MY FAIR LADY (2018) Previews — Page 15

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."

The fact that somebody even decided that Eliza not going back to Higgins in the end was her being ungrateful for all that he did for her and that she abandoned him was so telling as well. Basically because he taught her how to speak and proper etiquette as to not embarrass herself in social circles (something she was ready to pay for herself before the experiment gone wild) she did not grow up in, she should lose all autonomy and freedom and devote her entire existence to him.

Now we have it being unfeminist that Eliza doesn't continue the experiment by not continuing to play a role she does not even want. In the beginning all she wanted was to learn how to speak a bit better so she could work in a flower shop and make her own wage in a better environment than selling flowers on the street, not that she wasn't proud of being a flower girl on the street but it's natural she'd want an opportunity to make more money. She never seem inclined to join the higher classes where she could no longer work to make a living and instead has to marry for her future economic prospects as so many ladies had to do due to lack of choice. Her marrying a man like Freddy may not be popular but it is her choice and it's not an ignorant choice as Eliza recognizes that he wasn't brought up to work and she's happy to support him just like a man would have to support her if she decided to be a lady and thus be dependent on her husband.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 09:34 AM

I'm a man.

I see value, truth and insight in both Shaw's ending, whether in PYGMALION or MY FAIR LADY, and the 1937 screenplay/Lerner ending.  Either can work brilliantly, with the right direction, whether in PYGMALION or MY FAIR LADY. 

There is so much core commonality between PYGMALION and MY FAIR LADY that the alternative endings can suit both the "straight" and "musical" variations of this story.

Much of this has to do with the fact that I find neither one of the resolutions "prescriptive." Just as neither is all tied up with all questions answered.  Ambiguity reigns in both.

What either ending is is a recognizable piece of life, each illuminating on all the themes Shaw has placed before us.   

Henry left alone without Eliza, overly sure of himself that she will come back, OR Eliza facing the bond she feels for Henry and returning, perhaps out of curiosity, or a need to know if he might be as changed as she is, with us wondering what that return might ultimately mean for both of them - both of these endings are robust and compelling.   Both make us feel for these characters and their fates.  Both can work with the right directions.  Both have strong dramatic value.

I am very much looking forward to seeing the current revival next month.

But to criticize interpolating the Shaw ending on to MY FAIR LADY as intrinsically untrue to the work.... no, I don't buy that at all.  No more than I buy the notion that altering the ending of PYGMALION for the 1937 movie or the 1958 musical hit was intrinsically untrue to PYGMALION.

Since Ibsen was brought up, here is one interesting quote from Shaw in a letter to theatre critic and champion of both Ibsen and Shaw William Archer:

"Ibsen was compelled to acquiesce in a happy ending for A Doll's House in Berlin, because he could not help himself [my note: because Ibsen felt pressured to and many productions refused to do the play with the original ending because it was so shocking at the time], just as I have never been able to stop the silly and vulgar gag with which Eliza in Pygmalion, both here and abroad, gets the last word and implies that she is going to marry Pygmalion. But would you therefore play A Doll's House in Jones's Breaking a Butterfly version, or allow Eliza to gag in a production of Pygmalion for which you were responsible? "

Imagine people today arguing that A Doll's House should have a happy ending for Torvald and Nora no matter how compelling the actor playing Torvald is in the final act of the play where's pleading and begging Nora to stay.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 09:59 AM

Is Freddy a spineless drip? Henry sees him that way. But does Eliza? Should we?

And how much of such a judgment is sexist? If Freddy has no ambition, if he is “just” a sweet, infatuated simple gentle pretty kind man, does that make him less appealing than 99% of the women men fall for in 19th or early 20th fiction? And if so, why? If not because he is a man?

When you really think about it, wouldn’t Freddy’s continued devotion to Eliza, even having discovered where she comes from and her poverty, rather than instead seeking some “social climbing heiress from New York” (much less a Hungarian royal), suggest that rather.than being some spineless drip, Freddy is indeed a remarkable example of a genteel penniless Edwardian aristocrat. Even perhaps an impressively good sort of man. 

But all that is beside the point. As in no version of the play is it the least certain that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy.

 

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 10:27 AM

I always heard I Could Have Danced All Night as a romantic song in which the key line was, "I only know when he began to dance with me," etc.  But reading these comments, I realized that perhaps the key line is, "I could have spread my wings and done a thousand things I've never done before."  I won't be able to see this production but I suspect I would love it based on the comments and the ending. 

Love your thoughts on this. Thanks!

henrikegerman said: "Is Freddy a spineless drip? Henry sees him that way. But does Eliza? Should we?

And how much of such a judgment is sexist? If Freddy has no ambition, if he is “just” a sweet, infatuated simple gentle pretty kind man, does that make him less appealing than 99% of the women men fall for in 19th or early 20thfiction? And if so, why? If not because he is a man?

When you really think about it, wouldn’t Freddy’s continued devotion to Eliza, even having discovered where she comes from and her poverty, rather than instead seeking some “social climbing heiress from New York” (much less a Hungarian royal),suggest that rather.than being some spineless drip, Freddy is indeed aremarkable example of a genteel penniless Edwardian aristocrat. Even perhapsan impressively good sort of man.

But all that is beside the point. As in no version of the play is it the least certain that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy."

I second this. Let's remember what wishes Eliza expresses in her big "I want" song:

"Someone's head resting on my knee/warm and tender as he can be/who takes good care of me/oh, wouldn't it be loverly?"

Sounds more like Freddy than Henry, doesn't it? Shaw himself said that Eliza and Henry would never be compatible because their personalities and prides are both so huge that they would swallow the other one up. Freddy respects and cares for her. What makes you think that he's so spineless?

Ravenclaw said: "henrikegerman said: "Is Freddy a spineless drip? Henry sees him that way. But does Eliza? Should we?

And how much of such a judgment is sexist? If Freddy has no ambition, if he is “just” a sweet, infatuated simple gentle pretty kind man, does that make him less appealing than 99% of the women men fall for in 19th or early 20thfiction? And if so, why? If not because he is a man?

When you really think about it, wouldn’t Freddy’s continued devotion to Eliza, even having discovered where she comes from and her poverty, rather than instead seeking some “social climbing heiress from New York” (much less a Hungarian royal),suggest that rather.than being some spineless drip, Freddy is indeed aremarkable example of a genteel penniless Edwardian aristocrat. Even perhapsan impressively good sort of man.

But all that is beside the point. As in no version of the play is it the least certain that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy."

I second this. Let's remember what wishes Eliza expresses in her big "I want" song:

"Someone's head resting on my knee/warm and tender as he can be/who takes good care of me/oh, wouldn't it be loverly?"

Sounds more like Freddy than Henry, doesn't it? Shaw himself said that Eliza and Henry would never be compatible because their personalities and prides are both so huge that they would swallow the other one up. Freddy respects and cares for her. What makes you think that he's so spineless?"

Great point and citation to "Loverly". Eliza probably didn't have a lot of warmth or affection growing up, look at her relationship with her father, and she probably sees Freddy as offering that (and boy does he) even if he can't really offer anything tangible for her, which she explicitly states she's fine with since she's used to working and was brought up to it unlike him. She probably sees in Freddy a type of romanticism and warmth that she yearns for and is willing to work extra hard to have it and accepts Freddy for his limitations and he accepts Eliza wholeheartedly and wouldn't dream of hurting her (though of course people can still hurt people even if they don't want to). I think the real issue is that some people would rather marry Higgins themselves than Freddy and can't understand why Eliza would do the opposite.

I do think there's been a lot of stories and BBC adaptations/tv projects where a hard working girl marries a good looking man of a higher class who at first offers love and devotion and to reject his prospects for her and ends up just being a bum and being no good for the heroine and even almost financially ruining her that it's easy to project that into Freddy but we have to remember these are different characters and according to Shaw Eliza and Freddy have a different ending than those other stories.

Anyway, back to Sher's actual production, there's nothing really there to say who Eliza ends up with...if she ends up with anybody.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 11:52 AM

Eliza's main goal (her "super-objective," for you actor-types) is not to be rich (lest we forget, "All I want is a room somewhere..." but to have a stable life, feeling heard and respected. Freddy provides her much more respect than Higgins ever did, and Eliza is willing and wanting to work for a living. Recall:

Eliza: I'll marry Freddy, I will, as soon as I'm able to support him.

Higgins: Freddy!! That poor devil who couldn't get a job as an errand boy even if he had the guts to try for it! Woman, do you not understand? I have made you consort for a king!

Eliza: Freddy loves me: that makes him king enough for me. I don't want him to work: he wasn't brought up to it as I was.

GeorgeandDot said: "Sally, you're reaching, hun.

Lerner clearly had no respect for Shaw's ending, so why should we have any respect for his, especially considering how disgusting and unintentionally tragic it is?"

I wish people would stop spouting off without getting their facts straight. Lerner lifted the entire ending lines from the movie Pygmalion, whose screenplay Shaw wrote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOdzk3y0VM

Watch it. Line for line it's the same. 

^That's not what you said.

GeorgeandDot said: "Sally, you're reaching, hun.

Lerner clearly had no respect for Shaw's ending, so why should we have any respect for his, especially considering how disgusting and unintentionally tragic it is?"

You implied Lerner concocted this romantic ending out of thin air. That's not what happened at all. Lerner lifted the lines straight from the movie. Actually Lerner lifted most of MFL's book scenes straight from the movie.