MY FAIR LADY Movie Musical- Page 2

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:45am

Not so much 'outstanding.' The show is enough of a draw in itself. The music and plot would be enough draw for box offices. Just imagine the movie trailers for this! Who nowadays WOULDN'T be interested in seeing it??

And then there is SUNSET BLVD. Who wants to see that? It's a Broadway musical. RENT, as far as the general unknowing public is concerned, is a new show with great rock music.

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 10:14am

I've posted previously, at length, of my disdain for the film version of MY FAIR LADY. Audrey is miscast in it; but she's not all that's wrong with it. The direction is among the worst ever for a film. The entire piece is as if there was no concept of the medium within which it was being presented. I saw the show in London, in August of 1959, and it remains the greatest piece of theater I've ever seen. So exiciting, so riveting! The only show I've ever seen where three of the numbers got standing ovations (true, legitimate standing ovations). To see this dull-as-dishwater film, you'd be hard pressed to understand why the show was the biggest hit in Broadway and West End history, and why the cast album was the biggest selling album of all-time. It's one of the worst adaptations of a Broadway musical, ever. True, Julie would have helped it, but could she have saved it? Doubtful. Cukor's heavy-handed direction just bogs-down the entire thing.

Posted: 2/26/05 at 10:20am

"I know of two prominant posters who have serious problems with it. One HATES the ending, and the other much preferred the tone and direction of the original stage production."

And there's one of them now

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 11:44am

I think MY FAIR LADY is by farrrrrrrrrrrr the greatest film of a Broadway musical ever made. Every one of its numerous OSCARS including Best Picture was richly deserved.

Coming in second would likely be THE SOUND OF MUSIC followed by OLIVER.

But NOTHING is the MASTERPIECE that is the incredible film of

MY FAIR LADY, including an absolutely enchanting performance by Audrey Hepburn.

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 12:38pm

Why do you think that, Wish?

[twogaab2]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 12:56pm

I saw the origial production when it was revived in the 1970s. It had MUCH more sparkle and life than the movie version. I guess by the time they got to the movie it was such an institution that the felt they had to handle the property with kid golves. Compared to the original staging, the movie is VERY slow and just seems to drone on and on and on. The original choregraphy is much better and fits the character's emotions at the time. The dancing in the film just seems to be a lot of pointless jumping about. The cast if fine, esp. Harrison, the just don't seem to be given any real pacing. Very odd coming from Cuckor.

Just my opinion, I may be wrong, a lot of people enjoy this, but "Fair Lady" can be so much more fun than this. Something of a boched oppertunity.

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 1:07pm

Feodor, sorry, but I don't understand your question

Are you simply asking why I love the film of MY FAIR LADY? That would be the same reason why millions of others love it and it won eight Oscars, including Best Picture.

Cukor's MY FAIR LADY (George Cukor finally won a long overdue Oscar for directing this film) has delighted and enchanted millions of musical and movie lovers from its first frame to its last. In addition to its box office receipts, just a few years ago, the American Film Institute included MY FAIR LADY among the one hundred greatest films of all time.

I love this movie masterpiece with a passion. THE SOUND OF MUSIC, WEST SIDE STORY, and OLIVER all made for extraordinary films. (and coincidentally all won Oscars as Best Picture of the year) But for me,,,,MY FAIR LADY is at the top of the list of Broadway musicals transferred to film.

If anyone has not seen the film of MY FAIR LADY, do yourself a favor and surrender to its magic. It is an unforgettable joy.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 1:11pm

It is unforgettable **bad acting** in an OK film which could have been so much more with many songs that add nothing to it.

[BwayLover]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 1:15pm

I don't agree about Audrey's acting...but to each his own I guess. I think she is lovely in this movie (and in all her other movies), and even though she doesn't do her own singing, she was able to make the character her own.

That said, this is not my favorite movie musical - mainly because of, like was said earlier, its grandness.

[Marquise]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 3:18pm

i could understand some people not liking this movie. especially the newer generation, who are more accustomed to seeing musicals like "Rent", Urinetown", "Tick, Tick..Boom", "Wicked" and "Taboo".

to me the movie is okay. there are some genuinely funny moments in the film, especially before eliza's transformation. i like the interaction between professor higgins and colonel pickering while they are trying to turn eliza into a lady.

i think the score is one of the most beautiful scores ever written for a broadway show.

i think audrey was okay in the movie. she wasn't horrible. okay, she was dubbed but so was deborah kerr in "the king and i" and i have yet to read anyone ever complain about kerr's performance in that film.

i catch this one from time to time. i think the stand outs for me are rex harrison's performance, the great score and stanley holloway. "get me to the church on time" is one of the best production numbers in that film and his performance is a standout. Updated On: 2/26/05 at 03:18 PM

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 5:01pm

My issues with Audrey isn't that she was dubbed, but that her acting performance was so weak. She just stood around looking lovely. There is so much more to Eliza than that! Deborah Kerr in THE KING AND I is excellent in the role.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 5:32pm

Who CARES if someone is dubbed! It happens all the time in movie musicals, whether its a different actor, or the same actor lipsynching to their own voice. To say you don't like an actor's performance because they were dubbed makes you an idiot (not referring to anyone in particular). You CAN say, however, that an actor's lipsynching was horrible.

Marquise - I am unsure if your "newer generation" comment was directed at me or not (I am 19, for those that do not know). If it was - that is not why at all. Yes, I like WICKED and URINETOWN, however that does not mean I dislike classics. I love THE KING & I, HELLO DOLLY, FUNNY GIRL, WEST SIDE STORY, PETER PAN, BYE BYE BIRDIE, THE MUSIC MAN, GYPSY, MAME, etc.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:21pm

Let's get a new stage version of MY FAIR LADY--with Hugh Grant playing Higgins. (swoon!)

[Plum]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:21pm

I don't think Grant is nasty enough.

[Justice]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:28pm

Let's not forget to mention that Marni Nixon was one of the nuns in the Sound of Music with Julie Andrews.

I think it's a lovely film. I love the costumes, and, I'm sorry, but I find Hepburn's performance to be outstanding. I prefer her to Andrews (who was awful in Cinderella).

The only problem I have with the movie is that there was no choreography, with songs like "Get me To the Church", "I Could've Danced all Night", etc.

Posted: 2/26/05 at 11:09pm

Even though critical reviews are just one other opinion, I thought it would be interesting to share the New York Times' original review of the film:

MY FAIR LADY
By BOSLEY CROWTHER
Published: October 22, 1964

As Henry Higgins might have whooped, "By George, they've got it!" They've made a superlative film from the musical stage show My Fair Lady—a film that enchantingly conveys the rich endowments of the famous stage production in a fresh and flowing cinematic form. The happiest single thing about it is that Audrey Hepburn superbly justifies the decision of the producer, Jack L. Warner, to get her to play the title role that Julie Andrews so charmingly and popularly originated on the stage.

All things considered, it is the brilliance of Miss Hepburn as the Cockney waif who is transformed by Professor Henry Higgins into an elegant female facade that gives an extra touch of subtle magic and individuality to the film, which had a bejeweled and bangled premiere at the Criterion last night.

Other elements and values that are captured so exquisitely in this film are but artful elaborations and intensifications of the stage material as achieved by the special virtuosities and unique flexibilities of the screen.

There are the basic libretto and music of Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe, which were inspired by the wit and wisdom in the dramatic comedy Pygmalion of George Bernard Shaw. With Mr. Lerner serving as the screen playwright, the structure and, indeed, the very words of the musical play as it was performed on Broadway for six and a half years are preserved. And every piece of music of the original score is used.

There is punctilious duplication of the motifs and patterns of the decor and the Edwardian costumes and scenery, which Cecil Beaton designed for the stage. The only difference is that they're expanded. For instance, the Covent Garden set becomes a stunningly populated market, full of characters and movement in the film; and the embassy ball, to which the heroine is transported Cinderellalike, becomes a dazzling array of regal splendor, as far as the eye can reach, when laid out for ritualistic emphasis on the Super-Panavision color screen. Since Mr. Beaton's decor was fresh and flawless, it is super-fresh and flawless in the film.

In the role of Professor Higgins, Rex Harrison still displays the egregious egotism and ferocity that he so vividly displayed on the stage, and Stanley Holloway still comes through like thunder as Eliza's antisocial dustman dad.

Yes, it's all here, the essence of the stage show—the pungent humor and satiric wit of the conception of a linguistic expert making a lady of a guttersnipe by teaching her manners and how to speak, the pomp and mellow grace of a romantic and gone-forever age, the delightful intoxication of music that sings in one's ears.

The added something is what Miss Hepburn brings—and what George Cukor as the director has been able to distill from the script.

For want of the scales of a jeweler, let's just say that what Miss Hepburn brings is a fine sensitivity of feeling and a phenomenal histrionic skill. Her Covent Garden flower girl is not just a doxy of the streets. She's a terrifying example of the elemental self-assertion of the female sex. When they try to plunge her into a bathtub, as they do in an added scene, which is a wonderfully comical creation of montage and pantomime, she fights with the fury of a tigress. She is not one to submit to the still obscure customs and refinements of a society that is alien to her.

But when she reaches the point where she can parrot the correct words to describe the rain in Spain, she acknowledges the thrill of achieving this bleak refinement with an electrical gleam in her eyes. And when she celebrates the male approval she receives for accomplishing this goal, she gives a delightful demonstration of ecstasy and energy by racing about the Higgins mansion to the music of "I Could Have Danced All Night."

It is true that Marni Nixon provides the lyric voice that seems to emerge from Miss Hepburn, but it is an excellent voice, expertly synchronized. And everything Miss Hepburn mimes to it is in sensitive tune with the melodies and words.

Miss Hepburn is most expressive in the beautiful scenes where she achieves the manners and speech of a lady, yet fails to achieve that one thing she needs for a sense of belonging—that is, the recognition of the man she loves.

She is dazzlingly beautiful and comic in the crisply satiric Ascot scene played almost precisely as it was on the stage. She is stiffly serene and distant at the embassy ball and almost unbearably poignant in the later scenes when she hungers for love. Mr. Cukor has maneuvered Miss Hepburn and Mr. Harrison so deftly in these scenes that she has one perpetually alternating between chuckling laughter and dabbing the moisture from one's eyes.

This is his singular triumph. He has packed such emotion into this film—such an essence of feeling and compassion for a girl in an all too-human bind—that he has made this rendition of My Fair Lady the most eloquent and moving that has yet been done.

There are other delightful triumphs in it. Mr. Harrison's Higgins is great—much sharper, more spirited, and eventually more winning than I recall it on the stage. Mr. Holloway's dustman is titanic, and when he roars through his sardonic paean to middle-class morality in "Get Me to the Church on Time," he and his bevy of boozers reach a high point of the film.

Wilfrid Hyde-White as Colonel Pickering, who is Higgins's urbane associate, Mona Washburn as the Higgins housekeeper, Gladys Cooper as Higgins's svelte mama, and, indeed, everyone in the large cast is in true and impeccable form.

Though it runs for three hours—or close to it—this My Fair Lady seems to fly past like a breeze. Like Eliza's disposition to dancing, it could go on, for all I'd care, all night.

[bwaybaby891]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 11:13pm

I love the show but I don't like Audrey Hepburn as Eliza. She was beautiful and had a few really good moments but I prefer listening to the Original Cast Recording from the 50's with Julie Andrews. It is a good movie, Rex Harrison was amazing, but not one of the best movie musicals made.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 11:19pm

Like many Broadway-to-Hollywood transfers of the 1950s and '60s the film of MY FAIR LADY is enbalmed and lifeless, its intimacy hurt by the widescreen format and its glamour drained by the pale color. Hepburn seems disconnected from the role, and Harrison is even archer than usual. The only one who seems relaxed in his role is Stanley Holloway.

But then, I never forgave Harrison for driving Carol Landis to suicide.

[wildcat]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 11:23pm

That is the by far the best reason for not enjoying "My Fair Lady".

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 3/2/05 at 10:48am

DGrant, thank you sooooo very much for posting the New York Times review of MY FAIR LADY film......I of course, agree with the New York Times critic. I am saddened that some of the negative comments on this board,about this film masterpiece, may keep some folks from viewing this treasure.

I hope the members of this "site" who have not seen the MY FAIR LADY film will read the New York Times review and have this extraordinary viewing experience as part of their lives.

DGRANT, thanks again!

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 3/2/05 at 11:23am

All one need do is take a look at WEST SIDE STORY, released 3 years prior to MY FAIR LADY; and THE SOUND OF MUSIC (which is 40 years old, today, March 2, 2005), released 1 year after MFL, to see just how staid, dull, unimaginative and commonplace MFL was and is.

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/2/05 at 11:40am

If Audrey Hepburn's performance in MY FAIR LADY is considered bad acting, please, sweet mother of God, let me be a HORRIBLE actor.

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 3/2/05 at 11:59am

Robbiej, you are sooooo right! Her performance is simply enchanting. She deserved to be at least Oscar nominated and it is a shame she was not for this legendary performance.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 3/2/05 at 1:38pm

I LOVE this film.

I disagree with all the bashing. This film is enchanting to watch, and I have treasured it since my childhood.

It is not my favourite movie musical, but it is right up there.

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 3/2/05 at 1:46pm

paradox error, I am with you! I love this movie so very very much!