Cabaret
2/4
Starring: Liza Minelli, Michael York, Helmut Griem, Fritz Wepper, Marisa Berenson, Joel Grey
Rated PG (probably for Violence and Sexuality)
I hate reviewing movies like "Cabaret." I really do dread it. There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, it's considered a classic, so as the one film critic who didn't like it, I risk no one taking me seriously ever again. I have to be honest and stand by my convictions, but having integrity doesn't make it any easier. The other is that by every standard of criticism that I have I should be giving this movie a glowing review. The film is well-acted, Bob Fosse knows what he's doing behind the camera, and there are some stirring moments (particularly at the end). And yet the film just didn't work for me.
Many people are wary of so-called "classic" or art films because there is often an indescribable distance between what is happening on screen and the audience. It can't be articulated into words, but it can be felt. In many cases it seems that the more rapturous the praise from critics and cineastes, the more distance there actually is. I don't understand this. A director that is afraid, unwilling, or worse, "above," engaging the audience in some way has not done their job. Sure, a movie can be well-acted, insightful or whatnot, but it doesn't mean anything if it can't get the audience to care about the characters or their situation.
Which brings us to "Cabaret," a middling melodrama interrupted by somewhat energetic musical numbers that isn't as daring or dramatic as it thinks it is. Perhaps age simply hasn't been kind to it. Or maybe it just wasn't that great to begin with. I wasn't alive in 1972, so I can't tell you. I can only tell you how I felt while watching it. Which is to say, I appreciated the craftsmanship and the hard work of the actors and crew yet I was still utterly bored.
The film takes place in 1931 Berlin. The Nazis have not come to power, but the party is gaining enough momentum for the clouds to form on the horizon. Brian Roberts (York) is young British teacher who has come to give English lessons. In the house he is staying at lives Sally Bowles (Minelli), a nightclub singer at a local club. The reserved and sexually-stunted Brian and the wild bohemian Sally become friends, but something deeper develops between them. But Sally is ambitious and wants to become an actress, and will do anything to achieve her dream, including entering into a sexual relationship with a wealthy playboy named Maximillian von Heune (Griem). Meanwhile, one of Brian's students, a local man named Fritz (Wepper), begins to romance the wealthy Jewish heiress Natalia (Berenson). Commentary in the form of song and dance is offered by the club's Master of Ceremonies (Grey).
The material isn't inherently bad. In fact, it has some potential. The problem lies in its presentation. It's just not that interesting. I didn't really care about anyone in this story. What should have moved me instead left me feeling cold. Intellectually I got a little invested, but this is a really tedious movie.
Part of the reason is Brian, who is a bore. This has less to do with Michael York's performance (which is solid) than the way in which the character is directed. Like everyone else, he's kept at an arm's distance, which makes it difficult to identify with him. Likewise, Sally is a live wire: sexy, vulnerable and vivacious, but again, the film makes it hard to form a connection with her. I could say similar things about everyone else. The best I can say about Joel Grey is that his boundless energy and the way he throws himself into a purposefully stagy role is impressive.
It's strange. The film is directed with enough energy and precision that the problem isn't with director Bob Fosse. This isn't the work of a hack or someone who is overrated. This movie can only have been made by someone who knew what he was doing. But whatever emotion he is going for can be understood intellectually, but the emotional component is muted.
Maybe James Berardinelli had it right in his review of "Rent:" 'In most cases, it's a bad idea for a movie to be a direct representation of a play. 'Opening up' the setting is sometimes not all that's necessary to make a stage production into something cinematic. In a theater, an intimacy exists between the players and their audience. This cannot be replicated on the screen; a substitute must be found for this, and a way must be divined to keep the energy level high. Successful musicals, like 'West Side Story' and 'Chicago,' find a way. Mediocre adaptations, like 'Rent,' suffer and seem diminished as a result.'
Perhaps that is the problem. The film is technically well made, but something feels off. There's nothing that drew me into this movie and the world of its characters. I felt the same thing when I watched "Ran," which is probably the only way the two films could ever hope to be compared. Not that that is a compliment.
Starring: Liza Minelli, Michael York, Helmut Griem, Fritz Wepper, Marisa Berenson, Joel Grey
Rated PG (probably for Violence and Sexuality)
I hate reviewing movies like "Cabaret." I really do dread it. There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, it's considered a classic, so as the one film critic who didn't like it, I risk no one taking me seriously ever again. I have to be honest and stand by my convictions, but having integrity doesn't make it any easier. The other is that by every standard of criticism that I have I should be giving this movie a glowing review. The film is well-acted, Bob Fosse knows what he's doing behind the camera, and there are some stirring moments (particularly at the end). And yet the film just didn't work for me.
Many people are wary of so-called "classic" or art films because there is often an indescribable distance between what is happening on screen and the audience. It can't be articulated into words, but it can be felt. In many cases it seems that the more rapturous the praise from critics and cineastes, the more distance there actually is. I don't understand this. A director that is afraid, unwilling, or worse, "above," engaging the audience in some way has not done their job. Sure, a movie can be well-acted, insightful or whatnot, but it doesn't mean anything if it can't get the audience to care about the characters or their situation.
Which brings us to "Cabaret," a middling melodrama interrupted by somewhat energetic musical numbers that isn't as daring or dramatic as it thinks it is. Perhaps age simply hasn't been kind to it. Or maybe it just wasn't that great to begin with. I wasn't alive in 1972, so I can't tell you. I can only tell you how I felt while watching it. Which is to say, I appreciated the craftsmanship and the hard work of the actors and crew yet I was still utterly bored.
The film takes place in 1931 Berlin. The Nazis have not come to power, but the party is gaining enough momentum for the clouds to form on the horizon. Brian Roberts (York) is young British teacher who has come to give English lessons. In the house he is staying at lives Sally Bowles (Minelli), a nightclub singer at a local club. The reserved and sexually-stunted Brian and the wild bohemian Sally become friends, but something deeper develops between them. But Sally is ambitious and wants to become an actress, and will do anything to achieve her dream, including entering into a sexual relationship with a wealthy playboy named Maximillian von Heune (Griem). Meanwhile, one of Brian's students, a local man named Fritz (Wepper), begins to romance the wealthy Jewish heiress Natalia (Berenson). Commentary in the form of song and dance is offered by the club's Master of Ceremonies (Grey).
The material isn't inherently bad. In fact, it has some potential. The problem lies in its presentation. It's just not that interesting. I didn't really care about anyone in this story. What should have moved me instead left me feeling cold. Intellectually I got a little invested, but this is a really tedious movie.
Part of the reason is Brian, who is a bore. This has less to do with Michael York's performance (which is solid) than the way in which the character is directed. Like everyone else, he's kept at an arm's distance, which makes it difficult to identify with him. Likewise, Sally is a live wire: sexy, vulnerable and vivacious, but again, the film makes it hard to form a connection with her. I could say similar things about everyone else. The best I can say about Joel Grey is that his boundless energy and the way he throws himself into a purposefully stagy role is impressive.
It's strange. The film is directed with enough energy and precision that the problem isn't with director Bob Fosse. This isn't the work of a hack or someone who is overrated. This movie can only have been made by someone who knew what he was doing. But whatever emotion he is going for can be understood intellectually, but the emotional component is muted.
Maybe James Berardinelli had it right in his review of "Rent:" 'In most cases, it's a bad idea for a movie to be a direct representation of a play. 'Opening up' the setting is sometimes not all that's necessary to make a stage production into something cinematic. In a theater, an intimacy exists between the players and their audience. This cannot be replicated on the screen; a substitute must be found for this, and a way must be divined to keep the energy level high. Successful musicals, like 'West Side Story' and 'Chicago,' find a way. Mediocre adaptations, like 'Rent,' suffer and seem diminished as a result.'
Perhaps that is the problem. The film is technically well made, but something feels off. There's nothing that drew me into this movie and the world of its characters. I felt the same thing when I watched "Ran," which is probably the only way the two films could ever hope to be compared. Not that that is a compliment.
Comments
Post a Comment