Threaded Order Chronological Order
| My Fair Lady yesterday | |
| Posted by: pagates 10:18 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I saw this for the second time yesterday (I'm a fan of Benanti). The first time was last year with the original cast, and I thought it was terrific. Then, although it took until The Rain in Spain to lift off and achieve "theater magic," it sustained nicely afterward, and I found the "new" ending worked for me, giving a sort of sense to the story for our time. But this cast, this current iteration, is something else again. They create one of the great productions I've ever seen. While I always loved so many of the particulars of this show, I've long felt MFL was problematic in how it asks us to embrace the leads' love fantasy in face of their conflicts. When I was in grade school as the show made its first appearance, it was easy enough, I suppose, to accept that the romance between Higgins and Eliza was all it was about, and in particular that he would prevail in spite of himself. The man always did, didn't he? The intervening half century has shown how difficult it is to make good sense of that resolution. And to be honest, the text always seemed ambiguous on the point anyway. The new cast in this production aims for the joy of the story immediately and it lifts off promptly, building to a glorious peak at the first act curtain. The second act carries it forward appropriately as it opens. But quite soon (as the embassy ball ends) the gaps between the realities of the diverse worlds the characters inhabit and the fantasy worlds they (and we) want them to live in begin to open up. Ultimately the new ending puts paid to the truths of the conflicts among Edwardians and the whole show now provides a moving study of the pathos inherent in their contrasting experiences across their rigid class and gender roles. Shaw's insights, wisdom and conviction are wittily and emotionally intensified by Lerner and Lowe and vivified by this production which is keenly human and humane having been created by a glorious blend of cast, creators and crew. I think it usefully unveils how much closer we are to the Edwardian world than we like to imagine. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: My Fair Lady yesterday | |
| Posted by: jeffef 01:39 pm EST 02/21/19 | |
| In reply to: My Fair Lady yesterday - pagates 10:18 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I take the staging as Eliza walking into more of the house, in other words staying. Otherwise she would or should have gone back out the door. With a realistic set and staging like it is I just don’t accept that she breaks the 4th wall. She is in the house and walks further into the house to stay. | |
| reply to this message |
| Eliza's exit | |
| Posted by: wisebear 08:52 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: My Fair Lady yesterday - pagates 10:18 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Beautifully written, and I quite agree, having seen it a second time last week. Here's my beef with the direction: that house spends three hours spinning, spinning, and spinning again. Fine, let Eliza walk out. But why not do one final rotation and let the woman walk out the front door? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Eliza's exit | |
| Last Edit: Joe90 03:36 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| Posted by: Joe90 03:33 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: Eliza's exit - wisebear 08:52 am EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| Because she's leaving, out into the world. Significantly, it is also (I think) the only time a performer leaves the stage using an isle that leads through the audience. Tha steps that lead away either side of the apron lead down and out of the view of the audience, and I guess are effectively an extension of the stage and dramatic space. But in the end, Eliza steps beyond even that. I found it breathtaking. A remarkably moving moment in a production filled with them. Joe. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Eliza's exit | |
| Posted by: robert_j 01:46 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: Eliza's exit - wisebear 08:52 am EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| My guess is that they did not want to pull focus from the two actors in that moment, and a set rotation would have (literally) gotten in the way. But it is also possible that it was a deliberate choice to break the fourth wall, as a way for Eliza to break out, figuratively, from her relationship with Higgins. (Or, perhaps, more depressingly, it suggests that the only way for a woman like Eliza at that time to achieve true liberation would have been to break out of her social context entirely, which is of course quite impossible.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| but it doesn't make sense | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:45 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Eliza's exit - robert_j 01:46 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| She left him already. So she came back and waited for him to be there so she could then just walk out AGAIN (through the walls no less)? Or are we meant to believe she came back because she loved him, and then when he did his normal thing which is being an imperious jerk (some might say it's his loving/funny/infuriating sense of humor, some would misread it as abusive) she decides finally to leave for good? It is not written to support this decision or action, and I think it is a very confusing moment that isn't meant to be there. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: but it doesn't make sense | |
| Posted by: showusyourtalent 03:48 am EST 02/20/19 | |
| In reply to: but it doesn't make sense - Chazwaza 02:45 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| I have never been one to buy-in to being able to lose a cockney accent, achieve Hepburn-esque poise and deportment, and fool an expert translator by belying that one has of late been hawking flowers in Covent Garden, in a mere six-months. Though one must recall that "Pygmalion" is a myth after all. Higgins is a confirmed bachelor. He relishes taking up the challenge of Pickering to metamorphosize Eliza into a lady. Perhaps love is in the air in the chrysalis of the Higgin's household. Eliza has been on her own since when we first encounter her character. At best, she may be infatuated by Higgins as a substitute father figure. I felt the ending to be melodramatic. I thought she just wanted to improve her elocution to be able to work in a flower shop. What was her motivation to go to the lengths Higgins mapped-out for her? Free lessons. Did she think she would be able to be an equal in his eyes, and possibly stand to marry him? If Higgins was in love, he had a funny way of showing it. Anyway, he already had plenty of servants to get his damn slippers. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: but it doesn't make sense | |
| Posted by: robert_j 09:44 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: but it doesn't make sense - Chazwaza 02:45 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| It could be as simple as Eliza not wanting to leave things the way she left them. She blew up at him, had some time to think it over, and wanted to end on a more positive note. But also make clear that it was over. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: but it doesn't make sense | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:23 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: but it doesn't make sense - Chazwaza 02:45 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| The new staging for the ending of the current MY FAIR LADY bothered me a lot the first time I saw it. But then I started to think long and hard about the original staging and stage directions for the ending, as performed on Broadway and in the movie, and I have decided that ending REALLY doesn't make a lot of sense either. So now the new ending bothers me less :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: but it doesn't make sense | |
| Posted by: mikem 04:43 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: but it doesn't make sense - Michael_Portantiere 03:23 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| I know that there has been speculation that the end is a dream/fantasy sequence in Higgins's head. I mentioned this to two different cast members at the stage door, and I got the sense that neither of them seemed to think that was Sher's intent. It seems that Sher's intent is that this really happened, that Eliza really does come back to Higgins's house. But why does she come back? I didn't get any sense from any of the Elizas that they react much to the "where the devil are my slippers" line. No realization that Higgins isn't going to change, no disappointment or regret, nothing. He may as well have said nothing. She came to do what she wanted to do, aside from his line. But what exactly did she come to do? See him for 15 seconds, touch his face, and leave? I saw the tour with Lisa O'Hare and Christopher Cazenove, and at the end, after the slippers line, she starts laughing in this "are you kidding me right now?" tone. I think she may have picked up the slippers, but she definitely doesn't give them to him. And after a bit, Higgins starts laughing, too, at the absurdity of what he just said. He continues his transition that started with I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face, and he realizes that he is going to have to be different moving forward. I thought that was a nice ending that works in today's world. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:03 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: but it doesn't make sense - mikem 04:43 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it would be really odd if any production had her pick up his slippers, much less bring them to him. It's very clear that Higgins is not actually asking for his slippers. And it all goes back to the 1938 film. That's where the ending came from. The ending is about Higgins trying to hide how happy he is that Eliza has come back. Lerner's stage directions make this very clear. Unfortunately, you can't read stage directions to an audience. Well, you can, but that's a sort of post-modern approach. Kind of like having Eliza return and then exit up the aisle of the theatre. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: BobD 02:02 pm EST 02/25/19 | |
| In reply to: He's not really asking for his slippers - AlanScott 06:03 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| A community theater production that I saw had an ending of MFL that worked very well. Higgins delivers the "slippers" line smiling; Eliza throws a slipper at him in a playful manner; Higgins throws the slipper back at her, and the slipper gets thrown back-and-forth several times as in a children's game, and the two of them collapse on the sofa, laughing. This shows that Higgins and Eliza are fond of each other, and Eliza is certainly capable of holding her own. The extent to which this relationship is a romantic one is subject to interpretIon, and is dependent of the chemistry of the performers. BTW, this is the second musical I can think of in which footwear plays an important role, the other being SHE LOVES ME (“Where's my other shoe.”) And, as it happened, Laura Benanti was featured in both shoes...er...shows. Bob |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 04:01 pm EST 02/25/19 | |
| In reply to: re: He's not really asking for his slippers - BobD 02:02 pm EST 02/25/19 | |
|
|
|
| Only the second? The footwear in KINKY BOOTS is so central to the plot that the show is named after it. Later this season, Encores! is presenting HIGH BUTTON SHOES, a show that I don't know at all, but I imagine the footwear must be important there as well. DO BLACK PATENT LEATHER SHOES REALLY REFLECT UP?...that title is more of a joke than anything else and doesn't really reflect on the plot, except as it concerns a group of kids in Catholic school growing up and starting to question their lives. The leading man of LUCKY STIFF is a hapless shoe salesman, a fact that gets brought up there a few times. :) That ending to MFL sounds like it could work wonderfully, still keeping the ambiguity of the original, while giving the show more a cap on the end. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: BobD 06:21 pm EST 02/25/19 | |
| In reply to: re: He's not really asking for his slippers - JereNYC 04:01 pm EST 02/25/19 | |
|
|
|
| You're right. I was just thinking of shows featuring Laura Benanti. CINDERELLA is another obvious shoe-centered show. And the ever-useful Google tells me that there was a show called SHOES: THE MUSICAL and THE RED SHOES. With a bit of a stretch, we can include THE WIZARD OF OZ and WICKED. Yes, the shoe must go on! Bob |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:28 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: He's not really asking for his slippers - AlanScott 06:03 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| "The ending is about Higgins trying to hide how happy he is that Eliza has come back. Lerner's stage directions make this very clear." I agree that this is the intent behind Higgins saying "Eliza, where the devil are my slippers?" But I believe the stage directions for the original production then say, "Eliza has tears in her eyes. She understands." And I'm not 100 percent sure WHAT she understands, or why she has tears in her eyes. If what she "understands" is that Higgins is happy to have her back but can't come right out and say that, and is going to continue to behave that way -- where he's unable or unwilling to come say how much affection he has for her, and is going to continue to treat her like a servant -- then her returning to him makes NO SENSE, because in the previous scene she has already stated emphatically that she will NOT continue living with him under those terms. Further confusing the issue: In the film of the musical, Audrey Hepburn does not have tears in her eyes after Higgins asks her where the devil his slippers are. And in the PYGMALION film, there is no shot of Eliza after Higgins asks her about the slippers, so we have no idea what her reaction to that might be. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: garyd 07:56 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: He's not really asking for his slippers - AlanScott 06:03 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| I have been involved with two productions of HUGHIE in which a "third character" has been added to voice O'Neill's stage directions (or actually the very detailed inner thoughts of Erie and Hughes). Both productions were excellent and, quite frankly, the best versions of the play I have seen. Of course I would not recommend such an approach for MFL or any other play that comes to mind. On the other hand some off or off-off group did a whole evening of O'Neill stage directions which I found quite interesting and entertaining. gary...who likes Sher's ending for the current MFL. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:27 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: He's not really asking for his slippers - AlanScott 06:03 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| You're very right. I think maybe the best of both worlds is having him deliver the line like a cocky ass, covering up how happy he is, and then look directly at her and smile and she smiles back. No getting the slippers, no walking out through the walls or otherwise. Just two people who have come to love and need each other, who get something from each other no one else does, and who have grown through knowing each other, accepting that they want to be together again. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:31 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: He's not really asking for his slippers - Chazwaza 06:27 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I think maybe the best of both worlds is having him deliver the line like a cocky ass, covering up how happy he is, and then look directly at her and smile and she smiles back. No getting the slippers, no walking out through the walls or otherwise. Just two people who have come to love and need each other, who get something from each other no one else does, and who have grown through knowing each other, accepting that they want to be together again." I agree, that ending would be better than any of the others I've seen. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He's not really asking for his slippers | |
| Posted by: mikem 06:15 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: He's not really asking for his slippers - AlanScott 06:03 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think Harry Hadden-Paton is following the stage directions as you state. He's clearly happy that Eliza is back and doesn't want to show it. He also smiles to himself while Eliza disappears up the aisle. I guess that's supposed to mean that he understands and accepts her choice. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Eliza's exit | |
| Posted by: TheHarveyBoy 10:36 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: Eliza's exit - wisebear 08:52 am EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| The exit is ridiculous for so many reasons. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Fair Lady yesterday | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 01:55 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: My Fair Lady yesterday - pagates 10:18 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for your insightful and very well written comments. Having seen MFL this week, I found myself agreeing with everything you said. Bill, back home in San Diego |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Fair Lady yesterday | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:00 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: My Fair Lady yesterday - pagates 10:18 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| "But this cast, this current iteration, is something else again. They create one of the great productions I've ever seen. " I completely agree with this and everything else you wrote in your very discerning, beautifully well-written post. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Fair Lady Thursday night | |
| Posted by: Dale 10:25 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: My Fair Lady yesterday - pagates 10:18 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Saw it a second time as well... the replacements are all a delight. Had a front row seat on the right side of the orchestra. Seeing faces ( eyes ) and costume details was a treat. The original cast just got better, too! PS: The harpist name is Grace Paradise... is that sweet??? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Fair Lady Thursday night | |
| Posted by: mrs_muster (franm@nyc.rr.com) 03:41 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My Fair Lady Thursday night - Dale 10:25 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I went to a concert decades ago and saw Grace Paradise. I said to myself, "What a coincidence that a harpist has that name." Duh. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.076533 seconds.