What is the tension in "My Fair Lady"- Page 2

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 8:10pm

RippedMan said: "It's not that I find it boring, so much as there's not much suspense. Not sure that's the right word either. I guess in today's theater I'm use to plot twists and turns, and there is nothing here. It's very straightforward. There's not really big splashing opening number, no closing number, no big Act 1 closer, etc. It's very different by musical theater standards, and I just wasn't expecting that.

"

Although it has some big numbers (the "Ascot Gavotte" was entirely ingenious when it debuted), the basic story (even going back to the original Greek myth) only involves a few characters. The musical play allows that content to mostly dictate its form--with Doolittle's music hall number thrown in for variety.

I didn't mean to pick on you and you are right that MFL is not a suspense thriller. But the pleasure of watching characters from different social classes collide over issues of morality can be considerable.

 

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 9:48pm

ScottyDK2, I'm with you that there is a great deal in the subtext of "My Fair Lady." Alan Jay Lerner violated the rule of writing that you have to show every important bit of information instead of merely telling about it, when Eliza talks about the ring HH bought her in Brighton. The "violation" works perfectly in this context -- all of a sudden, we realize that Higgins does not merely see Liza as a piece of furniture. In a way, it is a plot twist because it shows that Higgins took Eliza on what looks suspiciously like a date and bought her jewelry -- not merely jewelry, but a ring, which has a great deal of symbolism in Western cultures.

"My Fair Lady" is my second favorite musical (after POTO), and I've spent time thinking about what takes place after Eliza's return. I have decided that it is the world's most awkward kiss and marriage proposal, both engineered by Eliza. I guess I'm just a romantic at heart.

Audrey Liebross

[A Director]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 10:37pm

The Pygmalion ending explained.

Critical reception[edit]

The play was well received by critics in major cities following its premieres in Vienna, London, and New York. The initial release in Vienna garnered several reviews describing the show as a positive departure from Shaw's usual dry and didactic style.[8] The Broadway premiere in New York was praised in terms of both plot and acting, described as "a love story with brusque diffidence and a wealth of humor."[9] Reviews of the production in London were slightly less unequivocally positive, with the Telegraph noting that the play was deeply diverting with interesting mechanical staging, although the critic ultimately found the production somewhat shallow and overly lengthy.[10] The London Times, however, praised both the characters and actors (especially Sir Herbert Tree as Higgins and Mrs. Patrick Campbell as Eliza) and the happy if "unconventional" ending.[11]

Ending[edit]

Pygmalion was the most broadly appealing of all Shaw's plays. But popular audiences, looking for pleasant entertainment with big stars in a West End venue, wanted a "happy ending" for the characters they liked so well, as did some critics.[12] During the 1914 run, to Shaw's exasperation but not to his surprise, Tree sought to sweeten Shaw's ending to please himself and his record houses.[13] Shaw returned for the 100th performance and watched Higgins, standing at the window, toss a bouquet down to Eliza. "My ending makes money; you ought to be grateful," protested Tree, to which Shaw replied, "Your ending is damnable; you ought to be shot."[14][15] Shaw remained sufficiently irritated to add a postscript essay, "'What Happened Afterwards,"[16] to the 1916 print edition for inclusion with subsequent editions, in which he explained precisely why it was impossible for the story to end with Higgins and Eliza getting married.

He continued to protect what he saw as the play's and Eliza's integrity by protecting the last scene. For at least some performances during the 1920 revival, Shaw adjusted the ending in a way that underscored the Shavian message. In an undated note to Mrs. Campbell he wrote,

When Eliza emancipates herself – when Galatea comes to life – she must not relapse. She must retain her pride and triumph to the end. When Higgins takes your arm on 'consort battleship' you must instantly throw him off with implacable pride; and this is the note until the final 'Buy them yourself.' He will go out on the balcony to watch your departure; come back triumphantly into the room; exclaim 'Galatea!' (meaning that the statue has come to life at last); and – curtain. Thus he gets the last word; and you get it too.[17]

(This ending, however, is not included in any print version of the play.)

Shaw fought against a Higgins-Eliza happy-end pairing as late as 1938. He sent the 1938 film version's producer, Gabriel Pascal, a concluding sequence which he felt offered a fair compromise: a tender farewell scene between Higgins and Eliza, followed by one showing Freddy and Eliza happy in their greengrocery-flower shop. Only at the sneak preview did he learn that Pascal had finessed the question of Eliza's future with a slightly ambiguous final scene in which Eliza returns to the house of a sadly musing Higgins and self-mockingly quotes her previous self announcing, "I washed my face and hands before I come, I did".

[wonkit]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 10:39pm

Although Higgins at the end of MFL admits to loving Eliza, I don't see the outcome as marriage. I hated the idea Shaw proposed of Eliza and Freddy, but I don't think Eliza and Higgins would be much of a marriage either. I always pictured them going along as before, as close companions without sex or children or expectations of romance. They are, after all, equals, once Eliza has demonstrated that she is not needy. A life-long platonic partnership with tremendous affection. But romance? Hardly.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 11:14pm

AHLiebross said: "ScottyDK2, I'm with you that there is a great deal in the subtext of "My Fair Lady." Alan Jay Lerner violated the rule of writing that you have to show every important bit of information instead of merely telling about it, when Eliza talks about the ring HH bought her in Brighton. The "violation" works perfectly in this context -- all of a sudden, we realize that Higgins does not merely see Liza as a piece of furniture. In a way, it is a plot twist because it shows that Higgins took Eliza on what looks suspiciously like a date and bought her jewelry -- not merely jewelry, but a ring, which has a great deal of symbolism in Western cultures.

"My Fair Lady" is my second favorite musical (after POTO), and I've spent time thinking about what takes place after Eliza's return. I have decided that it is the world's most awkward kiss and marriage proposal, both engineered by Eliza. I guess I'm just a romantic at heart.

Audrey Liebross

 

"

I totally agree with you. And I have always been intrigued by that ring. I need someone to write me fanfic about it. I've considered doing it myself, but I don't think I have the skill to pull it off!

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 11:20pm

MCFan2, if you've got a fanfic story in you about Eliza, HH, and the ring from Brighton, go ahead and write it. I'm sure you'd find a bunch of willing readers on this board who will be happy to critique it. Just make sure to tune out the snarky comments and consider the helpful ones. I find that critiques and revision are what turns good writing into great writing. Don't sell yourself short!

I volunteer to be a helpful reader.

Audrey

[MCfan2]

Posted: 6/9/17 at 11:30pm

That's kind of you, Audrey! It's not that I don't think I have the writing ability -- I'm a writer by profession -- but I just can't seem to figure out how the plot should go. Given Higgins's character and how buying the ring seems such an unlikely thing for him to do, it's hard to work out. But maybe one of these days . . .

If I really do it, I will let you know!

[wonkit]

Posted: 6/10/17 at 9:21am

The ring probably reminded him of one he saw his mother wear. No question that he was a momma's boy, as many unmarried Englishmen of the time were. (No snarky comments, please. I am not discussing sexual preference here, just the matriarchal quality of English family life since Victoria.) But don't romanticize it - there has to be some quirky reason, since Higgins wasn't "in love" with Eliza. Just a weak moment.