MY FAIR LADY (2018) Previews — Page 14

GeorgeandDot said: "Ya'll got problems."

The best comment in the past few pages. It gets straight to the point.

bk said: "I am looking forward to seeing this, but after his Fiddler, I just don't know. I thought that was horrible and this sounds like he's going that same route."

I loved Bart's production of Fiddler on the Roof! Though I can see what you're talking about with how he throws in such interesting ideas of staging certain moments in these classic musicals.

Question: People have weighed in on Hadden-Paton, Ambrose, and Butz, but what do you think of Diana Rigg? Given the smaller size of her role, do you think she has a chance at getting nominated in May?

Dodge3 said: "What people often forget about Henry Higgins is that, owing to his debilitating social awkwardness, all of his head and heart are tied up in phonetics. The reason the original ending has always worked for me is because, when he switches on Eliza’s voice in the final scene, it’s not his final creation — the swan — that brings him comfort. The recording he chooses is who she was before he ‘reinvented’ her. I think that’s what makes Hepburn smile in the film version. The fact that Henry sits in isolation listening tenderlyto sounds that ordinarily trigger rage in him, is all she needs - and we need - to know he cares. For Henry Higgins, there could be no greater expression of love."

That is an excellent point!

How do you mean, "the Eliza that is on the page"? The page at this point doesn't tell us anything about whether she's dissatisfied. It says she understands him, and that's all it says.

And in fact, the point you mention -- her desire to be shown and not told she's loved -- actually works in Higgins's favor here. For once in his life he's not talking. For once, she's not getting "words, words, words" from him. Instead she sees an action -- she's shown something -- that she can interpret according to her own knowledge of him and of the relationship between them.

^And that, is the true reason why I've been excited for My Fair Lady than any other revival this season, yes even more so than Once on this Island.

All this thinking about the production is making me wonder what the opening Convent Garden set looks like. I'll bet it's clever in it's simplicity like The King and I's palace set was.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 01:43 AM

Sorry if someone already brought this up, and I think everyone basically figured out that this was the creative team's focus based on how they're handling the final moments of the show, but given the debate between the "I like that they're going back to Shaw's original intentions for the ending" and "I wanted to see My Fair Lady, not Pygmalion!" factions on this thread, I thought this Lauren Ambrose quote from one of the production's promo videos was interesting:

"I'm interesting in peeling away all the layers and looking at what Shaw was getting after when he first wrote this story."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhxr5BdQpR0 (quote at 0:41)

OlBlueEyes wrote:

"Many years ago, My Fair Lady was a rollicking musical comedy.

Now it's Ibsen."

Now everything is Ibsen.



Reading this thread, I'm reminded of Eliza's comment: "Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words."

We've had torrents of words here, doctoral tomes of words, from experts, pedants, from know-it-alls of all stripes, none of them revealing even the slightest inkling of what is really going on here.

How about casting aside the plethora of words and zeroing in on the essential truth of this whole sorry episode:

There is absolutely nothing beautiful, joyful, innocent or pleasureful in this world that some people today are not going to try to subvert, sabotage, sully --- and be cheered for.

That's what it's really about --- and only about.

If it were in their power, there is no doubt they would eradicate the stars that twinkle in the sky because they're beautiful and make people happy.

Thankfully, the stars are beyond their reach. Those stars can thank their lucky stars. The rest of us can only tremble and pray.

The original ambiguous ending of the musical is fine. Musical comedy aficionados can see Higgins and Eliza with a future together, even if it is less than marriage. Those who wish to respect Shaw’s intent see no commitment by Eliza to anything further than paying her respects to one who had been so much a part of her life.

Do feminists find it a better resolution that Eliza, who is fit to play a duchess at a grand ball, should end up in a flower shop with spineless Freddy?

The ending is just not one of the great scenes. Audience’s take with them “Wouldn’t It Be Loverly,” The Rain in Spain” and “I Could Have Danced All Night.” As one review of the original 1914 production put it:

The plot can be put into a sentence or two. Henry Higgins, who was a vastly learned professor of phonetics, undertook to educate a flower-girl, whose speech and manners and customs were of the gutter, so that in six months she should pass for a duchess. And he did it.

That is all, and you naturally ask what happened afterwards. We are not at all sure, we doubt if Mr. Shaw’s answer would be convincing, but it does not matter in the least. What matters is the fun on the way.

Speaking for myself, no I do not feel that way. If you’re suggesting that all men have a default setting, that gives us an inherent sense of complacency, when it comes to abuse towards women, I would strongly disagree.

I’m just here to share my passion for theatre though-which in this day and age seems insufficient.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 09:12 AM

GeorgeandDot said: "I can tell all of you are men based upon the fact that you think a woman returning to her abuser is romantic, happy, and satisfying."

I'm a man? News to me!

Look, at the end of the day, everyone's going to have different responses to this piece based on their own emotions and experiences. I've watched the movie and seen the play and read the play (and read Pygmalion too, incidentally) so many times that, from the time I was a teenager, I've been able to recite entire scenes by heart. I say that just to establish that, like most of you (who I expect could make similar claims), I know this piece extremely well. And I don't see Higgins as an abuser and Eliza as his victim.

Now, before the accusation comes up, I don't believe abuse is nonexistent or unimportant AT ALL. I've spoken up for abuse victims in real life. And I could name lots of examples of abusers and victims in art, of various kinds -- I just watched Vertigo again last night and I was rooting for Judy to pack her bags and run from Scottie, to give just one example. (And before THAT accusation comes up, no, I'm not saying that all abuse cases look like Judy and Scottie.) But to me, Eliza and Higgins are a different case. Consider for instance this exchange: "The question is not whether I treat you rudely, but whether you've ever heard me treat anyone else better." "I don't care how you treat me . . . but I won't be passed over!" Eliza knows her own situation very well, knows what her main concern and complaint are, and she is not complaining of abuse.

TL;DR: I take abuse very seriously, in life and in art, but I think we have something different here. That's my considered opinion. I'm entitled to it. You're entitled to yours. One's response to art is ultimately a very personal and subjective thing. But the fact that I see Eliza and Higgins differently from you doesn't make me a justifier of abuse.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 09:31 AM