by Allan Fish
(filling in for Sam, who wanted to write a piece but Mother Hellcat Nature deemed otherwise)
(USA 1972 123m) DVD1/2
Come hear the music play
p Cy Feuer d Bob Fosse w Jay Preston Allen novel “Goodbye to Berlin” by Christopher Isherwood play “I am a Camera” by John van Druten ph Geoffrey Unsworth ed David Bretherton md Ralph Burns m/ly John Kander, Fred Ebb ch Bob Fosse art Rolf Zehetbauer, Jürgen Kiebach cos Charlotte Fleming
Liza Minnelli (Sally Bowles), Michael York (Brian Roberts), Joel Grey (MC), Helmut Griem (Maximilian von Heune), Marisa Berenson (Natalia Landauer), Fritz Wepper (Fritz Wendel),
By the time Cabaret was released in 1972, the popularity of big budget stage musical adaptations was running rather thin. Such ventures kept musicals alive when the studio system collapsed and took with it their studios within a studio that churned out musicals for fun. Yet of such adaptations, only The Pajama Game, West Side Story and The Music Man were really of interest cinematically. The first of those was probably the most dynamic and was choreographed by none other than Bob Fosse, who later gave the musical its last great flowering fifteen years later in this classic representation of Weimar Berlin. It never won best picture as it was unfortunate to run up against The Godfather, but it’s interesting to note how relatively extinct the musical has since become and how such a comparatively stage bound film as Chicago could win best picture exactly thirty years later, with nice photography and performances (from Queen Latifah and Richard Gere in particular), but little style. It can only be mourned that Fosse himself was never given the chance to direct that Kander-Ebb piece in the seventies, but at least we still have Cabaret, the first musical masterpiece since the MGM glory days of the early fifties.
The story of American wannabe star Sally Bowles was previously told straight as the frankly bad I am a Camera in 1955, but Fosse was always a master of the sleazy and he captures the essence of the Berlin of the period in a way that even the German film-makers of the thirties would have been hard-pressed to match (you half expect to see Emil Jannings’ Professor Unrath waiting for Marlene Dietrich to come out to sit on her barrel). His camera is always viewing the political events going on outside of the Kit-Kat Club without actually letting them dominate. We know that Nazism is just round the corner, as the Hitler Youth prophetically singing ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me’ testifies, and there is a masterfully edited sequence where the MC dancing in lederhosen on stage contrasts with a bloody beating of a businessman daring to take a stand against the Nazi fascists. The MC bids us all welcome in the opening song, and as he says “here everything is beautiful.” It’s basically telling you that outside it isn’t beautiful, quite the opposite.
Political comment aside, that’s merely on the fringes, Fosse realising that the maximum impact is achieved by letting the audience notice what’s going on around the edges without forcing it down your throat. You fear for the young Jewish woman, Natalia, especially as she’s from a rich family and a likely early target for the Nazis, but it’s like trying to warn JFK against taking that drive in Dallas, you can’t stop history. Fosse rather lets the songs and the decadent atmosphere of the club speak for itself and his choreography was never more idiosyncratic than here. Self indulgent, for sure, but that’s the point, as that’s just how it would have been. Life is not just a cabaret, but a caricature, and the numbers are all framed in this fashion, with every one a highlight, especially Minnelli’s rendition of the title song at the end and the immortal ‘Money Song’, an addition to the film from the stage show. And, though the photography, design and editing are all first rate, it’s the performances that are the most vital aspect, with Minnelli (perhaps a bit too talented for the essentially ordinary Bowles who wants to be a film star if sex and booze don’t get her first) and Grey superb (the latter in a role the ill-fated Klaus Nomi would have been perfect for.) When the ending comes, we know Nazism is about to descend on these characters and that life will never be the same again, but it’s also indicative as to how the musical itself was about to die. Auf wiedersehen. A bien tot!
How Cabaret made the ‘Elite 70′:
Pat Perry’s No. 6 choice
Dennis Polifroni’s No. 10 choice
Greg Ferrara’s No. 12 choice
Sam Juliano’s No. 13 choice
Allan Fish’s No. 15 choice
Judy Geater’s No. 17 choice
Marilyn Ferdinand’s No. 47 choice
Allan, a very concise and focused review that I thought pinpointed the things that make this such a fine musical film. I especially like the way you point out that the political-historical context is always there, but just outside and around the edges without overwhelming the film and turning it into a purely cautionary history lecture. Someone earlier criticized Liza Minnelli for aping her mother, but just try imagining the young Judy Garland playing this part, and I think you can see how much Minnelli made it her own and used it to project her own style. That was a very interesting comment you made about the three films you consider the most successful stage-to-film adaptations. I absolutely agree that “Cabaret” and “WSS” are the two best of these (also “On the Town,” but it’s not really thought of as a stage musical). There are several others I would place behind these but are still very good films, with “The Music Man,” “My Fair Lady,” and “The Pajama Game” being at the head of the pack. Anyway, it was good to see “The Pajama Game” get some credit. When I saw it not long ago I was very impressed. It’s probably my favorite Doris Day performance, one of the few where she actually does give a performance, and the “Once a Year Day” and “Steam Heat” numbers are just knockouts which look ahead to “Cabaret,” while the “Hernando’s Hideaway” number is pure cinema.
Typically great comment from R.D., who right out of the starting gates expands the horizons here!
R.D. again has nailed why this review is so superlative – it’s focus and concise structure.
This was my assignment, and I was forced to yield at the last moment because of circumstances beyond my control. Luckily, Allan had his review ready to go. I thank him for this.
This Kander and Ebb musical is one of the all-time greats–the fact that it is as cinematic a film as any musical ever made, and that it’s based on an equally celebrated stage work only enhances the success story. The Kit Kat Clun is one of the great decadent settings, the Nazi underpinnings only to real, and telling and jarring asides of Joel Gray’s facial reactions are brilliantly integrated.
The score is spectacular of course, and Fosse’s direction is a milestone.
Also, while it’s true that in 1972 THE GODFATHER won the Best Picture Oscar as Allan notes, it was CABARET that really won the hearts of the voters, capturing 8 Oscars to THE GODFATHER’s 3, including wins for Fosse, Minnelli and Grey.
Minnelli did things as Sally Bowles that couldn’t be replicated by her mom. And Grey was a force of nature, delivering one of the greatest performances on record. I don’t think anybody is as good as Allan Fish when it comes for making ever word count.
It’s a real pleasure.
Kander and Ebb wrote two great scores (the other, Chicago) that stand among the finest ever written.
Completely agree Peter on every point you make here!
Yes Allen a commanding and knowledgable and pointed essay on this essential musical and one of my 10 favorites. You correctly highlight Fosse’s self induglence, but it’s matched by the incredible propulsion of the story and performances. I don’t care what anyone says negatively about Minelli (I know she has detractors), she gives a masterful performance in this film and really makes it shine. She’s darn sexy too. Love the music, script and performances. Interesting to note on the math and the voting, that the film placed higher than nearly everyone’s placement on their individual ballots. Fascinating. Shows you on the previous three films that one ballot can really affect the final tally.
Another typicall;y tremendous comment from Jon Warner!!!!
“filling in for Sam, who wanted to write a piece but Mother Hellcat Nature deemed otherwise)”
-LOL!!!!! And SAM is probably beside himself for not getting a crack at this film that I know he loves so much…
Getting back to the film at hand, and with no disrespect to Schmulee, I couldn’t agree more than with Allan’s first paragraph as these are my sentiments as well for the state musicals were in during that period following their heyday.
CABARET is glowing ember, the diamond in the rough when all thoughts of genre were just about dead and gone. It’s not just a visceral, by-the-throat, take-no-prisoners kind of film that not only reimagines the form through the eyes of a director looking to kick the genre into (somewhat) gritty, (somewhat) realistic life, but a throw back to the kind of melodramatic fare that was once the hallmark of dramacists like Douglas Sirk. It’s a “serious” musical and, like the best of Sirk, takes the story to dramatic heights no other musical before or after it has ever had the balls to do. Even in the musical numbers you don’t get what had come before. Sure, there’s razzle dazzle to the cabaret numbers, but it’s tinted with a kind of realistic sleaziness that even the alley-ways and streets of the upper-west side of WEST SIDE STORY didn’t have. Their is no gloss or relaxing Hollywood glow to this musical and I think the film is all the better for it. It’s melodrama set in a very real world (this is why Sirk immediately comes to mind when I see this film). The plights of the main characters are rendered with a kind of urgency that you’d never associate with the work of Rodgers and Hammerstein or Astair or Kelly and CABARET really is about real things and real desperations at a time when the desperate where getting ready to fight for their lives.
The backdrop of the film is perfectly realized by Fosse and captures all the detail of Christopher Isherwoods prose (both ugly and romantic) and is heightened even further by a cast that seemed deemed by the muical coordinators working for God in heaven. Micheal York is, rare for me to say, actually kind of perfect as the confused main character and Joel Grey balances the innocence of York with an almost demonically possessed turn as the master of ceremonies that kicks off the night-time debauchery in the place of the films title. Liza Minelli has always be a problematic personality for me on the screen, never really knowing how to be herself or when to channel her amazing mother but, for this film, she seems to have put all her performance confusion to the side and ushers in a titanic performance as Sally Bowles.
I saw the revival of this play on Broadway twice. Stockard Channing and Jennifer Jason Leigh played the character and I have to say that while they were both extraordinary in their interpretation they never seem to wash the memories of Minelli away. Like her mother and the character of Dorothy Gail (from THE WIZARD OF OZ) before her, this is a case where the actress playing it was born to do so. There is electricity in every moment she’s performing onstage in the music numbers and a whisp of disappointment in her dramatic moments that relay innocence lost never to be regained again.
The art and set design of the film are all top notch and I really think extra Kudos have to go Charlotte Fleming for her amazing costume designs that help both Minelli and Grey become the iconic characters they will go down in history for creating.
Whew! I’m really running off at the mouth here… But, hey, this is a film that really deserves a big round of applause…
NOTE: If it was any other year and without THE GODFATHER in the running, this film would have slammed into the podium to collect that statue for BEST PICTURE.
CABARET is the last truly great classic musical…
Dennis,
I think your comments about Sirk deserve further examination. I get what you mean about the melodrama, but I find it a bit of a stretch to say that Sirk’s films occur in the real world. Sirk’s world is very glossy and escapist and Hollywood on the surface. It’s what is underneath where there is the social commentary and realism element. I think Cabaret is more along the lines of Fassbinder’s grittier, darker and oddly disorienting melodramas that he was starting to make. Thoughts?
Yeah, I thought some would have a problem following me on this…
When I say sirk I mean that the drama is heightened in the sequences not involving the music numbers. There is a sense of over-the-topness to the dramatic moments of CABARET that border on the lines of melodrama that Sirk is known for. With CABARET, the Fosse makes sure that the romanticism of the dramtic scenes in the film are more fantasy like than the gritty commentary that occurs in the club. I agree that FASSBINDER would figure in here as well, but the romance sequences and the way the actors handle the big emotional reveals in the movie are very reminiscent, for me anyway, of Sirk…
The fantasy is in the drama, the reality is in the numbers…
Dennis, thanks I think I’m following your thought stream better now and it’s making more sense. For sure there is a sense of over-the-topness, something not unfamiliar to this countdown already.! Speaking of melodramas, you should check out the new Criterion collection Matarazzo’s melodramas. Makes Sirk’s plots look restrained in comparison! Gotta love it!
Allan – I join the other commenters in their congratulations to you on an incisive, beautifully written post.
I might add that Jay Presson Allen’s screenplay made some significant alterations to the original stage version of CABARET; as I recall, Fosse’s film keeps much closer to Isherwood’s I AM A CAMERA than does the stage version. Berenson’s and Wepper’s characters aren’t in the original at all, where the secondary story is focused on Sally and Cliff’s (in the film, Brian’s) landlady, sixiyish Fraulein Schneider and her Jewish fiancee, Herr Schultz. I admit, I don’t the know the reasons for the changes (which also result in the removal of about 4 songs originally sung by Schneider and Schultz: only “Married” – sung in German by Lotte Lenya, the original stage Scheider – remains as background music in one scene.) But this is just informaiton, not a quibble. I think this film is brilliant as you rightly note. (And as my ranking clearly indicates.)
Another brilliantly insightful comment from Pat, who knows this musical inside out and has surely had some hands-on experience with it as well.
Yes, I have – I played Fraulein Schneider in a community theatre production several years ago. In fact, it was my all-time favorite role, and I’d love to do it again. ( I like to joke that I specialize in roles that are all but cut out of the film versions – Schneider is no more than a cameo role here; I also played the Widow Corney in OLIVER, and it isn’t much more than a cameo in that film either.)
hahaha I knew it Pat! I knew it. If you do it again let me know. I really might go west for that!!!!!
I concur that a review does not have to be thousands of words to convey the worth or significance of a film. This excellent piece is a perfect example. I like Chicago more than Allan does, but just about every other point he makes is spot on.
The cinematography and the performances are extraordinary.
Frank, I’ll take this a step further. There are a number of A plus film writers online, and a good nine or ten have written pieces for this countdown. But Allan’s unique talent stands alone. In his missions to review thousands of films for his book he has perfected the extremely difficult art of framing a film in 500 to 700 words. I find myself that this particular kind of writing is more challenging and more difficult than any other, as it requires painstaking effort at using the precise words and phrases, and to pare down the analysis. Allan has always said he “goes with the flow,” but he’s way too modest. He has written a number of much longer special features at the site over these three years, and every one has been superlative. But the art of the capsule is his domain and nobody can touch him. This tremendous review of CABARET shows him at his best, and serves this film definitively and with an acute no nonsense approach. Tell any writer that they must review a film in no more than 600 words, and Allan Fish is the champion. This is in addition to his other gifts of descriptive writing, use of the simile, and vast catalogue of references built on an intense lifetime of film going.
I would like to mention here that our friend at CINEMASCOPE, Shubhajit Laheri, is another ace with the capsule form.
I’ll add that CABARET may well be the most deftly and dazzingly edited film of any screen musical and credit here goes to Fosse and David Bretherton.
I second SAM’s sentiments about Allan. I have tried, labored really, to pair down my essays to a three or four paragraph structure and I fail at every attempt. It’s all in the wording I think and Allan has this concise precision in him, both in his writing and speaking that is straight to the point. I think this is true because of his vast, encylopedic knowledge of film and it’s something I believe that has become part of his everyday thought process. Because it’s always on his mind and festering in his brain it has no problem it has no problem finding its way to his hands or tongue.
I have spoken to Allan on the phone in the past and his way of speaking is almost exactly the same as his writing. He’s quick, to the point and dead on center every time…
Part of the reason I set my essays up with the same types of credits and cast information as Allan does is in homage to his essays. While I cannot recreate the structure of the actual essay, I at least throw him the credit as an inspiration by making my stuff look as organized as his…
He is, along with Shubhajit, a master of the capsule…
My hat’s really off to him when it comes to stuff like this…
For me ‘Cabaret’ is really two films: the first (and best) takes place inside the Kit Kat Club; and the other, mostly non-musical, film occurs outside the club. I think the reputation of ‘Cabaret’ rests on the ‘divine decadence’ of the nightclub music/ambience, not on the story of Sally Bowles’s private heartache (besides, theatrical “heart” brings out the worst in Minnelli’s acting).
In the end, Fosse’s body-contorting choreography and the Kander-Ebb songs as belted by Minnelli and Joel Grey win the day. And Unsworth’s cinematography is blindingly good.
Allan’s right; ‘Cabaret’ remains a landmark musical (despite my niggling reservations).
I see where you are coming from Mark, and surely you are not alone with those sentiments, but I always felt the two settings of the story are what made it work as well as it did. All Kit Kat would have been too claustrophobic, methinks.
Amazing in retrospect that Fosse beat Coppola but 1972-3 was his annus mirabilis that saw him practically crowned king of all media with an Emmy (for another collaboration with Minnelli) and Tony to complement his Oscar. I don’t say amazing to denigrate Fosse but simply to recall The Godfather’s Himalayan standing in posterity. I suppose people are surprised to learn that Coppola won best director only for the sequel. Anyway, Cabaret is as good a candidate as any for “Last” musical since its ambiance brings us back to the tawdry pathos of Applause as well as The Blue Angel. I’ve only ever seen it once, and parts are more memorable to me than the whole, but those parts are pretty powerful. So: did Fosse deserve that Oscar?
Samuel, Allan is at University today and tomorrow, so if I may step in here I’ll say the choice between Fosse and Coppola is extremely difficult. Coppola did inded win two years later, but I continue to rate Part II as minimally greater than the first film for a host of reasons. Still, both are obviously masterpieces, and in hindsight it was a curious decision. Naturally both you and I are speaking here as if that bogus body had any real artistic worth (ha!) but I think you and I are trying to gage concensus. Waht the Academy did that year was express indecision by their decisions. They gave THE GODFATHER the most important prize (Best Picture) but then went with a split decision by going with Fosse for Best Director and a total of 8 Oscars for the musical as opposed to 3 for THE GODFATHER. But again, the mobster epic won the most significant award by far.
In a sense, I echo Mark S. Although I love this film, it’s not for the nonmusical portions for the most part. Part of it is that I’m not that fond of Minnelli’s acting ability. Castingwise, it’s certainly true she was more talented than the character she played, though that’s no isolated incident. And, oddly, the tone of the dramatic sequences seemed more modern than what was appropriate for a period piece. The “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” sequence seemed a bit overdone for my taste. Fosse’s strength with the musical portions in general, though, makes up for my quibbles. To me, the film is a masterpiece with a few wholes that could use mending. And I do like Allan’s essay.
Pierre—
I am responding for Allan, who is at University and can’t yet respond here until later tonight I believe. You are not the only person to feel that “Tomorrow” is over wrought, though I did find in a sense that it heightened teh urgency of the Kit Kat seuences.
I completely agree with what you say about Fosse and the musical sequences, and appreciate what you say here about Allan’s essay.
Thanks, Sam. I’m a fan of subtlety. The Tomorrow song is the best example I can recall from the film of the lack of subtlety — but certainly not the only one. For too much of the film, the nonmusical sequences seemed to be speaking directly to 1972 more than to the period depicted. This may have increased the film’s popularity and identifiability, but to me it cheapened it (I hope that’s not too strong a word) as a whole.
Well, this seems to be a praise me fest. You know I’m uneasy with any accolades, and Sam is right to say I just write off the cuff, because aside from making notes when watching the film, I write it in one quick go. Considering that this was one of my earlier – hence, lesser – pieces only makes the praise stranger, but appreciated all the same.
It’s strange really because here I am at Uni effectively doing the exact polar opposite. I have only told a couple of people on my course about my writing a book and about this site, partly because this sort of writing is the last thing they need to see. Plus, I think most of them would understandably have little interest in many of the films I write about. They’re 18-23, even I only watched my first foreign language film when I was 18.
Writing academically is about cold hard facts, about every single reference being checked, double checked and counter checked, about analysing everything like a food critic taking a dish ingredient by ingredient and using the same terms – authorship, mise-en-scène, editing, genre, etc etc over and over and comign to a conclusion. Essentially you’re performing a post mortem on the film, and like such a serious report, there must be no humour, no individuality to the piece beyond basic writing style.
Though that’s what I am now doing, the pieces here are nothing like it. A film studies tutor would give them 25% at best. But they’re out to do something a little more shall we say ambiguous. They’re about capturing the essence of the film, a scent, an aroma. Not just the film but the remembrances of what that film means to you personally, and using that personal touch, wit (when I am lucky enough to say anything witty) and instinct to make the viewer want to see the film if they haven’t seen it, or nod in agreement or shake their head accordingly. Many of my pieces don’t so much go off on a tangent as start on one, sometimes only getting to the film in question about halfway through, but it’s all about the bait, the hook, drawing the reader into it and then making them think “OK, I get the connection now, clever little bastard!” There are far better analyses of the films both online and in academia, but how many of them would convert the unconverted?
Thanks again, especially to Sam and Dennis.
Great, great comment here. Keep that spirit, Fish, it’s exactly what cinema discourse needs.
I’m not sure about that, Joel. It’s just my outlook, after all. And the students in my class are basically a great bunch (that’s Dan, Dom, Rose, Rosy, Ellie, Jackson, Becca, Shannon et al, if ever they read this), couldn’t have done better really, even if I do seem like some seedy uncle or godfather figure among them. Some of them may be baffled, but just hearing one watching the end of Rocky IV for Ideology of the worst kind and stating “that was awful” or hearing another come out of a Murnau lecture saying “German expressionism is the boss!” or others making plans to see the latest foreign flick is just great. They’re getting the chance to do at the right age what I couldn’t do. I have to restrain myself from saying “go on, see this, see this, see this and reaming off hundreds…”, but then you end up a social leper, the sort people avoid at parties, left to munch salted peanuts in the corner, trying to start up a conversation with “have you seen Jeanne Dielman, 23 Rue du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles?” and people look at you like “that’s not a film, you arse, that’s an address. Fuck off, you freak!”
That’s what I mean, though – I see your lure-the-reader approach as being akin to the film student who’s able to call German expressionism “boss,” because it doesn’t establish a divide between the supposedly “high” and “low” ways of viewing art. I know you’ve said you’re not sure yet where you’re taking the degree, but I think you’d probably make a good teacher.
Btw, are your class sizes very small or are those just the students you’re friendliest with? Small, tightknit groups are ideal for this type of thing I feel, sort of like what we have in Wonders just face-to-face (and hopefully more polite, haha).
Class size is about 20, but there are groups within groups as there always are.
Allan, I think you undervalue your achievement in this review and in all the work you have published at WitD. Please don’t ever publish anything here written in academickese. You know what that is–the kind of writing that values impersonality of style that often sounds as if it were awkwardly translated from a foreign language, repetitious prolixity, arid and pretentious theorizing, using film as a channel for critical philosophies rather than as an end it itself, over-reliance on research, recycling of the accepted ideas of “authorities,” and the facile use of jargon over enthusiasm, individuality, and originality. The kind of writing created for other scholars, not for film lovers. It’s to avoid this kind of sterility that we turn to the better movie blogs like WitD, because we prize clear, concise writing by amateurs (in the literal sense of the word as well as the popular). Write the scholarly stuff for the academics, but please keep writing like you do at WitD for the rest of us.
That is exactly what I am attempting to do, Finchy. As I told Joel in email last night, writing academically is something I can do, but something that goes against my instinct – either of my tutors would probably smile reading this – but it’s like having to learn to write with your left hand as a right hander.
One of the reasons I was glad to finish the book (aside from a few late additions) before I went was to get into the swing of generally writing in academic style while at Uni. But don’t worry, I have written several pieces in the ‘Fish’ style since going to Uni and I’ll never stop doing that (literally just finished a piece on I AM CUBA an hour ago). I just wouldn’t touch one iota of that style for Uni and will contineu to ensure my classmates remain uncorrupted by my influence.
Another great piece by Allan. I’m with Mark and Pierre that it is the musical sections of the film which make the strongest impact, and this is certainly the case with the musical on stage too. Many years ago I saw the whole show done as a cabaret in Germany, at a theatre where the audience sat and ate at tables while it was performed, and I also saw a stage production in Ipswich with a very young Imogen Stubbs’ professional debut as Sally Bowles. Both of those made a strong impression on me at the time but all I remember from them now are isolated moments from some of the musical numbers. I also agree with everyone else that Liza Minnelli is great as Sally and performs the songs in unforgettable style.