(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Can't quite decide what is more headach inducing - shopping or setting up my parents new DTV. Probably the later. DTV's just aren't made with the over-60 set in mind and lets leave it at that.

Saw My Fair Lady last night - quite a lovely production at the local Repertory Theater. Was rather impressed by it. Particularly by the actor portraying Professor Henry Higgins - who managed to make me forget Rex Harrison completely - a mean feat that.

Forgotten what a deft social satirist Shaw, and to a degree Lerner and Lowe who adapted Shaw's play into a musical - truly were. There are a few songs that skewer the English caste system or rather the English attitude towards it. Specifically: Why Can't The English Teach Their Children To Speak, Wouldn't It Be Loverly, and A Little Bit of Luck. As Higgins states to Eliza at the end - the trick is to treat everyone the same regardless of their station, race, creed what have you. For Higgins that is to treat everyone as if they are idiots are several rows beneath him, for Pickering that is to treat everyone as if they are his equal.

In some respects, Lerner and Lowe were more romantically inclined than Shaw, and a bit less heavy handed. Terry Prachett tries his hand at satire, but I'm not sure he pulls it off quite as astutely as George Bernard Shaw, Jonathan Swift,
et al. But then, my difficulty with Prachett is the constant, non-stop, overly invasive punnery - complete with footnotes explaining the puns, just in case you were dense and did not spot them. Bernard Shaw while preachy seemed to be a bit more subtle. Course it's been a while since I've read Shaw...or Prachett for that matter..and my memory being what it is...[ETA: Having just watched the 1930's Gabriel Pascale, film Pygmallion starring Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller, and written by George Bernard Shaw, based on Shaw's own play of the same name, I can state that the musical's dialogue is word for word the same as the play. The endings are the same. The only differences are time period (early 1900s vs. 1930s), actors, musical numbers and a few minor changes ...that's it. In some respects, the musical is funnier, and far more entertaining, but that may just be because by the time I watched the film again - I knew the dialogue by heart.]

Weather is mild, clear, and lovely down here. No complaints. Rather dreading going back to the icy snow-bound north...apparently Long Island had white out conditions last week? Lovely.

Comments

[annegables.livejournal.com]

Wow - always appreciate running into people who can discuss Lerner and Lowe versus Shaw. I agree with your opinions - was always amazed how people could not see the satire in My Fair Lady. Just looked at it as a romantic costume drama.

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that I just don't care for My Fair Lady, it's like dipping a cactus in chocolate. Pygmalion I adore, especially all the jabs all the social classes and the view of women as inferior. Shaw wrote the screenplay and won an Oscar for it. Leslie Howard will always be my Henry Higgins, cold, calculating and determined to always get his own way no matter who he trods on to get it.

Btw, traditionally put in the "Romance" genre, Shaw never intended Pygmalion to be so. In an epilogue for the play that never came into the light, he writes that Eliza and Freddy do get married. So all the Lerner and Lowe romantic scenes are not what Shaw had in mind.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. I'm a big time theater geek.

I agree with your opinions - was always amazed how people could not see the satire in My Fair Lady. Just looked at it as a romantic costume drama.

Me too. But then thinking about it...I recalled a story my aunt told me a few months back - how people think differently. Some people just can't see the metaphors behind words or visualize words. They can't see context or subtext - that's lost on them. But they can explain in detail how a car is put together or the batting average of all the baseball players last year.
It boggles my mind how differently people think. That it is possible for two people to watch the same tv show or play and see completely different things.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ehh...mileage varies?

Interestingly enough...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The musical version is adapted from the Gabriel Pascale/Leslie Howard Pygmallion, which was written by George Bernard Shaw. Shaw hated all the previous versions but adored this one.

I just watched the Leslie Howard film Pygmallion, written by Bernard Shaw, and produced by Gabriel Pascale and co-directed by Leslie Howard- which is word for word the same as My Fair Lady. The ending is EXACTLY the same as the ending of My Fair Lady. The ONLY variations are as follows:

1. the musical numbers and dance numbers (which are often satirical and use Shaw's words)
2. the setting - which is turn of the century/late Victorian (musical ) as opposed to 1930s (film).
3. They go to Ascot to try her out as opposed to his mother's. (the film - they never go to the horse races, which in some respects is funnier and more satirical than the tea session at his mother's)
4. more time is spent at the ball and we see the Hungarian announce it - while in the musical they tell us in a song, but it is the same dialogue
5. More time is spent showing us how they train her to become a duchess - the play does this quicker.
6. One is in black and white, the other in technocolor.
7. The actors

That's it. The romance is intact. The lines are the same.

Howard is actually younger than Harrison. And prettier.
Bernard Shaw wanted Charles Laughton to play Higgins, but Pascale convinced him to go with maintenee idol Howard who is younger. Harrison had to audition for the part in My Fair Lady, even though he owned the stage role, because he was 56 at the time, which they felt may be too old for the part - which was written for a man in his 30s.

So, while the Freddie/Eliza bit may have been in the written play - Shaw chose not to include it in his screenplay for the film version, instead George Bernard Shaw chose to have Eliza and Higgins end up together...and that is the version that the musical is based up on.

Re: Interestingly enough...

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Interesting! And thanks for that.

Re: Interestingly enough...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

You're welcome - I've also discovered, because my parents own the original Broadway record of the stage musical - that the original starred Julie Andrews (it was her first stage musical - she was in her 20s at the time).

Apparently Lerner and Lowe are American, and the musical was first peformed on Broadway - then migrated to London. It was considered the most successful musical ever at the time. (first performed in 1959). The musical unlike the play or film version of the play, takes place in 1912, while the play and film version of the play upon which it was based took place in the 1930s.

Julie Andrews wanted the role but much like Camelot, was overlooked for more established film actresses such as Audrey Hepburn and Vanessa Redgrave (Camelot).
Both of which were dubbed by Marnie Nixon (who also dubbed Natalie Wood for West Side Story). Hepburn and Wood complained, because they'd hired voice coaches and believed they could successfully sing their roles, but the studio disagreed.

The stage version of the musical is actually oddly better or I enjoyed it more - it's funnier for one thing and there's a lot more dancing. Doolittle's antics at Higgins office are hilarious on stage, yet understated in both film versions. If you ever get the chance - I highly recommend seeing either on stage.

Re: Interestingly enough...

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

I'd also recommend the Shaw Festival (http://www.shawfest.com/), which is held every year in Niagara On The Lake, Ontario. I've been there several times and the performances are world class.