Carey Mulligan in My Fair Lady Movie Musical- Page 2

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/26/10 at 3:01am

I would argue that Higgins is the ultimate man-child, but I don't particularly feel like defending anything about a My Fair Lady remake.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/26/10 at 3:22am

Man child. Yes. Older man child. Not little boy lost.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/26/10 at 10:22am

Adored Mulligan in an education.

No interest at all in a re-make of My Fair Lady. It's been done perfectly, why rob the grave? Move on. Make something new.

I'm also uninterested in a re-write of Beethoven's 9th, a re-painting of Guernica, or a do-over of Vile Bodies.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 3/26/10 at 10:32am

^arguement valid. :)


"Oh dear God (and I'm an atheist) this is so wrong on so many levels. Hugh Grant is a boy. No matter if he's 45, he's a boy. The role calls for a MAN. Like Geoffry Rush or Hugh Laurie. Men in their 50s to 60s who look like they have traveled the world collecting obscure accents, not spent the last three decades in a drawing room. Hugh Grant is a fop. You know, even Ian MacKellan, ten years ago, would have been right for the role. Rex Harrison was 50 when he first played the role. He had been in the theatre for forty years by then, having been the biggest of matinee idols (The called him Sexy Rexy) in the early 1030s.

Hugh Grant is all wrong and too light weight. There is no malice in him. No evil. Higgins is a prick, he treats Eliza like dirt. Grant trying to play him will look like a snit."

And as for Colin Firth - another fine actor - if you tried to sit through Mama Mia the Movie, you'll know why he's wrong. "


Hugh Grant is all wrong. Hugh Laurie i would get. also, Colin Firth. he was not SO bad in MM. he wasn't as bad as Pierce Brosnan actually. Rex Harrison sort of spoke sang. I could see Colin Firth because he has the acting chops and get away with the singing. I can really see it. He is tall, can be snooty, broodish and strict. i love him.

as for other arguements about Carey. do we know for sure she can't sing. a lot of actors on screen and small screen actually are trained singers and dancers but not all do stage.
also, even though the arguement that audrey hepburn didn't sing like julie andrews (who should have been given the movie, but we know how that turned out well for her ) then...now, i think it is imperative. people are too picky now. they don't want people in a movie musical to be lip synching. they know now what the deal is.

i don't know if this will be a go. for most of us, we say leave it. then again, i felt that way about The Parent Trap and they did a re-make. maybe the young young audience will like it. I adore Emma Thompson too, so maybe her screen play will work. you don't mess with an original when it is perfection, but maybe this one can do it.

[Weez]

Posted: 3/26/10 at 7:20pm

I'm also uninterested in a re-write of Beethoven's 9th, a re-painting of Guernica, or a do-over of Vile Bodies.

And while we're at it, let's never revive Follies. It's been done already! And we all know true art is static and has no need to grow or explore or improve!

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/26/10 at 7:23pm

The original was alright but my problems with it go beyond Audrey being dubbed and her cockney accent.

If Hugh Laurie ever gets the job as Higgins then Stephen Fry must play Pickering. No questions asked.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 11:11am

Weez, I don't get your logic - live revivals (like FOLLIES) aren't equivalent to movie re-makes; the original live production is gone forever. The original movie, however, is always there for us to see.

That's why my references were to existing works that can still be experienced. A closed live production of FOLLIES doesn't fall into that category.

Revivals and re-makes are entirely different animals. If Hugh Laurie and Carey Mulligan want to do the show live, I'm all in favor.

Now, if you're talking about a re-write of FOLLIES, that I wouldn't care to see; as written, it's perfect.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:03pm

Why are they doing this?

Do they really think a movie remake of "My Fair Lady" will be a hit? Is there anything timely or fresh about this story right now to warrant a film company spending $50 million (on the low end)? It's about a pig of a man (laughable as he may be), shaping and creating a "perfect woman" out of an ignorant "squashed cabbage." It was on Broadway in the mid '50s and on film in 1964, before the women's movement had fully taken off. Yes, his experiment backfires on him, and she doesn't need him. But by that point, most of today's movie audiences will have left the cineplex saying, "who would put up with his crap?"

If there was a big Shaw craze going on now, like the Jane Austen bonanza we had in the '90s, I could understand it. Or if the two biggest box office stars in the world right now were dying to play the leads (even then, that doesn't guarantee anything, as we know).

This is a remake of a classic film that won eight Oscars and featured a huge movie star (Hepburn) and a reputable movie and stage star (Harrison) recreating his Broadway role. It is still high on the list of the best movie musicals ever made. It was directed by a legendary film director (George Cukor) and produced by the legend Jack L. Warner.

Yeah, go ahead. Top that. Or just equal it. I don't think so.

And if musical film and theatre fans aren't all that interested in seeing this, who's left? The "Transformers" crowd? Sure, they'll be lining up.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:09pm

even if this re-make is passable and a new generation of kids love it, i suspect it won't even be given a chance by those who think it is a terrible idea.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:24pm

best12bars , that argument could be made about a revival of Finian's Rainbow (or something along those lines) on Broadway. Just because it is far from commercially viable, does that mean it shouldn't be done? If people are willing to put their money into it, go for it! I mean, everyone seems to trash projects that are all about making money, and here's a case where it's pretty clearly not ALL about the money, and we're going to trash that now?

Even so, the musical is gaining steam again in popular culture. And even if the audience may have never seen it, My Fair Lady is definitely still an extremely well-known and marketable title.

As much as I do still enjoy it, the original film is not really all that great. It's pretty stagnant, stagey, and un-cinematic. A remake, if done properly, could be excellent. And from the creative team that's being assembled, and the news of Mulligan's casting, it seems like they are doing it right.

@Piper3500, why is Firth a bad choice? Because he doesn't sing very well? You make it seem like Rex Harrison could.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:49pm

Heresy! "Not all that great???"

Rex Harrison, Audrey Hepburn, Cecil Beaton???

The movie is stunning, gorgeous, and perfect. There isn't an actor alive to touch Rex Harrison, nor an actress whose poise and beauty takes the breath away like Hepburn.

That said, go ahead and do a re-make, I'll just pass, and wait for someone with a more original idea.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:50pm

"@Piper3500, why is Firth a bad choice? Because he doesn't sing very well? You make it seem like Rex Harrison could."

no no...go back and read it. i actually forgot to put quotes around who i quoted who thought Colin would be a bad choice. I think he would be perfection. for many reasons. i didn't even think his singing was so bad. not compared to Pierce. and also, i meantioned Rex's speak singing.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:56pm

My apologies Piper. I wish this board had better quoting features!

And newintown, while the original My Fair Lady may be a (near) perfect adaptation, it's very far from a perfect film, at least in my opinion.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 1:06pm

Yeah, TalkinLoud, you lost me at "not all that great."

And Piper, I think you can rule out a "new generation" of kids loving it. I'm sure some kids would "love" it. But a "generation?" No way.

The young, opportunistic, ignorant woman on the streets is molded and shaped by a highly educated, pompous man to prove a point on a bet. Stop right there. It's "Pretty Woman" (except for the bet part) and a handful of other films. BUT ... There aren't ANY potential "hit" songs, or Diva riffs to ogle in this big-screen musical today. No sex scenes. No scantily clad bodies. No murder. No mystery. No goofy chase scenes. No furry characters, special effects, other-worldly or exotic locations, electronic gadgets, or monsters.

And YES, when you're talking about $50-80 million for a movie budget, you can't just be making a movie "for the love of it." Unless you're suicidal from a business POV. And I shudder to think of what an Indy-esque, shoestring budgeted "Lady" would look like on the big screen today in the $10-20 million range (which I don't even think is possible). I also shudder to imagine what a "bustier bump-and-grind scene" in this movie would look like.

Updated On: 3/29/10 at 01:06 PM

[Piper3500]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 6:58pm

^ i guess. but i shuddered at mamma mia for example, and it made a whack load, no?

i did use "a new generation" loosely. i guess there are not a lot of us who give kids today credit or are like we used to be. i loved the original and yet, it was made before i was born. i hated the new Parent Trap and kids loved it.

[Paulyd]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 7:55pm

The original maybe stagey, but that adds to it's charm. You'd be hard pressed to find a couple to best Harrison and Hepburn.

The question to ask is if a remake has any commercial potential today. After the mess that was NINE, studios will be very reluctant to sink 100 million into any musical project, even one so well known as this.

It will always be compared to the original, and even though so many people on here have commented that it was too studio bound, she was dubbed,etc, most of the general public didn't care. It's still a major classic, and a remake in my opinion is never going to top it.


What's next, a remake of Singin in the Rain with Hugh Jackman and Matthew Morrison.
Updated On: 3/29/10 at 07:55 PM

[Piper3500]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 8:24pm

^ that may be, but others like Chicago, Evita were huge and perhaps that is why they keep taking chances. There are other bad ones though like Phantom, (at least for me) which were bad.

i am going to reserve judgement until i see it, because it may just surprise.

and NO, please no re-make of Singin' In The Rain - lol. For many many years big musicals have been made into movies. perhaps it is just the time and what it takes to do so that people don't want it any more.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 1:26am

"i guess. but i shuddered at mamma mia for example, and it made a whack load, no? "


Piper, I agree that Mamma Mia was big and dumb. It's nowhere near as good a show as My Fair Lady.

But it had all the makings for a hit movie: a big star at the top of her game (Meryl), tons of hit songs that people STILL sing when they're drunk or in karaoke (or both), scantily clad sexy young actors and dancers, goofy slapstick gags, and an exotic location.

That's what people want, if they're going to see a musical today on film. Not a frothy, romantic, deliciously comedic, witty, period piece with "classic" Broadway tunes.

I can even understand why someone would want to remake West Side Story on film. The story is timely, and it could be full of sexy young actors and dancers, and audiences love the songs ... even people who don't care for musicals.

My Fair Lady isn't one of these shows. I don't see the appeal for a remake.


EDIT: It's like remaking "Gigi." It was a smash hit, winning ten Oscars in its day. And I love the film, exactly for what it is. A product of its time, executed to perfection. But try remaking that movie today where a determined grandmother sends her grandchild off to be trained to be a high-class ho' or face the life of a common shopgirl or housewife. I can see the pickets and boycotts now! Not a great idea.

Updated On: 3/30/10 at 01:26 AM

[degrassifan]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 1:52am

I would pay money to see this...not even gonna lie.

Also, I watched something on TCM a while back and the program stated that Higgins is supposed to be in his 30s. I guess Hugh Grant would be a good choice age-wise. Also, if there was a slight attraction between Eliza and Higgins, I don't think ELiza would fall for a much older guy. I could be wrong though...

[Fan2]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:01am

Another director has dropped out, according to this. Didn't know that Boyle, Luhrmann and Daldry were attached at one time or another.

>>As we reported back in March, screenwriter Emma Thompson and had been championing her friend Hugh Grant for the role to Madden. We didn't think much of it at the time, as Grant has a reputation for being selective (though, that doesn't explain "What About The Morgans?") and given the project's slow crawl to the big screen, we didn't expect a decision to be imminent, especially since the film was still trying to find its Eliza Doolittle. But considering its the only name we heard for the role, if the rumor is true, we suspect that Thompson and the producers loved the idea of Grant playing the role while Madden was less keen on the idea. Cue, stage exit. So does this mean Hugh Grant is still on board? Perhaps, but at this rate, we don't expect to see this film on screen anytime soon.<<
Did John Madden Walk Away because of Hugh Grant?

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 10:15am

for such a talent Emma has to put her friendship aside an forget championing Hugh Grant. seriously...can't she see he is just NOT a good fit at all?

[Plum]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 10:38am

If the producers have some sort of list of possibilities for Higgins, Grant might be the best of a bunch of bad choices. Thompson did mention thinking that Hugh Laurie (who's her friend going back to college, if we're mentioning that kind of thing) would be good for the role earlier in this process, and heaven knows Laurie is famous enough for it, but there are obstacles - his filming of House takes up something like 8-9 months a year, right now I believe he's filming Oranges, and despite the recent blurring of TV/film actor lines, the producers might think that despite starring in the most popular TV show in the world, he can't carry a movie.

As for the remake/no remake argument - it's one the "no remake" people are going to lose every time when producers are as determined as these seem to be. This production has been in development hell for a while but we keep hearing about it, so someone back there is really, really determined to make it happen. So I try to move on and think of the thing as its own film and hope it's done as well as possible. The first My Fair Lady film is absolutely a classic, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect and there's no artistic room for a remake to exist.

So if it's going to happen? I think that if the remakers aren't bothering to cast a singer as Eliza - and nothing so far has indicated that they are - then Mulligan is an inspired choice, a fine actress with wonderful presence.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 2:01pm

"I think she's overrated"

I really can't think of another actress 25 or younger who's more talented.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 10:24pm

^ there are a few but Carey is highly highly NOT overrated at all. she is brilliant. i agree with that.

[LionessInWinter]

Posted: 4/17/10 at 11:34pm

(Degrassi) "Also, I watched something on TCM a while back and the program stated that Higgins is supposed to be in his 30s. I guess Hugh Grant would be a good choice age-wise."

Except Hugh Grant will be 50 in Sept. And Hugh Laurie is 50 now and Rex Harrison was around 55 when he did the original film. Possibly they don't care if the new film reflects what Higgins is supposed to be.