Has Maybe This Time Been Misinterpreted?

The song Maybe This Time, as we all know, was added to the 1972 film version of Cabaret and then added to subsequent productions. The purpose of the song was to show Sally's sense of happiness and self worth at finally having a meaningful relationship. And Liza's vocals/acting reflected that.

Nowadays, the song has become the most dramatic, belt your face off number where the song generally reads to me as this: A person who knows that their relationship/situation won't work out , but their strength and hopes are convincing them that it will and they will fight like hell for it, even though it's inevitable that it won't in the end, making the person a sympathetic victim of fate. To me, the song is really about the newly awakened feelings of love and self worth that one feels when finding what feels like true love for the first time. Obviously, it's all subjective and every performer can interpret however they want to and that's a good thing, but it's taken me aback how much the song has become a belt face your face off number about someone fighting not to be a victim and to find happiness when that wasn't the original purpose of the song at all. And pretty much nobody sings/acts it the way it was intended to be, making me wish that more people would go back and see the film.

What do you guys think?

In a concert setting, which is where "Maybe This Time" is typically belted by Kristin and Audra - I'd honestly be bored if it were not belted. Plus they do a fierce job of adding the character's hope and desperation because they are really good performers.

I saw the touring cast (with Leigh Ann Larkin) and Broadway with Emma Stone - and neither of them belted the song. Emma because she probably couldn't, but Leigh because I think she knows how the song is supposed to be within the context of the show. Her take seems mellow, lovey dovey, but deeply skeptical of her own ability to make the relationship last. It worked for me.

Not one of the 3 ladies who were Sally in the latest revival belted the song. Along with what you've written, maybe this has to do with the direction - this 2014 revival was a copy of the 1998 revival, which was directed by Sam Mendes. He drastically changed the direction of the show, specially because of his Sally, Natasha Richardson, who was not a good singer at all (even worse of a singer when compared to Liza Minelli, the image of Sally most people have and would compare her to). So he tried a new approach: he made Sally a terrible singer, a horrible performer. She's in complete denial about everything, including her abilities as an artist. You can check her performance of the song in the 1998 cast recording, of course. While there's some belting, I wouldn't call it a 'belt your face off number'; at times she sings the song very sweetly. Well, the critics loved her, as did the Tony committee, giving her the award for Best Actress.



Since then, many productions have copied this way of doing Sally - and the 2014 revival did the same, although I wouldn't really say 'copy' since it was the same director; it was the revival of a revival. They already copy the ending, why not use a Tony-winning portrayal too? All productions of Cabaret I've seen have taken this approach, and I think this could be why, at least partially.

Updated On: 5/28/17 at 09:58 PM

CallMeAl2 said: "That (Richardson) is actually the correct interpretation and points to the huge flaw in the film - Liza/Sally actually would be discovered and become a film star - she was so insanely talented. There was no delusion there. Sally has to be a second rate performer for the story to make sense. Yes, it's more entertaining to have a star singer in the role, but it makes a porridge of the drama.



"

It's nice to have Hal Prince finally posting on this board. (Seriously, I'm not saying your interpretation isn't original to you, CallMe, but it's what Hal has been saying since 1966. And why he wouldn't cast Liza Minnelli in the OBC.)

Hal, at least, has a tendency to fall prey to spells of literalism, in which he forgets that musical theater logic is not the same as naturalistic logic. See, to take his second most famous example, his complaints about the title number in Hello, Dolly! Basically, he says Dolly lives hand-to-mouth and has never been able to afford the Harmonia Gardens in her life. There's no way she is well-known there and welcomed back by the entire staff.

He's probably right in the case of Dolly and perhaps right in the case of Sally. But in both cases he ignores the fact that musical theater (especially comedy) creates its own conventions of logic. He should read Samuel Coleridge on the "willing suspension of disbelief". Audiences understand it instinctively: they know that Dolly is played by a star and whatever the demands of realism, they aren't the least surprised that everyone on stage is thrilled to welcome Carol Channing, Pearl Bailey or Bette Midler "back where she belongs"! The reports of mid-act standing ovations in the current revival suggest audiences are putting themselves in the place of Harmonia Gardens patrons--and that is exactly how it should be. Even when Dolly isn't played by an actual star, everyone knows it's the star part and accepts her return to the Gardens on those terms.

Now back to Sally: making her a bad singer is (1) boring; and (2) an offense to my ears. I still have PTSD from watching and hearing a video of Jane Horrocks screech her way through the title song. What is far more interesting (and easier on the ear) is making Sally a GREAT singer, but one who is stuck working in a dive because she sabotages her career just as she sabotages her relationships. That is the Sally of Fosse's movie and a personality type I've met many times in New York and Los Angeles.

ETA: How do you know Sally would become a huge film star? You can't tell that from a stage performance, as Ethel Merman and Mary Martin could have told you. In my remarks above, I was assuming Sally has the talent to become a star of stage and recordings.

Updated On: 5/29/17 at 12:55 AM

I mentioned being a film star simply because that was Sally's stated ambition. I am saying that there is nothing keeping her from achieving that goal.

Look, if you enjoy Liza in Cabaret ("So do I", to quote a famous line from the film) that's what matters. If it works, then that's what counts. All I can say is that as much as I love seeing Liza in that part, she still comes at a cost to the drama. I have been saying that since 1972, and I still think Fosse overplayed his hand in creating rocko-socko numbers for that dingy little Berlin nightclub. If the entertainment value were really that high at the Kit Kat Club, then it would be the most exclusive club in town.

Funny, you mention Dolly because I was going to use that as a second example - though it was the film I had in mind. It's great to hear Streisand sing those songs, and she is by far the most entertaining thing in the movie. But the 20th Century Fox Hello, Dolly is a farce with no engine because there are no stakes at risk for Barbra's (and Gene Kelley's) interpretation of the character. Not only do you have the issue Hal Prince identified (where did she get all those beautiful gowns? The private horse-drawn carriage?), but she is a young, independent woman who can do what she wants and gets whatever she wants. There is no drama there. Now, Dolly gets by because it is not really a drama, and we are primarily there to see the singing and dancing.

Not so with Cabaret. Cabaret wants to be taken seriously. If that is the standard then either the Kit Kat is the pinnacle of Berlin night life, or Liza is miscast and Fosse is indulgently showing off his choreographic skills. But, that's just my opinion. (And Hal Prince's, apparently - but don't let that sway you.)

When Christopher Isherwood saw Cabaret, the movie, he said Liza was miscast.

IMO, of course, it is important to cast someone as Sally who can sing. On the other hand, I would cast not an singer who act, but an actor who sings. Liza was wrong for Sally; Jill Hayworth and Natasha Richardson were right as Sally.

IMO, belting is overrated!

Mr. Nowack said: "What is far more interesting (and easier on the ear) is making Sally a GREAT singer, but one who is stuck working in a dive because she sabotages her career just as she sabotages her relationships.

This is really the way Andrea Gross played her on the recent national tour. And it was amazing!



"

Ms Gross was outstanding

>This is really the way Andrea Gross played her on the recent national tour. And it was amazing!<

It's Andrea Goss.

Darling Gaveston, while Miss Dench did record the entire score as Fräulein Schneider in the 90s, she WAS the original Sally Bowles in London (196. The recording of her is quite thrilling - here's her rendition of the title song:

Cabaret

Personally, I think she's wonderful (on record, at least), though I do love Richardson and Haworth.

Thank you, Sally, for the links and the correction of the Fraulein's name.

My point wasn't whether Judi Dench made a thrilling Sally Bowles; I'm sure she did. And I very much enjoy the clips. (I forget we can get such things from YouTube these days.)

But I would equate Dench-in-a-musical with someone like Barbara Harris, whom I love on recordings and in films. Not Barbara Cook, but not the horror show that was Horrocks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw-CdMSJNPM

I haven't seen the Sam Mendes remake, but that clip is what I think of when people start talking about how Sally Bowles has to be a third-rate singer. There are plenty of excellent singers who never get beyond the chorus or even their community theater. But even if you think a real Berlin nightclub singer would be inferior, why should we demand verisimilitude from Sally Bowles that we don't demand from the Emcee or countless other musical characters? Particularly when a talented Sally is ultimately more interesting than an untalented one.

Updated On: 5/30/17 at 03:31 AM

^^^^ Live or on film, yes. For a recording, I'm not sure. She sounded pretty mature back in the 1960s.

Anyway, I want to add that I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Beginning with the OP and without exception, every poster has had something intelligent and articulate to add to the discussion. Since I'm not in New York and not concerned with obtaining tickets, threads like these are the reason I come to BWW.com.

Yeah, there are plenty of talented singers who don't get work- It's a tough, tough business and Sally talks a lot about her aspirations, but it seems to me that she is enjoying the life she has and feels no real drive to get out of her situation. The Kit Kat Club may be seedy, but I'd think there are definitely clubs out there that have strong talent, but aren't necessarily the pinnacle of the community, although the Kit Kat club seems fairly popular.