Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 03:59 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 03:59 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse's "Cabaret": a deep dive (Don't miss today's Weekly Blast) - BigM 03:50 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He only mentions having sex with “two ladies.” Maybe gay people have played the role but the character is decidedly straight. | |
| reply to this message |
| Since at least the mid-90s | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 09:55 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:44 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Since when is the Emcee gay? - KingSpeed 03:59 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for the most bonkers post of the year. Look, the Emcee is playing a part, and an aspect of that is poking fun at dominant culture by playing the clown and representing himself as something he’s not. If that’s too abstract for you, then we can look at the Mendes production, in which one of the Ladies was played by a man (and that is officially written into the script), and in which the Emcee twice wore a dress, and in which the Emcee went to the camps with a big pink triangle on his uniform. If that doesn’t tell you he’s gay, I don’t know what will. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Since at least the mid-90s | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 11:57 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: Since at least the mid-90s - Singapore/Fling 09:44 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He’s gay in the Mendes production, not in the script. Yours is the bonkers post. Have you read the original script? Have you seen a production of the original? I have. He’s not gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since at least the mid-90s | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 02:59 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:58 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since at least the mid-90s - KingSpeed 11:57 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| We’re not talking about the original script, because the script had evolved, and the 1998 version is an official script that is the primarily produced one. But look, here’s the thing, the Emcee is decidedly a character (as others have pointed out). He is a shape shifter who is leading a Weimar cabaret in which he plays a role for his audience while performing acts that undercut the status quo. And he’s doing it at a time when Berlin had a thriving gay subculture. So we can’t really say anything about the Emcee as a person, because we never see that person. Nothing in the script tells us anything about him. Does he actually have a wife? He says he does, but he says it as part of a bit, so we can’t trust it. He also says he has two ladies and they all share duties equally, which doesn’t make sense with the idea that he has a wife, unless you think that he found a different second lady because Sally turned him down. But that treats everything he says as true, which is a very weird take. Does the script say he’s gay? No. Does it say he’s straight? No. There is literally no reason to draw any conclusions. If anything, his sexuality is Clown. You can read him as straight, but you don’t have to, and certainly many people have drawn a different conclusion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since at least the mid-90s | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 09:50 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Since at least the mid-90s - Singapore/Fling 09:44 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Well argued. I saw the original staging in the first national as a teenager and the first Mendes iteration. Same character defined by both the theatrical shorthand and cultural prism on homosexuality in very disparate eras. A sexual identity wasn’t imposed by Mendes; it was reminted with a fluid lexicon that post Stonewall America provided all stories with queer representation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:26 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Since when is the Emcee gay? - KingSpeed 03:59 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| More than one critic writing about the original production at the time described the character as homosexual. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:11 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since when is the Emcee gay? - AlanScott 06:26 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I feel like that’s a homophobic response to the original production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 05:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:47 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Since when is the Emcee gay? - KingSpeed 03:59 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He only mentions having sex with “two ladies.” Maybe gay people have played the role but the character is decidedly straight. Boy, that is one amazing leap. "Two Ladies" is merely a number in the act. It is not about the M.C. literally/personally. (In the same sense that Sally and the girls are not actually trying to deceive their mothers by being club performers, and no one was left behind in Antwerp. etc. And no one's granny just joined the line.) By your reasoning, I guess the M.C. is also into literally into bestiality with gorillas? The M.C. also mentions that all the girls are virgins. So I guess he isn't actually having sex with the two ladies?? :-) He also mentions that he doesn't care much. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 07:06 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:05 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since when is the Emcee gay? - Chromolume 05:47 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Where is it in the script that he’s gay? He flirts with the girls in the opening. Everything he says is that of a straight man. It’s a leap to say he’s gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:35 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since when is the Emcee gay? - KingSpeed 07:05 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's not in the script (at least the 1966 version). But again, all we see of the M.C. is his character onstage the the Kit Kat Klub. We never meet the offstage persona. So we can't really say. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 11:58 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since when is the Emcee gay? - Chromolume 09:35 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you. That is more accurate than what I was saying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since when is the Emcee gay? | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 07:27 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 07:23 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since when is the Emcee gay? - KingSpeed 07:05 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think the script's description of his makeup, including patent leather hair, overly rouged face make-up, etc. among other things, if I recall, point this way, plus the original writer, Isherwood's sexuality might have been ascribed to the MC since the Cliff was not bi or gay in the original, but clearly heterosexual. There are gay guys in the "Telephone Number" who try to put the moves on Cliff too, if I recall, so gayness is addressed to some extent if marginally ("Would you like to buy a boy a drink?"). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Posted by: SidL 03:40 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Since when is the Emcee gay? - PlayWiz 07:23 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| …as the Master of Ceremonies guess we’ll never know if the character would have been portrayed as a lesbian For me, Joel Grey’s Emcee seems more asexual than anything else. I picture him living with his elderly mother in a small flat above a butcher shop |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:14 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - SidL 03:40 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I seem to think that Joel Grey said that Fosse wanted or at least was considering asking Ruth Gordon, but do we have any confirmation of that from anyone else? Gordon does not appear in the index of either the Gottfried bio of Fosse or the Wasson bio. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 11:38 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 11:33 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - AlanScott 06:14 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Alan, I seem to recall a video interview of Joel Grey where he said that Bob Fosse, certainly at the start, was against his casting in the film and that Ruth Gordon was someone Fosse was very interested in using for the role. I got the impression from Grey that Fosse was rather tough on him during filming, at least early on during rehearsals. Maybe he eased off later on. Gwen Verdon was described by Grey or someone else on this documentary or interview about the "Cabaret" film as being quite instrumental assisting Fosse and someone mentioned she probably should have received co-directing nomination (and a share in the award the Fosse actually won) since her input turned out to be invaluable as far as choreography, possibly the look of the makeup and costumes, etc. She even flew back from Berlin where they were filming to New York to get the gorilla costume for "If You Could See Her" when earlier versions weren't acceptable to Fosse. I think some of this was dramatized in the "Fosse/Verdon" tv series. Fosse did thank Gwen during his Oscar speech, but she possibly could have been the first woman director to get the Oscar. His ego apparently couldn't handle more than an acknowledgment during the acceptance speech though, and she didn't push it, with their long, complicated history. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:20 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - PlayWiz 11:33 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, some of that was in Fosse/Verdon. I'm just wondering if we can necessarily accept this Ruth Gordon thing as being definitely true as it seems that Joel Grey may be the only source for it. It seems like second-hand hearsay. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:31 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - AlanScott 12:20 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Well, he was there and probably heard stuff from his agent, the producers, etc. -- and Ruth Gordon was a relatively recent Oscar winner for "Rosemary's Baby" at the time playing someone who turns out to be something akin to a witch, and who was starting to give very singular kinds of Ruth Gordon movie performances (starting around the time of "Inside Daisy Clover"). Maybe since Fosse couldn't use Gwen for "Sweet Charity" for that film recreating her stage role, he thought a bigger name (with an Oscar) might be an intriguing idea for "Cabaret", since most likely he wouldn't be fully credited for the role Grey had already been acclaimed for. But I don't know who else could confirm this who is still around, other than Mr. Grey. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:22 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - PlayWiz 12:31 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Wouldn't Liza Minnelli know also? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 11:28 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 11:25 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - BroadwayTonyJ 06:22 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Possibly, but most interviews with Liza about "Cabaret" tend to be about Sally Bowles and finding her character and her look, and not so much about other characters and actors in the film. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. | |
| Posted by: larry13 11:42 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Fosse wanted to cast Ruth Gordon.. - PlayWiz 11:25 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Could it possibly be that Grey was joking; that Fosse so didn't want HIM, he'd even consider Ruth Gordon? OR that Fosse himself did say it, but, again, as a joke? IF there is any truth to this, a couple other people who might know are Kander or even Nicole Fosse. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| While It Doesn't Prove Anything | |
| Posted by: Clancy 04:22 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Since when is the Emcee gay? - KingSpeed 03:59 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| In the Sam Mendes / Rob Marshall version not only does the Emcee gallivant with Victor and Bobby (or is it Bobby and Victor?) in the final scene he is revealed to be wearing a concentration camp prisoner's uniform with a pink triangle. Which suggests he is bisexual at a minimum and perhaps gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: While It Doesn't Prove Anything - Clancy 04:22 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Sam Mendes can say he’s gay but it’s not in the original intention of the piece. You make a production where Sweeney is gay too. In the original production and movie, he is incredibly straight. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:07 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Do you mean the Master of Ceremonies is incredibly straight in the original production and movie? Or were you speaking only of Sweeney? If the Master of Ceremonies, I can provide quotes from reviews of the original production that suggest he was not perceived as incredibly straight by some of the critics. Words used by critics in describing the character and/or Joel Grey's performance included homosexual, effeminate, androgynous, effete and mincing. A review of replacement Martin Ross used the made-up word swishbuckling. It can be argued that the Master of Ceremonies was of uncertain sexuality or asexual in the original production, or that the character's sexuality was simply nonexistent as he was not meant to be a real person, but my guess is that he was not perceived as incredibly straight by audiences who thought about it at all (if you did mean the Master of Ceremonies). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:45 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh yeah, when I watch Joel Grey in the movie, “incredibly straight” are the exact words that come to mind. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 09:45 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Why does gay come to mind? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:11 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 12:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, gay doesn’t come to mind. I think the Emcee, as played by Joel Grey, is queer non-binary and would probably use they pronouns if German gave them the option. But why does straight come to mind for you? Why do you look at the most openly gay society pre-Stonewall and insist that he’s definitely straight? Why do you look at a character who covers his face in a pound of paint and dresses like a dandy, a clear gay signifier, as being straight? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:57 am EDT 04/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 03:11 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm genuinely not sure where you get that Joel Grey's emcee "would" use they pronouns and identify as non-binary. Just as much as I don't get why someone would so confidently assume him to be straight. Not sure why one assumptions makes more sense than another, and it really bothers me when people in a modern day assign presumptions about what people in the past "would" do "if" xyz. Even with non-binary as an option to identify, the Emcee (as played by Grey) might very well not identify as non-binary, or might be gender queer but not specifically use they/them pronouns. Such a strange thing to assume and assert, especially in the effort to question or dismantle someone else's assumption about sexuality or gender of a character. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:08 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know that it wasn't the original intention, or at least the intention as it ended up in the original production. Grey as the Master of Ceremonies was perceived by at least some critics as gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - AlanScott 07:08 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Bobby in Company is perceived as gay too but he’s not. What does Harold Prince have to say about this? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's also in the script that the Emcee leads the Kit Kat Girls in goose-stepping and heiling Hitler. Do you think that means he's a Nazi? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| YES nm | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:07 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: YES nm - KingSpeed 12:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| The Emcee is holding up a mirror to his society, reflecting their hypocrisies, which is why he ends up in the camp. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:16 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - Singapore/Fling 03:07 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| But is the cabaret meant to be one of the cabarets that focused on satire and politics? If we're looking to Prince, there were the numbers set in the real Kit Kat Klub, and there were the numbers set in the metaphorical Kit Kat Klub. I take the latter as reflecting Germany. The Master of Ceremonies performs for us changes in the German psyche. He is not a real Master of Ceremonies in a real cabaret in those numbers. At least that would seem to have been the intent in the original production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: theatreguy40 04:21 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - AlanScott 03:16 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I tend to agree with you -- but with one minor possible clarification. I think even what you call the "metaphorical Kit Kat Klub" --- can also be interpreted as the actual Kit Kat Klub --- those numbers actually being performed in the Kit Kat Klub but (as you say, and I agree) reflecting Germany and the changes in the German psyche. Either way - in your interpretation and in my slightly altered one to yours --- it clearly doesn't have anything to do with the Emcee as a "person". He is just performing "numbers". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - theatreguy40 04:21 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, I think I agree. And I would add that even if the Master of Ceremonies is partly not a real person, the actor must play him as a real person. Something that may be of interest: Over the last couple of days I have been re-reading reviews of the original production. I think the show is perceived as having been controversial but still having generally gotten very favorable reviews. In fact, the reviews were extremely mixed. If not for Kerr's Times rave (even with his negative appraisal of Jill Haworth), it might not have been the hit that it was. And it's surprising how many of the critics, even the favorable ones, seem to have not understood importan things about the show. It's surprising how many critics either didn't get the connections between the metaphorical numbers and the book, or just plain misunderstood things that should be obvious, and this includes some smart critics. I guess it was more confusing in 1966 than we might think possible. And a musical does give us a lot to take in on a first viewing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 11:57 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 11:51 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - AlanScott 05:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Joel Grey has ever gone into too much detail of his preparation for the MC character, other than to say that he based it on one particular person (with perhaps parts of several similar), but a second-, third- or fourth- rate comedian (and maybe one who sang and danced?) he had seen in the Catskills Borscht Belt or elsewhere in some variety shows which Grey had done for many years. He said this person was pretty awful, with connotations of flop sweat and just really giving off all kinds of audience apathy (or antipathy, i.e. bombing with them). I'm guessing as an actor maybe Mr. Grey made up a name for his MC (or Emcee) character, but has kept it hidden from others; of course, this is all conjecture, but with such a tremendously successful performance, winning a Tony on Broadway (as well as long-in-coming overnight stardom) and an Oscar for the film, he was very specific in the kinds of choices he made in making this character very indelible and true for him, and thus his audience. Btw, in the film, there are a few moments where the MC is off-stage not doing a number; I do recall at one point he kind of sticks his tongue out at Liza Minnelli's Sally Bowles for some reason. Maybe he's jealous she got a big hand? The MC is supposed to be seductive and kind of charming to the audience, with his opening to literally welcome us into the Kit Kat Klub before we see it's a facade that is in the process of breaking down, like the society at that time. The film added stuff like mud wrestling and violence from members of the Nazis against patrons in the club intercut during some other performance on stage as well. All this added to what the new screenplay and direction had to say, but it's different from the original. I, for one, actually love the "Meeskite" number and Jack Gilford's performance of it on the OCR (and I think Haworth sounds absolutely perfect for her role). I don't know when it's last been done in the show, as it really works as a very humanizing, gently funny song for Herr Schultz, who unfortunately most likely will be a victim of the Holocaust (and it's a better number than "Pineapple"!). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:22 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - PlayWiz 11:51 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I adore "Meeskite," and I think cutting it leaves us with a very bald way of Ernst learning that Schultz is Jewish. Also, I think we want another song in that scene. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:36 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - AlanScott 12:22 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Have any recent productions included the "Meeskite" song? I don't mind "Pineapple" actually -- it works fine as a number for Schultz and Schneider, especially well when I saw Hal Linden sing it quite beautifully opposite Polly Bergen. If only he had been allowed to do "Meeskite"! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: simbo 04:22 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - PlayWiz 12:36 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Kander and Ebb said in their book "colored Lights" that Meeskite only worked when Jack Gilford was singing it (and it was only really necessary when they were playing the censored version of "If You could See Her Through My Eyes"). It does have the unfortunate effect of pushing Herr Schulz in a particularly schmalzy direction which is not the tone of the rest of the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 06:39 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 06:36 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - simbo 04:22 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| But Herr Schultz is intended to be rather schmaltzy and sentimental (you think "Pineapple" isn't?), especially given his status as outsider which the politics of the time, personified most overtly in that scene by Ernst, is very much against and being used as a scapegoat. Gilford's version is wonderful, but I remember years ago seeing another performer in a nightclub do an excellent job of it. It works as a standalone number too. Regardless of what Kander & Ebb wrote years later, and after years of my listening to it on the OCR, I still think it's a wonderful song, and I miss it in productions. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:02 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - PlayWiz 06:36 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm with you. I think it's a wonderfully touching song and just what the show needs at that moment. That scene is kind of flat without the song. And I love Peter Sallis doing it on the original London cast recording. And I've never read complaints about it in the tour reviews or replacement reviews after Gilford left on Broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| And, as I said before, he also makes an eloquent case for his romantic relationship with a gorilla. What does that say about the man? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:03 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Chromolume 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He’s making a show of anti-semetism. It is not the same. Can someone ask Joel Grey? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:23 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 12:03 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| But "If You Could See Her" is as much of an act in the club as all his other songs. They are all part of an act he does at the club. So I don't think you can say that any of the songs show us really who the MC is in his private life, etc. I'm not sure where you find the distinction. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:35 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 12:03 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| But doing a Nazi kickline and heil is also making a show and a mockery of Nazis... but didn't you just say that him doing that in the script makes him a Nazi? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Chazwaza 02:35 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Not to mention that he ends up in a camp - IN THE SCRIPT - so why is he there if he’s a card carrying Nazi? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: ms721 04:24 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 03:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| two prong question does the MC end up with a symbol on his jacket at the end of the original show, or the movie or the revival? and what is the symbol? if it's a yellow star that means his bigger crime is being Jewish and his sexuality is still not clear. if it's a pink triangle he's not Jewish but incarcerated for being homosexual. and i find the whole discussion amusing as it's all a matter of how you interpret it so what's the point of arguing?. thanks. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:39 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - ms721 04:24 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| The 1998 version ends in the camps. The actual symbol on the uniform is not specified. In the production, it was both a Jewish star and a pink triangle. My memory is that they used two patches, though it should have been (and I’ve seen it as) a combo of the two in one patch. But I can’t say for certain that wasn’t what they did in ‘98. I think the argument stems from the statement that the Emcee is “decidedly straight”. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:47 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:44 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 03:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I've always felt that one of the strongest themes and messages of the musical is how the Kit Kat Klub represents distraction and diluting with a party, forgetting what is going on outside and coming in to serve your own needs, allows for the real forces of terror going on outside to take control. It feeds perfectly into/through Sally's approach at life, and even Frau Schneider's state of mind during the timeline of the show. The Emcee is the ringleader and facilitator of this. He observes and reflects the world but also the characters in the show they are giving us (sally, cliff, schneider etc). That is why the final lines "we have no troubles here" and then the multi-lingual goodbye, the same as it started, are so effective and upsetting. In many ways it's wonderful that "life is a cabaret", and in many ways it's... not. Which is also the clear tone of the title song, without it being drowned in literal trauma and anger and bitter sarcasm like the current london revival (which I felt was also slightly too much in the Mendes revival, but by comparison now looks downright subtle) I think he is mocking and also trivializing when he does the kickline. Turning it into entertainment but for people who are there to be drunk and complacent and entertained and titillated. And then, in Mendes' much more obvious version, it literally bites him/the club in the ass when he is sent to an oven. But I do prefer the original ending, I find it more unsettling actually, and effective. The movie's ending too. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:38 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| But we see Bobby in his everyday interactions, which includes his sexual relationships with women. We do NOT see the M.C. "for real" - only his onstage persona. So we can more assuredly say that Bobby is not gay. We really don't know about the M.C. - we can only assume one way or the other. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:49 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He doesn't say anything about the character being gay or having been played as gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It sure doesn't. | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 05:32 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: While It Doesn't Prove Anything - Clancy 04:22 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Mendes and Marshall are not the authors of Cabaret. Thank goodness. Btw, neither is Bob Fosse. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It sure doesn't. - keikekaze 05:32 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Since the Mendes version is an officially licensed version of the show, and the changes that Mendes made for that production are in that script, Mendes actually is an author of "Cabaret". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 02:08 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| According to Tams-Witmark who licenses the 1998 version, the only author of record is Joe Maateroff. Mendes is only officially the director (along with Rob Marshall). That is the case on the title page of my program from the version presented at Henry Miller’s Theater. So it’s not a fact that Mendes is an author. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:05 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - Billhaven 02:08 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it’s not a fact that Mendes is the credited book writer. But as we know, there are untold writers who never get credit for the work they do rewriting scripts… are they not authors? But sure, let’s go with the title page. Joe Masteroff is credited as the writer (along with John Van Druten and Christopher Isherwood as the source materials), and he was alive when that production came out, so if he didn’t author those changes, he at least approved of them, so why are we debating the original versus the Mendes as if the latter doesn’t count? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Erik_Haagensen 12:25 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 03:05 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Joe Masteroff was my teacher at NYU in the grad program for writing musicals from 1984 to 1986, my dramaturg at the O'Neill Music Theater Conference in 1987, and we were friends afterward. When the Mendes version was produced, he told me that he, John Kander, and Fred Ebb all went to London to see it. Joe and Kander liked the changes that Mendes had made; Ebb did not. None of the men were prepared for the extent of the changes, which included new book writing done by Mendes. Ultimately, the three men decided to allow a New York production of the new version. However, Joe insisted that the Mendes script not be used. Instead, he wrote his own versions of the new scenes while keeping Mendes' structural and character changes intact. Mendes was not given a writing credit as a result. However, just as Harold Prince has an author copyright and royalty on many of the musicals he directed, even though he gets no formal writing credit, I think one would have to say that Mendes is a co-author of the 1998 Broadway version of CABARET. Joe never discussed the question of royalties with me, alas, except that he got a lot of them. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:04 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| No he isn’t. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| . . . but my original comment is correct and I stand by it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 11:33 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:31 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - keikekaze 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Your original comments are correct only in terms of the 1966 script. Changes that were made after that definitely need to be credited to those who made them. In fact, crediting the other contributors is a good way to keep each version straight. (Or, maybe I should say "distinct," given some of this thread lol.) It would be equally wrong, for instance, to say that the book for the current Camelot revival was written by Lerner (alone). Get the point? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 02:26 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - Chromolume 11:31 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes I do, and the point is, that having brushed up an existing property by rewriting a few bits here and there is not the same as having written it, that is, having created it out of thin air or even having adapted it from another medium. Mendes didn't "write Cabaret," and Sorkin hasn't "written Camelot." At most, they've rewritten some of it--and for the worse, as nearly always happens in these cases. I suppose it's nearly always going to happen when you're piggybacking on somebody else's work, only somebody else's work doesn't say what you want it to say, but you're not about to write your own show to say what you want to say (as you should) because you damn well want that pre-existing score to sell "your" revival. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:54 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - keikekaze 02:26 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| There's a huge difference between being a contributing writer and an originating writer, but they are all writers, and they all have a form of authorship on the musical. And while you're heaping scorn on Mendes et al here, you're forgetting that the changes made to "Cabaret" led to a revival that injected new life and popularity into the musical, running twice as long as the original on Broadway, and substantially longer than the 1987 revival. That script, which has become the default for new productions, has a lot of smart changes - and a few clumsy ones - that attune the material to a contemporary audience (and at this point, we'd do well to have another round of edits to fully bring Cliff out of the closet). This kind of work isn't just for the ego of a director, it's for the benefit of the musical itself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:04 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 11:54 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know the answer to this: Did Mendes actually write any dialogue or lyrics? My impression is that he did not, but I'm not sure. Prince felt that he should have received royalties as one of the authors, and been credited as director of the original production in revivals, and he was sorry that he didn't put this in the contracts. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:03 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - keikekaze 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Me: Here are some facts. You: I reject those facts. Me: That doesn’t change the facts. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It sure doesn't. | |
| Posted by: Guillaume 06:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It sure doesn't. - keikekaze 05:32 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Amen to that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thank you! nm | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:03 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It sure doesn't. - Guillaume 06:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.594166 seconds.