Mi bella dama

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.

... that being the late 50s to the late 60s. They don't particularly age well .Looking back on them in the context of the 1960s they seem downright anachronistic. . At least this film is not offensive. Gigi, which won Best Picture of 1958, has a young woman's relatives trying to turn her into a prostitute, from which she wisely figures out there is no coming back, while Maurice Chevalier musically ogles little girls from the shelter of the bushes. That one didn't age well in a bunch of ways.

This one has fabulous music, magnificent art design, quite a bit of great dry humor, and perfect casting - except I really wish James Cagney had taken the part of Eliza's father. It would have made a great bookend for his film career. The direction is perfectly on target for late career George Cukor. He won Best Director Oscar for this and didn't make another film for five years.

Rex Harrison certainly deserved his Best Actor Oscar as misanthropic phoneticist Henry Higgins. He is both stern and humorous, his vocals in both song and word are alive and nothing less than perfect. Also, Wilfrid Hyde-White as Pickering adds a great deal to the film, and I appreciate him more on successive viewings.

Thus it is hard to give a film with such great production values less than a 7/10. I have a couple of problems with it. First, it is just too long. Clocking in at two hours and fifty minutes, there is just too much movie for too little story. Pygmalian, starring Leslie Howard, was perfect at ninety minutes, and I actually prefer that film to this one. Second, I don't like the resolution because there isn't one. After all of that squabbling at Higgins' mother's house, after Higgins realizing he has "grown accustomed to her face", the end is just a let down. Had it gone on any longer it would have become Season Four of Moonlighting.

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.

I first saw this film when I was eight years old, after receiving it as a first communion present from my mother. For months I watched the movie on an almost daily basis, and it was quickly a favorite. I thought it was absolute perfection.

Now that I am a bit older.. I notice that is does have quite a few flaws. It doesn't really capture the essence of Shaw's Pygmalion, but I don't think that should really take away from the movie; they should be treated as separate entities. Some of the sets are a little, well, cramped, but consider what they had to work with, they did a pretty good job.

And then there is the dubbing issue. I recently special on MFL on AMC, and they showed "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" and "Show Me" with Audrey's voice, and though Audrey may not have the perfect melodic voice of Marni Nixon, her voice was much more "Eliza". I really do think they should have just used her voice. If you watch "Funny Face", you get a good feel for voice, which I think is beautiful in a unconventional way.

Then, there is the question of whether Julie Andrews should have played Eliza in the film version of MFL. I've gone back and forth on this issue. Now, Audrey Hepburn is my favorite actress of all time, and Julie Andrews is a close runner-up, so it really is hard to "choose". Of course Julie's voice is much better than even Marni Nixon's... but like I said before, I don't think a perfect singing voice really would suit Eliza. And as for which would play a better Eliza overall.. I really don't know. I wasn't alive to see MFL on Broadway, so I really can't compare the two. What I do know is that Audrey gave an amazing performance. Anyway, as someone else said, if Julie had played Eliza, who would have played Mary Poppins? ;)

There's a lot of negative things been said about Audrey Hepburn's interpretation of the role of Eliza. Perhaps she's not ideal in the earliest scenes of the movie - her "dirtiness" is never quite believable - but it has to be said that despite this smallish drawback she still glows, and makes an amazing Eliza overall.

The reason for this is simple; Audrey Hepburn brings her "own spark of divine fire", (to quote Higgins) to the role and her vulnerability, mixed with her sweet, naive charm and even her wonderfully juvenile pettishness shown in "Just You Wait" all prove what a talented actress she really is. For an example of this, just watch Eliza's facial expression at Ascot, when she realises her opportunity to demonstrate her new-found mastery of the English tongue - sweetly hilarious.

MFL has been criticized as being too romanticized, too overblown. I disagree; musicals are suposed to be lavish affairs, and none pull it off quite so well as "My Fair Lady" does. It's a momentous film but it has its subtle points: watch the way in which Eliza's eyes are centred on Higgins when she enters at the ball, and the way in which the two of them stare at each other for a few seconds at the top of the stairs a few moments later.

It musn't be overlooked that, thanks to its being based on a Bernard Shaw play, "My Fair Lady" has what the great majority of musicals lack: a deeper meaning and something really quite profound to say.

The actor in the role of Colonel Pickering is a little weak, but it must be said that Rex Harrison IS Henry Higgins. In a lot of ways (in fact, in most ways) Higgins has an objectionable personality: rude, snobbish, impatient and even misogynistic, but somehow Rex Harrison pulls it all off and makes us like Higgins without betraying the character. As to romance, his song "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" is an ode to the kind of love which sneaks up on you. Overall, this movie is romantic, but not too sentimental. It has just enough romance to be dramatically fulfilling, but it never becomes soppy or mawkish. The word "love" is never mentioned at all and the two leads never even kiss. The famous end sequence is perfect and does the movie justice; after all, a big happy bow tied around a perfect romance at the end would simply not fit with everything we have learned about the two protagonists.