Question about Cabaret

Here's the type of thing I'd like to get into on this board, hopefully with no rancor attached whatsoever, just discussion of personal ideology.

The question is addressed to Mike Boyna, who directed Cabaret at Wheaton Drama.

I thought he did an excellent job and got terrific performances out of most of his cast. He got his concept across with clarity. But I didn't agree with the concept. In Mike's version, the MC is a Greek Chorus, seeing clearly where everything is heading and having a sense of doom. Sally, following latter years' tradition, is awakened (however vaguely) to her misery and the final rendition of Cabaret, rather than being the triumphant trumpet call of willful blindness, becomes her Rose's Turn (from Gypsy), where self-knowledge comes crashing in on her.

Now, these views were accomplished quite well, but in the 1966 original, the obliviousness of the MC and Sally in the face of Nazism's rise is the main problem. For me, having them become aware lets the audience off the hook. In the original, you left thinking, "I'd better be more attuned to life than these people." Here, we are assured that we are helpless pawns in the face of unstoppable forces rather than potentially good people who won't get off our asses.

But that's just me, and it's not a hateful view, it's an intellectual disagreement with the approach.

Mike - would you care to speak to that? You did a fabulous job as director; I just want to discuss how you arrived at your concept.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 14, 2006 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Sgt. Bilko ]</font>

First, let me clarify for anyone coming over from the "other" discussion board - I am indeed Mike Boyna (AKA on these here boards, variously, as Hysterium, Atticus, and/or Vinnie de Ruzzio)

I am more than pleased to respond to Craig's question. Many people - including me - will go see a show and exchange nothing more than the customary pleasantries in the lobby. With Cabaret being my first directing project in some time, I encouraged people to email or call me to provide their "unvarnished" review. A few have done so, and I thank them for that. I thank Craig as well for participating in a process I consider instrumental to my growth as an artist, whether that be as performer or director

On to the show.

Above all else, I consider Cabaret a show about choices. Each major character (and for those paying close attention, even some of the ensemble players) made specific, personal choices about dealing with the oncoming menace.

Craig is spot on about my approach to the Emcee view. We decided early on the the Emcee is the only one who always knows what's going on.

With Sally, however, I would characterize her misery more as self-pity than self-knowledge. Sally is much too immature to possess any true level of self-knowledge. There was a lot of discussion during rehearsal about the fact that if you met any of the main characters 5, 10, or 15 years after Cabaret, they would all be changed in some fundamental way -- except Sally. In fact, in Isherwood's Berlin Stories, Christopher (Cliff) does actually go back to Berlin some time later and finds Sally to be --- surprise, surprise ---exactly the same person. Her breakdown in the title song comes from her inability to keep up the carefree charade often put on by highly insecure people. Her pain comes from the sudden disappearance of "security" - although she will never really admit or understand why events unfolded as they did. The problem for Sally is that she doesn't ever learn anything from these episodes. One can safely assume that there was always another major disaster right around the corner involving another Cliff in another sleazy club.....

If in the original version, the obliviousness to the situation is the main problem, and from that comes the thought: "I'd better be more attuned to life than these people"; then this version, which shows at least some people who do recognize what's going on, should prompt the question: "How could these people, knowing what they must have known, have made the choices they made?" Kind of variations on a theme, but enough to take the overall feel to the much darker side.

To participate, to ignore, to circumvent, to collaborate, to rat out, to escape- even for an evening (or fifty) of debauchery at a third-rate Klub...all these choices and all possible combinations thereof, were available to the people of 30's Berlin. And they still are today.

When I first proposed my dark-tinted version of this material, I was asked if I was prepared for people not to like it. My response was simple: "It's not my job to make them like it...It's my job to make them think about it"

I encourage any and all feedback both on the production itself and on the analysis thereof

Sincerely
Mike Boyna

roll:

I suppose the phraseology about "like" was a bit severely put...the point being that it's often a good thing to put a different slant on something familiar, without going completely over the top - like the current "drugs and leather" version of Cabaret. I get the sense that we did that; I hope to get as many more opinions as possible (yeah, I know...be careful what you wiosh for!!)

Mike Boyna

As I said, my concern was more with the point of view than the presentation (and thanks, Mike, for taking the time to state where you were coming from on that). As far as going over the top -- I was talking to a Wheaton Drama member who was going on about the spread legs and girl-action and David in fishnets and such. Puzzled, I looked at her and said, "Your problem with that is...?" She laughed and said, "Well, of course you wouldn't have a problem with it!"

For me it wasn't over the top. But to clarify where my limits are, Margie and I saw the new Cabaret on our honeymoon and hated it. When Two Ladies includes a silhouette of the MC fisting the girl behind a curtain (or it may have been the guy dressed as a girl, who was the other Lady), that's a bit much.

The whole show was awful, except for Alan Cumming, who did what he was asked to do terrificly. We just hated what he was asked to do.

There! It's out! "What wouldn't Craig put onstage?" has finally been answered! Fisting!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 15, 2006 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Bilko ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sgt. Bilko:
As I said, my concern was more with the point of view than the presentation (and thanks, Mike, for taking the time to state where you were coming from on that). As far as going over the top -- I was talking to a Wheaton Drama member who was going on about the spread legs and girl-action and David in fishnets and such. Puzzled, I looked at her and said, "Your problem with that is...?" She laughed and said, "Well, of course you wouldn't have a problem with it!

---

<font size="2" face="Times, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Heeeeheeee, Craig-I am imagining who in Wheaton Drama that you had that particular conversation with-and it could have been any one of 10 ladies I know.
Stretching the subject a bit-Mike, your production was brilliantly done and I was also glad to see that you didn't let the audience off the hook.
Wheaton Drama has to keep a pretty good eye on the potential audience when it picks its shows due to a very large mortgage, and I like to think that the group did some real stretching last season with "Cabaret" and "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"(Yes, it's me-Peggy)
Don't get me wrong-I thought WDI had a great run of shows last season, but the two I've mentioned
challenged the audience to think, to climb into the characters dreams(and nightmares) and to feel something more than just, "Gee-good show. Let's go get a drink."

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 15, 2006 06:30 PM: Message edited by: pungster1 ]</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 15, 2006 06:33 PM: Message edited by: pungster1 ]</font>

Hi Mike & Craig-

I didn't see this production, but I appreciate the discussion here. The turn of the thrust from "I don't want to make those choices (or non-choices)" to "Why did these people make these choices" is an interesting angle to the issue. The differences between being oblivious, chosing to be oblivious and acting as if you are oblivious are very fertile ground for nuancing the presentation. I can see impetus for such a direction in the current national atmosphere, whether that was the inspiration or not. I also was interested in Mike's comment that his job is not to have the audience like the play, but to think about it. I wonder about that. From Craig's review, I am assured it was a well done production, but isn't (shouldn't/wasn't) there a concern about how the audience would react? I'm assuming you meant 'like' in its narrower sense of 'be happy with'. I look at this from the standpoint of a theatre's patrons. If they come in expecting the usual Cabaret, and are too put off, are they as likely to return to that theatre for another show? Shouldn't a director consider that?

Mike-

I guess I shouldn't have thought you you were being too literal. I think pungster's comment sums it up best, you want them to say "Gee, good show, let's go get a drink and talk about this some more." Wouldn't it be great to have such audiences......?

It's my job to make them THINK ABOUT IT.

That's what it's all about for me!!!

I am SOOOOO sorry I missed this show!!!

Please keep us update on what your next projects are!!!

LC (love that moniker, BTW):

We're sorry you missed it too. I've followed your posts on several threads, and appreciate your perspective and candor - regardless of the reactions of other "younger and more sensitive viewers", as the saying goes.

Mike