Loopin’theloop said: "bk said: "I think this Higgins as complete monster malarky is a product of now, of today's stuff. No one thought he was a monster when My Fair Lady opened. Oh, some will tell you they did and that would be a boatload of BS. This is all people who can't deal with context, in this case both when My Fair Lady was written, and the era in which it takes place. As I said in the other thread, there's a very easy way to stage the final sequence just as its written by not following the stage directions but by giving your actors something fun to play - it would work perfectly and satisfy everyone. But all this analyzing is strictly from 2018 and I find THAT a bore."
The fact that in 1960s people were more accepting of abuse doesn’t make ok.
Theatre is always seen through the lens of the time in which it is produced. That is no different to the original production of ‘My Fair Lady’. The Shaw ending was changed so that it was more palpable for an audience, hungry for a sentimental musical comedy ending. They chose to go that way, not for arts sake but to be more commercially viable.
You cant do a production of a Shakespeare play, completely untouched by modern ideas and set within its original time frame and hope to give the audience, the same experience as the original audience had. It’s impossible because the plays were written to speak to people of the time. That is why so many productions of Shakespeare’s work are radically adapted, sometimes yes it’s be use directors Luke to be different but the good theatre makers are making these changes so that the play can seem as resonant and immediate now as it was then. The other choice is to allow the play to become a museum piece but that isn’t what they were written for.
The question of the end of ‘My Fair Lady’ is no different. The original ending was written so that it appealed to the audience of the time but by leaving it as it is, you cannot hope to do the same in 2018. The authors intent was to have the ending give the audience what they want, you cannot honour that intent by leaving the work unmoved by the time. If the show was written, purely as aperiod piece with no condensations made for a 60s audience, then the show should be left alone but it want.
So the choice is, leave it as a period piece or try and give yourself present day audience the experience the original production gave its audiences. And to do that, you take the same steps Alan Jay Lerner and the his collaborators took back then.
Everything you post involves some degree of self praise. You did the album better. You know how to direct young people. You directed a college production that didn’t make any changes to the text and everyone thought it was wonderful. Either you have no self awareness or you don’t care that people know your actual identity and how much of a conceited, if faded would be A list player you are. If you have an idea that makes the ending work, then why are you repeatedly mentioning it without actually saying what it is?"
You almost got away with this until you started making with the insults and made your intentions clear. You have obviously been following all my posts here so one immediately has one's suspicions, oh, yes, one has one's suspicions because tone and style are so very hard to disguise. BTW, My Fair Lady wasn't written in the 1960s so your theatre history is as interesting as your insults - it tells everyone everything they need to know about you. And My Fair Lady IS a period piece both in its writing and the time in which it is set. Good try, though.
Updated On: 3/20/18 at 03:20 PM
"
