My Fair Lady

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 11:46am

so I had never seen the stage show or the movie musical and i went to go see a regional production in san diego last night (another Starlight musical production with the damn airplanes!) i knew a few songs and not much else about the music... i also knew the basic outline of the plot... and i found myself very much enjoying it... i sat there for a while wondering why it was loved by so many people and as it progressed i could see why... anyways... i have a question... the musical seemed fairly long and i am always a fidgety sitter... i always have to move around no matter if the show is interesting or boring... the first act was an hour and a half and it ended with eliza going to the embassy ball... it felt like a rather boring act 1 finale... and then i went to wikipedia and then IMDB and learned they actually do go to the ball... i also learned it was how act 1 ended (but i also read that it's also how act 2 began).... i am going to assume this regional production decided to shorten the act because of the damn airplanes or they felt the act 2 song pretty much explained everything (but i still don't know why they would cut it if it's considered the perfect musical)...

my question anyways is if they were to keep that scene in, how does the show actually end and what's the "cliffhanger" or hook that keeps the audience waiting for the next act

[Patash]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 2:26pm

What you saw is often done with the production. I presume Act I ended as Eliza has been helped with her coat or cape by Higgins and they all sweep out the door on the way to the ball. Honestly, I kind of like that ending to Act I. Then Act II starts when they return to the house from the ball and Pickering and Higgins sing You Did It and tell what happened at the ball.

The scene cut is actually at the ball and includes a waltz number (The Embassy Waltz). There's a bit of a scene of people entering and being introduced and then Eliza's grand entrance and presentation to the Queen of Transylvania who pronounces her "charming". We see the skeptic checking her out and Higgins and Pickering nervous about her passing as a lady. It's all the stuff they tell in You Did It opening Act II. Frankly, I always like the production better where we don't see that, we only hear about it.

The ball scene is sometimes cut for budget reasons (huge set and lots of costumes), or to help with the length of the show. But I frankly think it is a rather unnecessary scene and destroys the opening to Act II which becomes boring as we hear about what we already saw.
Updated On: 8/16/08 at 02:26 PM

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 2:35pm

thanks for that info... but do you know what makes the curtain drop or what's that moment that ends the first act when they decide to do that scene?

[Patash]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 3:24pm

Well in one production when I was playing Pickering, the actual cue for the curtain drop was when Higgins and Pickering make an "OK" aknowledgement facially to each other -- knowing it's going well. The dance is going on at that time, and the curtain comes down with the dancers swirling around and of course a spotlight on Eliza. It's not a big musical finale or anything, the music continues on as the curtain falls.

I've also seen the curtain come down just as Zoltan Karpathy (the linguist skeptic) is just about to start dancing with Eliza. I guess that is supposed to leave it as a little more of a cliffhanger -- will she be discovered or not?
Updated On: 8/16/08 at 03:24 PM

[timote316]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 3:35pm

I'm in a production now, and our Act I ends with the trio going off to the ball. Act Two opens with "The Embassy Waltz". No lines or anything, the queen's entrance and approval of Eliza is done under the music, followed by a waltz (in which Eliza dances with the prince), then the curtain falls (at the conclusion of the waltz). Higgins and Pickering sing "You Did It" in front of the curtain, which is hiding the set change (which finishes in time for the servant chorus to come in with their portion of the song). It's a very effective cut, I think, letting the audience see the ball, but without the recap by Higgins and Pickering.
Updated On: 8/16/08 at 03:35 PM

[Patash]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 3:40pm

"It's a very effective cut, I think, letting the audience see the ball, but without the recap by Higgins and Pickering."

I'm curious what you mean by "without the recap". Are you saying they don't do You Did It? To me that number is the recap.

[timote316]

Posted: 8/16/08 at 4:31pm

I meant that Higgins and Pickering would be presenting new information to the audience, even if it could have been assumed, as opposed to just recapping what the audience just saw, only in song.

[Friendofethelm]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 6:12am

The original Act One ending of MY FAIR LADY and the one in the published script is, indeed, Zoltan Karpathy dancing with Eliza Doolittle at the Embassy Ball as Higgins and Pickering look on. The idea was to leave the audience wondering if she would pass the "Karpathy test" or fail as she did at Ascot.

[HamletWasBipolar]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:54am

Having been in a professional production of My Fair Lady, a pro production cannot pick and choose where cuts are made. The book is the book, and not open to interpretation for legal reasons without special permission.

[Patash]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 10:04am

Let me rephrase my description of ending with Pickering and Higgins doing a nod, or ending with Zoltan Karpathy starting to dance with Eliza. Both are essentially the same. When I described the curtain cue in our production, it was as Karpathy goes to Eliza. The "look" that the director wanted the audience to see before the curtain coming down was a confident "everything's OK" from Higgins, and a questioning "Oh, my God, what if she is going to be found out" from Pickering. Such a subtle addition from a director may or may not be apparent, but in our case the director wanted that extra little touch (no words spoken). That kind of subtlety is NOT an infraction of the licensing agreement to do the play, any more that changing the inflection of a spoken line (not the words) might be used to indicate a different feeling between two different productions -- that sort of thing is simply interpretation, not changing.

HamletwasBipolar is right, of course, that you can't cut out scenes or change dialogue legally. There is some leeway I believe that might allow the director to bring down the curtain on the exit of Higgins and Eliza going to the ball, and bringing it up again for Act II as the ball is starting. That doesn't change anything in the script, only the timing of the curtain. I'm not sure if that is considered an infringement or not.
Meanwhile, let me say that I have seen a major national tour of My Fair Lady in which the entire ballroom scene was cut and Act I did end with Eliza going off to the ball. Whether they had approval to do it or not, I'm not sure, but it seems likely they would have to, to do such a major cut.

Similarly, I do know that many productions of many old three act plays, now find a suitable point in the middle of Act II for a single intermission instead of having two. Today's audiences just can't stand two intermissions. Whether that is an infraction of the rights I don't really know.
Updated On: 8/17/08 at 10:04 AM

[Friendofethelm]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 12:09pm

Changing the act breaks of a play or musical not in the public domain is an infringement of copyright. Period. To do so without getting express permission from the leasing organization or the author's estate puts that production in danger of being shut down.

Why? Well, the author(s) of any well-constructed three-act play, particularly comedies, very carefully place(s) the act breaks at moments of suspense or after an important plot twist. Look at the act breaks of "The Man Who Came to Dinner" or "Arsenic and Old Lace", for example. Plunking one intermission into the second act of those plays and their contemporaries will diminish, if not ruin, them. If a theatre or a director thinks that audiences won't tolerate two intermissions, fine. Do a two-act play. But to screw around with a play's structure without permission is unwise and prohibited.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 2:44pm

i would assume the starlight is a professional production... it's pretty much san diego's civic light opera... so maybe they did get permission to cut that scene... eh... a part of me was glad it was cut... the first act was already long and the airplanes only made it go longer!

[Patash]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 3:06pm

friendofthelm, I won't argue the legality of it, as I said I didn't know.

But I think you're wrong about one thing. People change. Plays written 50 years ago were written for audiences of 50 years ago. What worked for suspense or plot development then, simply does NOT always work the same today. Playwrights in the 30's and 40's didn't write in three acts because the play needed to be told that way -- they did it because it was the custom -- nearly all plays had three acts and the audience expected two intermissions. Times change. It has become almost standard in You Can't Take It With you to present it in two acts with one intermission. The break comes as the Kirbys enter. It is a great curtain scene. And a great place to kick off Act II. Would Kaufman and Hart object if they knew today's audiences which are vastly different from their own? I sincerely doubt it. One thing about theatre is that it is not always static. It is open to new interpretations and a production of a show that worked 50 years ago clearly may not work today. Again, it may be "illegal" to change that break, but I can tell you it DOES make the play better for today's audiences. Pure and simple.

If times and audiences didn't change we'd all still be doing Shakespeare with four intermissions just the way the playwright intended them to be done.
Updated On: 8/17/08 at 03:06 PM

[Friendofethelm]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 8:43pm

This is a very interesting subject to me. You're right, Patash. Times and audiences do change. That's why the three-act play became out of fashion and the two-act form came in. Now, we seem to be entering a time when plays are becoming shorter and someday no intermission may become the norm. Should we then do all the two-act plays without a break and edit them accordingly? Playwrights may not have freely chosen the act structure for their work, but the good ones designed their plots and act breaks with that structure in mind. Every production of YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU that I've seen was in three acts and works beautifully. When I see one that breaks as the Kirbys enter, I'll let you know what I think of it. As for Shakespeare, I'm not an expert, but I believe the scenes and act breaks were put in when the plays were published, years after they were first written and performed. If anyone knows how many intermissions were customary in Elizabethan times, or if indeed there were formal intermissions, I'd be curious to know. Anyway, changing the act breaks in 20th century plays is certainly less heinous than cutting scenes like the Embassy Ball in MY FAIR LADY and I'm sure theatres do get away with it. But I'm still not sure it's such a good idea.

[Friendofethelm]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 9:05pm

Oh, one more thing. If anyone ever argues that the placement of an intermission is a trivial thing and doesn't change a show, I always use this example. I was involved in a local production of WEST SIDE STORY in my youth and the director convinced everyone that ending Act One with the Tonight Quintet would greatly improve the show! You can imagine the arguments: Act One is too long, the Quintet ends the act with excitement and the audience wondering what will happen at the rumble, the deaths are too downbeat to end the act that way, etc. Well, we did it and boy, did we bomb! When authors write a musical, the act break is almost always one of the first and most crucial things they decide on. Change it and you flirt with disaster.

[walkedthroughmany]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 10:24pm

Hmm. I've never seen "My Fair Lady" without the embassy waltz. I've always seen act one end with them leaving for the ball, and act two pick up as they arrive.

Did that become the customary thing to do when the movie came out? I'm pretty sure that's how they cut it in the movie.

[Patash]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 10:47pm

Yes, I think you are right now that I think about it. The film put the intermission where she was going to the ball and Act II opens with the arrival at the ball.

By the way, when was the last movie with an intermission?
Updated On: 8/17/08 at 10:47 PM

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 11:29pm

oh i also thought the act 1 finale was actually eliza doing her faux pas at the race... that would've made a good finale... eh or maybe not... whatever... in fact a lot of people thought it was the finale and they started getting up to leave! haha

[timote316]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 1:13am

I'm confused - where was the intermission originally placed?


By the way, when was the last movie with an intermission?
Completely off-topic, but the last movie I saw with an intermission was "Gods and Generals", back in 2003.