance was coming. Were some academics started to question the binary gender and so on. The ones that had to flee, stop performing, didn't want or could confirm to the nazi-regime, that was part of the Berlin essence too. Even though they couldn't win. The last scene: it ended with the emcee in striped clothing - sent to an "Arbeitslager"/concentration camp. I cannot forget it. My favorite interpretation yet, but I love Joel Greys and Alan Cummings too. It's just different. Cabaret can and should have different interpretations, as long as the heaviness of the topic still comes through as shockingly, heartbreakingly and heavily - with the message towards the viewer, the representation of "outsiders", "failed artists", the people who had to endure so much pain (through society and the nazi-ideology). The warning of what could happen again, the prompt to reflect on ourselves and the political situation around us - it should not be ignored or it will eventually be too late. I think that the Tony awards-video is a bit strange (AND WHY SHOULDNT IT BE?). But it could have been the camera movements too?? - and I haven't seen more yet, so I will keep an open mind and wait until I saw it. I LOOVE the outfits though - and I am still excited about it. It's art, it's music, it's political, it's beautiful and ugly. comforting, funny, creepy and horrifying. and open to interpretation. Also, if you have been to Berlin once, nothing will be strange or weird to you anymore (lol) - so keep that open mind, but also speak your opinion of course.
This was my first chance to see one of your reviews and I think youd analysis was brilliant. Many critics of the arts give us "hot takes", you concisely gave us history and perspective. Bravo,,
Excuse me, this style evolution continues to give me life! As someone who took your inspiration and is now teaching drama and performing in Medea thank you for your work. Also if anyone is interested I’d sell my left ovary to see Cabaret in NYC… it’s the bad one anyway
Regarding your comments on the 'shift' of the MC at the end, Joel Grey originated the MC role when I was 12. I never saw that on stage, but I became obsessed with the Fossi film (yes, I'm aware of the many differences). Grey appears in one of the final shots as a reflection in a funhouse mirror. He seems to be the personification of a demon, perhaps Loki, the god of mischief, trickery, and deception in Norse mythology.
Out of all of the characters, the Emcee is one of the most versatile. He doesn't have specific character traits like most of the others. Meaning, his performance as an Emcee could be just that, a performance! Who knows what goes on behind the scenes with his psyche/personality/etc. Then think of the history of the era and someone in his position and you have amazing material to make the character your own.
absolutely convinced by his performance. it was surealism and german flamboyance of the time. people who criticise the tony video are idiots and don't understand the material.
Cabaret was one of my dad's favorite movies/musicals. He would have loved this revival. Everytime we watched the movie, he'd go in depth about how the Emcee wasn't human, but the embodiment of narcissism, because that is at the core of Nazism. Everyone who isn't me is less than me, and I will remove every perceived barrier in my way. I was 10 years old for that talk.
It's the first time I've ever wanted to see it. I love Baz Luhrmann's style of Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet, the style of the Cabaret revival reminded me of that so it made me extremely interested in it. I think the idea is to bring in a new audience. I've been going to the theatre since I was a child and I feel like a huge proportion of the criticism came from people who didn't necessarily grow up going to one and are not particularly interested in it now. I also think a lot of them forget they're not supposed to see it as close up as the cameras were. Of course it seems exaggerated when filmed but everything is meant to be big enough to be able to reach the back row of a theatre.
A lot of what you've said in this video takes me back to Michael Crawford and director Harold Prince setting up "Phantom of the Opera". I don't have the money for attending musical performances and I'm in Seattle anyway, but I do appreciate the theater. I've seen some road shows over the years, have watched film versions, and caught videos of stage performances. Most acting I've watched are presented in cinema, and even there you find remakes that present fresh interpretations that may or may not work. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar. I've caught some highlights off Crawford and Prince's POTO, and Crawford is stunning in the role. His "Music of the Night" gives me chills. It pushed me to research how he got this role, how the musical came to be, and it was illuminating. There are interviews with Crawford where he speaks of his passion for the role, how he was determined to get the role, even though it was nothing like the silly comedy stuff he had done previously. He had such respect for the role that he immersed himself in the character once the makeup was on; he was a different person and never played it for laughs. There were videos of Harold Prince's direction as they set up the blocking and the motivations. Prince telling Crawford and Sarah Brightman how they had to play their interactions more 'erotically', a quality that was noticeable in every depiction I had viewed. In Crawford's case, he took all that direction and his own instinct to form a character that was human and palpable and in pain. He even had wardrobe shorten his sleeve, so his hands and wrists added to the image. Crawford's Phantom dominated every scene and could be read and understood in or out of context. The only confusion was whether the Phantom, usually interpreted as villain, was actually the musical's true hero. There are hints of that in choosing tenors to play the role (tenors are usually the hero in opera), but the question is never posed as to who the hero is. Yet most theater goers lean to the Phantom being the hero; that's more the choices of the director and the actor playing that role. Since Crawford's departure, different actors in different countries have given their interpretations, but I would say Crawford's portrayal is the most complex, the most heart-stoppingly confusing. Crawford's Phantom breaks, and you feel it. He is the master up until that point, but he unexpectedly hits an emotional wall he never anticipated. No other portrayal by others accomplishes that; the others reveal a weakness that Crawford's never did. Crawford is not a strong singer; he had decided to develop his voice in more operatic ways before ever hearing about the musical, and you can hear him reaching to make the notes as he plays this role. But that crescendo in "Music of the Night" is so emotive and powerful, you hold your breath without realizing it as he bellows out; the minor imperfections elsewhere just add to the power of this moment. There is magic in someone taking on a role they were destined to play. You see that in Joel Gray's Emcee. You see that in Alan Cumming's Emcee (and I have to say Cumming wearing a Star of David and a Pink Triangle is a nod both to Cumming's gayness and Gray's Jewishness). I appreciate an actor's process and choices blended with a director's concept and leadership in creating something new in a work that has been stretched into different visions. I haven't seen Eddie Redmayne's Emcee, but you are describing almost a different play. Cumming played the same Emcee, but just a bit more twisted, a bit darker, a bit closer or too close. Gray's Emcee was distant enough that you could fool yourself and think you're seeing a human being. Cumming's Emcee is too close for comfort and there's no mistaking a missing humanity; he's more feral. Still, the context is still the same: a rendition of Berlin's KitKat Club over there the other side of the footlights in a theater. But Redmayne is doing theater-in-the-round with an immersed audience. It's something entirely different when you're interacting with the actors on THEIR turf. You can't convey that experience from a stage; it will absolutely be rendered out of context, no matter what song is featured. You did a great job pulling together everything to describe the indescribable. So, how is it these theater 'professionals' don't grasp this subtly? I've been a connoisseur of cinema for many decades, and I have been shocked at the thickheadedness of critics. They too often have no idea what they're talking about... Thank you for presenting some balance. Oh, how I wish I could see this musical with Redmayne in it.
i was totally confused by the tonys discourse as well. i haven't seen his performance at all, but i have seen plenty of promo photos from his performances both on the west end and broadway. so when i saw videos of him on the tonys, i was like, yeah...that's eddie from cabaret. i'm not really sure what people were expecting.
I know very littleabput this show, so I went and watched what clips I could find online. All the MCs seemed to have very heightened performaces to my eyes- reminding me of clowns, court jesters, puppets or clockwork.
I watched the Tony performance on youtube and I enjoyed his take. As a theatre goer, I have seen the same show performed by different performers many times. I saw Anastasia on Broadway with the OG cast and I’ve seen the traveling show. Yes, you can end up comparing the actors, but this changing of actors and staging is what makes theater different from watching a movie again and again. Each performance of a show is different, even from day to day. That is one of the things that makes theater so exciting.
The issue, I think, with the critics in the US is due to the Disney-fication of Broadway. That has become what "theater is" instead of just another type. That's why the critics focused on costumes, sets, etc. In summary, US critics are rubbish. Anyway, that's my hypothesis.
We saw Cabaret in London with Mason Alexander Park as Emcee and Emily Benjamin (understudy to Maude Apatow) as Sally Bowles. Spectacular. Loved their interpretation and physicality. Very very different to Redmayne’s performance. Darker, more seductive, more threatening. I love how this production finds different nuances from each actor folded into each interpretation of Emcee fused with the director’s vision. Incidentally, what a treat to see Emily Benjamin, we were really lucky to see Emily playing Sally on the night we attended. She should have been lead throughout the run.
I loved the review and your thoughts on this divisive topic. I am in the "Hated it" camp. I appreciate your deep dive and agree with everything you said. The history of the show, the book the film aside I had a very negative response to the Redmayne Emcee. I know the characters are meant to represent factions of the political climate and the individuals effected, but i hate being beaten over the head with someone's "Vision". This show is great enough that not even a gifted director can hurt it but this one sure gave it a go.
I remember the very first time I watched Cabaret was a VHS tape of Sam Mendes 90's play with Alan Cumming and then years later I watched the film with Joel Gray. As I watched the film I remember thinking sometimes "why is the character different?"... Obviously, there is no "different". Is an interpretation. That's what people forget and it's so important the point that you made at the end of the video; we need to start to understand that a performance is a collective effort rather than a simple "character" chocie. So many people is behind the curtain working so hard, sometimes underpaid, to make a production happen and most if not all the times when a performance is brilliant is the actor that is praised (or the opposite 😬) but very rarely people will judge a performance taking in consideration that there's more behind it that the intentionality of the actor, as you say the context within the context.
It's hard to move past the performers who have come before. When I think of the emcee, I still see Allan Cumming performing Wilkommen at the Tony's (and obviously that was ages ago).
When i saw Cabaret at West End live a couple of years ago, i didnt bloody get it, at all, thought it looked sh and not my bag, lost interest entirely. Then, i was lucky enough to be gifted tickets for the Cabaret tables to see it properly. This has now become my favourite show, and general London experience activity, of all times. I cannot describe my flip in attitude between seeing one short snippet performance out of context vs seeing the actual thing, i cant believe i ever passed negative judgement. I now rewatch the west end live set i saw in disbelief that i didnt appreciate it the first time. If you have ANY negative ideas on the show be it the costumes, choreo, vocal performance, Emcee, etc (like i did), respectfully, go and see it. I beg.
In all fairness to you also, the show has struggled to represent itself well at West End Live, and is not particularly well suited to that format and stage.
I know I’m veering off a bit but I was wondering if Eddie’s make up being different in previous products was possibly because they were trying to make the most out of his facial expressions? The make up seems to contour his face in a way that enhances his expressions and makes them even more haunting.
What you're saying about the Emcee's characterisation is exactly what I got from it (I saw Luke Treadaway), I probably missed out by not seeing Eddie Redmayne's performance. I think the Emcee is supposed to be a symbol for something but it changes from production to production. Even though Alan Cumming's Emcee (I watched a bootleg) is more relatable/person-like, it came across as a symbol for the victims of Nazism.
I love that Mickey says, "there's so much to unpack here, I've got a 44 minute video about it but I could go on," and then says, "leave your thoughts in the comments!" I'm not a RUclipsr, but I'm wondering if I should refresh my info on this musical, get on my silly little webcam with my work laptop's video editing software, and throw an hour-long hot take into the void.
Excellent and nuanced video. As someone less plugged in to social media discourse, I wonder if you could include some specific social media examples/clips in the future when you talk about reception. I kept waiting to hear the specific takes but I feel like I got the critics pov and it was assumed that I already knew the public perception
i was surprised by people's reactions to the swastika hand thing. that's how i always interpreted alan cumming's movements in the role and thought eddie was just bringing it back.
I thought it was ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS. I found it stunning and not creepy but I’m a little weirdo. I can see how people would think that but that’s what this revival of cabaret is supposed to be (and I think the show at it’s core)
As someone who's never going to see this production ($$$), I'm interested in seeing a different video Redmayne performing. What didn't work for me the most with his Tony performance is that I didn't find the Emcee particularly charismatic or enticing. Which isn't necessarily inherent in this production because I've seen some videos of West End Emcees performing Wilkommen and didn't have this problem. So whether there was something in how the Tonys were filmed or how Redmayne performed that day, I'd give him another chance to win me over.
i've not seen any stage productions but I think that nowdays people see someone being over commited or more animated and not strictly "pretty" that makes them go "cringe" which makes me very sad. that's what so great about theater and movies they're ability to make you feel something. also eddie redmayne has long been made fun of for his slightly "kermit like" voice and i don't know if it's more people in the us but i've seen people from there call him overated all in all and I'm really shocked at that. (i think maybe people find it unsetling how good of shape shifter he is on screen and on stage while he's still "himself" and doesn't seem to have this deeply method like thing gong on if that makes sense. he's still awkward and quirky in his interviews. i find him very likeable in general) I've found the aesthetic of this revival soo interesting, I wish i could see it in person and furthermore his performance at the tony's for me, personally, made me even more invested in this performance.
Before i write this i just would like to say i completely respect the take and i understand i might be bias due to my love of eddie himself. Now then, i actually really enjoy his emcee and the bway production. It’s probably my favorite. It was the first production of cabaret ive ever seen that made me feel fear throughout the whole second act and ending. I loved Eddie’s take on the emcee which in my opinion can be described as: A thrilling performer who slowly succumbs to madness as they conform to what society is doing. My biggest point on why I believe this is due to his character break in ‘I Don’t Care Much’ when he became the emcee again for a second then right back to the cold personality of a N@z1 While I grew up on Alan’s emcee, his take nor the production scared me in the slightest bit. I really enjoyed his emcee don’t get me wrong…but I felt like Alan’s emcee is just a character who becomes depressed by society. Which to me not only is bland but also not potent enough to truly effect me or get the message of the plot across (again my personal feelings and opinions) In the Eddie version, the emcee and the rest of the kit kat club felt like my security blanket throughout the whole show so when in act two it was basically crumbling it genuinely gave me unease as I no longer had that security. Alan’s version made the kit kat club feel like a odd narrative or narration to me. Which again I may be alone on this, but I genuinely felt that. Again no hate intended just wished to share my take :)
The fact that you either love or hate what you’re seeing - actually IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF ART! Cabaret or any musical, play, art work. It’s SUBJECTIVE.
That is absolutely NOT the DEFINITION OF ART! ART is NOT SUBJECTIVE! There exists thousands of years of scholarship detailing very clear rules, criteria and interpretation. While some of those rules differ based on culture, there are many overlaps. No one says you can't like whatever you want, but you are entirely wrong about ART.
@@Truelib99Hobbeswhat a depressing opinion about art and what defines it. I’m sure by those standards very few things can be art
Honestly, I don't know what people found creepy about that performance. It's a new interpretation, and that's ok. This emcee is more seductive and cheeky. If you look at the whole thing, the emcee becomes a scary, dark monster later on, which sends chills down my spine. That's why people need to see it before making judgments like that.
"Honestly, I don't know what people found creepy about that performance."
Two seconds later: "If you look at the whole thing, the emcee becomes a scary, dark monster later on."
Soooooo are you acknowledging that it's creepy/scary or not? Because it's confusing try to figure out what you mean when you say "It's not a creepy performance" and then shortly after go, "The character turns into a scary monster"-- which is it?
If Redmayne was going for "creepy", "unnerving", "monsterous", I personally think he did a great job because he does a great job at selling his characterization where you feel unnerved and maybe not quite safe around this embodiment of a trickstery fae creature.
@@cannibalisticrequiemDylan here is referring to later in the whole show, not this specific performance. And yes, later on the Emcee grows into an entirely different monster and at the point in the show that was in the Tony Awards, the opening, he's arguably a charismatic and comedic character that dazzles the audience. At least, both of the times when I saw it on the west end were like this.
I think it may just need to be a slower burn (for my liking). That is not to say it is a bad interpretation at all or that Eddie has done anything wrong here. It's simply just a preference I have with the directing.
@@breebartkowiakova are you just being racist about this production everywhere? I saw you in the comments for the west end live performance too
Same.. Cabaret isn't supposed to be cheery.
What I loved most about Eddie's performance is how his movements were inspired by Egon Schiele drawings, which in themselves are very evocative and haunting.
That makes so much sense!
@@menaceinsane Redmayne's mannerisms, makeup and costuming also has strong references from the German Expressionist Films of the Weimar Era.
Oh!! That actually makes SO much sense! Thank you for contextualising this!! I still don’t quite like it- I just find it hard to watch- but I do respect it for the bold choices
Those inspirations are true of the original show. Kurt Weill and lotte Lenya are also indicated. The show is based on the "I am a camera ": stories by Christopher Isherwood. Still this newest version of Cabaret looks over staged, mannered and less successful than The Alan Cumming version or the original.
If I'd known of the Egon S. connection (he is my favorite) I'd have gone last month while in NYC. ARGH
i feel like nowadays there is such a preoccupation with everyone doing anything on screen or on stage HAS to be attractive...pretty crying, pretty screaming, pretty dying. I've seen the difference where in horror movies especially actors are not making "weird" enough faces because everything has to be able to look good. so anytime someone actually goes to weird places and does interesting/realistic things people are way to weirded out
And there's such a fear of "cringe" too, which causes a hesitantion to take chances, because taking a chance to be cringe in the moment but benefit the art for emotionality on the whole, yeah it might not work, but it's something, it's material, its diversification of performance
But being scared of someone calling a work "cringe" and embarrassing is causing so much stiltedness. Theater, TV movies, I've even seen it in books printed in the last few years too
Yeah I agree! I seen the 98 version of Cabret on RUclips and some people in the comment section were complaining about Sally not being a good singer when she supposed to be a bad singer and when singers waver their voices to show emotion singing the song. Singing is not supposed to be always pretty and that’s okay.
Thought Redmayne s performance looked foolish rather than menacing. And that party hat was ridiculous
Saw the original Cabaret with Joel Grey on Bwy in 66 or 67. Amazing and like nothing before
@@lindakahler4799 So, tiny little Joel Grey in makeup WAS menacing? LOL. The Emcee IS ridiculous... That's what makes it scary at the end of the show. Don't be so precious with performances - Everyone brings something different to EVERY production. Peace.
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the fact that he is almost constantly depicted as a clown throughout this production. Especially since the clown character European theatre to me, goes perfectly hand in hand with the emcee in cabaret, the downtrodden but optimistic character that we as an audience laugh at, sometimes fear, and relate and root for. Particularly within Shakespeare's plays the clown/fool also tends to be the most intelligent character, being the only one who gets to have these moment of blunt truth, as they're the only ones who can get away with saying what they think.
I suppose it's obvious in a way, but I'd never made the connection of the Emcee to a shakespearian fool. Interesting parallel
Many consider CABARET the first "concept" musical. I think Eddie brilliantly portrays a "concept" more than a "character"
As someone who grew up with just the movie version of Cabaret on TV, the Emcee was *always* a deeply disturbing character to me. Alan Cumming, if anything, played the character with a lot more endearing puckish humanity than was originally shown, where the original Emcee was more of a clear amalgamation and device than a *person*. I think that Redmayne's interpretation is just the right amount of unsettling and big, in a show where every performance on the part of the performers is huge - especially in the relatively small space of the interactively sized theater. They're all a creepy puppet show, including Sally a lot of the time, and that's the point.
FYI, for anyone who wants an additional deep dive into the historical background and role of the Emcee, Matt Baume has a fantastic video out, Cabaret and the Seductive Power of Evil.
This!!!
so many interesting stories from the making of the film! including Bob Fosse eating it on a backflip ruclips.net/video/cPpwXUZNbNs/видео.html
Yes!!! I came upon it entirely by accident and absolutely LOVED IT!
Watching it now. Thanks!!
I'm super sad that it's been getting so much backlash, I saw the actual production in nyc, and I loved it. He did a fantastic job, and it makes me so sad to see that people are hating on him.
I've only seen clips of the new show, but I experienced Alan Cumming's entire live performance, which was both revelatory and innovative. Thus, while the new version may appear slick and superficial to me, I acknowledge that my comparison might not be entirely fair.
@@wonderrob3225 Real!! some people just hate change lol
i feel like eddie also just gets backlash so often for multiple characters he plays, even when he plays them well
yeah same!!
I did defintely find Eddie creepy and that is what was so brilliant about it. I absolutely loved him. And yes, I saw it on Broadway
A friend and I saw it on the Friday before the Tony Awards and we both thought he was brilliant. I think some of these people don't really know how deeply disturbing the show is meant to be, socially, politically, everything. The Emcee is not so much a person as he is a window into all the disturbing issues presented in the show.
To me, the Emcee in Frecknall's Cabaret is like a trickster god who is always lurking, always watching. He's not a man but an omniscient being who doesn't care about anything except for power and control. His costumes do a really good job of representing this! As he sees the tides turn in favor of the Nazi regime, he realizes that the skin he had on at the beginning allowed him to control the Kit Kat Club performers, and even Cliff at times wouldn't cut it anymore. He then begins a transformation, starting with Tomorrow belongs to me, to become the Aryan ideal. And it works!! In the end, he can blend in with the book scenes in the same way he could blend in with the Kit Kat Club performers at the beginning of the show. I think he represents how most of the people in power nowadays have the privilege of being able to be a political chameleon or being able to change themselves to hold as much power as possible. This is a huge detour from previous versions of the emcee where he was the victim of the nazi regime. But I think that this version speaks much clearer to our current political climate. It warns its audience to second guess the charismatic leaders who hold power in our world, because as we have seen across the globe it is not our well-being that they have in mind, but their own profit and control.
What a fantastic, beautiful mind you have! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾Well-said!
🏆
10 seconds ago is a RECORD for me! 😅
I loved Eddie's performance already, but someone here on RUclips described his performance as both the puppet master and the puppet which I think is just SO amazing
i do not understand why people are referring to him as a puppet. he represents the victims of the puppets . . . .
@@claddagh1826 Did you fail to watch the video you're actually commenting on? He's not the victim
@@ffd214 yeah i am not sitting through a 44 minutes video listening a guy who annoys me talking, but i have watched video of alan cumming's performance, so i do not understand how you could possible say he is not a victim. unless alan cumming was completely off base, in which case i do not think he would have gotten so much praise.
@@claddagh1826 You are supremely dumb and might be an indicator of why the revival was received this way. Alan Cumming offered one interpretation. Joel Grey originally described him as Hitler. He's not a victim in this produdction. Clearly you understand nothing about art or revivals.
@@claddagh1826truly iconic of you to come into comment sections of videos you don’t even watch to display profound lack of understanding of all the elements involved (this performance, the material of the musical and the nature of a production as interpretation just generally) 😂
There is an essential piece of Joel Grey's performance that your are missing: Joel Grey is Jewish. Like really, undeniably, stereotypically, fundamentally Jewish. They didn't need to show him in striped pajamas at the end of the show because this fact was such an essential part of who he is as an actor and performer. He is very sinister, but also, this aspect of his identity looms over his performance. It is very clear what is going to happen to him, even if it is never made explicit.
Eddie Redmayne is quite Aryan, and thus, more suitable as a stand in symbol for Berlin.
What's your perspective on Alan Cummings' Emcee?
@@nekusakura6748 I remember liking it. I think there are many legitimate ways to play the part. I just wanted to point out something that was missing from Mickey Jo's (generally excellent) analysis.
@@nekusakura6748i’m pretty sure his concentration pjs at the end has a pink triangle on it, I thought that if he wasn’t Jewish he was probably gay and was a representation of the crazy gay club culture that thrived in Berlin before WWII
I never knew he was Jewish, I have just asked 20 people who also didn’t know , that fact tends to rubbish your point. They all described him as creepy and memorable. Are you calling Jewish people creepy and memorable ?
@@dianeshelton9592 Jews know he's Jewish. Maybe you don't know any Jews.
He just directed Fiddler in Yiddish of Broadway.
THANK YOU for doing this video! I loved Eddie’s performance~ I’m so impressed with his passion and ability to turn himself into this character each night. I saw the show on the 14th, so right before the Tony’s. So glad I ignored the noise and trusted what I wanted to see.
Just getting started on this video so I may have more to say… lol
I recently saw this production and LOVED it! I genuinely do not understand what critics and haters are so worked up about. Redmayne's Emcee made me think of a meddling shape shifting fey creature. He wasn't so much a human character as a living allegory for the changing world of berlin in the 1930s. Also his costume in "Money" was one of the scariest things i've ever seen on stage. Terrifying.
Stealing a comment from @theoryfruit from the You tube finale of Cumming's emcee "The yellow star symbolized Jewish people, the pink triangle symbolized homosexuals, and the red star symbolized political prisoners/dissenters." He wore all three
I saw the Mendes production at Studio 54 but didn't catch Cumming in the role (although the guy I saw was very good) and I clicked the yellow star and pink triangle but not the red star.
So here's my two cents: I'm currently living in Mexico City, where is currently an originally directed production of CABARET, meaning that this production is not nor aims to be a replica of any particular production. The titular EMCEE in this production is a cisgender actress named Irene Arzuela. Obviously this casting choice was the talk of the mexican thespians and Cabaret lovers when it was announced a few months ago. The reaction was similar to some of what's happening on twitter, as some people were complaining that she was "appropiating" a classicaly queer role. First of all, I don't know if she would identify as queer or not, but also it's not the first time she has played a character out of usual profile (2 years ago she played Hamlet in a production, while leaving the text basically intact), so I wondered but had hoped she could bring something new and exciting to the part.
And I'm glad to say she did, I saw the production and was glad to see her leaning (maybe not as much as Eddie) on the corporality, quirkness and fluidity on the character. Her choices are also puppet like, and I would say even more muppet like at times. And though her phisicality certainly stands out there amongst everybody else, the caricature is often questioned. The audience may wonder if she's putting on the character or if such a character could have possibly existed. It's a very fine balance that intrigues and keeps you excited everytime she comes out on stage.
I personally enjoyed her a lot, but was a bit dissapointed on the second act because they use "I don't care much" as the soundtrack for other characters moments, instead of letting her explore th vulnerability and the humanity of a character whose humanity you doubt from the beginning.
This long explanation drives me to think about the flexibility of the role beyong basically any of the types we've had. I think that's what makes it so interesting and appealing, specially as an actor.
Both Eddie and Rebecca Frecknall have talked about how performance through movement is so important to them. All of Rebecca's productions have had movement work, and she cites Hofesh Shechter and Pina Bausch constantly. Eddie is the only actor from one of her productions who has committed to it in this manner. I don't understand why naturalism is so demanded in acting when it's never the case for other arts. So many countries have traditional theatre practices that are all about eschewing naturalism, Japan and India just being two examples off the top of my head. And Weimar Germany was also leaning into Expressionism in acting and dance, or in Dada practices.
Yes!
Well said 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
I think that maybe it’s because it’s easier for people to relate and see themselves in the character when it’s more natural?
@@Wavinglighternot necessarily. Abstraction allows the expression to take on more fluid meanings and relate to more people. I can connect to a painting that's not naturalistic because of what meanings my own experiences allow the shapes to take on
what i dont understand is when we went from getting excited to see new takes on old rolls to expecting everyone to perform it like that last person did to a tee or they’re untalented/“ruined it”.
I stumbled across Eddie’s Tony performance while scrolling and watched it with zero context and I was so intrigued by his strange voice and puppet movements that I took a deep dive into what Cabaret was about and it reignited my long lost love for musicals and theater. For that I am eternally grateful to Eddie’s art and talent ❤
Saw Eddie's performance in person this weekend. Was mesmerized and thought he was the standout in a revival that didn't wow me much otherwise. His movements, his audience banter, whew! His opening number that comes out of the darkness??? So good (despite the dumb orchestra member who kept their phone on for a few secs, ruining the atmosphere.)
I’m a massive Cabaret fan. So much so, I fought to direct scenes from I Am A Camera for my directing classes in college. I’ve seen the show performed 6 times, 3 different iterations (original, post movie version that made some edits and includes “Maybe This Time”, and the Sam Mendes revival) and would kill to see this interpretation. I was very excited to hear about Eddie Redmaynes casting as the Emcee and was even more interested after the small taste we got at the Tony’s. I was shocked to hear how divisive this performance was. Thank you for doing this thorough breakdown.
Also, WHERE did you get those pillows?!??
The best take I've seen was something along the lines of "The people who were creeped out by this probably thought of cabaret as the fun, sexy show, and they were probably actually thinking of chicago or moulin rouge."
Honestly, the resistance of the Americans is kind of troubling even. Some of them are so fixated on the party hat, it's absurd. Like, see the show if you want to know (even then, all productions have the New Year's eve setting? )
I personally felt that the Tony performance’s only issue was the same issue I’ve noticed with other filmed musical performances in recent years; the performer is still playing to the mezzanine while the cameraman is right up in their nostrils. It’s always off-putting and considering that this performance is already meant to be off-putting it’s just that much worse. I don’t know that Eddie should have done any differently though considering he was still on a large stage in a large theater with a large audience even with the camera Right There.
I watched a clip of Eddie Redmayne on Jimmy Fallon in which Redmayne at one point described the Emcee as an 'abstraction' and this completely explains what he's going for in his performance.
I think the one thing that we should all agree on, that Eddie Redmayne is probably one of the best actors of this generation.
All the debate has been absolutely insane and overwhelming.
i saw this production on April, and just personally, i made the comment on your other video. it was an absolute dream come true-
And i just want to say that in an ocean of melodramatic takes and opinions, your video was very cathartic and refreshing. I really appreciate you and i know you know a lot about this production since 2021 so i just love hearing from someone that has really seen plenty to have an opinion formed on.
And on the positive side, something i really really loved is that some people saw the Tony's performance and i read someone that tweeted " I have never seen Cabaret in my life, but now im curious and im going to look for the movie" and im like, YES! it is good that people are wanting to know about the story, specially being a cautionary tale about facism.
So , hey if it brings more people into it, it did something right.👍
The Emcee is inherently creepy. Joel Grey's interpretation is pretty damn creepy. Alan Cumming's seems to be more sexually creepy -- not a production I've seen live, clips on RUclips.
My impression based on reviews and your videos, is that this production is more Brechtian in some ways, which is appropriate to what was going on in German theater at the time. All three hit deep, though in different ways in context.
I saw Cabaret only once in Italy and the emcee was different from all those 3. It was a yet another kind of creepy. I don't know hot to describe it, but it was more a carnival entertainer/comedian, scary at times. It worked perfectly well for the Italian audience because it's a figure we understand. I'm sure it would never work as well in UK or Broadway. And I'm sure that in Brazil or in the Philippines or Sweden they all adapt the show in different ways.
Most people focus on a specific way to portrait something that they consider 'the right way' and miss the point of what is the theatre.
@@LadyGagadriel Since I worked in a U.S. Commedia dell'Arte troupe for awhile, would you say the Emcee was more like Brighella or more of an Arlecchino or Zanni? Just curiosity on my part.
@@fabrisseterbrugghe8567 Mh, good question... I think I would consider him more like Arlecchino, but in a dark 1900s way.
@@LadyGagadriel Thank you and cool!
Personally, I was deeply put off by the Eddie Redmayne’s performance and GREATLY ENJOYED IT for that reason. I love Cabaret, and while his take was very different, I enjoyed it for what it was.
And people have so divorced the story from history, both in terms of the socio-political environment and the performance and art. I had someone argue with me that Cliff wouldn't be drawn to Berlin if he knows about the Nazis already or that Sally would not hold any hopes and I had to scream. Hitler had already had a big coup attempt. Cliff is reading Mein Kampf already. The economy is in the toilet and people are suffering a form of national humiiliation following the war. Berlin wasn't all that charmed anwyays, and the most well known artists made dark macabre art about it that the Nazis censored or burned. Even in performance, the kind of expressionist dancing that Eddie was classified as degenerate and banned. Julia Cheng actually mentioned some of those choreographers.
People love to dunk on that performance primarily because they love to dunk on Redmayne tbh. Coupled with the fact that most of the hot-takes are surely from people who haven't seen Cabaret in any way, shape or form (and I'd bet, wouldn't even want to see it), you get this nonsense. I think he did a FANTASTIC job, I was floored by his performance
I haven't seen this version of the show, but I didn't have any issues with the Tony performance and I'm a fan in general of Redmayne.
The two Mendes revivals with Alan Cumming though were unbelievable, and the more recent one wasn't that long ago and remains very much in people's consciousness, at least in the states. I was fortunate enough to see the second Mendes revival. I'm open to different people performing a role, of course, but Cumming's performance (and that ending) were so impactful and, at least for me, really tough to top. I still remember sobbing at the end of the show.
I think Cumming might be to this role as Streisand is to Fanny Brice? Cumming didn't originate it like Grey but he fleshed out the role and really made it his own. And some people will have a tough time seeing someone else in that role. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I do think it's a reality. I would love to see this revival, it's been really interesting reading comments by people who have seen it!
I like the comparison to Barbara as Fanny I agree with that a lot. I think it’s just a case of people getting attached to one actor in a role/one version of a production which is difficult with live theatre 🤷🏻
Of course Mr Redmayne is good. American audiences still remember Allen and Joel. I don't think they're ready to accept another interpretation
Totally agree. Americans hold Alan and Joel very dear, and I believe they miss the Emcee as the touchstone for them, emotionally. Which, as MJ points out, is perhaps a limiting way to experience theatre.
When I was in college I played a character who was more concept than person, much like the Emcee. There are so many different choices an actor can make in a role like that. Physicality, voice, playing extreme actions, etc. It’s disappointing to see such reactionary criticism in response to non-realistic choices. I would LOVE to see more actors making more extreme choices in roles like these. Our culture has been setting realism as the highest possible standard for many art mediums for far too long. Embracing the absurd is so freeing.
I watched the Tony’s but skipped over the Cabaret performance because I knew I was about to see it and didn’t want to even have a preview. (I have it saved on DVR to watch when I get home tonight). Saw it on Broadway yesterday and it was amazing. And Eddie Redmayne was unbelievably creepy and marvelous. The show is quite an “experience”!!!
I like to go into performances blind. I saw Alan 2x on his second run, and I've seen the Liza/Fosse/Joel film. I did know there was an immersive pre-show element, and that we were going to see Eddie & Gayle. I absolutely loved it just as much as, if not more than, previous productions. Alan's emcee will always hold a special place in my heart! And that production moved me to sobbing both times. But I found the overall design, characterizations, etc of this one much more interesting and intellectually stimulating. This review/recap was both very cathartic and enlightening!!! One thing I was kind of obsessed with that I did not hear you or the other reviewers really get into: both the choreo and the costuming for the entire ensemble was very rooted in clowning. I think there's always been a touch of clowning, as well as grittiness, a threatening quality to other performances...but the Fosse choreo and traditional costuming leaned into the traditional sexiness of it all. The gender swapping, the modern living, the queerness. All black and flesh toned wardrobe pieces. This production had brighter colors, alternating with muddy colors. It felt much more androgenous, kink forward, brash, and rooted. Barefoot and work boots instead of character shoes. Grounded, human bodies living grounded, human lives. Even some of the props. All with this delicious grotesque edge. Gayle's performance was also much more brash and masc than previous performances. I thought it was a fabulous choice. I would LIVE to see an androgenous AFAB emcee, or a trans Sally...I felt very inspired by this staging. I really liked what the London reviews said about this emcee embodying Berlin-that really hits for me.
Out of all clips I've seen, Eddie Redmayne is the one I would want to see the most. He's so unique, although a few others also looked very good, he's my top pick.
Personally this is the first time I've found Caberet interesting. I usually don't like this show but I'd definitely go see this production.
Looking forward to seeing what Adam Lambert does with the role (rumored to be following Eddie).
Hello! Relatively new cabaret fan here.
I watched the Alan Cumming 1993 revival on film recently, and I suppose I’ve got a few things to say (fair warning, I may just be yapping and rephrasing things, so apologies!) All of what I refer to will most likely be in reference to the 1993 revival, just fyi- it’s all just my opinion. No hate to anyone who thinks differently!
The Emcee, to me at least, starts off like a neutral narrator. His life exists solely through the Kit Kat club, and he is shown as this vulgar, erotic, cheeky, charming figure who puts on these marvelous acts, and has the audience in a whirlwind of feels. His character is a caricature of who this “Emcee” actually is. As you said, we know nothing about him outside of the Kit Kat Club.
As the show progresses into the second act, we notice a change. The Cabaret Girls switch from their old, unique personalities, into matching girls including outfits, and hair. The songs at the Kit Kat club turn from silly little jabs at politics and sexuality, to focus more on what the people want to see. As mentioned- The Emcee’s caricature revolves around the club. So as the audience changes (and grows more fond of nazism and facism) the shows lean towards shedding light on interracial relationships between Jews and non Jews in “If you could See her” (as well as mocks Jewish women by having this person dressed in a gorilla suit) along with “Money” which not only plays off the Great Depression, but the anti-Semitic idea that Jewish people are money chasers. (And that they’re the people with all the money.)
We eventually get to “I don’t care much,” which is where we end up getting what may be a potential glimpse at Emcee’s wants. “Lips grow cold With the rent to meet” references the fact that he might want love, but because of the Great Depression, as well as the fact he wants to keep the club running, he simply doesn’t have the time. (It also could play off the fact that Emcee has to change the way his show runs to fit Nazi Propaganda; and therefore, keep food on the table.)
His character is a caricature. A Narrator of the story, but not in a reliable, or easily plausible way. The Kit Kat Club, as is everything else in Cabaret, highlight the true problems in Berlin through showy, risqué songs, and fun dance numbers.
“ Leave your troubles outside! So, Life is disappointing? Forget it! We have no Troubles here! “
The Emcee boasts this at the start during Willkommen, asking the audience to cast their worries aside. But by the end, as Nazi power grows, his show is no longer his. Whether he is in favor of these changes, as well as political problems, is unknown for the most part. (In this specific show, it’s most likely implied that he isn’t in favor, judging by the fact he wears a Star of David in the end.)
Alan Cumming is an amazing actor, there is no doubt about it, but to base an up-to-interpretation thing off of one specific, well known performance, is a little bit absurd. Each Emcee is unique, and represents the ideas of both the director, and actor. Headcanons and opinions are wonderful, but there is a line where “friendly discussions and opinions” becomes “this one specific portrayal is the one I know, which means this new one has to be the same.
Anyways! Thank you for your time, (if you read all this, that is!)
I hadn’t heard any of the drama, and I’ve only seen cabaret once when I was DEFINITELY too young to be seeing it, but I did recently watch Matt baume’s video on it and it was very interesting. I was too young to grasp the themes when I was watching it the first time, but based on Matt’s description of it I had come to a similar conclusion that the emcee was supposed to be like a metaphor for the attitude of the people as a whole rather than just one guy.
“There is a difference between an opinion which is informed and an opinion which is not (and I don’t mean “educated” and I don’t meant that you’re only allowed to talk about this if you’ve seen the show).” YES. Well-said.
Just finished watching… fantastic video Mickey Jo! Well said! Appreciate you putting these thoughts together.
I appreciate what Eddie Redmayne (and Rebecca) have done with this character. The production is pretty amazing in my opinion. I feel really lucky I was able to see this show.
Appreciate you taking the time to make this video! 👏🏻 (Side note: Please do a review of Layton and Rhea - I’m seeing them in September and am curious!)
Great video, thank you for discussing this. I didn't get to see Eddie in the role but have always really enjoyed his vocal performance through the cast recording. I loved Mason's performance when I saw them last summer and am very much looking forward to seeing Layton when I go again next month. I appreciate a range of interpretations in this role and find many varied takes to be interesting, exciting and valid.
Regarding whether the Emcee should be specifically played as queer or not...my interpretation of the Emcee has always been that his role/his vignettes are meant to hold up a warped magic mirror to the real world characters - the Gorilla number reflecting the Schlutz and Schneider relationship, I Don't Care Much reflecting Sally's political apathy, and Two Ladies reflecting Cliff's sexual awakening upon coming to Berlin. For me the strongest mirroring is between the Emcee and Cliff as narratively speaking I feel Cliff is positioned as the protagonist more so than Sally; the newcomer experiencing Berlin for the first time. Also Cliff is the only character in the show that ever references the "Master of Ceremonies", so it is possible to think of the Emcee as Cliff's imaginary friend/his spirit guide/a dreamlike through-the-looking-glass being existing only to Cliff. And as Cliff is an explicitly bisexual character, it feels appropriate to me that the Emcee reflects Cliff's queerness, especially if the Emcee is more flamboyantly queer than Cliff would dare to be himself.
I think in the Frecknall production you can see the Emcee's slow transformation into an emblem of Nazism as being almost like Cliff's prophetic vision of what he might become if he were to stay in Berlin. I've personally always liked the choice in this revival to have Cliff played by a black actor because (while some might quibble over historical accuracy) it feels very fitting that an African American outsider would be the one who is more awake to the fascist and racist oppression taking over Berlin than many of the white European characters who are sleepwalking into this horrifying societal shift. Given the mirroring that I see between their characters, I am really interested in seeing the latest London cast with Cliff and the Emcee both being played by black actors. Would love to hear your take on the new cast as your Cabaret videos are always very thoughtful and insightful.
The song 'Two Ladies' is meant to be poking fun at the practice of high-ranking members of the Nazi Party havng two female lovers in order to spread their "superior genes" as quickly as possible to build their "master race". There's a line in the song, "you on the left and you on the right and me in the middle..." (a political reference).
Maybe it was changed for this revival to be about someone's sexual awakenking, i don't know.
Thank you for doing my video request (though you probably didn't see my comment asking) I had said the whole discourse made me plan to go see it. I can update that I got my ticket!Though in the West End as I'm in Ireland. So excited! 🥳 Ps. Thank you for wearing a party hat, I appreciate the effort. And now I want one too of course.
yes please make a video about the new west end cast! i'm so curious about your thoughts on layton and rhea!
Such a great video, thank you! So I haven't actually been following The Discourse on this but I did see Eddie and thought he was fantastic. I thought he was completely mesmorising as a physical presence and liked how he was an embodiment of the political situation. One thing I've been wondering: how much of the reaction is because they gave him a super closeup? He basically performed the start directly to the camera. Like you said, it is A Performance and being that close to him probably didn't help the creep factor for those unfamiliar with it. This might be a great example of the difference between a film performance and a stage performance and how they don't necessarily land well interchangeably.
You sounded like an english teacher grading book reports when going over the New York reviews, and I absolutely love it
So glad you made this video! I've been getting so frustrated at all the "creepy" comments. People are also constantly saying he's not sexy enough... he's literally not meant to be sexy, that was how Alan Cummings played the role but that's not an intrinsic part of the emcee's character in a general sense 😭 the man more or less represents natzi supremism in this production
I really wish they would film the show With him. would love to see the show but I don't think il will get the opportunity to do so
Thank you! I wish I had seen this as I stewed about seeing this Cabaret when I read the NYC reviews. Now, I want to see it, but fearful it’s too late.
It’s interesting the gate keeping for the emcee character and while I adore the way Alan played the role, I think eddie’s interpretation is also fine and works for the production.
I think it’s funny that in that same production, Jane Horrocks who plays sally in the mendes production plays her off kilter and not the glamorous character we see her as, but no one has opinions on that because she’s not the quintessential portrayal.
Having watched a handful of clips of the various (famous) interpretations, I wonder if the issue of the backlash to the clip could be partially attributed to how it is filmed
The first mid-shot framing with Eddie staring directly into the lens would work well with a more traditional interpretation, but I think the physically of Eddie’s interpretation feels kind of stunted and compressed
I feel like it should have been pulled back a bit more, perhaps on an arty-er kind of angle (extreme low or high) to emphasise the playful abstraction of what he’s doing
The whole short clip just feels far too claustrophobic for the content it’s capturing - a better choice would be start as mentioned above, and slowly pan up to a slightly higher mid-wide, before pulling back out dramatically to a front/centre wide when the girls’ encircle him
I feel like the camera movement is working against everything the cast and choreography are giving
You are the British Rex Reed! I am so glad I discovered you!
There is a more general tendency for New York reviewers to dislike productions that have garnered significant praise, and awards, in London. This is across both plays, such as The Inheritance, and musicals. Even when a production that has worked in London is praised in New York, such as Merrily, it has to distance itself from the London production (and certainly not contain the same casts/leads), ideally working through off-broadway first. New York reviewers do not welcome a cold opening on Broadway, without out of town or off-Broadway before transfer.
Great job! You’re such a pro. The best (musical)theatre critic ever! ❤️
The last Cabaret Interpretation that I saw (in Germany) was a very queer interpretation. like VERY queer. In "Willkommen" the "Ladys.. and gentlemen" changed to "Ladys, Gentleman and everyone in and out of the binary" - really joyful. They changed the "If you could see her through my eyes" into a scene, where they (emcee, and so on) were forced to perform the song by an nazi-soldier/SS, but they protested. The Orchestra didn't play beautifully (but probably still was beautiful :)), the actors weren't even dressed right, while being forced to put on the clothing and keep on performing by that soldier. They sang parts of it - but ended it with "If you could see her through my eyes, you would think she's beautiful too", than storming off the stage "giving up the emcee role". that resistance and feeling of anger, sadness and hopelessness could have been the spirit of the "queer" people of berlin. Their books were burning, their identity erased, there loved ones and themselves were sent into concentration camps. All that, right while/after a time, were the potential of queer acceptance was coming. Were some academics started to question the binary gender and so on. The ones that had to flee, stop performing, didn't want or could confirm to the nazi-regime, that was part of the Berlin essence too. Even though they couldn't win. The last scene: it ended with the emcee in striped clothing - sent to an "Arbeitslager"/concentration camp. I cannot forget it.
My favorite interpretation yet, but I love Joel Greys and Alan Cummings too. It's just different. Cabaret can and should have different interpretations, as long as the heaviness of the topic still comes through as shockingly, heartbreakingly and heavily - with the message towards the viewer, the representation of "outsiders", "failed artists", the people who had to endure so much pain (through society and the nazi-ideology). The warning of what could happen again, the prompt to reflect on ourselves and the political situation around us - it should not be ignored or it will eventually be too late.
I think that the Tony awards-video is a bit strange (AND WHY SHOULDNT IT BE?). But it could have been the camera movements too?? - and I haven't seen more yet, so I will keep an open mind and wait until I saw it. I LOOVE the outfits though - and I am still excited about it. It's art, it's music, it's political, it's beautiful and ugly. comforting, funny, creepy and horrifying. and open to interpretation. Also, if you have been to Berlin once, nothing will be strange or weird to you anymore (lol) - so keep that open mind, but also speak your opinion of course.
This was my first chance to see one of your reviews and I think youd analysis was brilliant. Many critics of the arts give us "hot takes", you concisely gave us history and perspective. Bravo,,
Excuse me, this style evolution continues to give me life! As someone who took your inspiration and is now teaching drama and performing in Medea thank you for your work. Also if anyone is interested I’d sell my left ovary to see Cabaret in NYC… it’s the bad one anyway
Regarding your comments on the 'shift' of the MC at the end, Joel Grey originated the MC role when I was 12. I never saw that on stage, but I became obsessed with the Fossi film (yes, I'm aware of the many differences). Grey appears in one of the final shots as a reflection in a funhouse mirror. He seems to be the personification of a demon, perhaps Loki, the god of mischief, trickery, and deception in Norse mythology.
Out of all of the characters, the Emcee is one of the most versatile. He doesn't have specific character traits like most of the others. Meaning, his performance as an Emcee could be just that, a performance! Who knows what goes on behind the scenes with his psyche/personality/etc. Then think of the history of the era and someone in his position and you have amazing material to make the character your own.
absolutely convinced by his performance. it was surealism and german flamboyance of the time. people who criticise the tony video are idiots and don't understand the material.
Neil Patrick Harris, Matt McGrath and Raul Esparza have also played the Emcee on Broadway.
Cabaret was one of my dad's favorite movies/musicals. He would have loved this revival. Everytime we watched the movie, he'd go in depth about how the Emcee wasn't human, but the embodiment of narcissism, because that is at the core of Nazism. Everyone who isn't me is less than me, and I will remove every perceived barrier in my way. I was 10 years old for that talk.
Hey! Even if you already know this, I want to share that you are an excellent reviewer. What a treat!
It's the first time I've ever wanted to see it. I love Baz Luhrmann's style of Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet, the style of the Cabaret revival reminded me of that so it made me extremely interested in it. I think the idea is to bring in a new audience. I've been going to the theatre since I was a child and I feel like a huge proportion of the criticism came from people who didn't necessarily grow up going to one and are not particularly interested in it now. I also think a lot of them forget they're not supposed to see it as close up as the cameras were. Of course it seems exaggerated when filmed but everything is meant to be big enough to be able to reach the back row of a theatre.
A lot of what you've said in this video takes me back to Michael Crawford and director Harold Prince setting up "Phantom of the Opera".
I don't have the money for attending musical performances and I'm in Seattle anyway, but I do appreciate the theater. I've seen some road shows over the years, have watched film versions, and caught videos of stage performances. Most acting I've watched are presented in cinema, and even there you find remakes that present fresh interpretations that may or may not work. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar.
I've caught some highlights off Crawford and Prince's POTO, and Crawford is stunning in the role. His "Music of the Night" gives me chills. It pushed me to research how he got this role, how the musical came to be, and it was illuminating.
There are interviews with Crawford where he speaks of his passion for the role, how he was determined to get the role, even though it was nothing like the silly comedy stuff he had done previously. He had such respect for the role that he immersed himself in the character once the makeup was on; he was a different person and never played it for laughs.
There were videos of Harold Prince's direction as they set up the blocking and the motivations. Prince telling Crawford and Sarah Brightman how they had to play their interactions more 'erotically', a quality that was noticeable in every depiction I had viewed.
In Crawford's case, he took all that direction and his own instinct to form a character that was human and palpable and in pain. He even had wardrobe shorten his sleeve, so his hands and wrists added to the image. Crawford's Phantom dominated every scene and could be read and understood in or out of context. The only confusion was whether the Phantom, usually interpreted as villain, was actually the musical's true hero. There are hints of that in choosing tenors to play the role (tenors are usually the hero in opera), but the question is never posed as to who the hero is. Yet most theater goers lean to the Phantom being the hero; that's more the choices of the director and the actor playing that role.
Since Crawford's departure, different actors in different countries have given their interpretations, but I would say Crawford's portrayal is the most complex, the most heart-stoppingly confusing. Crawford's Phantom breaks, and you feel it. He is the master up until that point, but he unexpectedly hits an emotional wall he never anticipated. No other portrayal by others accomplishes that; the others reveal a weakness that Crawford's never did.
Crawford is not a strong singer; he had decided to develop his voice in more operatic ways before ever hearing about the musical, and you can hear him reaching to make the notes as he plays this role. But that crescendo in "Music of the Night" is so emotive and powerful, you hold your breath without realizing it as he bellows out; the minor imperfections elsewhere just add to the power of this moment.
There is magic in someone taking on a role they were destined to play. You see that in Joel Gray's Emcee. You see that in Alan Cumming's Emcee (and I have to say Cumming wearing a Star of David and a Pink Triangle is a nod both to Cumming's gayness and Gray's Jewishness). I appreciate an actor's process and choices blended with a director's concept and leadership in creating something new in a work that has been stretched into different visions.
I haven't seen Eddie Redmayne's Emcee, but you are describing almost a different play. Cumming played the same Emcee, but just a bit more twisted, a bit darker, a bit closer or too close. Gray's Emcee was distant enough that you could fool yourself and think you're seeing a human being. Cumming's Emcee is too close for comfort and there's no mistaking a missing humanity; he's more feral. Still, the context is still the same: a rendition of Berlin's KitKat Club over there the other side of the footlights in a theater. But Redmayne is doing theater-in-the-round with an immersed audience. It's something entirely different when you're interacting with the actors on THEIR turf. You can't convey that experience from a stage; it will absolutely be rendered out of context, no matter what song is featured.
You did a great job pulling together everything to describe the indescribable. So, how is it these theater 'professionals' don't grasp this subtly? I've been a connoisseur of cinema for many decades, and I have been shocked at the thickheadedness of critics. They too often have no idea what they're talking about... Thank you for presenting some balance.
Oh, how I wish I could see this musical with Redmayne in it.
i was totally confused by the tonys discourse as well. i haven't seen his performance at all, but i have seen plenty of promo photos from his performances both on the west end and broadway. so when i saw videos of him on the tonys, i was like, yeah...that's eddie from cabaret. i'm not really sure what people were expecting.
I know very littleabput this show, so I went and watched what clips I could find online. All the MCs seemed to have very heightened performaces to my eyes- reminding me of clowns, court jesters, puppets or clockwork.
I want to see this show so badly. I live in Philly. I'm broke. There's two weeks left w eddie in. Here's to the hope the cabaret brings me. ❤❤❤
Haha I’m also in Philly and can’t see it in time either!
I watched the Tony performance on youtube and I enjoyed his take. As a theatre goer, I have seen the same show performed by different performers many times. I saw Anastasia on Broadway with the OG cast and I’ve seen the traveling show. Yes, you can end up comparing the actors, but this changing of actors and staging is what makes theater different from watching a movie again and again. Each performance of a show is different, even from day to day. That is one of the things that makes theater so exciting.
The issue, I think, with the critics in the US is due to the Disney-fication of Broadway. That has become what "theater is" instead of just another type. That's why the critics focused on costumes, sets, etc. In summary, US critics are rubbish. Anyway, that's my hypothesis.
We saw Cabaret in London with Mason Alexander Park as Emcee and Emily Benjamin (understudy to Maude Apatow) as Sally Bowles. Spectacular. Loved their interpretation and physicality. Very very different to Redmayne’s performance. Darker, more seductive, more threatening. I love how this production finds different nuances from each actor folded into each interpretation of Emcee fused with the director’s vision. Incidentally, what a treat to see Emily Benjamin, we were really lucky to see Emily playing Sally on the night we attended. She should have been lead throughout the run.
The cable knitted vest top with dungaree fasteners at the shoulder is a bewildering garment and I need one. Pronto.
I loved the review and your thoughts on this divisive topic. I am in the "Hated it" camp. I appreciate your deep dive and agree with everything you said. The history of the show, the book the film aside I had a very negative response to the Redmayne Emcee. I know the characters are meant to represent factions of the political climate and the individuals effected, but i hate being beaten over the head with someone's "Vision". This show is great enough that not even a gifted director can hurt it but this one sure gave it a go.
I really enjoy your discussions.
You've actually convinced me to seek out tickets to try and see this despite not personally enjoying the Tony's performance
I remember the very first time I watched Cabaret was a VHS tape of Sam Mendes 90's play with Alan Cumming and then years later I watched the film with Joel Gray. As I watched the film I remember thinking sometimes "why is the character different?"... Obviously, there is no "different". Is an interpretation. That's what people forget and it's so important the point that you made at the end of the video; we need to start to understand that a performance is a collective effort rather than a simple "character" chocie.
So many people is behind the curtain working so hard, sometimes underpaid, to make a production happen and most if not all the times when a performance is brilliant is the actor that is praised (or the opposite 😬) but very rarely people will judge a performance taking in consideration that there's more behind it that the intentionality of the actor, as you say the context within the context.
I want to see this performance so badly it sounds like it was so cleverly put together
MickeyJo, as usual you offer a wonderful take, and an inciteful analysis. I've learned a lot from your videos.
Subjectively after seeing 6 different performances/performers, Eddie's performance was (for me) the most entertaining.
It's hard to move past the performers who have come before. When I think of the emcee, I still see Allan Cumming performing Wilkommen at the Tony's (and obviously that was ages ago).
Fantastic video - thank you for the depth
Would anyone else love to see Alan Cumming do this version of the show?
Absolutely not. Cummings portrayal of the Emcee was iconic and belongs in the far superior '98 revival.
Love your channel and your take.
When i saw Cabaret at West End live a couple of years ago, i didnt bloody get it, at all, thought it looked sh and not my bag, lost interest entirely. Then, i was lucky enough to be gifted tickets for the Cabaret tables to see it properly. This has now become my favourite show, and general London experience activity, of all times. I cannot describe my flip in attitude between seeing one short snippet performance out of context vs seeing the actual thing, i cant believe i ever passed negative judgement. I now rewatch the west end live set i saw in disbelief that i didnt appreciate it the first time. If you have ANY negative ideas on the show be it the costumes, choreo, vocal performance, Emcee, etc (like i did), respectfully, go and see it. I beg.
In all fairness to you also, the show has struggled to represent itself well at West End Live, and is not particularly well suited to that format and stage.
I know I’m veering off a bit but I was wondering if Eddie’s make up being different in previous products was possibly because they were trying to make the most out of his facial expressions? The make up seems to contour his face in a way that enhances his expressions and makes them even more haunting.
What you're saying about the Emcee's characterisation is exactly what I got from it (I saw Luke Treadaway), I probably missed out by not seeing Eddie Redmayne's performance. I think the Emcee is supposed to be a symbol for something but it changes from production to production. Even though Alan Cumming's Emcee (I watched a bootleg) is more relatable/person-like, it came across as a symbol for the victims of Nazism.
I love that Mickey says, "there's so much to unpack here, I've got a 44 minute video about it but I could go on," and then says, "leave your thoughts in the comments!" I'm not a RUclipsr, but I'm wondering if I should refresh my info on this musical, get on my silly little webcam with my work laptop's video editing software, and throw an hour-long hot take into the void.
I just watched the Tony performance, I thought it was brilliant
Excellent and nuanced video. As someone less plugged in to social media discourse, I wonder if you could include some specific social media examples/clips in the future when you talk about reception. I kept waiting to hear the specific takes but I feel like I got the critics pov and it was assumed that I already knew the public perception
i was surprised by people's reactions to the swastika hand thing. that's how i always interpreted alan cumming's movements in the role and thought eddie was just bringing it back.
I thought it was ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS. I found it stunning and not creepy but I’m a little weirdo. I can see how people would think that but that’s what this revival of cabaret is supposed to be (and I think the show at it’s core)
It's times like this I hate living in Australia cause now I really want to see this but will probably never get the chance.
It sounds so interesting
As someone who's never going to see this production ($$$), I'm interested in seeing a different video Redmayne performing. What didn't work for me the most with his Tony performance is that I didn't find the Emcee particularly charismatic or enticing. Which isn't necessarily inherent in this production because I've seen some videos of West End Emcees performing Wilkommen and didn't have this problem. So whether there was something in how the Tonys were filmed or how Redmayne performed that day, I'd give him another chance to win me over.
i've not seen any stage productions but I think that nowdays people see someone being over commited or more animated and not strictly "pretty" that makes them go "cringe" which makes me very sad. that's what so great about theater and movies they're ability to make you feel something. also eddie redmayne has long been made fun of for his slightly "kermit like" voice and i don't know if it's more people in the us but i've seen people from there call him overated all in all and I'm really shocked at that. (i think maybe people find it unsetling how good of shape shifter he is on screen and on stage while he's still "himself" and doesn't seem to have this deeply method like thing gong on if that makes sense. he's still awkward and quirky in his interviews. i find him very likeable in general) I've found the aesthetic of this revival soo interesting, I wish i could see it in person and furthermore his performance at the tony's for me, personally, made me even more invested in this performance.
Where can I find the Tony’s full performance, because I didn’t get the chance to see it in its full capacity???? 😢😢😢😢😢
Before i write this i just would like to say i completely respect the take and i understand i might be bias due to my love of eddie himself.
Now then, i actually really enjoy his emcee and the bway production. It’s probably my favorite. It was the first production of cabaret ive ever seen that made me feel fear throughout the whole second act and ending. I loved Eddie’s take on the emcee which in my opinion can be described as: A thrilling performer who slowly succumbs to madness as they conform to what society is doing.
My biggest point on why I believe this is due to his character break in ‘I Don’t Care Much’ when he became the emcee again for a second then right back to the cold personality of a N@z1
While I grew up on Alan’s emcee, his take nor the production scared me in the slightest bit. I really enjoyed his emcee don’t get me wrong…but I felt like Alan’s emcee is just a character who becomes depressed by society. Which to me not only is bland but also not potent enough to truly effect me or get the message of the plot across (again my personal feelings and opinions)
In the Eddie version, the emcee and the rest of the kit kat club felt like my security blanket throughout the whole show so when in act two it was basically crumbling it genuinely gave me unease as I no longer had that security.
Alan’s version made the kit kat club feel like a odd narrative or narration to me. Which again I may be alone on this, but I genuinely felt that.
Again no hate intended just wished to share my take :)