Emma Thompson penning the "My Fair Lady" re-make
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:03pm
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:11pm
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 12:11 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:14pm
While I do enjoy most of Lerner's book, I hate that she goes back to Higgins. Now, if she went back to punch him in the face, sure I'd be ok with it. But there is no reason for her to resign herself with going back to him. I frankly don't see that ending as happy, or even remotely romantic.
And, any chance for Emma Thompson to do anything is ok by me.
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:15pm
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 12:15 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:24pm
It's because a movie remake has a chance of reaching a bigger audience, and the people who are in love with the original, don't want it forgotten.
It's kinda like the TV Re-make of Annie vs the 80s film Annie. Why watch the 80s one when you can see a better, more accurate and well-performed remake?
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:25pm
I'm all for new stage productions of musicals that attempt to bring something fresh to the approach via an inventive director, etc. That's different to making a film and rewriting the text. If they want a new script for Shaw's story, fine. But why mess with Lerner's work? Write something completely new.
I know lots of people welcome this rewrite movie - and I respect their right to hold that opinion. But I have a right to my opinion too. And, as Alan Jay Lerner is one of my gods of musical theatre, I find it hard to sit and watch someone butcher his work.
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 12:25 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:33pm
And, considering her beautiful adaptation of "Sense and Sensibility," I have a feeling this is safe in her hands. As long as Ang Lee doesn't direct...
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:36pm
I like how you're assuming this'll be a butchery without even knowing what they're doing to it. Whatever happened to "don't knock it until you've tried it"?
Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:57pm
"When did you even see it?"
"See it? Oh, I have no interest in seeing it. Seeing it might get in the way of my opinion."
I trust Emma Thompson.
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:00pm
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:08pm
That isn't what I said. In my first post I made it clear that I think Emma Thompson is an excellent writer. My point is that ANY messing around with Lerner's text would be butchering it as it will end up something other than what he intended. It will, in effect not be "My Fair Lady". Which is why I feel it should be left as it is. And if anyone wants to rewrite the story in a different way, write an ORIGINAL script. Just don't ruin a masterpiece of a musical in the process. Again, my opinion. But I LOVE this show and cannot see any reason for changing it.
Also, there are so many great stage musicals that have never been made into a movie, why don't they make something NEW?
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 01:08 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:22pm
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:23pm
However, if Emma Thompson is doing to revisions, then wouldn't it stand to reason that she would be butchering it, at least by your definition?
And, technically, Lerner's adaptation isn't "Pygmalion," yet you seem to love it. So if she's doing something more true to the original piece, while retaining some of the strong aspects of Lerner's adaptation, shouldn't that be a good thing?
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:42pm
"My Fair Lady" has one of the best librettos ever written. I agree.
But, while I can sit in a theater and watch a live production of "My Fair Lady" and be spellbound, when I watch the movie version I get bored and my butt gets numb.
There is just too much of "My Fair Lady" there. It's not so much a movie as an immortalizing of the stage show. Do we really need "Poor Professor Higgins"? And do we really need a closeup of every costume at Ascot Races? I've always found it telling, yet odd, that the film version of "My Fair Lady" is twice as long as the Leslie Howard/Wendy Hiller perfect film version of "Pygmalion".
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:47pm
I actually like Eliza with Higgins, but they could still put them together without the ending being so misogynistic.
Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:59pm
What on earth is "inflammatory" about the word "butcher"? It's just a word. And all I did was state my opinion about something, while what you say is a very personal and offensive attack - something I would never do. This board is for discussion not for deliberately making upsetting remarks to individuals.
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 01:59 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:04pm
I suggest you also rethink what "personal and offensive attack" could mean. If you think my requesting you not use words that I find vaguely offensive and find inconducive to discussion is a personal and offensive attack, then I'd HATE for us to get in discussion on a day where I am feeling anything stronger than my current mellowness.
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:05pm
I never meant any kind of slur. I guess my definition of the word "butchering" is different to yours. I never intended it in any insidious way. It's just a matter of semantics, I guess.
Anyway, I think this point has been laboured enough. I have my view and respect your and other people's right to have theirs. I just wanted to air my reservations, never intending that my view would appear so alarming as to spark off a major war of words.
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:09pm
Perhaps I'm being too sensitive but I never have nor ever will make a personal attack on someone just to be hurtful and am naive enough to believe others will show the same courtesy.
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 02:09 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:09pm
Emma Thompson only contributed additional dialogue, and she went uncredited on the awful "Pride and Prejudice." That would be like blaming someone with a minor cameo in a crappy movie for it's failure.
However, she won 5 or 6 awards for her screenplay to "Sense and Sensibilty" which I think really captured the book and improved on it.
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:11pm
In general, one can kick their heels in and protest to change as much as they want, but it does nothing but show how narrow minded you are.
Let's face it, the 'older' generations are not likely to prefer the new version over the original. This film is being reinvented to appeal to new generations, give it a new breath of life.
So what's the damage really? As Weez has said, the original will still be there for those want it. As will the new version.
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 02:11 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:14pm
Bob8rich, I'm very sorry to you for any offence I may have caused. Personally, I find it quite upsetting when I see what I perceive to be someone dismissing a project out of hand without giving it a chance. In attempting to explain this, I have obviously gone DRASTICALLY awry and caused massive offence while working very hard to be nowhere as offensive as I would ordinarily be in a discussion such as this. I'm sorry this has made you feel bad. I'm sorry I did not phrase myself in such a way as to successfully put my point across.
I shall now be leaving this thread alone because it has got very out of hand.
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:14pm
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 02:14 PM
Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:23pm
All I did was state an opinion, which is what I believed - clearly mistakenly - what this board was for. It's AN OPINION. Just as what everyone else says is an opinion. I never suggested that only my opinion counts. And I am not even remotely narrow minded. But unfortunately some people can't make an argument without being extremely rude and offensive.
BroadwayWorld TV