My friends (both involved with the show and not) all felt there was the “agenda” that was mentioned underlying the entire review. Your friends, I am sure, disagree. None of us are professionals at any of this. Mistakes can be made, misunderstandings happen.
In your review, lines such as: “— until the actors started using it”, “performers showed a lack of professionalism that is absolutely inexcusable.”, “It was blatantly clear that no attempt whatsoever had been made by anyone…”, “It is deplorable however…”, “The abdication of honesty in acting as well as the utter lack of acknowledgement of the show’s gay elements…”, “I cannot say that I honestly recommend this production at all.”, “egregious miscasting”, “lamentably fails to deliver on too many levels to deem worthy of a recommendation.”
Hopefully, you can see why those types of phrases might come across as less constructive than cutting, especially if you are the target of them. Deplorable instead of unfortunate?

You disagreed with some of the character choices, technical issues, etc. No problem, that is the core of any review, and I won’t go into challenging them or saying whether I agree or disagree. But Community Theater is very much it’s own animal from Professional, and not just for the obvious reasons. Every Community Theater production is a labor of love, not money making ventures, not paths to equity cards, not a way to make rent etc. Therefore it is often harder to shake off the negatives. I don’t want anyone out there who knows about this “situation” to somehow feel that DTC is too immature to take a bad review. If you don’t like it, you don’t like it, it’s as easy as that. We can take it, trust me. But this particular review, especially based on the items I mentioned above, was particularly taken to heart.

Now, if I may quickly put in my 2 cents on the “agenda”:
My feeling since reading the review the first time was that you went into the show expecting one thing, it wasn’t there, and were extremely disappointed by the lack. But, this being the third production of Cabaret I have been involved in, there is one thing that has always been abundantly clear. This is not “I Am A Camera”, it is not “The Berlin Stories”, it is “Cabaret.” Christopher Isherwood was gay. Cliff Bradshaw isn’t. Was he inspired by Chris? Yes. Was the homosexual content watered down? Yes. But Fraulein Schneider was anti-Semitic in real life, should that be incorporated too?

Theatrical works can always be viewed through a lens, but should never be criticized for respecting the ideas of the original work. Taming of the Shrew is ridiculously sexist. Annie Get Your Gun is too. Porgy and Bess is written by two white men, with lyrics and dialogue that most would consider racist today. Should none of these works be done as originally written? Should modernizations be foisted upon them no matter what? Many would say yes, I won’t pretend otherwise. I say no.

Now, unfortunately, what I just wrote has the potential to become a long conversation on the nature of theatre, and I don’t think the SBR servers are ready for that, but I just wanted to put together some of the thoughts I have had since this all started. Hopefully you can see this side of the argument, or at least appreciate that there IS another side to the argument.

It’s true, I do have a certificate in LGBT Studies and I did work for HRC (Human Rights Campaign), but the idea that I have a bias or an “agenda” (to borrow the director’s word) is patently ridiculous. What I criticized were theatrical decisions that were made with which I did not agree. If someone else agrees with them, that’s fine — that’s what makes live theatre great. Now I feel it’s gone beyond art and taken to a personal level — an attack on my character.

Here’s the thing: “Cabaret” is based on the stories of Christopher Isherwood, a British author who traveled to Berlin in the late ’20’s for inspiration. It is well documented that he was openly gay and went to Berlin specifically to experience its LGBT nightlife. Berlin was notorious in those days for having an extremely active gay social scene — a rare thing in such restrictive times. Ernst Röhm, captain of the SA (Sturmabteilung – Nazi stormtroopers) was a high-ranking Nazi official who was widely known to be gay, though it wasn’t spoken of (think Rock Hudson). Hitler tolerated it, but it put a lot of political pressure on him from radical Nazis. Röhm and a number of other officials were murdered by their own party during an event called “The Night of the Long Knives” in June/July of 1934. Although the killing was for more complex political reasons, Hitler and other high-ranking Nazis were trying to purify the NSDAP by purging it of homosexuality — this is all historical fact.

Now, what does this have to do with “Cabaret?” Well, Röhm frequented the many gay clubs and bars in Berlin — the same clubs where Christopher Isherwood went and met many people who inspired the characters in “Cabaret.” Sally Bowles is based on a real person. The Emcee is based on a real person. The character of Ernst Ludwig may very well have been based on Röhm himself (although I will acknowledge that that is pure speculation on my part). They were all part of this sexually free society. Gay, straight, lesbian — it didn’t matter. That is, it didn’t matter until the Night of the Long Knives. Röhm was gay Berlin’s protection from the larger Nazi machine — with him gone, they had no hope. Isherwood saw this storm brewing and got out as soon as he could; his “Berlin Stories” were essentially a love letter to this quashed way of life. Again, ALL of this information is readily available and regardless of how anyone feels about it — it’s the way that it was.

“Cabaret” has gone through many different revisions through the years, and the original version was cleaned up of all the references to gay Berlin in order to market it to the (pardon the pun) straight-laced masses in 1966. The 1998 revival (not a perfect show, but in my opinion, an improvement on the original) put a lot of those undertones back in without changing the script much at all. This made Cliff a FAR more three-dimensional and sympathetic character. It brought him more into the story he so desperately wanted just to observe — reinforcing the story’s themes of being sucked into strange and unfamiliar territory. It has always been (for me) a HUGE element of the story — confronting modern audiences with a not-so-pretty truth about the past, which Mr. Tittermary outlined as one of his objectives with this show.

Let me please be crystal clear — my objection to Mr. Tittermary’s omission of gay undertones has NOTHING to do with my certificate or feelings of discrimination in ANY way. I wasn’t offended as a member of the LGBT community, rather just disappointed as a theatre person that the director didn’t get as much out of the story as was there. My comments may have seemed a bit to the contrary — for that misinterpretation, I apologize. I am very passionate about the fight for LGBT equality, but I never meant to insinuate that DTC was in any way being discriminatory. To put this more in context: if this were a production of “The Sound of Music,” you wouldn’t have heard a word from me about LGBT issues. The reason? That’s not what that story’s about. The story of “Cabaret” however, is about the exploration of a decadent society before that existence was wiped off the face of the earth along with millions of people. It is my opinion (again, as a THEATRE person, not as a member of the LGBT community) that if you’re going to tell such a story, it needs to be told to the fullest extent the script allows. For the record, the original 1966 version of the script still allows for plenty of subtext if the director chooses to put it in. If the director chooses not to, that’s fine but I feel it’s doing a disservice to the show. Again: not an end-all, be-all fact — just my personal opinion.

When I saw the show, there was an essay by the director posted on the wall of the lobby. It was intended as an extended version of the director’s notes detailing exactly why he chose to do things one way or another. Whether Mr. Tittermary realizes it or not, I have immense respect for a director with a vision — even one with which I disagree. It just so happened that A) I disagreed with his vision, which is my right as an audience member and B) I also don’t think he did his own vision justice. I also had a big problem with the apparent lack of affection between Herr Schultz and Fraulein Schneider — two older straight characters whose doomed romance is charming and funny until the threat of Nazism rears its ugly head. The actors were both good, but there was so little affection between them that I think it cheapened their relationship as well as the story arc that gives their characters meaning. Call me naïve, but I think this could’ve been easily fixed with a few well-placed bits of direction. What people don’t seem to realize is that my complaint about this issue is EXACTLY THE SAME as my complaint about the lack of gay subtext: authenticity of the characters, their relationships, and the depth of the all-important story. It is clear to me that Mr. Tittermary is an educated man, and there were in fact some decisions he made that I liked. Perhaps I ought to have focused more on those, but that’s a rookie reviewer’s mistake and I own that. He clearly did a lot of research to prepare for this show, which is more than I can say for a lot of directors — my chief complaint was that it didn’t seem like much of this research found its way to the stage. That is my opinion, and people are free to disagree with me. I welcome disagreement and discussion about artistic interpretation, but to accuse me of political bias simply because I felt a significant portion of the story was missing is offensive to me.

I have to be honest — I’m an extremely opinionated person (as if that’s not obvious by now), but I do have a heart. I was really disappointed that people seemed to take my review as a personal attack — I assure everyone it wasn’t meant to be anything of the sort. Most upsetting for me was Jason Damaso’s response to the review. He took my criticism of his performance as an attack on his credibility as an actor, which was the furthest thing from my objective. In fact, I made it a point to point out that I thought he was talented, though I completely understand the tendency to gloss over the positives if there’s even one negative. I don’t like to put people down at all, but when people who know the show read a review of “Cabaret,” they want to know specifically about Sally and the Emcee — roles that have made the careers of some legendary performers. Given this, I have a responsibility to report how I honestly felt. I know now that Mr. Damaso didn’t want to ape Joel Grey or Alan Cumming and I think that’s FANTASTIC! A new interpretation is great and welcome, but the thing that DEFINES this character is charisma. I’m sorry, but I just didn’t feel that Mr. Damaso showed the necessary moxy to fully flesh out the character and really shine. In other words, he was okay but I thought he personally could’ve done so much more because he is, in fact, talented. It truly breaks my heart to think that he and the others have taken my comments as personal insults.

As I’m sure you all well know, there’s a really thin line between a constructive critique and an immature lambaste. I did everything in my power to err toward the former. If my words made my review seem like the latter, that is my fault and I recognize that. I’ve been thinking of ways to explain myself and my criticism, and to apologize for any misinterpretation or offense. The whole thing came down to artistic disagreement, NOT political bias. I know what it’s like to be bullied by a reviewer and that was never my intent, which is why I did my best to outline my argument for exactly why I disagreed with the choices. My certificate in LGBT Studies is actually a more of a minor that I earned for personal reasons in conjunction with my B.A., which is in Communication. Rhetorical strategy is adamant about being clear and concise in one’s argument and mine was this: the director clearly laid out his vision (more so than I’ve ever seen any director do), but something got lost in translation and in my opinion the show I saw did not live up to Mr. Tittermary’s vision.

What was meant to be a constructive criticism has exploded into this political shitstorm, and I’m sorry for my part in it. I am not sorry, however, for the review. My job is to report how I feel about the production, and its strengths and weaknesses. While there were elements that worked, I couldn’t help but feel that the elements that didn’t work far outweighed those that did, so I couldn’t in good conscience recommend the show. It is entirely possible that another reviewer might refute everything that I said and as long as they present their argument cogently, I welcome that. Seriously, I feel that the beauty of art is that different people can see the same thing in totally opposite ways — the disagreements engender conversation that results in both parties learning more about the world and themselves. We all tend to be very set in our ways (I am no exception), and I implore you to understand that I did not mean to cause this much duress. My opinion may not be worth very much, but it is mine to express, and I am sincerely grateful to Michael Clark and ShowBizRadio for supporting me the way that they have. I NEVER meant to risk the credibility of ShowBizRadio.

My friends have been telling me to shake this off, learn from it, and move on, but I feel that the issue requires further communication. I really hate that my words have hurt people, and I would very much like the opportunity to mend some fences and engage in a healthy dialogue about artistic interpretation. I have nothing against DTC, Mr. Tittermary, or ANYONE else involved with the show — I simply reported on the show that I saw. In the future I will absolutely temper my criticisms, but I had to be completely honest about how I felt. I realize that I can’t please everyone (especially as a reviewer), but I’ll not have my credibility as a human being called into question.

Thank you for reading this incredibly long diatribe. I never meant to cause this discord and strife, and I’d be happy to talk with Mr. Tittermary for the purpose of making things right. I might have said some things that were harsher than I’d intended, but I am not a bad person. My SBR Author’s Archive is full of rave reviews of other shows, and there’s NOTHING to say that DTC’s “Cabaret” couldn’t have been among them. I think it needed a little more attention to detail both with technical elements as well as story interpretation, but that’s all. I’m young and I don’t have all the answers. Above all else, please understand that I meant absolutely no personal or professional disrespect to anyone involved. I’m grateful for the opportunity to learn, and I look forward to making this right.

It’s permissible for a critic to mention if accents are inconsistent or poor. It is absolutely not permissible to state, as fact, that it’s “blatantly clear that no attempt whatsoever had been made by anyone involved to understand any of the German language used in the script, nor how to pronounce it.”

Based on the above quoted text, I’m making my own assumption: the critic made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to find out if the actors studied the German dialect. This is an egregious practice in critique writing and all other forms of journalism. One never, ever makes statements of fact without having facts to support it. Frankly, I’m baffled that I even have to say this in response to an already-published critique, as one assumes this would be vetted in the editing process.

I remain hopeful that this publishing error will serve to educate those in the field as to what NEVER to do.

With respect,
Mara Bayewitz

I was hesitant to respond to this review because in general I don’t think that an actor should have to defend their work. Some people will like it and some won’t and that is the nature of art. But in this case, I completely disagree with your assessment of my acting abilities as they relate to character choices and I feel compelled to point out the fundamental difference.

You did not agree with my interpretation of the Emcee and that is fair, but to question my acting abilities as a result is unfair and rather pretentious. From the very first audition, the director told me that what he absolutely did NOT want for the Emcee was a Joel Grey or Alan Cumming imitation. His exact words. He wanted my interpretation of the Emcee. I specifically did not watch any previous performances of Cabaret for that reason. I have never seen the movie and aside from a few brief YouTube clips of specific musical numbers, I did not watch any previous stage performances of this show. I have in fact never seen a production of Cabaret prior to the Damascus Theatre Company version. My goal was not to try and recreate a character that had already been done, but rather to create a new character that nobody had ever seen before. And that is what I do every night on that stage. The Emcee that you saw is truly MY Emcee. That is Jason Damaso as the Emcee. It’s clear that you didn’t agree with the character choices that I made, but that does not give you the right to question my abilities as an actor because I didn’t play the role the way you think it should have been done. Naturally, this character is unavoidably colored by some of the more iconic elements of prior versions, but it was never intended to be the same or even all that similar to others. The beauty of a character like this is that it really can be anything you want it to be and an actor need not be constrained to any specific choices. My hope is of course that the audience will not be constrained by their prior experiences either. I have received several positive responses to my performance and one negative one. I still wouldn’t change anything about it.

2. I saw the February 21 performance, and did NOT find the actors facing the cabaret tables inequitably, nor did I see any cavorting or hear any chatting backstage. I saw a creative and cost-effective use of space.

3. Regarding the writer’s criticisms of the actors, I disagree as well. From where I sat, the ensemble worked extremely well together, there was chemistry between leads and also dancers, and Jason Damaso’s MC was creepy, delicious, campy, and empathetic, all when he needed to be. He’s not Joel Grey, nor are we Roger Ebert. In my opinion, he glued the show together with his absurdity and uninhibited bellowing. Amanda Spellman’s final song was delivered with heartbreak and subtlety. Her Sally was so clearly covering up despair and loneliness with bravado and partying. By the time she reached that final number, her pain is justified, clear and real.

4. Naziism was softened for the production. Ok. It’s a delicate balance between honoring the times and being sensitive to the audience. Please rest assured that the vision of a swastika-covered flag dangling from Damaso’s arms and framing his salacious grin is all it took to feel the knot of shock and fear. I appreciated the sensitivity.

5. We as critics have power, it’s ingrained in our bylines. We should use that power to convey the positives positively, and the critiques constructively. We should decidedly NOT use our space as a platform for our personal politics.

Submitted respectfully,
Mara Bayewitz

I teach music to special needs students. In my chorus class, I teach my students to sing rock and pop songs. I strive to instill one main goal through my lessons:

When watching and/or listening to another person’s performance, be respectful of the various interpretations of songs.

We listen to many different versions of songs, comparing various aspects. In not so many words, I explain that you don’t have to like the different versions/interpretations, but you do have to respect their artistry.

My class always has an open chair for visitors.

I think the problem with Cabaret and those who love it is that they view it from seeing the Sam Mendes production, and yes, I am “a theatre purist” as you point out, and I do agree that the revival was too dark. But (comments about individual performances aside), a lot of your critiques were basically because we chose to take a different interpretation on the material.

Your final line shows your agenda:

“If all of the elements of Isherwood’s fantastically debauched story are censored and polished clean, the show then defeats its own purpose and makes a “meeskite” (ugly/outcast) of not only the original author of its source material, but of all LGBT people”

So, basically, I chose to not do a gay Cabaret. And that seems to be your biggest problem. I stand by our show.