MY FAIR LADY (2018) Previews — Page 11

WhizzerMarvin said: "Absolutely! “You Did It” is now all about Eliza/Ambrose. Pay close attention to all the things she does while the rest of the cast sing that song. There’s a moment where she sits down and slowly undoes the tiara out of her hair. Her actions are slow and deliberate; when she has it out, Ambrose stares at it as if it were the oddest item in the world. There’s anger, but it’s directed at herself. Shame. Anxiety. Exhaustation. (All the bad emotions ha). It’s both glorious and painful to watch. Reminded me of Raul blowing the kazoo in Side By Side/What Would We Do Without You. This fun showstopper being undercut with a bolt of hurt so deep that you almost can’t clap after it. I’m getting misty-eyed even thinking about it now!

"

Oh my god, yes! I’ve been talking about this moment for the last two days. Also, the way she slides the necklace and bracelets onto the table instead of handing them to Higgins - the disdain she has for him, for herself, is so palpable. It’s such a full-bodied performance.

somecheapfrenchthing said: "Would someone who attendedalready be able to tell me about the sight lines from the 500 section for this production? Right now I have tickets for row F on the aisle (501 and 502), but I've been given the option to switch to 100 or the lodge. Based on what someone said about the set, I'm wondering if it would be better to sit elsewhere. But if it doesn't make too much of a difference, I won't bother. Thanks in advance for any help!"

This was my view from F 508 - https://imgur.com/a/SL9nE

ColorTheHours048 said: "WhizzerMarvin said: "Absolutely! “You Did It” is now all about Eliza/Ambrose. Pay close attention to all the things she does while the rest of the cast sing that song. There’s a moment where she sits down and slowly undoes the tiara out of her hair. Her actions are slow and deliberate; when she has it out, Ambrose stares at it as if it were the oddest item in the world. There’s anger, but it’s directed at herself. Shame. Anxiety. Exhaustation. (All the bad emotions ha). It’s both glorious and painful to watch. Reminded me of Raul blowing the kazoo in Side By Side/What Would We Do Without You. This fun showstopper being undercut with a bolt of hurt so deep that you almost can’t clap after it. I’m getting misty-eyed even thinking about it now!

"

Oh my god, yes! I’ve been talking about this moment for the last two days. Also, the way she slides the necklace and bracelets onto the table instead of handing them to Higgins - the disdain she has for him, for herself, is so palpable. It’s such a full-bodied performance."



I can't resist piling on here. Ambrose is extraordinary in this scene. There is so much happening elsewhere on stage--the household staff has joined Pickering in celebrating Higgins--but my concentration was riveted throughout the scene on Eliza. The best way to describe it is that in my memory, she is in color and the rest of the action is black and white.

Due to these reports on this thread, I might say yes.

TFMH18 said: "Does Ambrose have a shot at beatingLenk for the Tony?"

Both are amazing but I’d give it to Ambrose.

what did you think of the ending?

Saw it tonight and thought it was the most disappointing part of the show. Frankly, I hated It.

GeorgeandDot said: "The idea of Henry and Eliza ending up in a relationship (romantic or not) makes me sick to my stomach. He's an abuser and even in the end the nicest thing he can say about her is that he's grown accustomed to her face. She's shouldn't have to work anything out with him. He's a misogynistic psyco that deserves to be alone. You can make Higgins as likeable as possible, but he's still horrible and she's deserves better.

I saw someone say that the new ending isn't a revision, but rather a restoration. It's an ending that would please Shaw."

Exactly that, and this revival has to do something different than all the countless productions have done. I'm excited to see this ending staging live (if it makes it past opening night).

BeNice said: "Saw the show tonight.

It is a wonderful production. Harry Hadden-Paton is truly magnificent. Heseems like he has been living in the role forever and is extremely smart. He has my vote for Best Actor.

I found Lauren Ambrose to be just a tad underwhelming. She is beautiful and has some wonderful moments, and is by no means bad or incapable, but it is obvious (to me at least) that she is not a musical theatre animal by nature. Her voice is not quite special enough to sell those iconic songs and tropes like the "i wants" and buttons, etc. are a little undercooked.

I found her age to work with the Higgins because it made their relationship stronger, but it made the scenes with her father seem more like her brother

Even with all that, it is a wonderful production and I hope to see it again."

So her soprano wasn't that good? That makes me sad

bk said: "My Fair Lady is an ADAPTATION of Shaw and its own beast. There is such a simple way of staging the final scene exactly as it's written so that everyone would be happy and even perhaps cheer. And it doesn't involve her walking away. Why no one has seen how to do it is an enigma to me."

Yes, but it is an adaptation with long chunks coming verbatim from the source material. But let's take your assertion as it is for a moment.

If you observe the stage directions exactly, you don't get an ending people are happy with. Because the stage directions paint a picture that Eliza forgives her abuser who not only cannot bring himself to say the words "I'm sorry," but instead lightheartedly speaks a line recalling his earlier verbal abuse. And Eliza is supposed to stand there "understanding" him. And this undermines all of the growth Eliza has made over the course of the last three hours. Following the stage directions to a T kind of makes the journey pointless if the final stasis mimics that of halfway through the first act.

There are many ways play the scene with all of the same words but the dynamic changed by not following the stage directions perfectly. Sher has chosen a more radical approach. But it should be noted that any ending in which Eliza returns as Higgins's equal contradicts the content of the stage directions, playing the scene in some way different from the author's intention.

And as I have said before, anyone who objects to a radical change in the ending of the show has to reconcile the fact that the show's authors also felt completely justified in radically changing the original ending. Lerner himself said he thought that Shaw was wrong about the fate of his own characters and saw fit to "correct" Shaw. In doing so, Lerner demonstrated a prioritization of audience fulfillment over honoring of authorial intent. We live in an age in which audiences (myself and--I am not exaggerating--literally every single person I have ever had a conversation about My Fair Lady with included) find female empowerment more fulfilling to watch than a recently empowered woman's subservient return to her abuser. According to Lerner's own principle, authorial intent be damned, give the people what they want!

Updated On: 3/18/18 at 03:16 AM

Ravenclaw said: "bk said: "My Fair Lady is an ADAPTATION of Shaw and its own beast. There is such a simple way of staging the final scene exactly as it's written so that everyone would be happy and even perhaps cheer. And it doesn't involve her walking away. Why no one has seen how to do it is an enigma to me."

Yes, but it is an adaptation with long chunks coming verbatim from the source material. But let's take your assertion as it is for a moment.

If you observe the stage directions exactly, you don't get an ending people are happy with. Because the stage directions paint a picturethatEliza forgives her abuser who not only cannot bring himself to say the words "I'm sorry," but instead lightheartedly speaks a line recalling his earlier verbal abuse. And Eliza is supposed to stand there "understanding" him. And this undermines all of the growth Eliza has made over the course of the last three hours. Following the stage directions to a T kind of makes the journey pointless if the final stasis mimics that of halfway through the first act.

There are many ways play the scene with all of the same words but the dynamic changed by not following the stage directions perfectly. Sher has chosen a more radical approach. But it should be noted that any ending in which Eliza returns as Higgins's equal contradicts the content of the stage directions, playing the scene in someway different from the author's intention.

And as I have said before, anyone who objects to a radical change in the ending of the show has to reconcile the fact that the show's authors also felt completely justified in radically changing the original ending. Lerner himself said he thought that Shaw was wrong about the fate of his own characters and saw fit to "correct" Shaw. In doing so, Lerner demonstrated a prioritization of audience fulfillment over honoring of authorial intent. We live in an age in which audiences (myself and--I am not exaggerating--literally every single personI have ever had a conversation aboutMy Fair Ladywith included) find female empowerment more fulfilling to watch than a recently empowered woman's subservient return to her abuser. According to Lerner's own principle, authorial intent be damned, give the people what they want!"

I wouldn't argue about a modern audience being interested in female empowerment - then give us a play worthy of that ending. I'd rather have a discussion afterwards about how far we've come rather than sit thru a mosh mosh of stale musical theater tropes and one choice at the end. I totally gave into Dolly for the fun and that show and it's place in theater history and it has the same issues in spades.