My Fair Lady

My Fair Lady, loosely based on George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalian was a film I saw recently, and I absolutely loved it, and I am 17. It wasn't just the acting, but also the overall look of the film and the music. Mind you, I saw the restored version.

The film looks exquisite, with stunning sets and truly luscious costumes. A prime example is the ballroom scene. Audrey Hepburn's dresses were also a marvel to look at. This was also helped by the superb cinematography, and the detailed direction, provided by George Cukor. The scene at the racetrack was one of my personal favourite scenes from the film. Oh, and the choreography is fabulous.

The script is witty and acerbic, with excellent scenes with the social commentary. The story is simple, but is well told, and fits the lengthy running time perfectly.

The music by Frederick Loewe is just outstanding. Asides from the costumes, the songs are ones that you hear once and never forget. Songs like I Could Have danced All Night, With a Little bit of Luck, Just You wait, Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? and Wouldn't it be Loverly linger long into the memory, and are a joy to the ear. I loved the incidental music at the beginning, then again I am the sort of person who is raised on classical music, and appreciates music for what it is.

The performances also added a lot to the film; Rex Harrison was just superb as the cynical, misanthropic Professor Henry Higgins, who transforms Eliza Doolittle to the woman she is at the end of the film. The Belgian actress Audrey Hepburn is perfectly enchanting as Eliza, and Marnie Nixon provides her singing voice beautifully.(yes she was dubbed, and Audrey Hepburn is not a slut) There is solid support from Stanley Holloway and Gladys Cooper, and watch out for Sherlock Holmes actor Jeremy Brett as Freddy.

In conclusion, a truly beautiful film, that deserved all the praise it got, it is an amazing film, that is misunderstood. It is also a perfect treat for around Easter time. Honestly, for those who think it is the worst movie ever made, see something like Home Alone 4, the only film I can think of that deserves a minus rating, that's how terrible that film is. My Fair Lady gets a 10/10 from me, Bethany Cox.

Marni Nixon's singing in both THE KING AND I and WEST SIDE STORY sounded purer to me than did her work in MY FAIR LADY; I thought this was fine, but somewhat thinner and less rich (the voice may well have thinned a little by then). It's lovely to hear Hepburn in "Just You Wait," as it comes as something of a surprise if you had thought all of her singing was dubbed, as I once had. The dubbing and acting do seem to come to a perfect luminous moment at least once: at the end of "I Could Have Danced All Night" it seems as if Audrey Hepburn is really singing it and gives the impression that possibly no one else ever had. It is possible that the best result might have been to let some of the other simpler songs, like "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" be done by Hepburn, and leave those obviously requiring a more technically accomplished singer to Nixon.

It is interesting that Hepburn's "Moon River" is not included on the old soundtrack of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. Similarly, I went to her memorial service at the 5th Avenue Presbyterian Church here in New York in 1993, and, uncannily, the entire program was listed EXCEPT that... all of a sudden they played her "Moon River" and the whole church became very emotionally charged. I think we were grateful that this let us experience our grief directly by forcing something immediate (but not cruel) on us like that.

I have always been glad anyway that Hepburn did the part and it is certainly the only real reason the film still has life--the controversy about her getting the part may have as much to do with that "life" as anything: it would be a mere artifact, a duplicate of the stage production had Julie Andrews been chosen. Andrews still seems primarily a stage star despite all the movies she made. Most of them are mediocre,a few of them quite good even if I haven't found them interesting myself: she is perfect in THE SOUND OF MUSIC, but the phenomenal appeal of this film is based on something considerably less sharp than what made the earlier Rodgers and Hammerstein masterpieces great-- even when they weren't quite as lavishly produced. Clearly, for example, the score of SOUTH PACIFIC is light-years beyond that of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Admittedly, Andrews's singing of the score is better than Mary Martin's was. And the voice you can still hear on the Broadway and London cast recordings of MY FAIR LADY is far more complex and rare than Nixon's is.

Still, she wouldn't have made the film unique: while it may or may not be a great film, it has managed to retain a one-of-a-kind quality, and is kept from being a mere facsimile.

It is certainly true that Ms. Nixon should have been credited for her work, whatever our other reservations are. I nevertheless think that some of the lighter opera voices of the time--maybe Anna Moffo or Mirella Freni--would have been better (I don't think Ms. Nixon was "too fine," but rather not quite as good here as she once had been.) Dubbing doesn't have to "match" all that perfectly; of course, certain examples--like Giorgio Tozzi for Rossano Brazzi as Emile de Becque do seem perfect. And if the case of MEETING VENUS is somewhat different, no one ever would dream of worrying about Kiri TeKanawa's voice not matching Glenn Close (Ms.Close unfortunately let us hear her real one doing Wagner on Entertainment Tonight when plugging the film--a harsh and strident moment...)

This is one of quite a number of cases in which the original star was controversially replaced. The strangest may be the rejection of Ethel Merman for GYPSY, although Rosalind Russell was excellent. The smartest may have been Barbra Streisand for Carol Channing for HELLO, DOLLY! She was high-voltage enough for the gargantuan production and her trumpet-like singing was magnificent--a number of us think this is her best film--and it ages fantastically. And, while it is not a matter of replacing a role originated by someone else, Hepburn herself was loudly denounced for BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S by Truman Capote; we think of the role as her indelible mark (and surely it is in some ways), but his preference for Marilyn Monroe could have unquestionably led to something extraordinary also--and maybe that idiotic ending that is so hard to overlook would have been replaced by the much more subtle and meaningful one Capote wrote.

It really is Audrey Hepburn who makes MY FAIR LADY continue to "do its work." And in it we may have well seen the most gloriously ripe moment of her incredible beauty.

My Fair Lady is a musical which is very witty. The dialogue is wonderful. The story begins as Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) makes a bet that he can transform flower girl Eliza Dolittle (Audrey Hepburn) into a high society lady. Henry Higgins is the perfect example of high society snobbery of the times. What he wasn't counting on was falling in love with his "project". Some people may find this film to be sexist but it is really quite the opposite. While it is about a sexist person it is not actually sexist at all. In fact it is all about the irony in the relationship between that of Eliza Dolittle and Henry Higgins. It is not unbelievable that Henry and Eliza should fall in love because they are not "compatible". Opposites often attract after all. Even though there is an anti-romantic disclaimer in the original play Pygmalion , it is obvious that Eliza and Higgins are meant for one another in the end of My Fair Lady. My Fair Lady is really different from Pygmalion. There is a movie version of Pygmalion which is the dull non-musical version of My Fair Lady. Rex Harrison is simply wonderful as Henry Higgins. He is not one bit tired with his role. And even though Julie Andrews originated the role of Eliza on Broadway, Audrey Hepburn is great in the role. It would be unfair to say that she didn't deserve the role just because her voice was dubbed. The supporting cast is first rate as well. This film is more than just good, it is great. If you have not seen it yet you certainly should!

*****/ ***** stars

I've seen MY FAIR LADY several times. However, it wasn't until last night that I finally saw the 1938 version of PYGMALION and this was very interesting indeed. It seems that MY FAIR LADY is actually NOT based on the George Bernard Shaw play as much as it's based on the Leslie Howard movie. That's because the dialog (particularly Henry Higgins') is often word-for-word that of the film. Additionally, both films have the same ending--one that is NOT the same as the original play. In the play, the ending was more sad but also much more realistic and consistent with the characters and their growth (or lack thereof in the case of Henry Higgins).

Quality-wise, both films are superb and I enjoyed them immensely. One very obvious difference is that MY FAIR LADY is a musical with lovely songs, so it's a much longer movie. Another is that although Leslie Howard did a very fine job, somehow Rex Harrison came off as grouchier and more entertaining in the lead. Another major difference is that MY FAIR LADY feels more like a comedy and PYGMALION feels much more sad and deeper emotionally. Because it is a bright and colorful musical, the characters in MY FAIR LADY seem a bit less real, but with PYGMALION you are almost brought to tears late in the film.

My recommendation is that you see them both. Both are exquisitely produced and acted and you can't go wrong with either one. I could say more in my review about this film, but considering that there are already a zillion other reviews, I'll end it here.

UPDATE--Only days after posting this review, I got quite a few "not helpfuls". I assume this is from fans who adored this 1964 film. Well, my response is that it can't merit anything more than an 8 because the dialog was directly lifted from the earlier film AND so much of the singing was NOT done by the stars themselves. To me, these are flaws that prevent the film from earning a higher score. And, while I think about it, cannot justify the many 10s I see for the film.

I have read in a great many places (including the IMDb) that Henry Higgins is a misogynist. It has also been said that the film is a misogynist's fairy tale. Anyone saying this has clearly not watched this film too closely.

First, Higgins is not a misogynist. A misogynist hates women. What Higgins is, in reality, is a misanthrope. A misanthrope basically dislikes and distrusts everyone! Watch the film and you'll notice that Higgins treats everyone with the same disregard-Col. Pickering, Eliza's father, his own mother-everyone receives his rather cynical disdain. Some of the minor characters come off being treated worse than the principals do. It's simply more noticeable with Eliza because it's more frequent, it's newer with Eliza because the other principal characters have known Higgins longer and thus take it in stride. The myth that Higgins is a misogynist is perpetuated by the song, "Why Can't A Woman Be More Like a Man?".

Second, it can hardly be called a misogynist's fairy tale. If that were the case, I doubt Alfred Doolittle would have cause to sing, "Get Me To the Church On Time", as he'd hardly be getting married. His life is just as "ruined" as Eliza's by his encounters with Higgins, just as altered as her life has been.

This is a great musical, a good movie and it was even better as the original play by Shaw. Well worth seeing. Recommended.