It doesn't make sense to compare Liza with anyone else.
I know that Minelli's performance is perfection and legendary, also the most accessible one but both Fosse and Kander/Ebb re-wrote the role especifically for her because she was Liza Minelli.
That's the reason her Sally is different, as the movie itself its far different from the stage production, because it's basically a ''new version'' of Bowles.
The stage productions stays the same, you don't have to be a great singer, actually you can be bad. I believe both Williams and Stone talked about this when played the roles. Richardson, Horrocks, well, you can be bad. It's almost like Roxie.
Of course some productions can be influenced by the movie version, but its ''not right'' to do it so.
I think the beauty of a role like Sally is that it can be played so many different ways by a wide range of actresses. The character is an invention of an invention: she’s like the Joker in that she has entirely fabricated the person she is. You can have a Sally like Liza who is “better” than the station she has resigned herself to; you can have a Sally like Natasha who is too inebriated and untalented to even hold the gig she has without sleeping with the club manager; you can have a Sally like Jane Horrocks who is both a formidable stage presence, but it also cartoonishly wasted. It is entirely open to interpretation.
My only requirement for a good performance of Sally is that the actress connect to the material. When I saw Michelle Williams, it was like she was constantly battling the script and none of her songs served the performance she was giving. It always floated slightly above the page. Then I saw Emma Stone in the role and it was night and day. Here was an actress who was not an exceptional singer, but felt every moment deeply, achingly. She was coked out and paranoid and running as fast as she could before time ran out. It was utterly electrifying.
I’ve never understood an argument that if you can’t sing beautifully, you shouldn’t be in a musical. The quality of one’s voice is secondary to the performance you’re filling a song out with. And I would take a stellar actor like Judi Dench, who sounds like a foghorn singing on a good day, over a “good” singer with limited acting chops any day of the week. I want to walk away emotionally effected, not admiring the training of the performer.
muscle23ftl said: "For anyone to compare Natasha Richardson's performance to Liza's, it's a huge insult. Liza is legendary for playing that role so well, the fact that she is an amazing singer and dancer made it even better. She is not supposed to be untalented, no one would give a spot to anyone at a cabaret show if she had no talent."
Something folks haven't mentioned yet is that Sally has more to sing in the revisions. Judy Dench is charming on the London cast album but she only sings 2 and a half songs. The 60's libretto gave the big musical moments to Fraulein Schneider. If you're adding Liza's songs to the score you need a Sally who can get through them.
As Color mentioned, it's all interpretation, honestly coming down to she could be lying about nothing, some things, or everything. I've seen it before where to me the actress is playing Sally as someone pretending to be English.
I saw all three in the revial and summed them up like this-- Williams was already broken, she knew her time was ending and she was already too into the drugs and drink to stop. She seemed to be play-acting everything. Stone was above and beyond brilliant. Her Sally was truly fiddling while Rome was burning and having fun until she realizes it's all over and resigned herself to go down in a blaze of glory. Her pause after the word "corpse" was chilling. Her just colored her stories and hid behind jokes and I'd never accuse her of being a liar. Miller just....was Sally Bowles. Everything was so natural and unforced I think she was being absolutely honest and just was this eccentric person (instead of putting it on to appear mysterious).
MrsSallyAdams said: "Something folks haven't mentioned yet is that Sally has more to sing in the revisions. Judy Dench is charming on the London cast album but she only sings 2 and a half songs. The 60's librettogave the big musical moments to Fraulein Schneider. If you're adding Liza's songs to the score you need a Sally who can get through them."
That’s true. But I don’t think “getting through” a song means singing it with conventional technical proficiency. It means being able to run the gamut of emotions each song requires. Just as there are actors who lack the ability to sustain singing throughout a two-act musical, there are singers who lack the emotional depth to make a song soar. I will take the better storyteller 10 out of 10 times - at least in a full production, like the stage and film versions we’re discussing. Someone like Liza happens to be blessed with a uniquely wonderful singing voice and natural charisma, so her performance as Sally was a singular accomplishment. Her Sally exists in an almost entirely different world than the stage version’s. It’s a product of Fosse’s interpretation married with her natural gifts as a performer. In a similar way, Natasha’s Broadway Sally has become nearly inseparable from the stage material, at least for me. She and Alan Cumming made the material iconic for a whole new generation of companies tackling this work. But it was remembered not for the beautiful voices on display, but the emotional depth and complexity a group of stellar actors brought to the table.
I’m guessing you never saw Natasha. The movie and the musical are two separate things.
muscle23ftl said: "For anyone to compare Natasha Richardson's performance to Liza's, it's a huge insult. Liza is legendary for playing that role so well, the fact that she is an amazing singer and dancer made it even better. She is not supposed to be untalented, no one would give a spot to anyone at a cabaret show if she had no talent."
