MY FAIR LADY (2018) Previews — Page 12

I think some people argue that because MFL for the most part sticks to Pygmalion, the Lerner/Lowe ending betrays everything that happened before it even if that ending does not even make a statement about the future of Eliza and Higgins’ relationship and decides to play it safe. From the sounds of this ending even though Sher makes a radical change it still leaves it more open ended than Pygmalion does. I mean the fact that you say MFL only provides a mish mosh of musical theatre tropes is actually astonishing to me considering the material, the source material, and all of the discussion it has generated. I mean even as a preteen who watched the movie version for the first time, I observed so much about what it had to say about class and gender and education that I recognized it was more than mere fluff. MFL and Pygmalion are like pinnacle of theatre and theatre is meant to make statements and generate discussion.

Updated On: 3/18/18 at 03:38 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!"

But I did not say I would follow the stage directions exactly because no director with his salt follows stage directions at all. I said I would play the scene exactly as written, but have the performances do something that would work for this ending and that would be satisfying to modern audiences.

bk said: "But I did not say I would follow the stage directions exactly because no director with his salt follows stage directions at all. I said I would play the scene exactly as written, but have the performances do something that would work for this ending and that would be satisfying to modern audiences."

I'm confused. From the reports thus far, isn't that exactly what Sher has done with the ending - not alter the text but rather have the final scene played exactly as written but with a new, and indeed radical, approach to the stage direction? And hasn't he precisely done this in an effort to better satisfy his audience?

Of course whether the variation does better satisfy his audience is, as it inevitably must be, a subject of debate - as, to Ravenclaw's point, any alteration from the denoument of PYGMALION (in either PYGMALION or MY FAIR LADY) has always been a major point of dramaturgical contention.

Updated On: 3/18/18 at 06:47 AM

Interesting, After Eight. You make me wonder. What would Sher's "safer" choice have been? And, conversely, what is the bolder, more audacious and, to some, more "admirable" course?

Presenting the denoument as it is typically presented or taking a radical departure?

And is the calculus one of merely giving the audience what they want? Or is it one of being sincerely true to the material in the mind? And how is the material defined? How are its truth and essence defined?

Based only on the standard dramaturgy of MY FAIR LADY? Or on the history of all variations of this story and all of its runways from Ovid to Shaw to J. Arthur Rank to MFL to MFL in revival 1956-2018 to the not yet seen opening night of the current revival? Based on the characters and their situation? Or based merely on loyalty to choices previously made to provoke or assuage public opinion?

One could argue it any number of ways. What could possibly be more Shavian?

You're asking After 8 like he's actually seen the production. Interesting he only starting ranting about the end AFTER others mentioned the change.

No doubt there will either be some elaborate excuse for this, or the customary blocking technique of saying it was all part of a deliberate plan; but the mask has slipped: the troll doesn't see the shows he rails against.

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "And what would that be?

I admit that if I were directing a big budget production of MFL I wouldn’t have gone in the direction Sher did which makes me respect Sher so much. Instead of the classic Rex Harrison style ending where he says that line and covers his face with his hat with Eliza looking on (usually directors these days give Eliza a smirk or a knowing wink of some sort to the audience) I would probably made Higgins get up look at her, hesitate a bit and maybe stutter that line to make him nervous that way all the work isn’t going to the actress playing Eliza to show she’s not really going to fetch his slippers as Higgins “commands” it. However, given Sher’s bravedirection here, even that seems like a cop out."

At the very least, can we all agree that Higgins is NOT SERIOUS about the slippers? It's completely clear from the way it's written, from the context, and from every other indicator. Eliza has never gone to fetch the slippers in any version that I've ever seen or heard of, and audiences would be stunned and disappointed if she did. The line signals that Higgins has become a person who understands the problem with saying such a thing, and Eliza's reaction ("she understands," per Lerner) shows that she gets it.

henrikegerman said: "Upinone said: "Saw it tonight , if you buy into the three plus hours of a revival set in a certain time and written in a certain time then you should buy into the ending as it was set and as it was written. If you use a modern sensibility to view the ending then let's let loose that same eye on the rest of the show."

But the ending as it was SETand as it was written is not Lerner's ending. It's Shaw's ending. Your loyalty isn't to the time this story was written, it's to the 1950s. Of course one can argue that MY FAIR LADY is its own beast and should remain loyal to Lerner (in both text and stage direction, though loyalty to stage directions is hardly orthodox - stage directions are typically eschewed, and they are often not authorial at all; in addition,

how many productions of MERCHANT OF VENICE and TAMING OF THE SHREW radically alter the conclusionS through some stage business which preserves Shylock's and Kate's dignityand autonomy?).

What one can't persuasively argue is that Lerner's ending is somehow faithful to the time MY FAIR LADY is set. It's not. At the time thIs storywas BOTH written ANDset, Shaw, writing in an era of thematically related dramas, most notably from Ibsen and Strindberg, focusing on the role of women in a rapidly changingsociety, was deadset against any presentation of the denoument which allowed for the least notion that Eliza would remain with Henry and inveighed againstany such versionever being produced.

So this "modern sensibility" you are considering as post hoc is in fact utterly consistent withthe sensibility with which this story and its staggering original conclusionwas originallywritten - and not the now antiquated sensibilityfirstintroduced during the Eisenhower era by Lerner."

if we were isolating the ending I am with you but I am talking about the entire show - it is a sentimental early sixties pre women's movement musical adaptation that deserves a sentimental sixties musical ending. I doubt if adapting it for the first time in today's enviornment the adaptors would have make the same choices that makesup most of the evening as is let alone the ending. Trevor Nunn on the ending

---

Up In One said: "Mosh mosh from today's point of view maybe not for the 60's. The entire plot line for the father and his simple but catch vaudevillian like songs - they don't move the plot along and as theater song yrics go you are pretty much done interest level wise after one verse and a refrain. These are beloved songs don't get me wrong but if we are now arguing the musical didn't follow the source materials authors intent I ask why make it a musical at all? For "the music" many will say. Then I say they better sing the heck out of those songs and in this production when it comes to Eliza - not so much."

Alfred’s hedonism and cooption into middle class morality culminating in wedlock not only advance the plot but offer parallels as well as foils to Eliza’s Own condition, changes of fortune and fate. In both PYGMALION and MY FAIR LADY

With a Little Bit of Luck and I’m Getting Married.. are songs which perfectly capture these key plot-resonating aspects of Alfred ‘s character and shifting social positions.

Updated On: 3/18/18 at 10:07 AM

henrikegerman said: "Up In One said: "Mosh mosh from today's point of view maybe not for the 60's. The entire plot line for the father and his simple but catch vaudevillian like songs - they don't move the plot along and as theater song yrics go you are pretty much done interest level wise after one verse and a refrain. These are beloved songs don't get me wrong but if we are now arguing the musical didn't follow the source materials authors intent I ask why make it a musical at all? For "the music" many will say. Then I say they better sing the heck out of those songs and in this production when it comes to Eliza - not so much."

Alfred’s hedonism and cooption into middle class morality culminating in wedlock not onlyadvance the plot but offer parallels as well asfoils to Eliza’s Owncondition, changes of fortuneand fate. In both PYGMALION and MY FAIR LADY

With a Little But ofLuck and I’m Getting Martied are songs which perfectly capture these key plot-resonatingaspects of Alfred ‘s character and shifting social positions.

Yes in a slightly dumbed down way for today's tastes but perfectly acceptable in the 60's and I have no issue enjoying semi mindless musical numbers from the perspective of when they were written but for me they were too lite and thin for the rest of the plot and interrupted the more interesting Higgins/Eliza story at a critical moment. It was one of those purposeful - let's not get too serious this is after all a musical comedy - let's give the husbands something to stay awake for 60's musical writing moments. And it gave birth to two of the more popular numbers in the show.

---

Epic production! Thoroughly enjoyed it and it was fun to see Bart working the audience and making the rounds. He’s obviously proud of the show and should be. I kept thinking how I never realized...duh...just how dark the show really is. And I think that’s because there’s no overglossy portrayals in this production except for Norbert. More on the acting in a bit. The set is fantastic...what a stunner! Here’s where I’m going to disagree with folks. I thought the costumes and wigs were just average and problematic. All of the Guys pants needed tailoring especially in the ball scene. Women were tripping over their dresses. I didn’t buy for a second that they felt comfortable in them. And I thought Lauren’s ball gown was just average. I wanted her to be transcendent and she did look beautiful and the red coat was lovely but her final looks were just so meh to me. I wanted more swan! And at one point I thought her wig might fall off. It really bobbled and she had to put her head down and try and fix it. One of the cast covered her so she could adjust. Something very sloppy is going on in the hair and costume department! Norbert was a sweaty mess and his hair looked like strands of dyed straw. Again I needed more transformation for him. Unfortunate. These things can and should be fixed. Also lighting and sound were both having issues throughout. Lauren needs special attention! Her singing is ok and she’s working with her voice but help her in the audio dept. Where the production needs work is it feels like a collection of scenes now...it needs some glue. Gotta tighten up the transitions and keep the show moving. I found myself thinking ugh move along already. Lots of long entrance and exits that need tightening. The other glaring need is some character work ...Freddy, Pickering and Norbert all have some work to do. Yes Norbert brings the house down with church and I was glad as was the audience to have a little energy and excitement cause this production is very dark and heavy...not in a necessarily bad way just an observation. But Norbert felt like the Norbert show not part of The larger whole. I needed a little more connection. Tightening the scenes and doing some character work should help. Same for Freddy and Pickering. Pickering is throwing this part away. Thankless for sure but the kindness he shows her needs to come across more. Build the relationship. And Freddy feels like a big why? Gotta mine the race scene more and build the why. Especially in street...there’s ways to do this. Higgins for the win this year. And Lauren’s heart breaking portrayal may just win her a Tony too.

For starters, the Tony is not for singing prowess alone.

I really want to see the show but if an actor is struggling vocally it takes me out of the moment. What exactly is not that great about her voice? Have they lowered any keys?

What nobody here seems actually able to refute is the fact that Sher does nothing more radical to the text than what Lerner and the film do to their text. Yes, My Fair Lady is "its own beast" as you say, but if you actually compare the libretto and the script side to side, the only glaring difference is that one has songs and one doesn't. Writers struggled for years to find a way to musicalize Pygmalion until Lerner finally realized that the best way to adapt the show to a musical was to change almost nothing at all.

Regarding playing the ending as a happy reconciliation, the issue I (and so many others) object to is that however emotionally moved Higgins seems in that final scene, "Eliza, where the devil are my slippers" is not an apology. Furthermore, Eliza returns to Higgins without having witnessed his transformation. She didn't see him experience emotional crisis, think "he's learned!" and then go back to him--she demanded respect, walked out on him, regretted doing so, and returned to his home. In order for reconciliation to happen, Higgins should be the initiator. This was why I so liked the 2002 production which framed the final scene as a chance encounter on the street months later--it showed them politely sharing a moment outside of the toxic power dynamic they had created.

I am reminded of a disappointing semi-professional production I saw a few years back after which an elderly woman said to her husband, "I can't believe she went back to him! It's HIM who should go and apologize to HER! Well, I guess they only had the set of his house built, and not hers..."