Emma Thompson penning the "My Fair Lady" re-make

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 11:58am

I didn't remember this being posted anywhere, and if it was, meh. Emma's awesome enough to require a new thread.

According to an interview in Parade magazine with James Brady, Emma Thompson is doing the screenplay, using material from Shaw's forward and afterward, and with a slightly less sweet ending.

Does this mean that maybe Eliza *won't* go back to Higgins?

[Amharclann]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:03pm

I would like the film a lot more if she didn't go back to the ancient, misogynist bully that is Prof Higgins.

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:11pm

I'm sure Emma will do a great job - she's an excellent writer. But what is the point of this remake? Alan Jay lerner's Book is one of THE great musical theatre librettos - tight, witty and perfectly in tone with the needs of the score. And George Cukor's film version is fabulous. If it ain't broke, why try and fix it?

Updated On: 7/20/08 at 12:11 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:14pm

Apparently they want to combine the two into a more complete unit somehow.

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.

[Weez]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:15pm

Because people want to see an ending that makes them less uncomfortable? Because Audrey Hepburn is NOT the be-all and end-all and some people would like to see an Eliza that can sing her own stuff? Because it'll make money and producers like money? Why the hell NOT remake 'My Fair Lady'? It's not like the original will be zapped out of existence as soon as the new one wraps shooting for heaven's sake, and I wish people would stop acting like it will. You wouldn't get this pissy about a stage revival, so why is a remake such a TERRIBLE offense?

Updated On: 7/20/08 at 12:15 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:24pm

Weez-
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?

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:25pm

Weez, I never suggested that the remake will zap the original out of existence. I just can't see the point of remaking a masterpiece. I think it's more likely to ruin it than improve it. I've never seen a remake of any film that was better than the original and most were really awful - e.g. "Psycho".

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

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:33pm

Well to say Emma Thompson is going to butcher his work is kinda unfair, when absolutely none of us have read it yet.

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...

[Weez]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:36pm

I've seen remakes that were better than the original. I've also seen a lot of whining - and mostly not confined to this thread, so it's not a specific personal slight on anyone - about remaking 'My Fair Lady'. If it offends (the general) you that badly, don't go and see it when it eventually comes out. Also, try not to assume that audiences are so shallow as to say "well, there's a version of this film made in 2005 (for example), but there's another version from 1982, OBVIOUSLY the 2005 one will be better because it's more recent, so DOWN WITH THE 1982 VERSION!".

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"?

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 12:57pm

If it offends (the general) you that badly, don't go and see it when it eventually comes out.

"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.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:00pm

I love Emma Thompson....I'm sure she'll do a wonderful job- she always does!

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:08pm

"Well to say Emma Thompson is going to butcher his work is kinda unfair, when absolutely none of us have read it yet."

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

[Weez]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:22pm

I understand and appreciate that the changes may not end up being to your liking and you're concerned about that. That's fine. What *is* bothering me is the use of the highly inflammatory word "butcher". I don't know about everyone else, but I would certainly appreciate it more - and be more inclined to discuss rather than argue - if you were to use less inflammatory terms to put your point across. Such strong words as "butcher" give out the impression you're not willing to give ANY leeway in a discussion, which can quickly frustrate anyone who might be contemplating getting into a discussion with you.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:23pm

"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."

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?

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:42pm

I think that she will help make it more of a "movie" experience than just a filmed stage play.

"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".

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:47pm

I don't know. Emma Thompson did write that terrible Pride and Prejudice adaptation, so I'm a little worried.

I actually like Eliza with Higgins, but they could still put them together without the ending being so misogynistic.

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 1:59pm

"I would certainly appreciate it more - and be more inclined to discuss rather than argue - if you were to use less inflammatory terms to put your point across. Such strong words as "butcher" give out the impression you're not willing to give ANY leeway in a discussion, which can quickly frustrate anyone who might be contemplating getting into a discussion with you."

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

[Weez]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:04pm

I'm very purposefully trying to use language designed not to get people riled up and upset. It seems we are possibly interpreting the word "butcher" in two wholly different ways. To me, it sounds like a very firm definite word meaning something along the lines of "to rend limb from limb" or "to totally destroy". Perhaps you mean it as something else entirely; if so, this is probably where our confusion is arising.

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.

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:05pm

"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?"

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.

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:09pm

Weez, I think your last remark proves my point. Very offensive and very personally upsetting - and not what the board is for. If someone can't state his views without being considered a pariah for daring to disagree, then the whole board falls apart.

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

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:09pm

SporkGoddess-
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.

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:11pm

I'm with Weez on this.

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

[Weez]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:14pm

I was going to do this via PM, but perhaps in public would be more appropriate.

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.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:14pm

My Fair Lady did, in fact, "butcher" (just a word) Shaw's original play and add romantic overtones that Shaw did not intend. If Emma Thompson is going to use the foreword and sequel (what Shaw called the afterword), there will be far more emphasis on speech and class distinctions, and the reasons why women marry. Shaw talks at fair length about why a woman would want to marry a confirmed old bachelor like Higgins, and points out that as a bright and attractive young woman she has no need to marry him. Eliza will marry Freddy and they will hit a series of economic obstacles before settling into what appears to be genteel middle class life with economic help from Col. Pickering. Seems like an awful lot of plot for which no songs exist, and the final curtain song will certainly not work. Intriguing.
Updated On: 7/20/08 at 02:14 PM

[bob8rich]

Posted: 7/20/08 at 2:23pm

"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."

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.