Jesus Hopped the “A” Train at London’s Young Vic: Lots and Lots of Words, but the Meaning Unclearby Randi / March 21, 2019It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is All About Eve at London’s Noel Coward Theatre, playing until May 11. Watch the movie instead!
A few years ago, my family gathered together on Christmas morning to do one of our favorite things: watch a new Oscars screener. The movie was ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’, which would kickstart the career of the incredible Oscar Isaac. Because we are movie people – and because we are decent human beings who know how to behave – we watched in silence for about an hour. But at that point, my sister-in-law broke the silence and asked the room, to hilarious effect, “So, this is terrible, right?” It didn’t matter that some disagreed; for me that line was better than the movie and one of the funniest moments ever. If I were willing to talk in the theatre, I would have quoted her recently when I saw the new production of All About Eve at London’s Noel Coward Theatre. After the sheen of seeing its famous stars wore off, it was absolute torture to sit through, and it took all my might not to say to my husband, “So, this is terrible, right?
As you probably know, the movie “All About Eve” is a classic Best Picture winner about two headstrong actresses, one an established Broadway star and one yoot trying to take her place. It’s been a minute since I’ve seen the movie, but I remember that, although the two women were devious (one more than the other) and determined and like not great people, they weren’t fully out of their minds batshit crazy. ENTER: Ivo van Hove, London’s favorite theatre director who is known for his visually striking takes on reworking classics but who is arguably a misogynist. What a perfect show for Ivo to destroy so he can continue showing off his hatred of women while also displaying his love of stark staging and cold projections! Instead of the actresses being strong women, one of whom is determined to a fault and kind of scary, both are now outrageous lunatics who may as well be clawing at each other the entire time and screaming like babies and tearing each other’s hair out while Ivo sits in a chair offstage smoking a cigar and muttering ‘yes this is women.’
What makes it all worse is that it stars the great Gillian Anderson as Margo Channing, the big Broadway star, and the world’s new favorite blonde Lily James as Eve Harrington, the young upstart. These are two huge actresses right now and this classic work with the two of them? it should be EPIC in its greatness, not in its failure. To make matters worse, because this stars these two giant celebrities, tickets are astronomically expensive. So we paid more than we have paid for any other tickets in the past six or so months to see this steaming pile of dog shit, except worse than that because at least a pile of dog shit necessitates a doggo being nearby. There were no dogs!
So, let’s do a quick plot overview. Margo Channing (Anderson) is a Broadway star, currently in a play written by her friend Lloyd, who is married to her friend Karen, both of whom are cast so strangely that there is no forking way they would be married in real life. After the performance one evening, Karen brings a young woman, Eve (James), who was waiting for Margo at stage door into Margo’s dressing room. PROBLEM #1: Who in tarnation lets a random fan come backstage to meet the actress? As someone who stagedoored mm let’s just say a lot, I can tell you right now, that shit does not and SHOULD NOT happen. So, right off the bat we got some bullshit. To increase the crazy quotient, Margo hires Eve to work as her assistant, which also means living with her. Cool guys, yeah, this is a thing, I am also Lin-Manuel’s personal assistant and I live with Kelli O’Hara, this is the result of stagedooring.
So Eve ingratiates herself into Margo’s life but Margo starts to distrust her, which she should have done when she first met her, but she was too busy worrying about being old. Her main character trait is being insecure about her age because she is over 40 (gasp!) and her boyfriend, Bill, is younger, so to make her feel better, Bill says to Margo “You’re not old! You’re young! You’re six!” which is DISGUSTING ughhh men are gross. We see her birthday party happen pretty much in real time, and it’s a bad party, and everyone is in the kitchen, which is hidden from our view, so it’s worse than your average shitty party. I can’t believe this show. Eve weasels her way in more and more and somehow becomes Margo’s understudy in the current play, which is definitely what happens when you stage-door stalk celebrities, you get cast in the Broadway play mm hmm sure sure, I am a multi-Tony winner yes. And here is my biggest problem with this story: Everyone says that Eve is utterly fantastic at her first reading, so we know that she is actually a great actress. Meaning, she doesn’t have to scheme anymore. The most powerful people in the theatre now know that she is excellent and are ready to hire her…so…that’s that then, right guys? I don’t understand why there can’t be two great actresses in NYC in this universe. They know there are like, lots of them, right? WHY CAN’T THERE BE TWO? Everything after Eve gets hired has zero force because there’s literally zero reason for her to continue being a crazy beeyotch. Things are slow and boring for a while and then boom, out of nowhere the whole ending is so nonsensical it actually hurts. The playwright was going to leave his wife for Eve? Since when? Since they met like the day before and talked once? Eve was gonna just put up with Addison forever and let him blackmail her? She could have easily gotten her good review out of him and then told him to fork off. I don’t get her being submissive after all she has done. And the whole tidy wrap up with another girl in Eve’s room wanting to be like her to show that what, women operate in a cycle of trickery and dominance? Physical pain.
Is the writing or the direction worse? Ivo tried to be clever but everything looked messy and busy. It was like Ivo thought up a hundred new tricks and instead of picking one or two to focus on, he threw them all in and hoped for the best. There was creepy music vamping the entire time that became excessive and annoying. There were long pauses that were supposed to be dramatic but were mostly frustrating. If they cut half of those long pauses, it would have been a 90 minute show. Most of all, the whole movie-camera concept was ill-conceived. If we wanted to see this story presented more like a movie, we would have watched the damn movie, Ivo, and we would have loved it and we would have saved hundreds of dollars and we would not have gotten AGITA from all the ANGER. There were literally cameramen with working cameras following the actors around, and their filming was projected onto the back wall for us to watch live. Sometimes important action was happening out of our view, like in the kitchen (the birthday party scene) or the bathroom (literally the climax of the show) and the only way the audience saw this, this important action, was because the cameraman was filming and we watched the projection. WHO STAGES THE MOST CLIMACTIC SCENES OF A PLAY OFFSTAGE. I mean, I get that you are going for some sort of expose vibe but this isn’t a FORKING MOVIE, IVO. If you want to direct a movie I’m sure someone would hire you to do that, but don’t take a stage show and try to make it your next film. Ugh the cameras so often settled on empty glasses and dishes and projected those for us to stare at and it’s like, ‘ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING DEEP, BECAUSE WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT GLASSES.’
But then the writing was so cringeworthy that with literally every other line, my husband and I were kicking each other. They owe me new stockings because of how bad this writing was! Not one line of honest or realistic dialogue is in the whole thing. There was a line about how every ticket holder to a play would ask for refunds if an understudy was on – this in a city (London) where they famously DON’T GIVE REFUNDS IF AN UNDERSTUDY IS ON! Don’t get me started about how shitty a policy that bullshit is, especially for a show like this when there is a 1000% price increase for these big stars.
I wish I could say that if they had a different director take this in a different direction, it would have been good. But nothing happening on that stage was salvageable. Gillian, who is often superb onstage, is not superb here. She spoke in a low gravely monotone that seemed bored and kept us from connecting. At least she still has a strong stage presence and is usually great. Lily, on the other hand, should not be a stage actress. Her climactic screaming breakdown evoked no emotions other than fremdschamen. She is winning onscreen but is simply not meant for the stage.
There is one trick that Ivo employed that works: when Margo stares at herself in the mirror (projected to us, naturally) and slowly sees herself morph into an old lady. That was cool. You know what wasn’t cool? Having the cameraman film Margo throwing up in the bathroom after drinking too much. That was not cool. I am so tired of Ivo’s misogyny. He made these two women into painful caricatures where they were once interesting women, flawed but recognizable as humans. This is more like cartoon version of what MRA men like to joke about women being like.
To add insult to injury, it is two hours long – WITHOUT AN INTERVAL. Most normal shows do an hour for Act 1, 20 minute intermission, and an hour for Act 2, but this one just skips the interval. It could be to preserve this utterly silly movie vibe, but I would bet you a million dollars that they did it because they knew people would skip out on the second half. Halfway through, there is even a very clear change in vibe that screams out to be the act break, and would have been a good one, but they simply pause and then KEEP TORTURING YOU while you now also have to pee. FIE. FIE UPON HOVE (also the name of a town in England, I’m guessing).
INFORMATION
All About Eve is playing at the Noel Coward Theatre until May 11. Programmes were £4.50, 50p less than normal because I bet the programme sellers felt bad about all the money everyone’s spending to see this monstrosity. In contrast to my usual thinking, I recommend the dress circle in this theatre and not the stalls, because the stalls are below ground level and they don’t let you leave through the main doors at the end so you have to exit onto the street which is some bullshit.
I did not try to stage door – what was I gonna say, “hey you were really great in ‘Mamma Mia 2’ but not this”?? – so I can’t say if they come out or not but like do you care, don’t see this, it’s bad.
Related Posts
Academy Award Prediction/Rant Time!!
It’s Oscar weekend! Yay! That means it’s high time for me to decide what I’m rooting for and what I think will win. More importantly, I will share what my list of ideal nominees would have looked like in each category. By ‘each’ I mean the main six categories because I am powerful sick and looking forward to taking Night Nurse (“AH AH AH Fighter of the Day Nurse!”), which is actually the name of a Nyquil sort of thing here in the UK. I think that’s hilarious. Anyway, back to the Oscars: Let me know if you agree, disagree, are hungry, bored, whatever, I’d prob be interested. I hope you plan on watching! Neil Patrick Harris is hosting, and if there’s any justice, he will begin with a great big flashy musical number that will bring joy to all viewers and let us forget the inanity of the bullshit that will inevitably follow.
My choices for what I want to win are in bold.
My choices for what I want to win are in bold.
BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
First things first: What the hell is up with Birdman’s title? It’s pretentious and I hate typing it. I’m not going to type it again.
Secondly. If I were in charge of things, my first order of business would be to change it back to five nominees, across the board, across all categories, across all award shows. The more nominees, the less it means. Also, the expansion in the Oscars was in response to the lack of room for movies like “The Dark Knight”, action movies that were just as good as artsy movies. But the expansion hasn’t reflected that, obviously, because “Interstellar” would be included. It’s only made room for more artsy stuff, or crap. And it means more to be not nominated for Best Picture than it does to actually be nominated because so many are in. And that’s just confusing to say!
So if we were back to 5 nominees, I would definitely include Boyhood, and I would definitely include Whiplash (which had zero flaws) from the original list. And then I would add one of my favorites, The Judge. But this is where it gets really difficult – so difficult that I can’t even decide and I’m putting two choices for two slots! But see, IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT. You should not just fill a bunch of spots with all the movies that are sort of good. It should mean something! But anyway, the 7 above are the most deserving. I am rooting for Boyhood because it was so well done, so meaningful, and so unique. The Best Picture of the Year should go to something that in 50 years people can recall without the internet, or whatever we get information from in the future, and nod knowingly in recognition and respect. Boyhood is the one that actually chronicles people’s growth, emotionally and physically, over a huge chunk of their lives. Nothing else on this list has the necessary import to win.
Secondly. If I were in charge of things, my first order of business would be to change it back to five nominees, across the board, across all categories, across all award shows. The more nominees, the less it means. Also, the expansion in the Oscars was in response to the lack of room for movies like “The Dark Knight”, action movies that were just as good as artsy movies. But the expansion hasn’t reflected that, obviously, because “Interstellar” would be included. It’s only made room for more artsy stuff, or crap. And it means more to be not nominated for Best Picture than it does to actually be nominated because so many are in. And that’s just confusing to say!
So if we were back to 5 nominees, I would definitely include Boyhood, and I would definitely include Whiplash (which had zero flaws) from the original list. And then I would add one of my favorites, The Judge. But this is where it gets really difficult – so difficult that I can’t even decide and I’m putting two choices for two slots! But see, IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT. You should not just fill a bunch of spots with all the movies that are sort of good. It should mean something! But anyway, the 7 above are the most deserving. I am rooting for Boyhood because it was so well done, so meaningful, and so unique. The Best Picture of the Year should go to something that in 50 years people can recall without the internet, or whatever we get information from in the future, and nod knowingly in recognition and respect. Boyhood is the one that actually chronicles people’s growth, emotionally and physically, over a huge chunk of their lives. Nothing else on this list has the necessary import to win.
ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Directing is where I definitely think Christopher Nolan should have been nominated. He does good work. I’m going to keep Imitation Game in here because a) it was very impeccably done and b) the director sounds like a scary Game of Thrones character so I don’t want to piss him off. Ava DuVernay definitely deserved to be nominated, not to make history, but because her work was outstanding. Wes Anderson is just amazing but I’m hoping TGBH will win for cinematography (I bet it loses to Birdman though for its shaky hand Blair-Witch-style camerawork!). Linklater deserves this!
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
The absence of recognition for Jennifer Aniston’s superb work in Cake is a huge problem here. Her performance was stunning (she was not) and she deserved to be nominated. Now, instead of who, I’m not sure, because I didn’t get to see Marion’s movie. Considering Marion made Nine almost watchable, I would be willing to bet big that she was phenomenal. Felicity was truly wonderful and lovely too, but just not in a very Oscar-y role. So one of them has to go. They can decide on their own. If I were Felicity, I would want Marion to step down because she already has an Oscar. If I were Marion, I would want Felicity to step down because she’s 12 years old.
Rosamund, hot damn was she fantastic, frightening, f-ing nuts and just perfect perfect casting. Reese made Wild a decent movie and told a story with barely any words. But I’m hoping beyond hope that Julianne Moore will finally win an Oscar. She is the coolest. And her performance in Still Alice was breathtaking. That movie is also perfect Oscar bait. At the Q&A I went to with her a few weeks ago, the moderator (IDIOT) asked her if this year was any more exciting or if she’s used to the Oscar pomp and circumstance, as she is so often there as a nominee. Julianne clarified that she hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar in 13 years! Isn’t that crazy and terrible? Let’s have her win please. Deserves it.
Rosamund, hot damn was she fantastic, frightening, f-ing nuts and just perfect perfect casting. Reese made Wild a decent movie and told a story with barely any words. But I’m hoping beyond hope that Julianne Moore will finally win an Oscar. She is the coolest. And her performance in Still Alice was breathtaking. That movie is also perfect Oscar bait. At the Q&A I went to with her a few weeks ago, the moderator (IDIOT) asked her if this year was any more exciting or if she’s used to the Oscar pomp and circumstance, as she is so often there as a nominee. Julianne clarified that she hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar in 13 years! Isn’t that crazy and terrible? Let’s have her win please. Deserves it.
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Who knew Steve Carell was such a good dramatic actor? His unbelievable performance was the best thing about Foxcatcher. But he and Rosamund can win special ‘you haunt my nightmares’ awards while hopefully the lead Oscar winners win the ‘you portrayed disability and the degeneration of disease really well’ awards. That means I’m rooting for Redmayne, who really was spectacular as Stephen Hawking, both as a young, healthy college student and as the modern day scientist we know. I’m well aware of how Michael Keaton’s resurgence with Birdman is a huge deal and he was very good in it, but I wasn’t blown away by his playing himself, pretty much. If we’re nominating an older beloved actor in his first dramatic role in a while, then that slot should have gone to Bill Murray’s wonderful performance. Bandersnatch was great and will win in the future, so he can stay. Oyelowo was fantastic and it’s ludicrous that a solid performance of Martin Luther King isn’t a sure bet for an Oscar nom anymore. It’s like up is down.
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A
SUPPORTING ROLE
SUPPORTING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Did you see on the BAFTAs when, in his monologue, Stephen Fry (supposedly a genius) referred to Patricia as ‘Rosanna Arquette’? That’s her sister! That’s turrburr. He didn’t correct himself ever either. I want her to win. She really was the heart of Boyhood and was wonderful. Also, judging her past wins this awards season, she seems to have a problem with public speaking, which I LOVE. Like, she’s a professional actress and she can’t do public speaking. That might be my favorite thing ever. She gives the most awkward, uncomfortable speeches but you really pull for her like she’s the little engine that could, or a puppy in a video of puppy fails and you are like just catch the damn ball you poor thing!
I was initially not a fan of Keira’s nomination, but the more I thought about it slash the more clips I saw of her specific scenes in the Imitation Game, the more I accepted her inclusion. When watching the movie, I thought she wasn’t anything special, but I think that was because all my focus was rightly on Bandersnatch. But Keira really was great and so I apologize for my past words. I love Laura Dern and thought she was really touching in her very small role in Wild, but, although I think her acclaim is deserved, I would include others ahead of her. Emma Stone was great, I know, but she just yelled a lot and smoked and that’s not very hard. It’s hard not to smoke; ask anyone who smoked. And her great scene was mostly due to the camera being positioned like under her chin and at a weird angle that made her Big Eyes-style big eyes even more alien-like and dramatic. Her time will come, she does no wrong.
My biggest surprise was that Chastain wasn’t nominated. Chastain is A BALLER. Even in crappy movies like A Most Violent Year, she still manages to awe you. She should have been nominated for that, or for the Eleanor Rigby movies, or for whatever. She’s the best actress of her generation.
While Meryl Streep was just having a ball as the Witch in Into The Woods and made us have a ball with her (except for when she made us cry, good job), I also would have included Emily Blunt, who I think was the very best part of that movie. She was perfection as the Baker’s Wife, and that’s the most difficult role in the show. I would also put her in supporting and not lead as the Golden Globes did, partly because all the roles in Into The Woods seem of equal weight and partly because there’s a strong chance anything the Globes does is very wrong and should not be repeated.
I was initially not a fan of Keira’s nomination, but the more I thought about it slash the more clips I saw of her specific scenes in the Imitation Game, the more I accepted her inclusion. When watching the movie, I thought she wasn’t anything special, but I think that was because all my focus was rightly on Bandersnatch. But Keira really was great and so I apologize for my past words. I love Laura Dern and thought she was really touching in her very small role in Wild, but, although I think her acclaim is deserved, I would include others ahead of her. Emma Stone was great, I know, but she just yelled a lot and smoked and that’s not very hard. It’s hard not to smoke; ask anyone who smoked. And her great scene was mostly due to the camera being positioned like under her chin and at a weird angle that made her Big Eyes-style big eyes even more alien-like and dramatic. Her time will come, she does no wrong.
My biggest surprise was that Chastain wasn’t nominated. Chastain is A BALLER. Even in crappy movies like A Most Violent Year, she still manages to awe you. She should have been nominated for that, or for the Eleanor Rigby movies, or for whatever. She’s the best actress of her generation.
While Meryl Streep was just having a ball as the Witch in Into The Woods and made us have a ball with her (except for when she made us cry, good job), I also would have included Emily Blunt, who I think was the very best part of that movie. She was perfection as the Baker’s Wife, and that’s the most difficult role in the show. I would also put her in supporting and not lead as the Golden Globes did, partly because all the roles in Into The Woods seem of equal weight and partly because there’s a strong chance anything the Globes does is very wrong and should not be repeated.
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A
SUPPORTING ROLE
SUPPORTING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Unless I’m having a super big brain fart right now, I think I’m actually happy with this category! Praise be! Everyone on this list was superb and gave a performance deserving of a win. I really loved Robert Duvall in The Judge and would have loved for him to win for his crotchetiness, but not this year. Ethan Hawke, despite his failure to age along with the rest of his cast, gave Boyhood its humor and a lot of its heart. Norton played himself and that’s dumb but he was just so darn good at it. His performance was the best part of Birdman or The Movie That Shan’t Be Named. Ruffalo, always great, brought so much depth to his smaller role in Foxcatcher. All these performances were top-notch and Oscary. But J.K. Simmons in Whiplash was THE SHITTTTTTTTT. One of my favorite things in the theatre world is the Drama League Award. These awards honor the season’s best play, best musical, best play revival, and best musical revival. BUT, they only honor ONE acting performance, across all the categories, men, women, supporting, lead, plays, musicals. That is a true honor, and that really means so much, especially when a supporting performance wins. I think that if Hollywood did something like this, Simmons would win this year. Or Julianne Moore. But maybe Simmons! Theatre is the best.
So that’s all I’m going to say before the Oscars! What do you think? Are you happy, sad, angry? Do you also have a party happening upstairs? Should I write about the telecast if I stay up for it? I’m pretty sure I’ll be okay with anyone winning as long as NPH reenacts some “Hedwig” style audience participation (car washes, making out with a man in the front row, &c.).
West End’s Cabaret Revival Pretty Wonderful, Though Not As Life-Changing As They Say
It’s Theatre Thursday! I lost track of days again! What is time! Today’s show is the new production of Cabaret at London’s Playhouse Theatre, which marketing and publicity says has been renamed The Kit Kat Club, but unless that name lasts beyond this production it doesn’t really count. You know the Playhouse, it’s the one just past the Enbankment arches where there’s a Subway I actually ate at once.
London’s latest version of Cabaret is the hottest ticket in town, and with dern good reason. With Eddie Redmayne as the Emcee and Jessie Buckley as Sally Bowles, the star power is out the wazoo and ticket prices have reflected that. It’s the most expensive show the West End has seen in a while, with little way around it. And while it is indeed a wonderful production with some great performances, it is not as life-changing or once-in-a-generation or sell-your-soul-to-see-this as some critics have fallen over themselves to proclaim. If you’ve seen a strong production of Cabaret in your life (which is likely, considering how prolific productions have been for so many decades and how strong the bones of the show are to lend itself to strong productions even without this star power), this one won’t be much different, so do not sell your soul. If you do have a ticket though, well, splendid.
Cabaret, as you know, tells the story of Sally Bowles, an unsteady but effervescent English cabaret performer in a seedy Berlin nightclub just as the Nazis rise to power. Threaded through the story of Sally and her new American writer beau and the world they’re in are scenes from the cabaret, led by an unsettling-sexy-scary-phantasm type jawn whose scenes when well-directed (which they are here) can Mean More than They Seem.
Although no one is talking about it, I was extra curious/anxious to see this show again after the recent controversy over Rare Earth Mettle, Jewish casting, and general treatment of Jewishness in London theatre. Cabaret was written by Jews and is literally about Nazis taking over and German Jews getting a glimpse of what’s to come, but some productions feel like they are taking that into account more than others in a certain ineffable way. The last Broadway revival had a vibe running through it like it acknowledged it was by and somewhat about Jews, even though it’s About an English gentile girl. This one does not, although the performance of Schultz (Elliot Levey) is very good. I think this comes back down to the difference between theatre in New York vs. London which I’ve written about a lot and don’t feel like doing today.
There are three big selling points of this production: First, the theatre itself. Yes, it has been transformed from the minute you walk in the door, which is about 20 minutes later than you thought you would because it takes motherforking forever to be let in. This is because, fortunately, staff is checking for negative LFTs (and haven’t even half the swiftness of Broadway staffers in checking patron by patron) and also, unfortunately, they are clearly slowing down the inflow of people because it’s super crowded inside, and also, fortunately, everyone who enters gets a free drink from one single bartender per route of entry (just like who designed this system guys) (oh you get either a beer, a tiny thimble of Schnapps, or a bottle of water. pretty cool). The frustration of waiting out in the cold for so long despite your ticketed ‘entry time’ being 39 minutes ago quickly fades when you enter the completely reimagined space, which has shadowy figures hither and yon playing instruments, ‘dancing’, and generally creating the vibe of a seedy old German club, I mean, I’m guessing. While it’s fun to look around and become immersed in the experience before the show begins, I’m not a huuuge fan of seedy underground clubs, or clubs in general, and I’m really not a fan of milling about with hundos of unmasked jackwagons. So, while it was cool, this whole shibang wasn’t as mind-blowingly amaaaz as everyone says. That’s just me that’s just me; everyone else was totally oohing and ahhing at the scantily clad writhers scattered about.
More importantly: the second and third selling points of this show, the two stars. Eddie Redmayne is as good as they say. He’s doing this weird hunchback-of-Notre-Dame meets sickly-Victorian-boy meets haunted-marionette thing that really works for the Emcee. His approach was different enough from the legendary Alan Cumming performance I feel like I just saw on Broadway, so there weren’t many reasons to compare the two, I think fortunately. Cumming does have that unabashed unhindered and almost uncomfortably high awareness of sexuality though, like oozing out his pores, and Eddie does not, so that makes the sessual bits (like “Two Ladies”) feel a bit awks, a bit mismatched. But he sounds great and he’s so fully committed to this pretty insane role.
The real star for me is Jessie Buckley as Sally Bowles. At first I was left a little wanting when her opening number, “Don’t Tell Mama”, was more spoken than sung, which is a peeve of mine, but with every minute she keeps leveling up. Her first scene with Cliff, with all the Britishisms about what ‘one does’ and all was pitch perfect and reached new levels of hilarity that I never really got before. Her instability and her sense of self are clear without being annoying. She keeps building this character and its anxieties and fears throughout the show so that her final swansong of “Cabaret” was shockingly strong and completely untethered. Husbo thought it was a little too unhinged, but I loved it. Buckley wholly nails that vibe of Sally being a manic pixie girl but in a nightmare instead of a dream. She is wonderful.
The supporting cast is strong too, with the side plot between Fraulein Schneider (Liza Sadovy) and Herr Schultz carrying the day, in large part due to the power of Sadovy’s numbers. I like Omari Douglas but felt he was miscast as Cliff here, perhaps because he was the one onstage I could tell was capital-A Acting. But my criticisms are small, really. This production is so well directed that there are still parts that are creeping up on me, like how Eddie is dressed up as a Halloween-ish depiction of death conducting the cast during the Act I closer ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me’, get it, because it did? you get it. It’s always interesting to see how they can make yet another production of this oft-performed classic feel warranted, and this one was. More than anything though, it cemented that these two stars are motherforking Stars that I hope continue in theatre for a long time.
INFORMATION
Strongly recommend sitting up the dress circle. It’s cheaper (somewhat) and easier to get to the bathrooms. The first act is LONG, like an hour 40? The second is an hour.
No one wears masks because they are drinking the whole time. The assholes next to us had bottles of wine and whenever they would refill their glasses, they would cheers and clink their glasses. We were close to screaming but they always chose their moments to prevent this, like doing it at the emotional climax of ‘Maybe This Time’. I FORKING HATE YOU. A lot of people in the cabaret tables up front were obviously there to be seen, in a pathetic but unavoidable in the social media age way. There was this girl sitting right in front in like a silver and white Sexy Baby costume who was gasping and clutching her throat the whole time in wonderment so fake and performative, it was plainly a 2 1/2 hour audition for her. I hope she gets the attention she so badly craves. Anyway what I’m saying is it was a bad audience but WHATEVER.
