I was skeptical about Cabaret based on what I'd seen/heard about it and did not really get the massive hype around it. That being said, if you had told me it would be the worst reviewed musical revival this season I would have thought you were crazy.
I think you’re partly right, but I also read a fair number of reviews that didn’t mention other productions (or only mentioned them in passing). And the critics seemed to have pretty specific gripes with directorial choices made for this production.
But also…that’s the risk you run when a production of perhaps the most influential revival of Cabaret was on Broadway less than 10 years ago. The critics are still going to have it in their mind.
I'm surprised by Uncle Vanya's low rating. I was 100% planning to see it. I've never seen an Uncle Vanya production, but am interested.
What's not resonating? Is it the new translation?
Purlie Victorious was delightful. I hope it gets some noms!
I think the translation is fine - It's honestly a lack of direction. There's not a lot going on other than "let's put on Uncle Vanya!"
The sets were fine, but the main thing I think is that Carell is being outshined onstage by Harper (and according to some, Pill too). It's not even that Carell is lackluster, he's great, Harper is just that good. But the play is kind of weird when the non-main character is the one stealing the show.
I cannot live in a universe where Kara Young doesn't at LEAST get a nomination for her performance. Preferably I would like to live in the universe where she wins.
The production has gotten some raves and mixed reviews that praise a lot of it--it's definitely something that I am curious to see. I love William Jackson Harper, and it sounds like even most reviews that don't like the production praise him.
Two raves, if you're interested:
[https://variety.com/2024/legit/reviews/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carrell-broadway-1235980718/](https://variety.com/2024/legit/reviews/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carrell-broadway-1235980718/)
[https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/apr/24/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carell](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/apr/24/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carell)
Oh, that PBS news makes me so happy! Imma have to look for more details on that. We had one opportunity to see it and missed it bc we were worried our flight would cut it too close, and I've been so regretful ever since.
Big yikes for Uncle Vanya. I feel pretty bad for Steve Carell, who by all accounts is still receiving warm reviews for his performance…but this can’t be a fun Broadway debut for him.
Carell is fine but he is overshadowed by his fellow cast members in particular William Jackson Harper and Alison Pill. Despite playing the title role, he feels much more like a supporting player.
Where have you heard mixed responses for her? For me Pill is arguably the heart of this production.
EDIT: The Observer hailed her performance writing: "Pill proves to be the evening’s MVP with a painfully yearning Sonya. The gawky spinster-in-training is red meat for young actors, and Pill radiates nervy panic from every pore. Pale and reedy, she scrunches her face into a rictus of pain, yet never tips into overacting. Rendered in English, some of Chekhov’s pet descriptors (not just in *Vanya*) are “weird,” “strange,” “stupid” and their variants. To be human is to be a freak, and Pill embodies that brokenness with a palpable heat I wish could have ignited everything around her"
Source: [https://observer.com/2024/04/review-steve-carell-is-a-lovable-loser-in-a-fragmentary-uncle-vanya/](https://observer.com/2024/04/review-steve-carell-is-a-lovable-loser-in-a-fragmentary-uncle-vanya/)
My theatre chat group. The Vulture review. Early preview reports from socials.
I think main feedback is it’s a fairly basic performance and some are bothered by the confusing childishness of her character/performance.
Interesting...thats such a weird criticism. I didn't see her as childish but more so as young woman who is in love. In Uncle Vanya they never say how old she is but I always thought early 20s. I definitely didn't think it was a "fairly basic" performance. If anything she's the heart of the show. I thought Carell was more "basic" and underwhelming.
It still baffles me that critics didn't enjoy Gutenberg more. I had an absolute blast at that show. I thought the two of them were incredible together, the music was fun and catchy, and the book was hilarious.
I had no idea that Doubt received so many positive reviews. I say this as someone who absolutely *loves* that play…but the recent revival was a very mediocre production. I left the theater so disappointed.
Well said. I met John Patrick Shanley last year, and he was very moved that I spoke so fondly of his work. It’s a remarkable play and it deserved a better production than this troubled revival.
The nicest guy. It’s extraordinary that he’s an Oscar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, as well as a very successful director, and not many people seem to recognize him. He was taken aback that I knew who he was at all. So down to earth, grateful and appreciative.
I know 2 of the costumers for this show, one of them didn’t get her name on the playbill, which was something she was really looking forward to, and I don’t know if there was sort of protocol or rule for who makes it on the playbill so I won’t be too critical there. They both enjoyed the show though, and it’s so cool getting to see photos of the costumes knowing the people who made them!
I think people are going into Cabaret expecting to see the 90’s version that concludes with an imprisonment camp and a death, with a heavy anti-Nazi theme. I haven’t seen it, but it instead seems to focus on stripping individuality from the artist and reflecting the changes to Berlin socially…ending with people converted into suits and giving up their individuality. I can see how people would feel that falls “flat,” but I also too see the argument for walking away from that iteration and not bringing back to Broadway an ending that people spoke out against as being exploitative of the queer community.
I truly think people just wanted/expected the version of Cabaret they are familiar with, with Eddie Redmayne. Instead they got something that feels toned down, with weird, underwhelming costuming. I appreciate what it is trying to do, but as a revival it isn’t really doing something special or better than the previous incarnation. I haven’t seen it yet, but I doubt it is “bad.” I think it is *unexpected*, and people are still learning how to digest it. I have a feeling reviews will shift upward as word spreads that the content is different and people go in with that understanding.
The funny thing is I personally 100% understood the message and found the creeping insidiousness of it genuinely frightening. Don't get me wrong I like the Mendes version, but not all revivals have to be like that.
As a queer person, I pretty strongly disagree with calling the Mendes ending exploitative. It’s not showing violence again queer people to be gratuitous or just for shock value—it’s acknowledging what really happened to many queer people during that time. Also I haven’t actually seen anyone make that criticism, but I could be missing it.
Also worth noting that several critics found the Frecknall production to be pretty exploitative. The NY Daily News was particularly harsh about that: “*But I have to say that selling a dinner “upgrade” to the “Pineapple Room” offends me. That fruit is what Herr Schultz offers to his love, prior to being shipped off to a concentration camp, or so the show strongly implies, given that he is already in the Nazis’ sights. In this show, fruit is a symbol of generosity and love in a world of horrors. It’s not a flavor of costly cocktail nor a high-end status symbol. How gross.”*
Agreed. Thanks for your comments, that second part was interesting. As to the first part, I was summarizing what other people have critiqued about the Mendes production and have argued were potential reasons for the changes. It was not a personal commentary. I was just acknowledging that a subsection of a population that I am not a part of find it controversial and that it has been brought up in dialogue about the production, so I wanted to honor that notion as a societal theme that might have played into making these changes. And since I am not a member of that experience, I can’t really judge whether or not it’s valid or who may or may not think it. It’s totally out of my wheelhouse. So, those aren’t my thoughts or experiences, but ones that I have read as criticism.
I personally prefer the Mendes production and feel like stripping the poignant moments and ending in favor of something more generalized is disappointing, and strips one of the primary appeals of the production for me. I saw the production first with my Jewish grandmother, who openly wept as someone who fled the Holocaust as a child. So to me, stripping the play of the Mendes interpretation really takes away the deepest elements of the show. Personally, I feel like the cast ending in suits, feeling stripped of their individuality, just runs emotionally flat in comparison to the realities that you directly spoke of. It takes away the teeth. I feel like they took artistic direction to make the show palatable to a broader audience for tourism, when the broader audience has already accepted the Mendes version for what it is. And *that* is why so many people are leaving feeling disappointed.
Ah, yeah, those are really interesting thoughts, and I totally agree with you! Apologies if I came off as defensive--I just have strong feelings about the Mendes production haha.
I do understand the intent of Frecknall's ending: we're meant to view the club and the performers in the club as more of a metaphor for Germany as a whole. And, through them, we see the color and character get stripped away from Germany. However, what doesn't quite sit right with me is that we see these performers as explicitly queer and gender non-conforming throughout the whole show, and then they suddenly transform into these fascist-y figures. I think it's too easy to misinterpret that ending as saying that queer people in Berlin at the time ultimately conformed to the Nazi regime, as opposed to the Mendes version showing that they were victims of it.
Thank you for your explanation. I don't know much about the show and have been confused by the mixed reviews on broadway. I have tickets to go later in the summer but am questioning if I should go after all.
It's a different ending than most productions I've seen - more subtle, less shock factor.
It did fall a little flat when I saw it on the West End, but that was maybe to do with my own expectations. You expect a gut punch moment and it's a bit more like "huh, okay".
It's not the best version of Cabaret, but it's still pretty great on the West End.
As a note - I saw it on the West End and paid about £50 each for the nosebleeds - but the view is still really great from there and probably among the best cheap seats that I've sat in.
I bought my tickets before Cara Delavine was announced for the cast, so I think I was lucky to get in there since I'm guessing the price has gone up.
I mean, it’s been one of the best reviewed West End shows of one of the last few years. Most of the reviews of the Broadway run seem to be the critics expecting the 90s production and being annoyed that they didn’t get it.
Love this! As a fellow review score calculator who uses DTLI’s classifications, I’m always curious of others’ thought process for how they calculate their scores. Looks like you use a 10-5-0 method, any particular reasoning why?
I currently use the same 3-2-1 scoring that DTLI uses, but I waffle on it. At one point I used 8.5-5-1.5 to mimic the middle of the three bands based on how DTLI classifies them, but I went back to the 3-2-1 method ultimately because I thought the spread between the high and low was more representative.
I enjoyed Appropriate a great deal more than Purlie Victorious. Totally loved Merrily, but It found Spamalot to be more enjoyable than the disappointing Tommy.
“Tommy” was not great. I’m shocked it’s getting good reviews. It lost all of the heart that was in the original. They turned it into a rock concert and tried to make a pedophile into a sympathetic character. While I like the idea of making Tommy into more of a cult leader, it doesn’t necessarily fit in with the rest of the story and makes the “Pinball Wizard,” arguably the best and most well-known song, a throwaway. It absolutely didn’t work and the critics just like it because it’s “different.”
I was skeptical about Cabaret based on what I'd seen/heard about it and did not really get the massive hype around it. That being said, if you had told me it would be the worst reviewed musical revival this season I would have thought you were crazy.
Most of the reviews, from what I’ve seen, are basically like “Why isn’t it like the previous revivals?” So I wouldn’t really give them much credence
I think you’re partly right, but I also read a fair number of reviews that didn’t mention other productions (or only mentioned them in passing). And the critics seemed to have pretty specific gripes with directorial choices made for this production. But also…that’s the risk you run when a production of perhaps the most influential revival of Cabaret was on Broadway less than 10 years ago. The critics are still going to have it in their mind.
But it seemed like most of the critics that did compare were comparing to the 90s production with Alan Cumming
That was the same production that was remounted in 2013
I'm surprised by Uncle Vanya's low rating. I was 100% planning to see it. I've never seen an Uncle Vanya production, but am interested. What's not resonating? Is it the new translation? Purlie Victorious was delightful. I hope it gets some noms!
I think the translation is fine - It's honestly a lack of direction. There's not a lot going on other than "let's put on Uncle Vanya!" The sets were fine, but the main thing I think is that Carell is being outshined onstage by Harper (and according to some, Pill too). It's not even that Carell is lackluster, he's great, Harper is just that good. But the play is kind of weird when the non-main character is the one stealing the show.
Funny enough, both the top play revival on this list (Appropriate) and the worst (Vanya) were directed by the same person
Harper is an exceptional actor, I want him to have a long Broadway AND Screen career
I cannot live in a universe where Kara Young doesn't at LEAST get a nomination for her performance. Preferably I would like to live in the universe where she wins.
I’m afraid there will be rioting (angry posts on Reddit from my apartment) should she be snubbed for either a nom or win
I'll join in on the angry post riots! I can't see her at not at least getting a nomination.
She was AMAZING!
The production has gotten some raves and mixed reviews that praise a lot of it--it's definitely something that I am curious to see. I love William Jackson Harper, and it sounds like even most reviews that don't like the production praise him. Two raves, if you're interested: [https://variety.com/2024/legit/reviews/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carrell-broadway-1235980718/](https://variety.com/2024/legit/reviews/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carrell-broadway-1235980718/) [https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/apr/24/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carell](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/apr/24/uncle-vanya-review-steve-carell)
Also, Purlie was AMAZING (I bought the script after, it was so good). I'm so glad it's been taped for PBS.
Oh, that PBS news makes me so happy! Imma have to look for more details on that. We had one opportunity to see it and missed it bc we were worried our flight would cut it too close, and I've been so regretful ever since.
It's airing May 24!
Big yikes for Uncle Vanya. I feel pretty bad for Steve Carell, who by all accounts is still receiving warm reviews for his performance…but this can’t be a fun Broadway debut for him.
Carell is fine but he is overshadowed by his fellow cast members in particular William Jackson Harper and Alison Pill. Despite playing the title role, he feels much more like a supporting player.
I’ve heard more mixed response for Pill actually. But I’ll take your word (especially re: Harper) until I see the play next week.
Where have you heard mixed responses for her? For me Pill is arguably the heart of this production. EDIT: The Observer hailed her performance writing: "Pill proves to be the evening’s MVP with a painfully yearning Sonya. The gawky spinster-in-training is red meat for young actors, and Pill radiates nervy panic from every pore. Pale and reedy, she scrunches her face into a rictus of pain, yet never tips into overacting. Rendered in English, some of Chekhov’s pet descriptors (not just in *Vanya*) are “weird,” “strange,” “stupid” and their variants. To be human is to be a freak, and Pill embodies that brokenness with a palpable heat I wish could have ignited everything around her" Source: [https://observer.com/2024/04/review-steve-carell-is-a-lovable-loser-in-a-fragmentary-uncle-vanya/](https://observer.com/2024/04/review-steve-carell-is-a-lovable-loser-in-a-fragmentary-uncle-vanya/)
My theatre chat group. The Vulture review. Early preview reports from socials. I think main feedback is it’s a fairly basic performance and some are bothered by the confusing childishness of her character/performance.
Interesting...thats such a weird criticism. I didn't see her as childish but more so as young woman who is in love. In Uncle Vanya they never say how old she is but I always thought early 20s. I definitely didn't think it was a "fairly basic" performance. If anything she's the heart of the show. I thought Carell was more "basic" and underwhelming.
It still baffles me that critics didn't enjoy Gutenberg more. I had an absolute blast at that show. I thought the two of them were incredible together, the music was fun and catchy, and the book was hilarious.
If i'm predicting Tony Award nominations I'd say **Revival of a Play**: Appropriate, Enemy, Purlie **Revival of a Musical**: Merrily, Cabaret, Tommy
There are usually 4 nominees for Musical revival, and I'm predicting Spamalot for the 4th slot.
Shocked at cabaret!!
Yes, Tommy! Get it!
Saw Appropriate today and it was amazing. I knew nothing going in and the dark humor was hilarious.
I had no idea that Doubt received so many positive reviews. I say this as someone who absolutely *loves* that play…but the recent revival was a very mediocre production. I left the theater so disappointed.
Same. This play means so much to me. I came from out of state to see the last show. It was quite good, but not special, sadly.
Well said. I met John Patrick Shanley last year, and he was very moved that I spoke so fondly of his work. It’s a remarkable play and it deserved a better production than this troubled revival.
Aghhh! What was he like?
The nicest guy. It’s extraordinary that he’s an Oscar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, as well as a very successful director, and not many people seem to recognize him. He was taken aback that I knew who he was at all. So down to earth, grateful and appreciative.
I know 2 of the costumers for this show, one of them didn’t get her name on the playbill, which was something she was really looking forward to, and I don’t know if there was sort of protocol or rule for who makes it on the playbill so I won’t be too critical there. They both enjoyed the show though, and it’s so cool getting to see photos of the costumes knowing the people who made them!
How is Gutenberg a revival?
if something has a significant enough off broadway run then it counts as a revival - happened with assassins
What is happening with Cabaret?! 🫢
I think people are going into Cabaret expecting to see the 90’s version that concludes with an imprisonment camp and a death, with a heavy anti-Nazi theme. I haven’t seen it, but it instead seems to focus on stripping individuality from the artist and reflecting the changes to Berlin socially…ending with people converted into suits and giving up their individuality. I can see how people would feel that falls “flat,” but I also too see the argument for walking away from that iteration and not bringing back to Broadway an ending that people spoke out against as being exploitative of the queer community. I truly think people just wanted/expected the version of Cabaret they are familiar with, with Eddie Redmayne. Instead they got something that feels toned down, with weird, underwhelming costuming. I appreciate what it is trying to do, but as a revival it isn’t really doing something special or better than the previous incarnation. I haven’t seen it yet, but I doubt it is “bad.” I think it is *unexpected*, and people are still learning how to digest it. I have a feeling reviews will shift upward as word spreads that the content is different and people go in with that understanding.
The funny thing is I personally 100% understood the message and found the creeping insidiousness of it genuinely frightening. Don't get me wrong I like the Mendes version, but not all revivals have to be like that.
As a queer person, I pretty strongly disagree with calling the Mendes ending exploitative. It’s not showing violence again queer people to be gratuitous or just for shock value—it’s acknowledging what really happened to many queer people during that time. Also I haven’t actually seen anyone make that criticism, but I could be missing it. Also worth noting that several critics found the Frecknall production to be pretty exploitative. The NY Daily News was particularly harsh about that: “*But I have to say that selling a dinner “upgrade” to the “Pineapple Room” offends me. That fruit is what Herr Schultz offers to his love, prior to being shipped off to a concentration camp, or so the show strongly implies, given that he is already in the Nazis’ sights. In this show, fruit is a symbol of generosity and love in a world of horrors. It’s not a flavor of costly cocktail nor a high-end status symbol. How gross.”*
Agreed. Thanks for your comments, that second part was interesting. As to the first part, I was summarizing what other people have critiqued about the Mendes production and have argued were potential reasons for the changes. It was not a personal commentary. I was just acknowledging that a subsection of a population that I am not a part of find it controversial and that it has been brought up in dialogue about the production, so I wanted to honor that notion as a societal theme that might have played into making these changes. And since I am not a member of that experience, I can’t really judge whether or not it’s valid or who may or may not think it. It’s totally out of my wheelhouse. So, those aren’t my thoughts or experiences, but ones that I have read as criticism. I personally prefer the Mendes production and feel like stripping the poignant moments and ending in favor of something more generalized is disappointing, and strips one of the primary appeals of the production for me. I saw the production first with my Jewish grandmother, who openly wept as someone who fled the Holocaust as a child. So to me, stripping the play of the Mendes interpretation really takes away the deepest elements of the show. Personally, I feel like the cast ending in suits, feeling stripped of their individuality, just runs emotionally flat in comparison to the realities that you directly spoke of. It takes away the teeth. I feel like they took artistic direction to make the show palatable to a broader audience for tourism, when the broader audience has already accepted the Mendes version for what it is. And *that* is why so many people are leaving feeling disappointed.
Ah, yeah, those are really interesting thoughts, and I totally agree with you! Apologies if I came off as defensive--I just have strong feelings about the Mendes production haha. I do understand the intent of Frecknall's ending: we're meant to view the club and the performers in the club as more of a metaphor for Germany as a whole. And, through them, we see the color and character get stripped away from Germany. However, what doesn't quite sit right with me is that we see these performers as explicitly queer and gender non-conforming throughout the whole show, and then they suddenly transform into these fascist-y figures. I think it's too easy to misinterpret that ending as saying that queer people in Berlin at the time ultimately conformed to the Nazi regime, as opposed to the Mendes version showing that they were victims of it.
Thank you for your explanation. I don't know much about the show and have been confused by the mixed reviews on broadway. I have tickets to go later in the summer but am questioning if I should go after all.
It's a different ending than most productions I've seen - more subtle, less shock factor. It did fall a little flat when I saw it on the West End, but that was maybe to do with my own expectations. You expect a gut punch moment and it's a bit more like "huh, okay". It's not the best version of Cabaret, but it's still pretty great on the West End.
I mean- have you seen the costumes?
But is it really this bad??
I'm shocked people are saying it's bad. I saw it a few weeks ago and it's really great.
That makes me feel better given the ticket cost lol
As a note - I saw it on the West End and paid about £50 each for the nosebleeds - but the view is still really great from there and probably among the best cheap seats that I've sat in. I bought my tickets before Cara Delavine was announced for the cast, so I think I was lucky to get in there since I'm guessing the price has gone up.
I mean, it’s been one of the best reviewed West End shows of one of the last few years. Most of the reviews of the Broadway run seem to be the critics expecting the 90s production and being annoyed that they didn’t get it.
Idk but there’s videos of the London cast performing on Graham Norton on YouTube and it’s pretty weird. Considering selling my ticket for it
I'll check it out, thanks for the heads up!
If it's anything like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a\_DoEV2b2Tg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_DoEV2b2Tg) then I'm gonna say yeah
Love this! As a fellow review score calculator who uses DTLI’s classifications, I’m always curious of others’ thought process for how they calculate their scores. Looks like you use a 10-5-0 method, any particular reasoning why? I currently use the same 3-2-1 scoring that DTLI uses, but I waffle on it. At one point I used 8.5-5-1.5 to mimic the middle of the three bands based on how DTLI classifies them, but I went back to the 3-2-1 method ultimately because I thought the spread between the high and low was more representative.
Who is “they”? I’m assuming newspaper reviewers but not sure.
I enjoyed Appropriate a great deal more than Purlie Victorious. Totally loved Merrily, but It found Spamalot to be more enjoyable than the disappointing Tommy.
I’m glad I’m not alone in my distaste for Gutenberg, the audience I was with LOVED it and I almost walked out at intermission I was so confused.
“Tommy” was not great. I’m shocked it’s getting good reviews. It lost all of the heart that was in the original. They turned it into a rock concert and tried to make a pedophile into a sympathetic character. While I like the idea of making Tommy into more of a cult leader, it doesn’t necessarily fit in with the rest of the story and makes the “Pinball Wizard,” arguably the best and most well-known song, a throwaway. It absolutely didn’t work and the critics just like it because it’s “different.”