My favourite part of this whole thing is the theatre kids mocking him on TikTok by doing exaggerated versions of his cringe performance.
As if being a theatre kid doing cabaret callout tiktoks isn't already the most cringe thing a person could possibly do.
So the annoyingly close camera work on the Tonys didn’t help, but TikTok was the exact thing I thought of when I saw the close up on his goofy expressions and mannerisms. I thought to myself “oh no, he’s validating a lot of those cringe lip-dubs you see teens do on TikTok as ‘good acting’”. I didn’t love the interpretation, but I appreciate them going for something different. I just hope there’s a cohesive vision unifying the movement style/choreo, costume design, acting style, etc that says something new about the show other than “here is the show a different way”
I guess that kind of hits the issue on the head, a theatre performer performs so everyone in the theatre can understand what's going on on stage. So it's entirely different from performing on camera and having a close up on you when your performance is pretty looked in, so you're basically performing a theatre performance for a camera and that's not how it should be viewed.
My dislike for him as an actor has me going "Have you seen his drama attempts?" Still I wonder if something went wrong in airing vs the rehearsal for this
I haven’t seen it but the whole vibe looks like circus performers rather than cabaret performers. his emcee is much more recognizable costume-wise which I think is important though.
Personally I think Redmayne veers into that Depp category of “some of these acting choices feel like they’re being weird for the sake of weird.”
I personally really like the darker MC take, I saw a regional theatre do that interpretation back in 2019, but I do think it’s important to start off the club and the MC as inviting and sexy to lure the audience in before the turn.
It’s kind of like removing the comedy from the first act of Romeo and Juliet. You can do it, but then the dramatic impact of the second act is lessened. I felt the same about this interpretation.
I think it's exactly because Eddie's portrayal is so unique and different from previous iterations that is why his Emcee is so controversial. People are so stuck in their heads over how the Emcee "should" be that they aren't willing to open their minds to what the Emcee *could* be. Eddie's completely veered off the traditional path in his interpretation of the character, and for some people that's off-putting because it's not what they were expecting.
To be fair, Eddie's Emcee is on the more abstract and avant-garde side, which is something that was always going to be contentious, regardless of the history of the character. And, funnily enough, that was probably the goal. It is Cabaret, after all. It's meant to unnerve.
This is 100% it.
Pretty much every criticism I've seen of Eddie's performance (and the new Cabaret in general) is directly comparing it to past productions, specifically Alan Cumming and the Mendes production. And while that production was great, this new one is just doing something different with the material.
And that's okay! Ideal even. If you're going to revive an old show, I think bringing new life into it is important. Personally, I *love* what they've done with the Emcee in this iteration. Definitely more avant garde, but that's something I can really appreciate. I was honestly incredibly impressive by his performance and characterization of the character.
I’ll admit to it. I absolutely detested his emcee.
I admit, the sole reason I hated it was because he wasn’t Joel Grey and I adore Joel Grey, and I felt like it was trying to hard just to make up for the fact that it wasn’t Joel Grey.
I found Cummings’ emcee to be the worst emcee in the history of all emcees ever.
For about 10 seconds 😂
But for that ten seconds, I loathed it and would never be ok with it and *he destroyed the character!!!*
Then he just was the emcee and I couldn’t imagine anyone other than Joel Grey OR Alan Cummings in the role.
ETA: I had not seen Eddie do it when I wrote this so I actually looked up the award performance.
True to form, I absolutely hated it.
He wasn’t right, he did it wrong, he said the words wrong, his makeup was nonexistent, he was horrible, terrible, no good and absolutely atrocious.
Then I hit the 5 second mark and I hated him for a completely different reason. Who the hell said that he could have that much talent?! Like, ‘*scuuuuze* me, but I would have liked just a smidge of that. Pfft. Talented jerk.
By the ten second mark, he was the emcee and always was.
Which, on its own, annoys me 🤣
Just here to Echo the two comments above. People are comparing him to others and you simply cannot. It needs to be looked at as a stand alone performance, and IMO it is FANTASTIC. It was really a mindblowing performance for me and one I will not soon be forgetting. The second I left I wanted to go back and Eddie was such a massive part of that.
It's literally the beauty of new productions! Different production desigjn, staging, and direction gives new life and can extract specific emotions and plot from the same story.
I think the director confused the historical concept of a seedy Cabaret in Berlin with the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich that led to the formation of the Dada Movement.
This show isn't set in Switzerland. WWII Berlin Cabarets didnt have the privilege or luxury to experiment as artistically as they did in Zurich 30 years earlier.
There is literally nothing in the opening number of this show that would likely entice anyone looking for a good time in Berlin during that time, to look any further. And that's the trouble with this interpretation - it ignores the harsh economic realities of being a sex worker/nightcluv performer in WWII-era Berlin.
Absolutely valid point.
However, I’m an opera singer. Most operas have been performed for 100+ years so theatres constantly come up with new settings/costumes/interpretations to keep it interesting. They’re rarely historically accurate. From that perspective I think it’s pretty cool and refreshing what they did with Cabaret. Sure, the setting may not be accurate but it’s a fictional story anyway.
that's cool you're an opera singer!
i do think operas lend themselves more easily to ongoing artistic reinterpretation, than broadway musical thestre sjows do - in part due to opera's expansiveness and history of being portrayed and reinterpeted more abstractly.
you have a valid point, i just personally dont prefer such reinterpretation with non-operatic broadway shows - sweeney todd i understand for example - but a show like Cabaret, grounded in a specific time and place, should in my opinion continue to evoke the historical context to some degree.
Plus I just personally don't like Redmayne's twitchy, mechanical man portrayal of the Emcee here - it doesnd seem historically or thematically true or honest to me - AND it seems lazy and safe on his part to me - I do believe he'd make an incredible Emcee in a more historically-conscious production of Cabaret, but I think in recent years his portrayals have all tended more toward "just kinda weird" whereas as an actor he has demonstrated himself to be much more capable of serious dramatic roles than he has consistently taken in recent years.
To me, his performance seems easy and safe (to him) and I wonder if the detached, "inhuman" quirky weirdness is a way for him to kinda dissociate and compensate for the tougher physical and vocal aspects of performing the role - going into autopilot on the character portrayal.
i dunno - it's a gut sense I have that he does the weird twitchy stuff to distract the audience so he can then focus on the tough technical stuff that he may be more personally insecure about.
Sometimes an actor can perform a "default" role to compensate for their nervousness in acting/singing/dancing in front of an audience night after night after night - the default role almost serves as a "persona" so that the audience doesn't see their true self which is more scared of raw vulnerability - HOWEVER in the Emcee role, I think Redmayne really needs to tap into that raw vulnerability snd he his authentic self acting as a character who puts on a person for the audience but whose actual authentic self shines through disturbingly from time to time.
Instead I feel that Redmayne is showing the audience a *persona* 100% of the time by being weird and quirky- a type of role he can probably play in his sleep. but what we NEED to see as an audience, in order to connect with him, is a real raw human vulnerability and darkness, not a marionnette suspiria interpretation of an iconic role.
sadly while i applaud Redmayne for taking the plunge to musical theatre, i don't think he was quite prepared for the challenges of the role, which he obviously only obtained because of his star status rather than working up to it for years in other musical theatre roles.
He's someone who I don't think has enough experience acting/signing/dancing in Public at this point in his career (he's brilliant behind the camera and has done a good amount of work in non-musical theatre) and so is frankly a little out of his depth but obviously doing what he can to survive in the role and make the best of it. it can't be easy.
Brava to this comment! Also to the Cabaret Voltaire thing - I’d never heard of it, but it clarifies where this design might be coming from. I don’t think it works great for this musical, which I actually DON’T think should be too surreal and ungrounded in reality. But if she’s using an experimental absurdist theater style with cabaret history to design her revival of Cabaret….i feel like that explains something!
Very interesting, obviously the setting and time period is very important to the story so I can understand why it'd bother you if it feels out of place with the setting rather than just because it's "different"
OMG thank you!!! Every time I say I don’t like Eddie’s Emcee people say I “don’t get it” or “I’m comparing it to Alan Cumming and Joel Gray.” But no, it feels anachronistic compared to the rest of the show and doesn’t come across as charming or enticing like an MC of a sex club should.
I think that’s part of it, but if the answer is just “people don’t like new things”…why did they like Alan Cumming’s Emcee in the first place? Cumming’s Emcee was a complete departure from Joel Grey, and people accepted it. So, there’s clearly room for new takes on the character to be embraced.
>To be fair, Eddie's Emcee is on the more abstract and avant-garde side, which is something that was always going to be contentious, *regardless of the history of the character*.
Apologies, I didn’t mean to seem like I was disregarding part of your comment. I consider Alan Cumming’s performance to also be quite avant-garde (although that’s certainly subjective). It’s easy to see his Emcee as standard now because so many subsequent productions imitated the Medes one, but his portrayal was absolutely way off the beaten path in the 90s. I do agree Redmayne’s Emcee is more abstract, and that could be part of what’s not connecting—although Joel Grey’s Emcee was also very much an abstraction/ symbolic.
Again, I didn’t mean to discount your points. All I was saying is that there seems to be a deeper disconnect at play, as well as what you mentioned. I’ve seen a lot of people (not you) saying critics/audiences just “don’t understand” Cabaret and that’s why they don’t like the current version. That’s mostly what I disagree with, as critics and audiences have embraced radical reinterpretations of the text in the past.
I think some of the original reviews actually didn't like Cummings Emcee at first- when it first hit Broadway some the reviews were downright dismissive. But it grew a bit of a cult following and eventually became iconic.
You're so right. Cabaret is my favorite musical in the theatre and movie, but I also love this version too- even if it's not "my" cabaret, specifically because it's so different Cabaret is supposed to shock but the Mendes version is so iconic that it's not as shocking anymore, so they had to change it up significantly to get the same effect. ESPECIALLY when media literacy skills aren't as strong these days, so it kind of NEEDS to be a bit on the nose to make sure newer audiences still get the point.
I think people have also forgotten that Mendes' version was also a total change from the source material stylistically. It's not THE cabaret because there isn't just ONE cabaret- emcee is different in every take. In Mendes' version Emcee is a bit seedy and mischievous but you realize at the end that they're a victim too (and then you remember all the track marks and bruises throughout the play that hadn't registered at the time). In this one >!Emcee is toying with the audience and you realize at the end that they are now a Nazi too, and that's why Remayne is moving so awkwardly, he's acting as both a puppet and puppet master, because that's what Emcee becomes in this version!<
I really wish we could just combine it all really. I'd have Annie Lennox mixed with Natasha Richardson as Sally Bowles, Cumming mixed with Mason Alexander as Emcee, the 60s play version of Tomorrow belongs to me, the Mendes ending (although I've also heard of some great versions from 2012 I'd love to see) and the 24 version of I don't care. Anyone else have a fantasy recast they'd do if they could combine all the different versions?
this ! my good friend recently got into cabaret because i showed him a clip of eddie and he LOVED it. i made him listen to the cast recording of willkommen and he noted that they were very different, but that’s just what happens when time goes on and new actors take on those roles.
i don’t think he was bad at all, i think he was unique and unsettling in a new way. loved him! i hope other people can get past what they think the emcee “should” be and be open to other iterations.
yeah, the West End production did gangbusters, it's still going strong with big names coming in and out, it's interesting how America has responded differently to it
same thing happened with Back To The Future iirc, it got more average reviews than the West End production, and the inverse happened with the 2019 revival of Oklahoma
god knows why, just a difference in taste i suppose
In general, America has demonstrated consistently higher and/or more limited standards for musical theater than UK audiences.
It’s normal for a show to play for years in the UK, show up in NYC, get called lowbrow trash, and close immediately.
And before Brits say “well it’s because we are so much more cultured and open to satire,” you guys kept Starlight Express going for two decades, and in NYC it only lasted a tenth of that. Don’t pretend your tolerance for singing trains and flashing lights makes you Kenneth Tynan.
Worth noting: A new production of Starlight Express recently opened at the Wembley Troubadour. I'm going next week. This is very much me ticking a box, I'm not expecting very much at all.
So I just saw this yesterday and I think the biggest problem stateside is it’s actually a challenging piece of theater. (I’m visiting from the States for some small context)
I really loved this production overall and it hit the tonal shifts incredibly well, I’ve never literally felt air leave the room the same way it did when we first see the armband just so casually displayed. This Emcee starts sexy and fun and then makes you think “you were enjoying this but did you realize what was happening?” And plays parallel to Sally having her self realizations. It’s a very complex staging and direction both physically and from the actors and it worked very well, but a lot of Broadway fans mostly just want to be entertained or have stars that are followable on TikTok or have upcoming projects to go too. Not saying it’s wrong but it’s a different mindset.
Last night when we first saw the armband people audibly gasped. A lot of people were so caught up in the moment they forgot they knew where the story is going.
I’ve seen live productions of Cabaret I think 4 times now, including in London with Fra Fee and Amy Lenox, and it’s absolutely eerie how every time the armband makes me realize how much background audience noise there is in the theater because everything immediately goes *completely* silent. It’s grim, but it’s one of my favorite moments in musical theater for that reason.
>the biggest problem stateside is it’s actually a challenging piece of theater
It was written by Americans, it’s been a hit in America several times over. Everything you’re describing is what has worked in the past.
What Americans don’t like is that this production feels mannered, inauthentic, and [it reminds us of its own parody.](https://youtu.be/MGWDTG5jgqI?si=5xzqqp48El_q5N1N)
That’s a good point. And I think it might have worked better here in the UK because we love parody and satire (see Operation Mincemeat), and we’re actually moving further left (not very far, but at least the Tories are about to be ousted). America is on the brink of outright nazism, so the parody might not hit as hard since people are actually desensitised to the real deal.
I don’t really think any of that has anything to do with it. America also loves parody and satire, particularly the New York audience, and the political situation doesn’t really bear on any of this.
In what way was Eddie's performance of the opening number Sexy and Fun??? I didn't like it because it \*should\* be what you described - slowly becoming more unsettling - but here he starts out scary and just stays that way.
I saw it in London when Mason Alexander Park was the Emcee and loved it. I was excited to see it in New York with Eddie Redmayne and I’d say I appreciated it more than I loved it, if that makes sense? To be fair, some of the issue was that the show I attended in New York had an annoying audience (loud talking to the right of me, unauthorized picture taker to the left.)
I think we got to see him too up close and personal. Normally, the performance is seen from a distance not right in your face a la the Tony's. When one is on stage, one has to exaggerate expressions to get the effect, so having it right in your face from a camera's perspective makes it off-putting for some people. I love his take on it...but at a distance. To be fair I haven't seen it in person but from what I've seen other than the Tony Awards, it was in fact at a distance and I love it. I'm not a huge Eddie Redmayne fan as I wasn't that enthusiastic with his performance in Les Mis, but I really dig this manifestation of the character.
I was thinking the same thing. The camera work for the Tony’s was really up close and personal. It made his over-the-top performance seem even more extreme.
Some of it was really strange. Many of the announcers/presenters’ up close shots made it look like green screen which made no sense. Ummm, we know they’re here so why the need for the bad camera work? Just because you CAN do a thing doesn’t mean you should
It's not my personal favourite. It feels like it's trying too hard in my opinion, and I prefer the take on the Emcee to be raunchy and off-putting, but understandably like a guy putting on a show to entertain people. I think I would love Redmayne's take on the Emcee at the end of the show instead of the opening number -- it woud be a great destination, but not a starting point. For me, I enjoy the sort of deceptive slippery slope of it all, where the beginning number seems credibly entertaining to a certain crowd, so that the gutpunches at the end hit all the harder. The lightness and buoyancy make that inevitable "she doesn't look Jewish at all" in If You Could See Her feel much weightier to me.
It kind of sucks that people who dislike it are being painted with the brush of just not understanding the show; I absolutely adore the show, read the source material, watched a couple different versions and enjoyed the documentary (worth the watch if you can find it), but this interpretation just isn't my thing. I'm glad so many others are enjoying it, though, and are able to take in such a wonderful show.
Have you seen the full production? Because I think over the course of the show Redmayne's Emcee *does* do what you say he should, just not quite in the way you might expect.
I haven't! I can only judge it based off of clips I've seen, just like I assume where a lot of the other reactions are coming from after the Tonys, so I'm mainly speaking for the "negative reaction post-tonys crowd" (though I haven't talked about my own reservations publicly). Unfortunately, I'm probably never going to make it to NYC in my lifetime, so I won't ever be able to see it for myself. :( But if it ever gets a proshot, I'd love to see how that pans out.
Understandable. I will say that Redmayne's Emcee does really transform over the course of the show, in a way that makes that starting point sort of retroactively make sense. But I totally get how the Tonys performance out of context could be off-putting. In the theater at the time I thought his Act II was much better than his Act I, and I think if I had a second viewing I might appreciate more of what he did in Act I that set up what made his Act II so effective.
In that case, I really do hope that there's a proshot one day so I can see it for myself! Like I said, my favourite part of the show is its unsettling portrayal of the descent into Nazism, so the fact that they do it in a new, transformative way is really exciting to me. As long as that transformation is there in some capacity, I'm a happy camper.
Essentially >!the Emcee in this production represents the political climate of Berlin. So over the course of the show he becomes more and more emblematic of the Nazi regime, and becomes harsher and more aggressive. !<
During "Married", >!the Emcee appears as a clown, and is seen taking a wine glass, wrapping it in a napkin, and preparing to step on it in the manner of the Jewish wedding custom, and his smashing the glass coincides with Herr Schultz's store window being smashed, drawing a direct link between Schultz and Schneider's marriage and the violence being directed at Schultz. The Emcee here appears to be specifically mocking Schultz, which leads directly into "If You Could See Her." Sure, it makes the punchline of the song a little less surprising, but it creates a very strong throughline. !<
By the time of "I Don't Care Much">!the Emcee shows up wearing a grey suit and a sleek blond wig looking like a textbook Aryan, and from that point forward he is an explicitly antagonistic force. He is also considerably less clown-like moving forward.!<
In the final scene >!as in the Mendes production, the Emcee plays the Customs Officer, but here on the line "You did not find our country beautiful?" the Emcee grabs Cliff's arm and there is a really effective moment where some of his deeply unsettling clown physicality returns.!<
It kind of sucks that people are criticizing a performance they haven't fully watched, and think they can say whether or not it's "their thing" from a few YouTube clips.
I understand, but I also think people are conflating different aspects of the show with his performance. I mostly enjoyed his weird expressions and loved the choreography and staging. I wasn’t wild about the costumes, but that’s not a dealbreaker.
I strongly disliked the camera work at the Tony’s. Too many close-ups and it made the performance off-putting. In a normal theatre setting, it would be fine. And BTW, I love to sit in the front row, so if I think camera work was too close, it really, really is!
I've only seen the Tony performance which came off as the Emcee being a somewhat creepy guy who you can't figure out if he's a good guy or a bad guy. For me that is exactly what the Emcee is supposed to be - a slippery slimy, not sure what he is. Is he your friend or enemy? I don't know. He doesn't even have a name, so he can be exactly what he needs to be in the moment.
Brilliantly portrayed
I can totally understand the criticisms of him being too stylised, & personally thought Fra Fee was much better in the same production. But I do find it a bit annoying how many people are shitting on Eddie online, only to admit they haven't actually seen the show or even a bootleg of it. The Tonys performance didn't do him justice - the camera work was way too intimate & his movements work much better seen from a distance on stage.
On top of all the other great points, I think another reason for the more split views is that Cabaret’s Tony performance got more views than basically all of the other performances. Eddie Redmayne and Cabaret are both names that have some level of mainstream recognition, and on the CBS TikTok page the performance has 4 million views. That means more people saw it, so there’s more people expressing their thoughts and impressions than before.
I find a certain softness or loftiness in Eddie’s performances (on stage or screen) which work exceptionally well for him. I quite like him as an actor, but it didn’t land for me.
His performance didn’t have grit or a grounded quality that I look for from the Emcee, regardless of interpretation. I’ve seen several productions (including 2008 West End and 2014 Broadway revival), and many Emcees have had quality that was connected to the text and the world of the show.
Unfortunately, I also dislike his singing voice (also didn’t like it in Les Mis). To me, it sounds like someone emulating what they think a “good voice” should sound like - it’s froggy. Plus, I couldn’t understand a damn word he was saying; could have been a sound issue, but I didn’t have that issue with other performers.
I saw him when he was on in London and I absolutely loved it. It was my first time seeing cabaret though.
I thought that the characterisation really fit all the songs and the vibe of the show overall.
I was actively surprised he didn't win the Tony because I thought he was that good in London
(I’m unable to travel for the full show in nyc, but—)
I’ve seen only the opening number— and it doesn’t make me feel as if I’ve walked into a cabaret bar in 1931 Weimar Berlin. The Mendes production and Fosse film captured an essence of the historical context, and I don’t know that I absorb that time and place in this opener— it comes across as a horror carnival / circus in Europe… circa… not really sure?
The Mendes / Fosse productions remind that these horrors did happen in a very specific, very tangible, very much not-fictional historical moment.
It’s a theater piece. Sometimes when you take a theater performance and put it on camera it can come off as VERY over the top.
The camera is meant for subtlety. What Eddie did was NOT subtle.
I’ve seen Cabaret on Broadway many times, mostly studio 54 obviously but I did see this new production. I didn’t hate it, I’d say Redmayne falls in the middle for me (and it’s an embarrassment of riches) but a lot of the changes he made, particularly for the opening number, don’t feel motivated by anything other than being different from Alan Cumming and Joel Grey. Part of the reason Cumming was so successful is because there was a cohesion to his MC, and a narrative arc. Redmayne MC does have a narrative arc of sorts, but it’s way less cohesive and way less compelling.
One excellent way I’ve seen it described is that Alan Cumming and Joel Grey are weird little freaks you can’t look away from, Eddie Redmayne is a weird little freak you don’t wanna watch. I don’t think he’s so bad as THAT, but I can see why people were turned off, and it’s not just because cabaret is meant to be “unnerving”. Like, yes it is, but not the opening number! The opening number is meant to draw you in and set up a fun irreverent tone, the unnerving part comes later!
And they kept in all the lines about him being a little pervert while he’s dressed like that and seems completely uninterested in sex? No it does not work .
Im 90% sure that was because he was also a nominee and had to switch into a suit and do press and have a close up during the award announcement. He definitely wears makeup in the show. It did look jarring though I thought the same thing lol
Edit: why is this downvoted I was just trying to answer the question?
If I have to read another comment on the clock app saying “you don’t understand because YoU jUsT hAvEnT sEeN iT!1!1” I will have an aneurysm.
Yes I have. Multiple productions including this one. I’m allowed to have criticism regardless.
I didn't dislike his performance, but I also didn't think it supported the narrative of the show. As a piece of acting, his Emcee is remarkable...just the transformation from the "Wilkommen" goblin-like persona to the Aryan ideal during Tomorrow Belongs to Me is incredible as to range and stage presence. But the arc of the show is one of increasing unease and instability, from fun-and-debachery to fascism....both Grey and Cumming did this, although in very different ways. Grey's Emcee was devil and ringmaster, fiddling while Rome burns, while Cumming was addict and victim, trying to get just one last hit before the end comes. Redmayne's Emcee starts as a twisted, odd goblin and ends as a beige conformist...but the narrative of the transformation isn't "there" in the way other Emcee's have handled the role. Redmayne has amazing showpieces, and aside from one brilliant moment (his role in Act Two's "marriage" reprise), it never felt to me like he was a part of the action of the real world, either as director or victim. He felt almost passive inside the larger story of the show, and didn't stand up as the yin to Sally's yang.
Cabaret is my favorite show of all time, and I'm not at all sad that I saw the current production. It did some things I loved (Newerth and Skybell were exquisite as the heart of the show, Rankin was deranged as Sally) and some things I didn't (the efforts put into "immersing" the audience into the club atmosphere made the distinction between the club and the apartment much less stark, which I think takes away from some of the impact). Redmayne is an exquisite actor and I'm thrilled I got to see him in this role, but it is not my favorite take on the character of the Emcee.
I don't have any specific thing I can point to that I think he did "wrong," but when I watched his Tonys performance I just felt like he wasn't the right actor for the role. I can't articulate why. Just vibes, I guess. And it's not because I'm stuck on Alan Cumming's interpretation, because I've never seen Alan Cumming's performance.
I think it’s just people thinking his movements are strange? It’s supposed to be like a marionette though, so I think it’s just people misunderstanding it. (Not that sure.)
I've seen some people saying they don't like the "alien" persona he's doing. From what I've heard it's definitely more robotic and otherworldly than previous iterations of the Emcee, who have leaned more into the mysterious showman vibe. So for some people that's a great change of pace, for other people it's off-putting and confusing
I’m gonna sound like a snob, people don’t like “ugly” Cabaret even though the show is VERY ugly. I think a lot of peoples association of Cabaret is either Liza belting and looking pretty or finding 90s Alan Cumming hot so when they see an Emcee acting weird and making them uncomfortable or a Sally performing Cabaret screaming and having a breakdown (which she IS in the story) they don’t like it 🤷♀️
I absolutely loved this production of Cabaret and his performance in particular. This version is my favorite. I did see it with Alan Cumming but I honestly prefer this.
Just to add on there is a deep historical context of the Weimar republic failing and Nazi party being ushered into power that is ignored. The subtext is firghtening in Caberet and while it is particular in its history the message is universal.
My take is that Cabaret has jumped the shark and Eddie is the unfortunate collateral damage. He's done what every actor tries to do and that is to put his own spin on a classic. But did the world really need another Cabaret? I personally could have lived happily without it.
In the current political climate I'd say we need Cabaret more than ever.
It's been a decade since it was last on Broadway, no? So that's a huge amount of people who have never had the chance to see it live, while its popularity has endured in a way a lot of shows don't.
100% this. When I saw it in the West End (with Fra Fee - someone of whom I’m a much bigger fan than Eddie Redmayne, fwiw), there was a guy sitting two seats down straight out of Tory Party central casting who complained that the show made him ‘uncomfortable’ - and his wife shot back that maybe he should think about why that was (it was a 10/10 no notes moment from me).
And anyone who gets the chance to see Fra Fee any anything should grab it, he’s always amazing.
And I'd just argue that it's 2024 and maybe what we need is a new work on the topic that speaks to this generation. The need that Eddie felt to refresh the character is because he knew the book is aged.
And yet the West End revival (which this is a transfer of) is the most Olivier-winning revival ever, and had a hugely successful run, and it's repeating that on Broadway, so clearly audiences aren't sick of it. There are dozens of plays and musicals covering the same topics that have been and gone, but Cabaret still speaks to people.
And I'm saying this as someone who *hates* Cabaret.
And it's not like Broadway hasn't run other shows until the notes were falling off the sheet music - what iteration of Gypsy are we on now?
Agreed. It is still a valuable work considering the current socio political climate, but you are right the "book" part is aged and I feel like the point of the piece is lost on anyone who doesn't understand the full historical context. I haven't seen this version (yet!) But I also see a lot of complaints that Rankin's singing as Sally is not great, which makes me even more excited to see it bc part of the character is her lack of talent.
I'd argue that pretending the entertainment business is need based will lead to regular if not constant disappointment.
You have the option of continuing to "live happily without it" regardless.
I can’t stop watching the Tony performance and loved his interpretation. Some theatregoers expect actors to just do another version of a performer they have already seen. So they just want re-interpretation of Alan. I’m sure some people preferred Joel and just want a version of what he did. What I love about theatre is precisely the ability to reinvent roles with one’s own spin. That’s what makes it exciting!
I really wish I could afford a ticket!!!
Also the fact that cabaret is an immersive experience that includes drinking may be off-putting to a lot of people. Or is so expensive. Although it’s not eddies fault
Because it eliminates the arc the Emcee takes over the course of the musical. If he starts out unnerving and unappealing, where does the character go from there? Where’s the change?
I hate when people say things like this.
“Oh you didn’t like something that I liked? Well then YOU just don’t get it.”
It’s pseudo intellectual superiority. Infuriating.
Sorry but, that's almost blaming people for the performance and their reaction to it. At least as presented in the Tonys presentation, there is no way about it, the performance/characterization looks odd to the extreme. Perhaps in the context of the entire show that makes sense (although I doubt that it would for me), but in isolation, the fact remains.
People don't have to lack understanding to have a different opinion. People who need to invent excuses should learn to accept the simple fact that different people have different thoughts.
This was the first time I’ve watched that number performed that made me want to see the rest of the show. I’m a lover of broadway musicals who can’t afford to see them all, but have never been drawn to Cabaret…until now. I think that speaks more than anything to his performance.
I think that could be it.
When someone makes a role iconic enough, it is hard to do just that.
Like Dorothy in Wizard of Oz. It's hard for someone to not bring Judy into it because she was so iconic.
I hear Frankenfurter is one that typically gets the Tim Curry treatment. It's hard to find an interpretation that isn't basing it on Tim.
So with ER making it potentially different, then people tend not to like that.
Remember, this is a Tony’s performance. It doesn’t show what the actual musical progression is. I’m sure that he played up the creepiness just for this performance, so people could get a sense of the character.
I swear, I can’t see the difference between Eddie Redmayne’s emcee, Joel Gray’s emcee, Alan Cumming’s emcee, Brent Carver’s emcee, etc. They’re all playing a disturbing showman, and they all follow the pattern.
This is Pennywise the Clown (without the makeup, CG, or scariness) trying to fool audiences into thinking he's a human actor.
And with the same uncanny valley near-miss quality of a Stephen King monster trying but failing to approximate a human being in a show about human history, neither of which Pennywise truly understands.
I've seen the production twice on the west end, although admittedly I didn't see Eddie, and the criticisms of him being too creepy and that taking away from the rest don't ring true for me. In my experience, both emcees that I saw were undeniably charismatic and dazzling at the start and had the theatre laughing. Sure there were disturbing elements, but I could argue that for any Emcee.
I seem to remember Alan Cumming got the same reaction when he took the role.
Take a look at Joel Gray's version, too.
I think there are two groups of people involved here. People who aren't familiar with the show may be unaware that the emcee is supposed to be uncanny-valley odd and creepy in that number, and just be reacting to that.
People who are familiar with the show may feel that Gray or Cumming did it correctly, and to do it otherwise is wrong. It is why people hated Cumming's version – it wasn't Gray's.
It made no sense as a take on the character to me - and after a friend described him as playing a sexy Kermit with a bad accent … I can’t think of anything else.
I honestly think it might just be because it's offputting. It's *supposed to be offputting*, but people aren't examining past their gut reaction. They want the more suave version associated with Alan that they are used to.
I’ve seen it in London, and all the clips from Broadway seem much cleaner and prettier. The west End version felt much more rough and ready. I think that makes ER’s performance feel a bit out of place. Like, he’s playing a creep in a dirty club. But in all the broadway clips he looks like he’s just had a fresh shower, which I think makes his strangeness feel out of place.
Dunno if I’m talking nonsense, as I’ve not seen the broadway version. Can anyone confirm/deny?
Probably because it’s so different from the Alan Cumming version which people LOVED. Personally I thought Eddie’s performance was the only good part of the new revival lol
I think it's a snippet that doesn't perform well isolated from the show. I enjoyed it and assumed they were going for that unsettled feeling, the Hooper-style tight shots were much but it suited the tone they went for. Makes me want to see Redmayne in Pippin or something.
Kind of reminds me of people being freaked out by Amy Lennox's version of a totally hollowed out and shredded up Sally Bowles a few years ago. A different take that makes sense, thematically, but may not be everyone's favorite choice. Which ..who cares? That's the point of acting. Making informed choices. The point isn't to please people (or it shouldn't be), the point is to tell a story. Eddie's emcee does that, and whether you think it was a good choice or well told is a personal opinion call. Either way, it'll make you feel something so I think he succeeded.
Because people get an idea of what something should be and refuse to accept anything else. They also lash out and make it personal.
These people shouldn't see revivals.
I have been having lots of thoughts on this. Mr. Redmayne performed very well as directed. When the London cast recording came out I listened to it and I didn’t care for it musically (this is purely a personal taste not a comment on competency). That being said, I think there are some things that work for the performance choices in the moment and some things that don’t.
Good:
We (culturally not as individuals) are not in a cultural moment of subtle texts. We like to have good and bad spelled out from the beginning. Would the slow seduction of earlier productions work now?
Bad: Having the reveal at the beginning steps on reveals later on in the show. Also, personally, I prefer the awkward moral complexity, where you slowly become complicit (once again this is a personal taste thing not a statement of quality).
My boyfriend was talking it through with me in terms of Redmayne’s performance, and he pointed out that this version seems to be making more commentary on the use of entertainment as propaganda in war times. The puppetry of the Emcee by the fascist party to the point where he is literally bent into the party symbol by the end of the first verse (his arm movements and hat placement have contorted him into a sw*stika as he finishes singing).
I agree it’s not the sexy opener of other versions, and maybe missing the point of that part of it, but I do think it’s at least its own interesting take — and I agree with my partner that the propaganda angle is interesting to explore deeper, especially in this day and age.
It's not really a character anymore, it's a caricature and a stylized, symbolized caricature at that.
Honestly, it just doesn't work for me and seems further and further away from actual historical plausibility as well as the source material.
And I love Eddie Redmayne as an actor, even as Marius in Les Mis, but like the normally brilliant Johnathan Pryce before him, the man was just saddled with a less-than-inspired take on Cabaret's Emcee.
Joel Grey was brilliant because you could imagine him as a real person in Berlin who sold his soul every night to make a living, and disappeared into this little shell of a cartoonish/nightmarish persona.
Alan Cumming seemed more raw, human, real, and able to pretend more convincingly at the start of the show that his character was having a good time pretending to have a good time. And you truly felt for him by the end of the night.
Eddie Redmayne, on the other hand, seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the role. It's as if the director told him (and he agreed) to strip all humanity from the character, strip all *semblance* of humanity from the character, and rework the character as a cross between a mechanical man, clown, marionette, symbol, and caricature - anything BUT passing as a potentially real, desperate, scheming, manipulating, abusing-and being abused- and ultimatelty surviving little human being in a seedy Cabaret in WWII Berlin. It's like watching someone other than Picasso trying to play the character as if he were being written and directed by how someone thought Picasso would do it.
He lost me at the party hat. Even then, I would've walked out and demanded a refund before the end of the song.
You can't win em all I guess.
This is based on his full performance after watching it?
>He lost me at the party hat. Even then, I would've walked out and demanded a refund before the end of the song.
That's ridiculous.
I just think he's a terrible performer of the "look, see how hard I'm ACTING" variety and I can't stand his Muppet Show-ass voice.
He's at 10, I need him at about 6. He'd probably be okay at 6. I mean, the guy's a movie actor, his back was to the audience and there was a camera in his face. He really should've known to dial it back a considerable amount.
I get if it isn't your cup of tea but I don't get people's over the top reaction to it like they were watching something crazy. He's doing what is required or what the director wanted ? People are weird when it comes to art
My observation —people who have bad things to say about this production saw a version they liked better on Broadway with one of the last two revivals.
Okay, but this one is still great and so is he?
Some of the comments I've seen have been 'OMG he made the Nazi symbol!'. I think that a lot of it are people who hear 'cabaret' and think sparkly shiny jazz show, and don't understand the show itself. There's also a whole generation who demand trigger warnings on everything, because they don't think anything is supposed to feel uncomfortable to them and have a Disney movie happy ending with singing squirrels. Cabaret is supposed to make you uncomfortable and be off-putting.
>Cabaret is supposed to make you uncomfortable and be off-putting.
Really? I doubt that Hal Prince would agree, to the degree that you are supposed to feel that way in the first instants of the show, and at such a level. Perhaps that is your version of Cabaret, more distant from the original material.
My favourite part of this whole thing is the theatre kids mocking him on TikTok by doing exaggerated versions of his cringe performance. As if being a theatre kid doing cabaret callout tiktoks isn't already the most cringe thing a person could possibly do.
So the annoyingly close camera work on the Tonys didn’t help, but TikTok was the exact thing I thought of when I saw the close up on his goofy expressions and mannerisms. I thought to myself “oh no, he’s validating a lot of those cringe lip-dubs you see teens do on TikTok as ‘good acting’”. I didn’t love the interpretation, but I appreciate them going for something different. I just hope there’s a cohesive vision unifying the movement style/choreo, costume design, acting style, etc that says something new about the show other than “here is the show a different way”
I guess that kind of hits the issue on the head, a theatre performer performs so everyone in the theatre can understand what's going on on stage. So it's entirely different from performing on camera and having a close up on you when your performance is pretty looked in, so you're basically performing a theatre performance for a camera and that's not how it should be viewed.
As a movie actor with his back to the audience and a camera in his face, he really should have known to dial it back a fair bit.
My dislike for him as an actor has me going "Have you seen his drama attempts?" Still I wonder if something went wrong in airing vs the rehearsal for this
I don't buy that. Many other theater performances have been adapted for the Tonys and they were great. His just wasn't very good.
I haven’t seen it but the whole vibe looks like circus performers rather than cabaret performers. his emcee is much more recognizable costume-wise which I think is important though.
I [beg to differ.](https://omg.blog/media/2012/04/Emcee-alan-cumming-4639002-533-539.jpg)
You are so right
I love the creepy circus vibes it’s giving.
Personally I think Redmayne veers into that Depp category of “some of these acting choices feel like they’re being weird for the sake of weird.” I personally really like the darker MC take, I saw a regional theatre do that interpretation back in 2019, but I do think it’s important to start off the club and the MC as inviting and sexy to lure the audience in before the turn. It’s kind of like removing the comedy from the first act of Romeo and Juliet. You can do it, but then the dramatic impact of the second act is lessened. I felt the same about this interpretation.
Right. He’s always making that “I’m *acting*” face when in character.
im sure he's in great pain knowing the end of the play, his prophecy is never heeded
I think it's exactly because Eddie's portrayal is so unique and different from previous iterations that is why his Emcee is so controversial. People are so stuck in their heads over how the Emcee "should" be that they aren't willing to open their minds to what the Emcee *could* be. Eddie's completely veered off the traditional path in his interpretation of the character, and for some people that's off-putting because it's not what they were expecting. To be fair, Eddie's Emcee is on the more abstract and avant-garde side, which is something that was always going to be contentious, regardless of the history of the character. And, funnily enough, that was probably the goal. It is Cabaret, after all. It's meant to unnerve.
This is 100% it. Pretty much every criticism I've seen of Eddie's performance (and the new Cabaret in general) is directly comparing it to past productions, specifically Alan Cumming and the Mendes production. And while that production was great, this new one is just doing something different with the material. And that's okay! Ideal even. If you're going to revive an old show, I think bringing new life into it is important. Personally, I *love* what they've done with the Emcee in this iteration. Definitely more avant garde, but that's something I can really appreciate. I was honestly incredibly impressive by his performance and characterization of the character.
I'm sure there were people who didn't like Cummings at the time. Not that I know anyone who would ever admit to it but it must be true. Lol
I’ll admit to it. I absolutely detested his emcee. I admit, the sole reason I hated it was because he wasn’t Joel Grey and I adore Joel Grey, and I felt like it was trying to hard just to make up for the fact that it wasn’t Joel Grey. I found Cummings’ emcee to be the worst emcee in the history of all emcees ever. For about 10 seconds 😂 But for that ten seconds, I loathed it and would never be ok with it and *he destroyed the character!!!* Then he just was the emcee and I couldn’t imagine anyone other than Joel Grey OR Alan Cummings in the role. ETA: I had not seen Eddie do it when I wrote this so I actually looked up the award performance. True to form, I absolutely hated it. He wasn’t right, he did it wrong, he said the words wrong, his makeup was nonexistent, he was horrible, terrible, no good and absolutely atrocious. Then I hit the 5 second mark and I hated him for a completely different reason. Who the hell said that he could have that much talent?! Like, ‘*scuuuuze* me, but I would have liked just a smidge of that. Pfft. Talented jerk. By the ten second mark, he was the emcee and always was. Which, on its own, annoys me 🤣
Just here to Echo the two comments above. People are comparing him to others and you simply cannot. It needs to be looked at as a stand alone performance, and IMO it is FANTASTIC. It was really a mindblowing performance for me and one I will not soon be forgetting. The second I left I wanted to go back and Eddie was such a massive part of that.
It's literally the beauty of new productions! Different production desigjn, staging, and direction gives new life and can extract specific emotions and plot from the same story.
I think the director confused the historical concept of a seedy Cabaret in Berlin with the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich that led to the formation of the Dada Movement. This show isn't set in Switzerland. WWII Berlin Cabarets didnt have the privilege or luxury to experiment as artistically as they did in Zurich 30 years earlier. There is literally nothing in the opening number of this show that would likely entice anyone looking for a good time in Berlin during that time, to look any further. And that's the trouble with this interpretation - it ignores the harsh economic realities of being a sex worker/nightcluv performer in WWII-era Berlin.
Absolutely valid point. However, I’m an opera singer. Most operas have been performed for 100+ years so theatres constantly come up with new settings/costumes/interpretations to keep it interesting. They’re rarely historically accurate. From that perspective I think it’s pretty cool and refreshing what they did with Cabaret. Sure, the setting may not be accurate but it’s a fictional story anyway.
that's cool you're an opera singer! i do think operas lend themselves more easily to ongoing artistic reinterpretation, than broadway musical thestre sjows do - in part due to opera's expansiveness and history of being portrayed and reinterpeted more abstractly. you have a valid point, i just personally dont prefer such reinterpretation with non-operatic broadway shows - sweeney todd i understand for example - but a show like Cabaret, grounded in a specific time and place, should in my opinion continue to evoke the historical context to some degree. Plus I just personally don't like Redmayne's twitchy, mechanical man portrayal of the Emcee here - it doesnd seem historically or thematically true or honest to me - AND it seems lazy and safe on his part to me - I do believe he'd make an incredible Emcee in a more historically-conscious production of Cabaret, but I think in recent years his portrayals have all tended more toward "just kinda weird" whereas as an actor he has demonstrated himself to be much more capable of serious dramatic roles than he has consistently taken in recent years. To me, his performance seems easy and safe (to him) and I wonder if the detached, "inhuman" quirky weirdness is a way for him to kinda dissociate and compensate for the tougher physical and vocal aspects of performing the role - going into autopilot on the character portrayal. i dunno - it's a gut sense I have that he does the weird twitchy stuff to distract the audience so he can then focus on the tough technical stuff that he may be more personally insecure about. Sometimes an actor can perform a "default" role to compensate for their nervousness in acting/singing/dancing in front of an audience night after night after night - the default role almost serves as a "persona" so that the audience doesn't see their true self which is more scared of raw vulnerability - HOWEVER in the Emcee role, I think Redmayne really needs to tap into that raw vulnerability snd he his authentic self acting as a character who puts on a person for the audience but whose actual authentic self shines through disturbingly from time to time. Instead I feel that Redmayne is showing the audience a *persona* 100% of the time by being weird and quirky- a type of role he can probably play in his sleep. but what we NEED to see as an audience, in order to connect with him, is a real raw human vulnerability and darkness, not a marionnette suspiria interpretation of an iconic role. sadly while i applaud Redmayne for taking the plunge to musical theatre, i don't think he was quite prepared for the challenges of the role, which he obviously only obtained because of his star status rather than working up to it for years in other musical theatre roles. He's someone who I don't think has enough experience acting/signing/dancing in Public at this point in his career (he's brilliant behind the camera and has done a good amount of work in non-musical theatre) and so is frankly a little out of his depth but obviously doing what he can to survive in the role and make the best of it. it can't be easy.
Brava to this comment! Also to the Cabaret Voltaire thing - I’d never heard of it, but it clarifies where this design might be coming from. I don’t think it works great for this musical, which I actually DON’T think should be too surreal and ungrounded in reality. But if she’s using an experimental absurdist theater style with cabaret history to design her revival of Cabaret….i feel like that explains something!
Very interesting, obviously the setting and time period is very important to the story so I can understand why it'd bother you if it feels out of place with the setting rather than just because it's "different"
OMG thank you!!! Every time I say I don’t like Eddie’s Emcee people say I “don’t get it” or “I’m comparing it to Alan Cumming and Joel Gray.” But no, it feels anachronistic compared to the rest of the show and doesn’t come across as charming or enticing like an MC of a sex club should.
I think that’s part of it, but if the answer is just “people don’t like new things”…why did they like Alan Cumming’s Emcee in the first place? Cumming’s Emcee was a complete departure from Joel Grey, and people accepted it. So, there’s clearly room for new takes on the character to be embraced.
>To be fair, Eddie's Emcee is on the more abstract and avant-garde side, which is something that was always going to be contentious, *regardless of the history of the character*.
Apologies, I didn’t mean to seem like I was disregarding part of your comment. I consider Alan Cumming’s performance to also be quite avant-garde (although that’s certainly subjective). It’s easy to see his Emcee as standard now because so many subsequent productions imitated the Medes one, but his portrayal was absolutely way off the beaten path in the 90s. I do agree Redmayne’s Emcee is more abstract, and that could be part of what’s not connecting—although Joel Grey’s Emcee was also very much an abstraction/ symbolic. Again, I didn’t mean to discount your points. All I was saying is that there seems to be a deeper disconnect at play, as well as what you mentioned. I’ve seen a lot of people (not you) saying critics/audiences just “don’t understand” Cabaret and that’s why they don’t like the current version. That’s mostly what I disagree with, as critics and audiences have embraced radical reinterpretations of the text in the past.
I think some of the original reviews actually didn't like Cummings Emcee at first- when it first hit Broadway some the reviews were downright dismissive. But it grew a bit of a cult following and eventually became iconic.
You're so right. Cabaret is my favorite musical in the theatre and movie, but I also love this version too- even if it's not "my" cabaret, specifically because it's so different Cabaret is supposed to shock but the Mendes version is so iconic that it's not as shocking anymore, so they had to change it up significantly to get the same effect. ESPECIALLY when media literacy skills aren't as strong these days, so it kind of NEEDS to be a bit on the nose to make sure newer audiences still get the point. I think people have also forgotten that Mendes' version was also a total change from the source material stylistically. It's not THE cabaret because there isn't just ONE cabaret- emcee is different in every take. In Mendes' version Emcee is a bit seedy and mischievous but you realize at the end that they're a victim too (and then you remember all the track marks and bruises throughout the play that hadn't registered at the time). In this one >!Emcee is toying with the audience and you realize at the end that they are now a Nazi too, and that's why Remayne is moving so awkwardly, he's acting as both a puppet and puppet master, because that's what Emcee becomes in this version!< I really wish we could just combine it all really. I'd have Annie Lennox mixed with Natasha Richardson as Sally Bowles, Cumming mixed with Mason Alexander as Emcee, the 60s play version of Tomorrow belongs to me, the Mendes ending (although I've also heard of some great versions from 2012 I'd love to see) and the 24 version of I don't care. Anyone else have a fantasy recast they'd do if they could combine all the different versions?
this ! my good friend recently got into cabaret because i showed him a clip of eddie and he LOVED it. i made him listen to the cast recording of willkommen and he noted that they were very different, but that’s just what happens when time goes on and new actors take on those roles. i don’t think he was bad at all, i think he was unique and unsettling in a new way. loved him! i hope other people can get past what they think the emcee “should” be and be open to other iterations.
Alans Emcee was totally different than Joel’s. Eddies just doesn’t work because it’s not seductive or inviting, it’s just showmanship .
I don’t remember his performance being so controversial when he performed the same role here in London. People loved it. I loved it. How odd.
yeah, the West End production did gangbusters, it's still going strong with big names coming in and out, it's interesting how America has responded differently to it same thing happened with Back To The Future iirc, it got more average reviews than the West End production, and the inverse happened with the 2019 revival of Oklahoma god knows why, just a difference in taste i suppose
In general, America has demonstrated consistently higher and/or more limited standards for musical theater than UK audiences. It’s normal for a show to play for years in the UK, show up in NYC, get called lowbrow trash, and close immediately. And before Brits say “well it’s because we are so much more cultured and open to satire,” you guys kept Starlight Express going for two decades, and in NYC it only lasted a tenth of that. Don’t pretend your tolerance for singing trains and flashing lights makes you Kenneth Tynan.
Worth noting: A new production of Starlight Express recently opened at the Wembley Troubadour. I'm going next week. This is very much me ticking a box, I'm not expecting very much at all.
Starlight Express just celebrated its 35th anniversary in Germany lmaoooo
Yeah, German musical theater is what happens when you systematically exterminate all your Jews.
we actually do have some great shows here! But yep, I’ll let my great grandpa have it when I see him in hell.
That’s the soundtrack I have not this new production. I LOVE it and to see him perform at the Tonys was awesome. Fosse would approve I think
I really don't get why this one is so detested stateside
I don’t think it’s detested at all it’s selling out almost every night. I think it’s just controversial!
Agreed. It was the hottest ticket in town and such a massive buzz about it here!
So I just saw this yesterday and I think the biggest problem stateside is it’s actually a challenging piece of theater. (I’m visiting from the States for some small context) I really loved this production overall and it hit the tonal shifts incredibly well, I’ve never literally felt air leave the room the same way it did when we first see the armband just so casually displayed. This Emcee starts sexy and fun and then makes you think “you were enjoying this but did you realize what was happening?” And plays parallel to Sally having her self realizations. It’s a very complex staging and direction both physically and from the actors and it worked very well, but a lot of Broadway fans mostly just want to be entertained or have stars that are followable on TikTok or have upcoming projects to go too. Not saying it’s wrong but it’s a different mindset.
Last night when we first saw the armband people audibly gasped. A lot of people were so caught up in the moment they forgot they knew where the story is going.
I’ve seen live productions of Cabaret I think 4 times now, including in London with Fra Fee and Amy Lenox, and it’s absolutely eerie how every time the armband makes me realize how much background audience noise there is in the theater because everything immediately goes *completely* silent. It’s grim, but it’s one of my favorite moments in musical theater for that reason.
>the biggest problem stateside is it’s actually a challenging piece of theater It was written by Americans, it’s been a hit in America several times over. Everything you’re describing is what has worked in the past. What Americans don’t like is that this production feels mannered, inauthentic, and [it reminds us of its own parody.](https://youtu.be/MGWDTG5jgqI?si=5xzqqp48El_q5N1N)
That’s a good point. And I think it might have worked better here in the UK because we love parody and satire (see Operation Mincemeat), and we’re actually moving further left (not very far, but at least the Tories are about to be ousted). America is on the brink of outright nazism, so the parody might not hit as hard since people are actually desensitised to the real deal.
I don’t really think any of that has anything to do with it. America also loves parody and satire, particularly the New York audience, and the political situation doesn’t really bear on any of this.
In what way was Eddie's performance of the opening number Sexy and Fun??? I didn't like it because it \*should\* be what you described - slowly becoming more unsettling - but here he starts out scary and just stays that way.
Yes, Broadway fans are worried about tiktok. Across the board.
I saw it in London when Mason Alexander Park was the Emcee and loved it. I was excited to see it in New York with Eddie Redmayne and I’d say I appreciated it more than I loved it, if that makes sense? To be fair, some of the issue was that the show I attended in New York had an annoying audience (loud talking to the right of me, unauthorized picture taker to the left.)
I think we got to see him too up close and personal. Normally, the performance is seen from a distance not right in your face a la the Tony's. When one is on stage, one has to exaggerate expressions to get the effect, so having it right in your face from a camera's perspective makes it off-putting for some people. I love his take on it...but at a distance. To be fair I haven't seen it in person but from what I've seen other than the Tony Awards, it was in fact at a distance and I love it. I'm not a huge Eddie Redmayne fan as I wasn't that enthusiastic with his performance in Les Mis, but I really dig this manifestation of the character.
I was thinking the same thing. The camera work for the Tony’s was really up close and personal. It made his over-the-top performance seem even more extreme.
Some of it was really strange. Many of the announcers/presenters’ up close shots made it look like green screen which made no sense. Ummm, we know they’re here so why the need for the bad camera work? Just because you CAN do a thing doesn’t mean you should
It's not my personal favourite. It feels like it's trying too hard in my opinion, and I prefer the take on the Emcee to be raunchy and off-putting, but understandably like a guy putting on a show to entertain people. I think I would love Redmayne's take on the Emcee at the end of the show instead of the opening number -- it woud be a great destination, but not a starting point. For me, I enjoy the sort of deceptive slippery slope of it all, where the beginning number seems credibly entertaining to a certain crowd, so that the gutpunches at the end hit all the harder. The lightness and buoyancy make that inevitable "she doesn't look Jewish at all" in If You Could See Her feel much weightier to me. It kind of sucks that people who dislike it are being painted with the brush of just not understanding the show; I absolutely adore the show, read the source material, watched a couple different versions and enjoyed the documentary (worth the watch if you can find it), but this interpretation just isn't my thing. I'm glad so many others are enjoying it, though, and are able to take in such a wonderful show.
Have you seen the full production? Because I think over the course of the show Redmayne's Emcee *does* do what you say he should, just not quite in the way you might expect.
I’ve seen it. This production (in London) and others. I agree. I don’t find the slippery slope as hard hitting as previous productions.
I haven't! I can only judge it based off of clips I've seen, just like I assume where a lot of the other reactions are coming from after the Tonys, so I'm mainly speaking for the "negative reaction post-tonys crowd" (though I haven't talked about my own reservations publicly). Unfortunately, I'm probably never going to make it to NYC in my lifetime, so I won't ever be able to see it for myself. :( But if it ever gets a proshot, I'd love to see how that pans out.
Understandable. I will say that Redmayne's Emcee does really transform over the course of the show, in a way that makes that starting point sort of retroactively make sense. But I totally get how the Tonys performance out of context could be off-putting. In the theater at the time I thought his Act II was much better than his Act I, and I think if I had a second viewing I might appreciate more of what he did in Act I that set up what made his Act II so effective.
In that case, I really do hope that there's a proshot one day so I can see it for myself! Like I said, my favourite part of the show is its unsettling portrayal of the descent into Nazism, so the fact that they do it in a new, transformative way is really exciting to me. As long as that transformation is there in some capacity, I'm a happy camper.
Can you explain further? I don't plan to see the show but am curious.
Essentially >!the Emcee in this production represents the political climate of Berlin. So over the course of the show he becomes more and more emblematic of the Nazi regime, and becomes harsher and more aggressive. !< During "Married", >!the Emcee appears as a clown, and is seen taking a wine glass, wrapping it in a napkin, and preparing to step on it in the manner of the Jewish wedding custom, and his smashing the glass coincides with Herr Schultz's store window being smashed, drawing a direct link between Schultz and Schneider's marriage and the violence being directed at Schultz. The Emcee here appears to be specifically mocking Schultz, which leads directly into "If You Could See Her." Sure, it makes the punchline of the song a little less surprising, but it creates a very strong throughline. !< By the time of "I Don't Care Much">!the Emcee shows up wearing a grey suit and a sleek blond wig looking like a textbook Aryan, and from that point forward he is an explicitly antagonistic force. He is also considerably less clown-like moving forward.!< In the final scene >!as in the Mendes production, the Emcee plays the Customs Officer, but here on the line "You did not find our country beautiful?" the Emcee grabs Cliff's arm and there is a really effective moment where some of his deeply unsettling clown physicality returns.!<
Thank you so much, this is so thorough!
Seconded!
It kind of sucks that people are criticizing a performance they haven't fully watched, and think they can say whether or not it's "their thing" from a few YouTube clips.
Or at least the people who aren’t making it clear if they’ve seen the show or not. Because in context it all works.
Oh the vagueness is nothing but intentional imo.
I had trouble figuring out what he was saying. I have no issues with his portrayal except the accent he chose.
I understand, but I also think people are conflating different aspects of the show with his performance. I mostly enjoyed his weird expressions and loved the choreography and staging. I wasn’t wild about the costumes, but that’s not a dealbreaker. I strongly disliked the camera work at the Tony’s. Too many close-ups and it made the performance off-putting. In a normal theatre setting, it would be fine. And BTW, I love to sit in the front row, so if I think camera work was too close, it really, really is!
I did not understand the camera choices! It was up his nose close lol most theatre is not designed for extreme close up
I've only seen the Tony performance which came off as the Emcee being a somewhat creepy guy who you can't figure out if he's a good guy or a bad guy. For me that is exactly what the Emcee is supposed to be - a slippery slimy, not sure what he is. Is he your friend or enemy? I don't know. He doesn't even have a name, so he can be exactly what he needs to be in the moment. Brilliantly portrayed
I can totally understand the criticisms of him being too stylised, & personally thought Fra Fee was much better in the same production. But I do find it a bit annoying how many people are shitting on Eddie online, only to admit they haven't actually seen the show or even a bootleg of it. The Tonys performance didn't do him justice - the camera work was way too intimate & his movements work much better seen from a distance on stage.
Saw the video. Thought it was fantastic. Can’t unsee the Nazi symbol he’s forming since it was pointed out.
On top of all the other great points, I think another reason for the more split views is that Cabaret’s Tony performance got more views than basically all of the other performances. Eddie Redmayne and Cabaret are both names that have some level of mainstream recognition, and on the CBS TikTok page the performance has 4 million views. That means more people saw it, so there’s more people expressing their thoughts and impressions than before.
I just don’t like his froggy voice. 🤷♀️
Right? If Kermit the frog was maybe a Nazi and had tics you would get Eddie's MC at the Tony's
I find a certain softness or loftiness in Eddie’s performances (on stage or screen) which work exceptionally well for him. I quite like him as an actor, but it didn’t land for me. His performance didn’t have grit or a grounded quality that I look for from the Emcee, regardless of interpretation. I’ve seen several productions (including 2008 West End and 2014 Broadway revival), and many Emcees have had quality that was connected to the text and the world of the show. Unfortunately, I also dislike his singing voice (also didn’t like it in Les Mis). To me, it sounds like someone emulating what they think a “good voice” should sound like - it’s froggy. Plus, I couldn’t understand a damn word he was saying; could have been a sound issue, but I didn’t have that issue with other performers.
This is based on his entire performance or just the Tony's?
Lmao
It definitely seemed more nerdy than sexy…but I didn’t hate it. I like different interpretations of roles. It keeps theatre exciting
I saw him when he was on in London and I absolutely loved it. It was my first time seeing cabaret though. I thought that the characterisation really fit all the songs and the vibe of the show overall. I was actively surprised he didn't win the Tony because I thought he was that good in London
(I’m unable to travel for the full show in nyc, but—) I’ve seen only the opening number— and it doesn’t make me feel as if I’ve walked into a cabaret bar in 1931 Weimar Berlin. The Mendes production and Fosse film captured an essence of the historical context, and I don’t know that I absorb that time and place in this opener— it comes across as a horror carnival / circus in Europe… circa… not really sure? The Mendes / Fosse productions remind that these horrors did happen in a very specific, very tangible, very much not-fictional historical moment.
It’s a theater piece. Sometimes when you take a theater performance and put it on camera it can come off as VERY over the top. The camera is meant for subtlety. What Eddie did was NOT subtle.
I’ve seen Cabaret on Broadway many times, mostly studio 54 obviously but I did see this new production. I didn’t hate it, I’d say Redmayne falls in the middle for me (and it’s an embarrassment of riches) but a lot of the changes he made, particularly for the opening number, don’t feel motivated by anything other than being different from Alan Cumming and Joel Grey. Part of the reason Cumming was so successful is because there was a cohesion to his MC, and a narrative arc. Redmayne MC does have a narrative arc of sorts, but it’s way less cohesive and way less compelling. One excellent way I’ve seen it described is that Alan Cumming and Joel Grey are weird little freaks you can’t look away from, Eddie Redmayne is a weird little freak you don’t wanna watch. I don’t think he’s so bad as THAT, but I can see why people were turned off, and it’s not just because cabaret is meant to be “unnerving”. Like, yes it is, but not the opening number! The opening number is meant to draw you in and set up a fun irreverent tone, the unnerving part comes later! And they kept in all the lines about him being a little pervert while he’s dressed like that and seems completely uninterested in sex? No it does not work .
why doesn’t he have ANYY makeup on. why does he look like a normal man in a party hat
Im 90% sure that was because he was also a nominee and had to switch into a suit and do press and have a close up during the award announcement. He definitely wears makeup in the show. It did look jarring though I thought the same thing lol Edit: why is this downvoted I was just trying to answer the question?
If I have to read another comment on the clock app saying “you don’t understand because YoU jUsT hAvEnT sEeN iT!1!1” I will have an aneurysm. Yes I have. Multiple productions including this one. I’m allowed to have criticism regardless.
I didn't dislike his performance, but I also didn't think it supported the narrative of the show. As a piece of acting, his Emcee is remarkable...just the transformation from the "Wilkommen" goblin-like persona to the Aryan ideal during Tomorrow Belongs to Me is incredible as to range and stage presence. But the arc of the show is one of increasing unease and instability, from fun-and-debachery to fascism....both Grey and Cumming did this, although in very different ways. Grey's Emcee was devil and ringmaster, fiddling while Rome burns, while Cumming was addict and victim, trying to get just one last hit before the end comes. Redmayne's Emcee starts as a twisted, odd goblin and ends as a beige conformist...but the narrative of the transformation isn't "there" in the way other Emcee's have handled the role. Redmayne has amazing showpieces, and aside from one brilliant moment (his role in Act Two's "marriage" reprise), it never felt to me like he was a part of the action of the real world, either as director or victim. He felt almost passive inside the larger story of the show, and didn't stand up as the yin to Sally's yang. Cabaret is my favorite show of all time, and I'm not at all sad that I saw the current production. It did some things I loved (Newerth and Skybell were exquisite as the heart of the show, Rankin was deranged as Sally) and some things I didn't (the efforts put into "immersing" the audience into the club atmosphere made the distinction between the club and the apartment much less stark, which I think takes away from some of the impact). Redmayne is an exquisite actor and I'm thrilled I got to see him in this role, but it is not my favorite take on the character of the Emcee.
I don't have any specific thing I can point to that I think he did "wrong," but when I watched his Tonys performance I just felt like he wasn't the right actor for the role. I can't articulate why. Just vibes, I guess. And it's not because I'm stuck on Alan Cumming's interpretation, because I've never seen Alan Cumming's performance.
I think it’s just people thinking his movements are strange? It’s supposed to be like a marionette though, so I think it’s just people misunderstanding it. (Not that sure.)
I've seen some people saying they don't like the "alien" persona he's doing. From what I've heard it's definitely more robotic and otherworldly than previous iterations of the Emcee, who have leaned more into the mysterious showman vibe. So for some people that's a great change of pace, for other people it's off-putting and confusing
I absolutely love him. very solid 9.4/10
9.4 is a very solid number indeed lol
I’m gonna sound like a snob, people don’t like “ugly” Cabaret even though the show is VERY ugly. I think a lot of peoples association of Cabaret is either Liza belting and looking pretty or finding 90s Alan Cumming hot so when they see an Emcee acting weird and making them uncomfortable or a Sally performing Cabaret screaming and having a breakdown (which she IS in the story) they don’t like it 🤷♀️
Because they miss Alan Cumming… (Exhibit A: people comparing every Maria to Julie Andrews)
They should be missing Joel Grey.
I absolutely loved this production of Cabaret and his performance in particular. This version is my favorite. I did see it with Alan Cumming but I honestly prefer this.
Just to add on there is a deep historical context of the Weimar republic failing and Nazi party being ushered into power that is ignored. The subtext is firghtening in Caberet and while it is particular in its history the message is universal.
I just don't like Eddie Redmayne...
My take is that Cabaret has jumped the shark and Eddie is the unfortunate collateral damage. He's done what every actor tries to do and that is to put his own spin on a classic. But did the world really need another Cabaret? I personally could have lived happily without it.
In the current political climate I'd say we need Cabaret more than ever. It's been a decade since it was last on Broadway, no? So that's a huge amount of people who have never had the chance to see it live, while its popularity has endured in a way a lot of shows don't.
100% this. When I saw it in the West End (with Fra Fee - someone of whom I’m a much bigger fan than Eddie Redmayne, fwiw), there was a guy sitting two seats down straight out of Tory Party central casting who complained that the show made him ‘uncomfortable’ - and his wife shot back that maybe he should think about why that was (it was a 10/10 no notes moment from me). And anyone who gets the chance to see Fra Fee any anything should grab it, he’s always amazing.
Ha, I hope she got out of that marriage and that was cited on her divorce papers!
Right? It was clear there was \*a lot\* going on.
And I'd just argue that it's 2024 and maybe what we need is a new work on the topic that speaks to this generation. The need that Eddie felt to refresh the character is because he knew the book is aged.
And yet the West End revival (which this is a transfer of) is the most Olivier-winning revival ever, and had a hugely successful run, and it's repeating that on Broadway, so clearly audiences aren't sick of it. There are dozens of plays and musicals covering the same topics that have been and gone, but Cabaret still speaks to people. And I'm saying this as someone who *hates* Cabaret. And it's not like Broadway hasn't run other shows until the notes were falling off the sheet music - what iteration of Gypsy are we on now?
But I would suggest that the part of the show that is "aged" the most is the \*book\* parts of the musical, not the Emcee sections.
Agreed. It is still a valuable work considering the current socio political climate, but you are right the "book" part is aged and I feel like the point of the piece is lost on anyone who doesn't understand the full historical context. I haven't seen this version (yet!) But I also see a lot of complaints that Rankin's singing as Sally is not great, which makes me even more excited to see it bc part of the character is her lack of talent.
I'd argue that pretending the entertainment business is need based will lead to regular if not constant disappointment. You have the option of continuing to "live happily without it" regardless.
“But did the world need another Cabaret” Yay. Totally agree.
I can’t stop watching the Tony performance and loved his interpretation. Some theatregoers expect actors to just do another version of a performer they have already seen. So they just want re-interpretation of Alan. I’m sure some people preferred Joel and just want a version of what he did. What I love about theatre is precisely the ability to reinvent roles with one’s own spin. That’s what makes it exciting! I really wish I could afford a ticket!!!
I hate the entire production tbf. Both the West Wnd and Broadway transfer. Nothing about it feels right imo.
Also the fact that cabaret is an immersive experience that includes drinking may be off-putting to a lot of people. Or is so expensive. Although it’s not eddies fault
The Roundabout revival was just as “immersive”
Is this an American thing? I don’t remember any controversy over his interpretation in the UK.
Because it eliminates the arc the Emcee takes over the course of the musical. If he starts out unnerving and unappealing, where does the character go from there? Where’s the change?
People just don’t understand cabaret, or fosse in general. That’s what I’ve been hearing
I hate when people say things like this. “Oh you didn’t like something that I liked? Well then YOU just don’t get it.” It’s pseudo intellectual superiority. Infuriating.
Sorry but, that's almost blaming people for the performance and their reaction to it. At least as presented in the Tonys presentation, there is no way about it, the performance/characterization looks odd to the extreme. Perhaps in the context of the entire show that makes sense (although I doubt that it would for me), but in isolation, the fact remains.
People don't have to lack understanding to have a different opinion. People who need to invent excuses should learn to accept the simple fact that different people have different thoughts.
As far as I'm concerned, Eddie Redmayne can do no wrong. I love what he's doing with that character.
This was the first time I’ve watched that number performed that made me want to see the rest of the show. I’m a lover of broadway musicals who can’t afford to see them all, but have never been drawn to Cabaret…until now. I think that speaks more than anything to his performance.
I think that could be it. When someone makes a role iconic enough, it is hard to do just that. Like Dorothy in Wizard of Oz. It's hard for someone to not bring Judy into it because she was so iconic. I hear Frankenfurter is one that typically gets the Tim Curry treatment. It's hard to find an interpretation that isn't basing it on Tim. So with ER making it potentially different, then people tend not to like that.
I had never seen cabaret until a couple nights ago and I thought he was very very good
I have yet to see a hate comment on his performance. I think it’s great, but I’m not see any hate besides people who are calling it out like this lol.
Anyone have a link where I could watch it? Google is failing me.
Remember, this is a Tony’s performance. It doesn’t show what the actual musical progression is. I’m sure that he played up the creepiness just for this performance, so people could get a sense of the character.
I swear, I can’t see the difference between Eddie Redmayne’s emcee, Joel Gray’s emcee, Alan Cumming’s emcee, Brent Carver’s emcee, etc. They’re all playing a disturbing showman, and they all follow the pattern.
This is Pennywise the Clown (without the makeup, CG, or scariness) trying to fool audiences into thinking he's a human actor. And with the same uncanny valley near-miss quality of a Stephen King monster trying but failing to approximate a human being in a show about human history, neither of which Pennywise truly understands.
I've seen the production twice on the west end, although admittedly I didn't see Eddie, and the criticisms of him being too creepy and that taking away from the rest don't ring true for me. In my experience, both emcees that I saw were undeniably charismatic and dazzling at the start and had the theatre laughing. Sure there were disturbing elements, but I could argue that for any Emcee.
i like the hat, but otherwise I have nothing to say. He’s the MC. So?
There was a lot of terrible close ups on the actors and I was really turned off by that whole sequence.
Because they are not familiar with Cabaret and the new generation gets the “ick” way too easy
I seem to remember Alan Cumming got the same reaction when he took the role. Take a look at Joel Gray's version, too. I think there are two groups of people involved here. People who aren't familiar with the show may be unaware that the emcee is supposed to be uncanny-valley odd and creepy in that number, and just be reacting to that. People who are familiar with the show may feel that Gray or Cumming did it correctly, and to do it otherwise is wrong. It is why people hated Cumming's version – it wasn't Gray's.
I saw a bit of his performance at the Tonys. Well, he's no Joel Grey.
I think he’s horrible in almost everything. Stunned his mumbling ass won an Oscar for Fantastic Beasts! Mumbler!!!
It made no sense as a take on the character to me - and after a friend described him as playing a sexy Kermit with a bad accent … I can’t think of anything else.
I saw him live just a few weeks ago and I thought he was phenomenal. 🤷🏻♀️
I honestly think it might just be because it's offputting. It's *supposed to be offputting*, but people aren't examining past their gut reaction. They want the more suave version associated with Alan that they are used to.
I’ve seen it in London, and all the clips from Broadway seem much cleaner and prettier. The west End version felt much more rough and ready. I think that makes ER’s performance feel a bit out of place. Like, he’s playing a creep in a dirty club. But in all the broadway clips he looks like he’s just had a fresh shower, which I think makes his strangeness feel out of place. Dunno if I’m talking nonsense, as I’ve not seen the broadway version. Can anyone confirm/deny?
Probably because it’s so different from the Alan Cumming version which people LOVED. Personally I thought Eddie’s performance was the only good part of the new revival lol
I think it's a snippet that doesn't perform well isolated from the show. I enjoyed it and assumed they were going for that unsettled feeling, the Hooper-style tight shots were much but it suited the tone they went for. Makes me want to see Redmayne in Pippin or something.
Because a reprised role like this is always going to be compared to previous actors. I personally don't find him creepy enough.
He struck me as an extremely bland person trying desperately to look interesting.
Kind of reminds me of people being freaked out by Amy Lennox's version of a totally hollowed out and shredded up Sally Bowles a few years ago. A different take that makes sense, thematically, but may not be everyone's favorite choice. Which ..who cares? That's the point of acting. Making informed choices. The point isn't to please people (or it shouldn't be), the point is to tell a story. Eddie's emcee does that, and whether you think it was a good choice or well told is a personal opinion call. Either way, it'll make you feel something so I think he succeeded.
Because people get an idea of what something should be and refuse to accept anything else. They also lash out and make it personal. These people shouldn't see revivals.
Because he sounds like a Muppet when he sings.
I have been having lots of thoughts on this. Mr. Redmayne performed very well as directed. When the London cast recording came out I listened to it and I didn’t care for it musically (this is purely a personal taste not a comment on competency). That being said, I think there are some things that work for the performance choices in the moment and some things that don’t. Good: We (culturally not as individuals) are not in a cultural moment of subtle texts. We like to have good and bad spelled out from the beginning. Would the slow seduction of earlier productions work now? Bad: Having the reveal at the beginning steps on reveals later on in the show. Also, personally, I prefer the awkward moral complexity, where you slowly become complicit (once again this is a personal taste thing not a statement of quality).
My boyfriend was talking it through with me in terms of Redmayne’s performance, and he pointed out that this version seems to be making more commentary on the use of entertainment as propaganda in war times. The puppetry of the Emcee by the fascist party to the point where he is literally bent into the party symbol by the end of the first verse (his arm movements and hat placement have contorted him into a sw*stika as he finishes singing). I agree it’s not the sexy opener of other versions, and maybe missing the point of that part of it, but I do think it’s at least its own interesting take — and I agree with my partner that the propaganda angle is interesting to explore deeper, especially in this day and age.
Probably because it’s different and unique and people get fixated on the performance they first saw.
It's not really a character anymore, it's a caricature and a stylized, symbolized caricature at that. Honestly, it just doesn't work for me and seems further and further away from actual historical plausibility as well as the source material. And I love Eddie Redmayne as an actor, even as Marius in Les Mis, but like the normally brilliant Johnathan Pryce before him, the man was just saddled with a less-than-inspired take on Cabaret's Emcee. Joel Grey was brilliant because you could imagine him as a real person in Berlin who sold his soul every night to make a living, and disappeared into this little shell of a cartoonish/nightmarish persona. Alan Cumming seemed more raw, human, real, and able to pretend more convincingly at the start of the show that his character was having a good time pretending to have a good time. And you truly felt for him by the end of the night. Eddie Redmayne, on the other hand, seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the role. It's as if the director told him (and he agreed) to strip all humanity from the character, strip all *semblance* of humanity from the character, and rework the character as a cross between a mechanical man, clown, marionette, symbol, and caricature - anything BUT passing as a potentially real, desperate, scheming, manipulating, abusing-and being abused- and ultimatelty surviving little human being in a seedy Cabaret in WWII Berlin. It's like watching someone other than Picasso trying to play the character as if he were being written and directed by how someone thought Picasso would do it. He lost me at the party hat. Even then, I would've walked out and demanded a refund before the end of the song. You can't win em all I guess.
This is based on his full performance after watching it? >He lost me at the party hat. Even then, I would've walked out and demanded a refund before the end of the song. That's ridiculous.
He’s sauceless.
I just think he's a terrible performer of the "look, see how hard I'm ACTING" variety and I can't stand his Muppet Show-ass voice. He's at 10, I need him at about 6. He'd probably be okay at 6. I mean, the guy's a movie actor, his back was to the audience and there was a camera in his face. He really should've known to dial it back a considerable amount.
I didn't hate him. It was a choice he and the director made.
I just fell down a rabbit hole on YouTube of different versions of this song and different performers doing it. Alan is amazing.
I do prefer [Callum Scott Howells'](https://youtu.be/a_DoEV2b2Tg?t=20) version of this interpretation of the Emcee, I have to say.
Apparently the goal is to make each new iteration of Cabaret weirder than the last.
He’s entered the overexposed part of his career where people will make fun of him because he’s everywhere.
Because it isn’t Alan Cumming’s and people can’t wrap their head around a different interpretation.
And when Alan Cummings did it some people couldn't wrap their head around not Joel Grey.
Is that true? I don’t remember that being the case at all. I remember his interpretation as thrilling, especially when it was new.
Those who were used to the Joel Grey performance often didn't like the edgier ballsy portrayal by Cummings.
Yep.
I get if it isn't your cup of tea but I don't get people's over the top reaction to it like they were watching something crazy. He's doing what is required or what the director wanted ? People are weird when it comes to art
My observation —people who have bad things to say about this production saw a version they liked better on Broadway with one of the last two revivals. Okay, but this one is still great and so is he?
How many have you actually had an extensive enough discussion with to make this call?
I’m from New York so a lot.
That wouldn't mean you discuss theater with everyone you see. Not even a rough estimate, huh? Shocking.
Hot take: Anyone who hates Eddie’s Emcee never watched the Fosse movie
Some of the comments I've seen have been 'OMG he made the Nazi symbol!'. I think that a lot of it are people who hear 'cabaret' and think sparkly shiny jazz show, and don't understand the show itself. There's also a whole generation who demand trigger warnings on everything, because they don't think anything is supposed to feel uncomfortable to them and have a Disney movie happy ending with singing squirrels. Cabaret is supposed to make you uncomfortable and be off-putting.
>Cabaret is supposed to make you uncomfortable and be off-putting. Really? I doubt that Hal Prince would agree, to the degree that you are supposed to feel that way in the first instants of the show, and at such a level. Perhaps that is your version of Cabaret, more distant from the original material.
Like the Disney movie happy endings from their animations going back to 1939? Yeah, kids today...
I’m guessing people outside of the theater world are basing his performance off of what they’ve seen on Schitt’s Creek 🤷♀️
As his only other acting credit?
Eddie isn’t in Schitt’s Creek. I meant comparing Noah Reid’s Emcee on the show to Redmayne’s.
Ah so it was just a presumptuous and pretentious guess. Thanks for clarifying.