Is Cabaret the next Chicago?- Page 2

[Kad]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 8:09pm

Broadway Flash said: "The pre show is only five people. Even with them, it’s still a smaller cast than Chicago. I imagine their next emcee will be a big star as well"

It's much more than 5 people. It's 5 performers, plus 3 swings for them, plus four musicians. So right there is 12 additional people on top of the 22 performers for Cabaret itself not counting the orchestra. And then there are bartenders and other front of house staff who have to be there for additional time, plus any food prep staff, plus the dedicated photographer they have for the preshow crowd, plus I'm sure more.

[tacotheatrelover]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 9:39pm

TheatreFan4 said: "I'll pay something to see Mason Park if they're able to get them back..."

I keep saying bring back fra and amy but noooooooooo I'm the bad guy who want the best emcee and sally bowles from the last 10 years back.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 10:31pm

I only saw the Sam Mendes Cabaret once, and it was with Sienna Miller. She was PERFECT as Sally bowls. Truly the best there ever was, I can’t imagine a better performance. Even Ben Brantley in the nyt raved.  I still have her performance in my head, I would desperately want to see her in it again.  Her voice, speaking and singing, the way she moved, her personality, she WAS Sally Bowls

[Wick3]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 10:37pm

TheatreFan4 said: "Let's look back at the prior Cabaret production in 2014/2015. Very rare instances did that ever reach above $1M a week. There was also never such a financial barrier of entry to that production versus this production. So yes, you have the affluent people spending their money now but they'll run dry. It's not likely to win many (if any) Tonys next month. Revival will go to Merrily and in the chance that he wins actor, Eddie Redmayne won't stay beyond his contract anyway so it's moot. When referring to this being the next Chicago... that is so completely foolish and dumbfounding. Chicago has found its niche because it's cheap the run, you can always get tickets day of, and the plot is... kind of irrelevant for those tourists with a small grasp of the English language. It's the perfect storm of a show. It has that Cats factor.

Cabaret on its face, asks a lot more of the audience. It's not a show you pop into on a whim on your day in the city (nor are they marketing it that way). You take away the pre show and you're left with... nothing special? Can you run it for a while? I'm sure you can, but not as it is. You would need to continue scaling it back. It's out within 18 months."

I agree about the financial barrier. I recall my orchestra table seat cost $162 back in 2014/2015. The premium table seats cost $262. For me, I had to plan this out with friends and save up money since we wanted a table experience which was great! Those were high prices back then but not astronomically high like the prices of this revival.

This 2024 revival, table seats are $599! It's just out of budget for me. I did manage to buy $149 mezz table seat (partial view). 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 10:48pm

tacotheatrelover said: "TheatreFan4 said: "I'll pay something to see Mason Park if they're able to get them back..."

I keep saying bring back fra and amy but noooooooooo I'm the bad guy who want the best emcee and sally bowles from the last 10 years back."

 

Fra truly is the best Emcee I've seen so far in this production.

[willep]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 11:08pm

“Cheap to run” “Smaller than Chicago” “run for several years”  bahahahaha this thread was a good laugh.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 11:32pm

Broadway Flash said: "The renovation of the theatre is what made it expensive. Their weekly running costs can’t be high especially when you take out the star salary."

You mention taking out the star salary but then you also mention that the extended run would hinge on stunt casting so...which is it?

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 11:46pm

in addition to all the myriad reasons outlined here why Cabaret will not be the next Chicago (two less lavish Cabarets, one with major Hollywood celebs leading them, have run/closed since this first production first opened...) theres also this:

subject matter. Cabaret is alot to take in-- both from the overtly sexual decadence to the Holocaust of it all. Its not a fun distraction for hoards of tourists from Denver and Manchester etc. without that tourist trade of people who are not necessarily theater people, theres simply no way cabaret could last the way chicago has. 

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 5/12/24 at 11:52pm

Well i think it's both.  You stunt cast the show when you need to.  Chicago usually does this during the winter to get them through the tough months, and then they go back to the musical theatre stars for the summer.  I think that's a great model that Cabaret could follow

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 12:19am

This is a half baked thought but

I wonder how the vocals/music are contributing to the general public's enjoyment of the show or lack there of? 

Cabaret has never called for lush gorgeous voices but this may be, musically, the worst of all the Broadway versions of Cabaret. And when tourists come into town and spend $300 on prime seats, are they going to appreciate that the vocals are a far second to the characters' outsized (oversized?) emotions?

 "Songs you know sung worse than you've ever heard them!"

Seeing a megawatt star is one way to help their enjoyment, but hiring star replacements who mean as much or more than Redmayne is easier said than done. Chicago is an anomaly. They'll have to go bigger than what they did in London if this is to survive.

Updated On: 5/13/24 at 12:19 AM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 1:10am

Broadway Flash said: "Well i think it's both. You stunt cast the show when you need to. Chicago usually does this during the winter to get them through the tough months, and then they go back to the musical theatre stars for the summer. I think that's a great model that Cabaret could follow"

You are as dim as a blown out bulb.

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 1:14am

This is absolutely out at 18 months. Or a little sooner. Word of mouth is poisonous. The entry into the space is fun and everyone wants an instagram shot of the green neon eye...but then what do you have? $29 cocktails, rough music, a story told on a tiny stage with little in the way of "spectacle" for the tourists, directorial choices that baffle and alienate the established theater fans. I don't see it winning any Tonys either (Bebe could be possible, but both Lindsay Mendez and Kecia Lewis are in a stronger position right now, maaaaybe scenic design if voters consider the preshow spaces, maaaaaybe sound design due to the unconventional stage. But they are longshots. And none of those categories will do a lick at the box office, certianly not long term).

Redmayne will be gone in a few months. And after the Tonys he is scaling back his schedule to 7 shows a week. As much as I love Marcia Marcia Marica, I don't think tons of tourists are going to shell out $500-600 a pop for tables to see her Emcee. Their business model is based on getting an A list replacement for either Emcee or Sally (and charged insane prices for drinks), but how many A listers are going to want to replace in this? It will have profitable weeks until Eddie leaves and then we will see it dwindle a bit until they will be forced to pull the plug due to crazy high running costs. It could earn $1 million a week consistently and still have to close. Crazy.

[Wick3]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 9:03am

Wow I didn't realize it's $29 cocktails but at least the schnapps shot is free.

I know in other theaters a double size of red/white wine cost almost $40. 

If the bartenders get to keep all their tips, they'll be making $$$. I have a feeling they share those tips with all the beverage staff though.

 

[Huss417]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 9:37am

binau said: "This thread is madness. We already know the show is very expensive to run. Also, we've had not one but two previous revivals of Cabaret recently that were cheaper to run and (especially the second time around) didn't last - despite also in my opinion being a bit more sexy, fun with a bit more charisma (while also keeping the subtextual darkness of course).

Not only is this revival of Cabaret not the next Chicago, I think the producers can probably slowly see a train wreck in the far distance unless they can find a suitable name to replace Eddie Redmayne."

Aren't most of the OP's threads "Madness"? I find most of their threads and or posts are usually to have an opposite opinion or to just stir the pot.

Updated On: 5/13/24 at 09:37 AM

[Huss417]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 9:43am

Broadway Flash said: "I only saw the Sam Mendes Cabaretonce, and it was with Sienna Miller. She was PERFECT as Sally bowls. Truly the best there ever was, I can’t imagine a better performance. Even Ben Brantley in the nyt raved. I still have her performance in my head, I would desperately want to see her in it again. Her voice, speaking and singing, the way she moved, her personality, she WASSally Bowls"

You saw one performer in the role and they are "the best" Also learn how to spell the characters last name.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 10:15am

I know instinctually. She was perfect in the role

[Kad]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 10:17am

Broadway Flash said: "I know instinctually. "

Why don't you start knowing things factually?

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 10:34am

It’s an opinion not fact. But I’m not the only one who thinks that. Everybody who saw her says it including Ben Bentley 

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 10:41am

One difference is that Chicago can run for stretches without a star. It's designed to showcase trained dancers.

Reviews suggest this Cabaret has been directed to avoid polished dancing and vocals. There isn't much to showcase if the stars will be asked to scream and froth at the mouth for 3 hours. No matter how talented a non-star replacement, they won't be given the opportunity to win over an audience. 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 10:53am

Actually, I thought Gayle's "Cabaret" was more tunefully sung than any of the Sallys that I've seen in the Mendes production, either live or recorded.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 12:04pm

Broadway Flash said: "I only saw the Sam Mendes Cabaretonce, and it was with Sienna Miller. She was PERFECT as Sally bowls. Truly the best there ever was, I can’t imagine a better performance. Even Ben Brantley in the nyt raved. I still have her performance in my head, I would desperately want to see her in it again. Her voice, speaking and singing, the way she moved, her personality, she WASSally Bowls"

I think on of the problems so many people on this board have with your posts is your hyperbole.  You acknowledge that you only saw Sienna Miller in the Mendes production, but then declare her ‘truly the best there ever was’.  Tone it down and you will get less dismissive feedback.

[Huss417]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 12:15pm

Broadway Flash said: "It’s an opinion not fact. But I’m not the only one who thinks that. Everybody who saw her says it including Ben Bentley"

Again you have this persons name incorrect as well.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 12:21pm

The spelling police is here. Yes I know how to spell his name it was an accident 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 2:00pm

What about Sally Bowles? You managed that incorrectly at least twice.  

And when I make a mistake, I correct it.  But it's all these things that continually keep you from looking the expert you want to be perceived as.

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 5/13/24 at 2:16pm

Broadway Flash said: "The show is even smaller than Chicago, it has to be cheap to run.They can stunt cast like Chicago to sustain them through the tough months. I bet it runs even longer than the first roundabout revival."

I've heard a lot of incorrect things on this website, but this is without a doubt the most egregiously incorrect post I've ever read.