Why Has MY FAIR LADY Never had A Successful Revival on Bway?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 4:37pm

It's one of the most popular musicals ever written but has never been revived successfully. What gives?
Updated On: 7/20/10 at 04:37 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 4:51pm

Was Trevor Nunn's West End revival not successful? It ran for several years.

I thought it was wonderful.

Or did you mean Broadway specifically?

[newintown]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 4:54pm

Jordan, is this one of your gags?

You mean successfully revived on Broadway, right? Mackintosh's London revival ran more than 2 years.

And then there are unending stock and amateur productions constantly.

But I get the feeling this is a tease of sorts...

But if you're serious - I'm not sure why we talk so much about revivals here - it seems as if many people in the chats never want to see something they don't already know.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 4:56pm

The 1976 production of My Fair Lady with Ian Richardson, Christine Andreas and George Rose ran about a year. Maybe not a hit per se, but not an embarrassment either.

One huge issue with this wonderful literate musical is the role of Liza. In productions of Pygmalion, companies save it for their very best actresses. Liza (along with Saint Joan) is considered among the hardest of womens roles in English. Ghere are no short cuts with Liza.

Julie Andrews was the first to play Liza who was the same age as the character. The role was about 40+ years old by 1956. Up until then Liza was cast with far more mature actresses. As it was, and this is no secret, the role was spoon-fed, 'pasted on' to Julie because she was having trouble getting it.

In addition to the very difficult acting assignment, Liza requires a high soprano who can move extremely well.

Quite simply there are no stars who can do Liza which might explain why Higgins is cast with a star and there is a talent search for Liza.

The musical also needs a Shavian sensibility, so your director has to know both Shaw and musicals because in structure, My Fair Lady is put together without a lot of innovation. There are scenes and then scenes in one (On The Street Where You Live is a brilliant song written to cover a scene change).

Between getting the right actor who sings for Higgins, the right singer who acts for Liza and the right director who gets Shaw, this is a tall order.

But I would love to see a production. It has been way too long.

Anyone else have a take on this?

Updated On: 7/20/10 at 04:56 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:04pm

FYI: The character's name is "E"-liza, not Liza.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:06pm

Sorry yes, on Broadway

[candydog2]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:12pm

You're right that the 1976 production didn't exactly flop, but it wasn't particularly noteworthy. Any revivals of the show on Broadway have pretty much faded from memory over the years and people tend to look to the original Broadway Production as the one that stood out. Many other shows that were huge hits originally have had high-profile successful revivals and have a fanbase for each to this day. The productions of My Fair Lady never really had this.

I do think that it's a difficult one to sell to an audience. There's a lot of fans of the movie who at the same time just wouldn't take the time to see it on stage. People rush to Sound of Music revivals because the impact of the movie was so great that they want to see it live. My Fair Lady just never made that kind of impact. It almost seemed that the movie was sufficient enough that it presented the musical in a format that it's potential audience could enjoy and they wouldn't necessarily be desperate to see another incarnation in the theatre.

I'm not sure how well I'm making my point here but do any of you understand what I mean?

The show itself is also quite old-fashioned and can appear dated. I don't think that it has a young fanbase really, and some people quite frankly, find it boring. I'm not one of those of course and it's one of my favourites.

I'd love to see a revival and there will be more i can guarantee.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:19pm

Okay, now I would kill to see Liza in the role.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:24pm

Eliza With A Z!

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:32pm

Candydog2, I was with you until you mentioned that the show was dated, and wouldn't have a young fan base.
This is the very same thing so many folks here said about South Pacific shortly before it got revived, and it was a hit. My Fair Lady isn't dated, though it has become a period piece in a matter of speaking.
The plot gets recycled all the time in films like "Pretty Woman" and "She's All That." The score is classic Broadway and has many songs that people can still identify.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:33pm

Wasn't the NY Philharmonic production with Kelli O'Hara and Kelsey Grammer fairly well-received?

[byebyebaby12]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:47pm

WOSQ- That is the biggest load of BS I have read here in a while.

And there have been several rumors that producers are trying to mount a full scale production with Kelli O'Hara Updated On: 7/20/10 at 05:47 PM

[Almira]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 5:50pm

We all know the book is great. We all know the original cast was sublime. We all know the score is classic.

But Moss Hart, the original director, surprisingly is more or less omitted from most discussions on the what made the original production the success that it was.

It is almost like forgetting Hal Prince had anything to do with THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

My guess it that a director with taste and the right vision could make MY FAIR LADY fresh and new all over again.

That director hasn't come along yet. The recent Mackintosh revival was just serviceable. The Richard Chamberlain revival was atrocious. And it sounds like the 70's revival was a museum piece.

I think our next realistic hope for the piece is the Emma Thompson adaptation for the film. I'm very intrigued with what she will do the material.

Updated On: 7/20/10 at 05:50 PM

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 6:53pm

"Julie Andrews was the first to play Liza who was the same age as the character. The role was about 40+ years old by 1956. Up until then Liza was cast with far more mature actresses."

While the role was written for Mrs. Patrick Campbell, who did originate it and was in her late 40s at the time (despite the stage directions describing the character as about 20), Andrews wasn't the first younger actress to play the role.

Wendy Hiller was about 25 or 26 when the film was made, and I believe she was chosen by Shaw after he'd seen her play the role onstage. And I'd be pretty sure that some other actresses in their 20s and early 30s had played the role onstage, even if some of the more famous Elizas (Lynn Fontanne, Gertrude Lawrence) had still been distinctly older than the character, with Lawrence about as old as Mrs. Campbell had been.

"In addition to the very difficult acting assignment, Liza requires a high soprano who can move extremely well."

Well, not really a high soprano. The highest note is a G. She has to sing one G. A soprano sound is desirable for the role, but mezzos can sing it and a "high soprano" is definitely not needed. And it's not clear that Andrews herself was even really a high soprano in 1956, though she'd been one when she was 12 and making a big splash as a little girl who could sing high coloratura stuff.

I agree, though, that it's a tough show to do really well. And Eliza certainly is a tough sing, as many women have found out. Part of what makes it a tough sing is the dialogue, with the sounds Eliza has to make not necessarily being easy on the vocal cords.

The show also seems to require a degree of spectacle. (Yes, I've seen a chamber production. I don't think that's the way to do it.) The kind of scenery that the original production used already looked dated in the 1970s. The kind of scenery that audiences would expect now for a revival might be very expensive.

And the film, whatever its flaws, does preserve Harrison's performance and it's been seen by millions of people, even if it's not as popular as The Sound of Music. The original cast recording has been heard by so many people and the voices of both Andrews and Harrison are so famous that I think it's tough for people to get over those very distinctive voices when they see other performers in the roles.

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 7:23pm

I take exception to the characterization of the 1976 revival as "not particularly noteworthy." Did you by any chance actually see it? I saw it three times.

Ian Richardson was an amazing Henry Higgins, with his slightly wounded air and beautiful voice. He sang the role more than Harrison, without losing a single clear syllable, and his classical training stood him in good stead for the Shaw that remained in the role. I count his treatment of "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" as one of the best single song performances of my life (up there with performances by the likes of Alfred Drake), and I believe Richardson got his Tony for that role. George Rose was delightful as well.

The revival did not recoup but the run was respectable. So not financially "successful" but noteworthy? You betcha.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 7:42pm

I saw it. Richardson didn't win a Tony for it. George Rose, strangely, won a a leading actor Tony for playing Doolittle, a role he'd played at City Center in the '60s.

Richardson never won a Tony.

Richardson was very good and Rose was crowd-pleasing. Andreas was out when I saw it.

I think the production suffered a bit from being a very by-the-book recreation of the original production. Jerry Adler, who directed, had been the stage manager on the original production.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 8:36pm

Be great, if they did a full blown revival at The Mark Hellinger Theatre.

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 9:03pm

I stand corrected on Richardson. His obituary stated he won the Tony for that role, and for that reason it stuck in my mind that way. Lovely actor, sorely missed by me and I am sure many others.

[sparrman]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 9:49pm

"She has to sing one G."

Two, actually.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 9:55pm

I adored the national tour of the MacIntosh production. I would love to see that transfer to broadway with O'Hara and Grammer in the cast.
I didn't see the original production or the 70s revival, but judging by the recordings, Andreas was absolutely incredible as Eliza (as good as if not better than Andrews). I think that productions problem was that it was too soon after the original and didn't have a big enough name. I think now would be a good time for a revival assuming Grammer or a star of equal or greater status could do the show.

[westcoast_wannabe]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 10:00pm

I posted this earlier today on All That Chat under the heading

"Does anyone else hope the new My Fair Lady Movie gets made?"

I love the show and love the original movie and think that any opportunity to bring the show to a new audience is a good thing. Despite how great many on this board consider the original movie to be, I don't think it plays very well to a younger audience. I have a lot of friends around my age(27) that find the movie boring and old fashioned and as a result have no interest in seeing it on stage, despite how great I tell them it actually is. Even if it's a train wreck staring Miley Cyrus it would undoubtably generate a renewed interest in the piece and bring it to a new audience. I have a coworker whose daughter recently saw the Matthew Broderick The Music Man on Ovation and she loved it and now can't wait to see a community theater production later this summer. I think many on this bored hold our beloved classics in such high regard that we forget that even a substandard movie could reach a new audience and inspire that audience to seek out and discover the stage show.
Of course, if the new My Fair Lady movie gets made I would love for it to be a brilliant masterpiece, but I hope it gets made even if it's not. I think the show is so great, and that interest in it amongst younger generations is so sparse that anything that could generate interest in My Fair Lady would be beneficial.

I'll relate it back to this thread by adding that if this movie does come to fruition it will likely help bolster the interest needed to convince producers that a My Fair Lady revival is worth investing in.

[Dancin Thru Life]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 10:16pm

Why Has MY FAIR LADY Never had A Successful Revival?

That's easy.
Because it's an overly long book with dated material and references that absolutely drags from song to song and is quite boring to watch.

Touring productions are unbearable and high schools murder both the dialog and music all over the country every year, turning people off to it over and over again.

There's no one left willing to sit through it again -- unless drastic production improvements are made and the star power is through the roof.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

[Almira]

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

All those arguments can be and have been applied to SOUTH PACIFIC.

[nobodyhome]

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

Thanks for the correction, sparrman. I guess I think of them as one since they're literally right next to each other.

[sparrman]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 10:47pm

Hmmm, three then! I actually wasn't considering both "all" and "night", I was thinking of the last note of "Show Me" which is also a G.