Posted: 5/28/18 at 11:58am
My Fair Lady..............anyone care to share the "new" ending of MFL at the Beaumont........what does Eliza do and what does Higgins do? Especially after the line: "where the devil are my slippers?". Just wondering how the "new" ending worked for you. Put "spoiler alert" in your response if you do not want others to know how the final moments go. Just curious how you liked the ending.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 12:04pm
I loved it. I thought it worked brilliantly.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 12:46pm
much has already been written about this both on the reviews thread and on a special thread dedicated to the ending.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 12:47pm
I thought it was ridiculous. Comparable to those 19th Century theatre managers who gave Hamlet a happy ending.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 12:48pm
Posted: 5/28/18 at 1:00pm
I likely won't get a chance to see it until it tours, but from the descriptions I'm not thrilled with the change. There are certainly more subtle ways to make it clear to the audience that Eliza has no intention of fetching his slippers.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 1:20pm
yfs, can you explain how this new ending is so ridiculous, if it jibes with Shaw's original ending. Unless you can find evidence that Shakespeare originally wrote a happy ending to Hamlet or that he based his version on an earlier play in which Hamlet lived but Shakespeare felt that ending was a sop to popular, sentimental cliches then I don't see the analogy.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 1:36pm
Full thread already on this topic: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1108085
Posted: 5/28/18 at 1:46pm
I noticed that there's somewhat of a generational and a serious gender gap when it comes to the reactions to the ending. The biggest gap separating those who like the ending and those who do not is between those who have seen the production and ending in context with the rest of this production and those who did not.
Those who only read or heard about it (and may fit into the other descriptions I posted) tend to not like it while others who actually saw the show tend to think it really works. It was clear in the other threads when two posters kept making nasty comments about the ending that the more they posted the more obvious it was that they did not actually see the production. Heck, even one reaction from a poster who usually lectures people for not being a "true" progressive like he is for not attacking religion (especially a particular religion) like he does posted negatively about this ending because he claimed it made Eliza ungrateful to Henry as if she should be stuck with him forever out of obligation and, as a woman, should lose all her freedom and agency. I do think this discussion is very illustrative and useful for gay men and how they perceive women but I won't get into it too deeply here.
Now that I've seen videos of "compromised" endings like with the Martine McCutcheon and Vincent Pryce's ending where Eliza puts her hand on her hips and looks "sassy" or heard descriptions of another production where Eliza and Higgins transition into being at a dinner table laughing and raising a glass just seem far from satisfying compared to the extremely poignant and affectionate and yet empowering ending Sher went with here. Also, the ending is ambiguous enough to not make a final statement regarding Higgins and Eliza and Freddy. The only definite statement is on Eliza herself. This production shifted focus back on Eliza and thank God it did. It was a shift I did not know I needed until I saw it and I realized how much we all needed that.
Updated On: 5/28/18 at 01:46 PM
Posted: 5/28/18 at 1:53pm
It was an unhappy ending in a sociological sense, but true to its time. Most, I think appreciated and comprehended that. But if making Eliza an early women' libber...
Posted: 5/28/18 at 4:50pm
Personally, I think the show's focus has always been on Eliza, since it first became a show, and find it difficult to comprehend how anyone could think the focus was ever anywhere else.
Posted: 5/28/18 at 10:27pm
oxnfree said: "yfs, can you explain how this new ending is so ridiculous, if it jibes with Shaw's original ending. Unless you can find evidence that Shakespeare originally wrote a happy ending to Hamlet or that he based his version on an earlier play in which Hamlet lived but Shakespeare felt thatending was a sop to popular, sentimental cliches then I don't see the analogy."
If Shaw had written "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" then I think you would have a point,. But I don't believe he did. Lerner and Loewe clearly adapted Shaw's play in a specific way altering certain basic elements to suit their purpose. By grafting Shaw's ending onto Lerner and Loewe's adaptation, the production serves neither -- it just tries to impose a fashionable (if valid) point of view on a work that has a different point of view. Which is, I think, a ridiculous thing to do.
Posted: 5/29/18 at 2:54am
yfs said: "If Shaw had written "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" then I think you would have a point,. But I don't believe he did. Lerner and Loewe clearly adapted Shaw's play in a specific way altering certain basic elements to suit their purpose. By graftingShaw's ending onto Lerner and Loewe's adaptation, the production serves neither -- it just tries to imposea fashionable (if valid) point of view on a work that has a different point of view. Which is, I think, a ridiculous thing to do."
Well, if we're being technical, Shaw did write "I've grown accustomed to her face," as a line of dialogue. I think the ending of this production fits marvelously because it fits with the rest of the story far more than the tacked-on ending that Shaw completely disavowed.
Posted: 5/29/18 at 6:12am
yfs said: "oxnfree said: "yfs, can you explain how this new ending is so ridiculous, if it jibes with Shaw's original ending. Unless you can find evidence that Shakespeare originally wrote a happy ending to Hamlet or that he based his version on an earlier play in which Hamlet lived but Shakespeare felt thatending was a sop to popular, sentimental cliches then I don't see the analogy."
If Shaw had written "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" then I think you would have a point,. But I don't believe he did. Lerner and Loewe clearly adapted Shaw's play in a specific way altering certain basic elements to suit their purpose. By graftingShaw's ending onto Lerner and Loewe's adaptation, the production serves neither -- it just tries to imposea fashionable (if valid) point of view on a work that has a different point of view. Which is, I think, a ridiculous thing to do
"
Lerner & Loewe imposed a fashionable ending onto the story, just as you say the new production does. The musical’s ending, as written was created specifically because it was felt the audience of the period wanted it. It wasn’t born from a long and tormented artistic struggle, two very accomplished theatre makers simply choice an ending that would be a hit. Changing the ending today, in order that it be more inline with today’s tastes is the exact same thing.
You might wish to argue that it’s problematic because the original creators didn’t make the change but the change itself but that’s a different issue.
Posted: 5/29/18 at 6:13am
Shaw apparently had a few endings- he seems to have added a new ending at some point- not sure of all the history- but there are multiple endings written by Shaw. Regardless- the ending at Lincoln Center- to m- was perfect and believable- I left with the distinct impression that Eliza had had enough of her arrogant teacher- and was leaving him- though she clearly had learned a lot from him. He won his bet- she gained a lot, too- and now it was time to move on. That is what I thought, anyway. Loved it- and thought it was a perfect ending.
