Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:59 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| Much was made about how the ending of the musical was re-conceived in a major way, though without any changes to the text, by having Eliza walk out on Higgins at the very end, rather than remain with him. The reason given for this and some new direction and acting choices in certain scenes was that the goal was to make Eliza a "stronger" character, more in line with modern perceptions of what a liberated woman should be. Yet I noticed that this production retained references to Eliza having been beaten by her father and perhaps by her lovers, including the following line to Higgins in the scene at Mrs. Higgins' home towards the end of the show: "I don't care how you treat me. I don't mind your swearing at me. I shouldn't mind a black eye -- I've had one before this. But I won't be passed over." Any theories on why that line about the black eye was retained, given the stated goal of the production in terms of its depiction of Eliza? I find it odd that the original ending of the show was SO offensive to the director (and presumably to others involved in the show) that they felt it had to be changed, and yet this shocking line and one or two other similar lines weren't cut, when they so easily could have been. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Last Edit: keikekaze 06:05 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 06:01 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:59 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I shouldn't mind a black eye--I've had one before." Who says the black eye was given her by a man? Eliza doesn't, Shaw doesn't, and Alan Jay Lerner doesn't. Have we actually become so Victorian once again that we can no longer believe that a woman working as a costermonger might give another a black eye--for poaching on "her" territory, perhaps, or for suspicion of poaching on "her" man? (Not that Eliza has ever actually had any lovers: she's 18, and there's no reason to suspect she's lying when she repeatedly insists she's a "good" girl.) But more to the point, it was generally assumed in those days--and generally assumed correctly--that everybody of every gender who had grown up in the mean streets of London had come by a black eye or two in the course of that process. It didn't necessarily imply child abuse at home. Wherever the incident took place, and whoever delivered the blow, it was one of the many ills caused by grinding poverty and obvious injustice, which together breed violence. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 06:26 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - keikekaze 06:01 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| The black eye might conceivably have been given to Eliza by a woman, but that's beside the point in terms of what she's talking about with Higgins. Like it or not, what she says is that, if her relationship with Higgins would have continued, she wouldn't have minded a black eye as long as she wasn't ignored. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 09:35 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 09:34 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:59 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| One thing I wanted to mention is that I have always thought that Eliza hasn't had lovers. She says several times "I'm a good girl, I am." or things to that effect. And the connotation of the term "good girl" at the time was "virgin." My theory about that is that she's seen terrible male/female relationships starting with her own parents (then other women that her father's been with) and made a decision early on to focus on her independence and improving herself, specifically so that she doesn't have to rely on a terrible man to support her. Remember that she's only supposed to be 21 years old at a stretch, not a woman into her 40's, so this plan has probably only been in place for 6 or 7 years. She hasn't had a lifetime of anything at this point. She's probably never be in love at all. And, when the show ends in the traditional manner, maybe the reason that she comes back is that she thinks that what she feels for Higgins is love, because she doesn't actually know any better about such things. She just knows that what she feels for Freddy ISN'T it. And she knows by then that Higgins is good man at heart. The whole idea about marrying Freddy anyway seems more about a business transaction and she's perfectly honest and upfront about knowing that she will have to be the one supporting him after having opened a flower shop and using his connections to make it successful. Eliza is very pragmatic and business oriented for someone so young and I think that's because business has been her focus since she was old enough to go out and support herself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:51 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - JereNYC 09:34 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| JereNYC, thanks for your thoughtful response, as always. I certainly think the interpretation that Eliza hasn't had any lovers is a valid one. She does have a line somewhere to the effect that "I've always had men wanting me that way," but that's not the same as saying that she ever allowed them to have her :-) So, when she says "I shouldn't mind a black eye -- I've had one before this," maybe she is referring only to having been beaten by her father, who himself refers to his having beaten Eliza when he comes to Higgins' home to try to get money out of him. (I've always cringed at these lines.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 12:04 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:51 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Beating one's wife and children was pretty common in the neighborhood where I grew up in the 50's. My dad was the exception to the rule on our block. He never beat my mother and never even spanked my younger siblings. This is actually hard to believe, but I swear it's true. I attended very strict Catholic grade schools in blue collar neighborhoods. I remember when I was in the 8th grade or so all the guys in my class had to meet with a Jesuit priest once a week -- I clearly remember him telling us that when we got married, it was our responsibility to beat our wives if we caught them being untruthful. In the 70's I built a summer home for my parents in a rural area of central Illinois. Our closest neighbor used to brag how he beat his wife whenever she got out of line, like, for example, if she used her electric dryer for the laundry when it wasn't raining outside. I remember he came over one Sunday afternoon while I was watching a Chicago Bears game and left suddenly in a huff because he refused to watch a professional sport that paid a *n-word* like Walter Payton so much money. Fortunately he passed away before the summer I brought some guys from my baseball team (one of whom was black) to do some fishing on our lake. Just a little slice of the world I grew up in. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 12:18 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - BroadwayTonyJ 12:04 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I wonder if that horrible neighbor ever needed or had a relative who needed an organ donation. Because Walter Payton was not only one of the greatest to ever play the game, his Foundation did (and continues to do) so much to increase awareness of the need for organ donations, the NFL named its annual Humanitarian award for him. It’s likely thousands of lives have been saved or aided because of Payton’s example. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:13 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - showtunetrivia 12:18 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| My parents used to spend weekends at our lake and were always friendly to our neighbor, but obviously didn't really know him. When he made that comment, I was pretty shocked. I told him, "Aren't you aware that Payton is the greatest running back in the NFL today and certainly one of the greatest players of all time?" His next comment to me was even worse than the first one. His wife was very nice, though. Politically, Illinois is a solidly blue state and most of the population lives in Cook and the other counties surrounding Chicago. However, when you go to the small towns and rural areas 100 miles or so from Chicago, it's a totally different world. I've never seen a stage production of Pygmalion, although I did see the '63 TV version with Julie Harris. I'm not positive, but I do believe Eliza returns to Henry at the end. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 09:40 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - JereNYC 09:34 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| The best portrayal of Eliza that I've ever seen came in a Los Angeles production of Pygmalion with Robert Stephens and Roberta Maxwell. Her Eliza was tough as nails. Her essence didn't change by the end, only her manners and speech. When she said "she shouldn't mind a black eye" you felt she would give one back. She was ready to fight! It was a most unsentimental version and, I think, close to what Shaw intended. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Lucky you! | |
| Posted by: portenopete 10:59 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Billhaven 09:40 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| What a pairing! I have been lucky to see Roberta Maxwell play Rosalind and Lady M. and the wife in Tartuffe at the Stratford Festival (Ontario) and she was wonderful! She is still wonderful today, as she showed in the Richard Nelson trilogy most recently. Perhaps it's good she never became a big star because she has been "our secret" as a stellar stage actress. (Despite her turn as Mrs. Oyl in Robert Altman's trippily-weird Popeye movie.) I wonder how much Shaw she has done? I know she played Vivie Warren at the Shaw Festival (opposite Kate Reid). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lucky you! | |
| Posted by: larry13 11:11 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Lucky you! - portenopete 10:59 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I've had the good fortune to see this marvelous actress a few times onstage over the decades. I just wonder how many people who may not have or not be as familiar with her work HAVE seen "Brokeback Mountain." It is she as Jack's mother in the heartbreaking end, sharing a memorable scene with Heath Ledger. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:55 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Billhaven 09:40 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***When she said "she shouldn't mind a black eye" you felt she would give one back. *** That sounds like a very interesting approach, and one that would make the line work better. As I noted in another post, I have always thought of Eliza as a very admirable character in terms of her toughness, resilience, and intelligence -- even WITH the original ending of the musical (and the PYGMALION film), which so many people now consider unacceptable :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 08:11 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:59 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| If Eliza did not have a bad background then she could not grow to independence. Without some mistreatment in her past, you cannot have her walk out. It would look like petulance rather than new independence. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:45 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - whereismikeyfl 08:11 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| "If Eliza did not have a bad background then she could not grow to independence." Agreed, but maybe I wasn't clear in my post, because people in their responses here are missing the point I was trying to make. I'm not suggesting that references to Eliza having been beaten by her father and possibly also her lovers in the past should be cut from the show. But what Eliza says is "I shouldn't mind a black eye -- I've had one before this. But I won't be passed over." That's a present-tense statement of how she feels right now. I'm sure what she's trying to say is that, in a way, being ignored is worse than being mistreated. But there are ways to phrase that other than "I shouldn't mind a black eye," and I do find it curious that this line wasn't cut or modified for the LCT production, given the point that production was trying to stress in regard to Eliza standing up for herself. Or, to phrase it another way: I've always considered Eliza Doolittle a very strong character, therefore I don't think Eliza -- as envisioned in this production OR in the original script of the musical, OR in the Shaw play -- would ever say "I shouldn't mind a black eye" under ANY circumstances, and the line rankled even more in a production that felt it necessary to change the ending to make it clear that Eliza will not return to continue living with Higgins. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 06:23 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:45 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Generally making these kind of minor changes to suit a values agenda (like presenting an Eliza who cannot reference tolerance for being mistreatment) often have unexpected consequences. The ending may seem like such a change, but at least it follows Shaw's stated intention. But this kind of cut would probably weaken the character and story in ways beyond the obvious. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:47 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - whereismikeyfl 06:23 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| "The ending may seem like such a change, but at least it follows Shaw's stated intention. But this kind of cut would probably weaken the character and story in ways beyond the obvious." The ending of the LCT production definitely follows Shaw's stated intention re PYGMALION, but it goes directly against the expressly stated intention of Alan Jay Lerner in his adaptation of PYGMALION into the musical MY FAIR LADY. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:24 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:59 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| Sadly Mr Sher and LCT should have not just done MFL, rather than do a production with the only the second Doolittle I have ever seen who couldn't do a Cockney dialect. Bernard Shaw was always infatuated with Mrs Patrcik Campbell - and by all accounts he did some good work creating Eliza Doolittle on stage - though there was comment even way back when that she was awfully old for the part. In the text, which Shaw wrote, 'She is perhaps eighteen, perhaps twenty, hardly older." Julie Andrews was 21 when MFL opened on Broadway. Eliza is a girl, from a rough background. Like the story the ttle of Shaws play comes from, Huggins wants to create the perfect young woman from the miserable 'squashed cabbage leaf' of Eliza. He does so - beyond his wildest dreams. But, like dr Frankenstein, Higgins creates not the shell of a young woman, but a strong, fiercely independent young woman. She has everything that the Society girls have - with so much more. There is a symbiotic relationship between Higgins and Eliza - he pushes he hard but is NEVER cruel to her. The closest he comes is the thoughtless request for his slippers, and she throws him at his head. What Shaw knew (more or less) is that Higgins had achieved what he sset out do even if he didn;t know it. He gave of himself to create in Eliza a great, talented, bright woman - his match on every level, and superior in some. I see nothing wrong with this story in 2020/21. If oine doesnt like it, one can do a different musical. But importantly Eliza is a girl - not a 41 year old woman who, also, can't do a Cockney dialect. What drives the play is the specific variety of accents - and Higgins and Pickerings ability to pick them out. At LCT, Eliza and Doolittle had accents that no one earth could recognise, and Eliza was a woman way past saving. A great great musical deserved so much more |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: larry13 10:17 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
| In reply to: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 09:59 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| (Not the answer you're waiting for but)a quick thought: COULD these lines have been cut "so easily?" As you state in your first sentence "without any changes to the text?" Maybe they didn't have permission to change any dialogue or lyrics, leaving stage direction, as in current opera productions, open territory for the director to put his mark on the work. And maybe, no matter what Eliza suffered in the past, she is now being shown the equal, if not superior, to any man, even the Professor. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 11:23 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - larry13 10:17 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| She can walk away from her past, but she can't change it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:28 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - sirpupnyc 11:23 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| "She can walk away from her past, but she can't change it." Understood. But she doesn't say "Believe it or not, there was a time when I felt so powerless that I actually didn't mind a black eye!" What she says, when talking about her current relationship with Higgins, is "I shouldn't mind a black eye" -- i.e., "I wouldn't mind a black eye" -- "....but I won't be passed over." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:19 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - larry13 10:17 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Maybe they didn't have permission to change any dialogue or lyrics, leaving stage direction, as in current opera productions, open territory for the director to put his mark on the work." That occurred to me, but there were in fact some fairly minor cuts (not changes, but cuts) in the text and even some of the lyrics of the show for that production. So no, that doesn't seem to be the reason why the "black eye" line was retained. "Maybe, no matter what Eliza suffered in the past, she is now being shown the equal, if not superior, to any man, even the Professor." I'm sure that is the general point, but she STILL says: "I shouldn't mind a black eye -- I've had one before this. But I won't be passed over." Clearly, she's not speaking entirely in the past tense there, so it certainly seems to me that she's saying, "Going forward, as long as you don't ignore me, I won't even mind if you sometimes hit me so hard that you give me a black eye." I'm pretty sure this line was retained from Shaw and not written by Lerner, but whoever wrote it, I've always found it shocking. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Amiens 11:19 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - larry13 10:17 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I believe the point of the new ending was to show how Eliza finally became stronger because of her time spent with Higgins. There didn't seem to be any attempt to present her as liberated until that last moment. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:24 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Amiens 11:19 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| "There didn't seem to be any attempt to present her as liberated until that last moment." As written, and as performed in this production, almost the entire scene between Higgins and Eliza's in Mrs. Higgins' home consists of Eliza telling Higgins that she doesn't need him any more and how happy her life will be without him in it. She even has a whole song about that: "Without You." In the original text, her last lines in that scene are "Goodbye, Professor Higgins. You will not be seeing me again." In this production, the very last line was changed to something like "What you will do without me, I cannot imagine." (I assume they cut "you will not be seeing me again" so that Eliza didn't look like a liar when she shows up back at Higgins' home for the final moment.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Last Edit: altonido 01:23 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| Posted by: altonido 01:22 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 11:24 pm EST 03/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| In the original text, her last lines in that scene are "Goodbye, Professor Higgins. You will not be seeing me again." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the first preview, and perhaps for some time thereafter, Lauren Ambrose did say that original line. When I saw the production again just before opening night, the line was indeed changed. I do recall reading somewhere that the "new" line was not newly created and in fact existed in some other version of "Pygmalion" (play? film?) or the musical. Anyone? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:02 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - altonido 01:22 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***At the first preview, and perhaps for some time thereafter, Lauren Ambrose did say that original line. When I saw the production again just before opening night, the line was indeed changed. I do recall reading somewhere that the "new" line was not newly created and in fact existed in some other version of "Pygmalion" (play? film?) or the musical. Anyone?*** Interesting, I seem to remember reading or hearing something along those lines. I just looked up the text of PYGMALION online, and here is the final scene -- though I think maybe there are two versions of the final scene? Anyone? ********** MRS. HIGGINS. The carriage is waiting, Eliza. Are you ready? LIZA. Quite. Is the Professor coming? MRS. HIGGINS. Certainly not. He can't behave himself in church. He makes remarks out loud all the time on the clergyman's pronunciation. LIZA. Then I shall not see you again, Professor. Good bye. [She goes to the door]. MRS. HIGGINS [coming to Higgins] Good-bye, dear. HIGGINS. Good-bye, mother. [He is about to kiss her, when he recollects something]. Oh, by the way, Eliza, order a ham and a Stilton cheese, will you? And buy me a pair of reindeer gloves, number eights, and a tie to match that new suit of mine, at Eale & Binman's. You can choose the color. [His cheerful, careless, vigorous voice shows that he is incorrigible]. LIZA [disdainfully] Buy them yourself. [She sweeps out]. MRS. HIGGINS. I'm afraid you've spoiled that girl, Henry. But never mind, dear: I'll buy you the tie and gloves. HIGGINS [sunnily] Oh, don't bother. She'll buy em all right enough. Good-bye. They kiss. Mrs. Higgins runs out. Higgins, left alone, rattles his cash in his pocket; chuckles; and disports himself in a highly self-satisfied manner. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| PYGMALION endings over the years....Part one, to 1937 | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:28 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Changes to MY FAIR LADY that were and weren't made for the most recent Broadway production - Michael_Portantiere 10:02 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Here's the history up to 1937. 1912--GBS wrote PYGMALION. 1913--Vienna, world premiere (in German); Franz Ferdinand in attendance. GBS wanted a foreign premiere because the critical reviews he had been getting on his London premieres hurt the future sales of foreign language editions. It worked. Swedish, Czech, Polish, and Hungarian productions immediately followed, with one in Berlin, too. April 1914--London premiere, starring Herbert Beerholm Tree and Mrs. Patrick Campbell. And the romanticizing of the ending began there, though maybe it was at one of the German language productions--more below. GBS was so furious with Tree playing HH as "a bereaved Romeo" that he left before curtain calls. As several weeks past, he continued to embellish the role, throwing flowers at Eliza, making goo-goo eyes, blowing kisses, and romantic ad-libs galore. Mrs. Campbell wrote GBS, "Come back soon or you'll not recognize your play," but she was responding to Tree's romantic HH, too. She had taken to clutching Higgins' ring to her heart, practically swooning. And she added a line to the ending that proved difficult to remove. Here's the real ending of the 1914 original. After their final showdown at Mrs. H's, Eliza returns to the mock formality she used earlier: Liza: Then I shall not see you again, Professor. Goodbye. (goes to the door) Higgins then says, "oh, by the way, Eliza..." and rattles off an order of ham, cheese, and that he also needs a new tie and gloves. (cheerful, careless, incorrigible are GBS's stage directions) Liza: (disdainfully) Buy them yourself. (She sweeps out.) Mrs. H: I'm afraid you've spoilt that girl, Henry. Never mind, dear, I'll buy the tie and gloves. Higgins: (sunnily) Oh, don't bother. She'll buy 'em all right enough. Goodbye. As his mother leaves, the audience sees a "self-satisfied" HH, rattling the change in his pocket. Mrs. Patrick Campbell's interpolation? Eliza pops back through the door and sweetly asks, "What size?" Tree radiates his happiness in return. GBS returned for the 100th performance and went ballistic. When Tree heard of this, he wrote, "My ending makes money; you should be grateful." GBS thundered back: "Your ending is damnable; you should be shot." It's even possible the "What size?" line originated in one of the German productions; there's a letter of GBS complaining about something like that even before the London opening. But it was so hugely popular with the audiences that Mrs. Campbell said, "Frankly, I'm afraid to omit the line" and used it in not only in the last months of the London, but the Broadway production. GBS deserves a bit of the blame for muddling audience expectations: the play was subtitled, "A Romance in Five Acts." To GBS, this romance meant the fantastical transformation of Eliza, not mushy lovey dovey stuff. Here's GBS on that kind of romance: "I was sent into this world expressly to dance on romance with thick boots; to shatter, stab and murder them." So take those flowers and shove them. As soon as the Vienna production opened, translations began. Not just for the other European productions mentioned, but apparently the NY Times printed chunks in what GBS called "vilest American." (One of these days, I'm going to track those down.) After the London opening there were both authorized and unauthorized editions in English magazines. His actors' shenanigans with his work prompted GBS to write his now famous essay on the sequel to PYGMALION, which appeared in the 1916 published edition. GBS felt having a middle-aged, mother-obsessed bully involved with a teenaged flowergirl was a "revolting tragedy." I919--GBS complained to a friend that he'd never be able to get rid of that "silly and vulgar gag" about the gloves, implying HH-ED romance. 1920--yet he did let Mrs Patrick Campbell reprise her role in a revival--with a new ending. He told her to maintain Eliza's pride, not to relapse, but to exit with disdain (per the original), then HH would watch her leave and exclaim, "Galatea!" Thus, he said, both actors could have "the last word." About this time, he gave instructions to his Spanish translator to end the play with HH watching ED leave, declaring with pride, "Finished and come to life! Bravo, Pygmalion!" These endings didn't work; the English was never adopted in any production beyond this one. I have no idea if you wanted to stage it in Madrid today if you'd get this or something based on the later published English revisions. Was the classical allusion too obscure, even in an era with such an emphasis on Greco-Roman antiquity? Early 1930s--GBS didn't think PYGMALION would work as a movie: too long and Doolittle seemed an unlikely film character. The French came calling first--but their proposed screenplay added new scenes and (merde!!!) tacked on a romantic ending. GBS thought, "Aha! I shall do my own screenplay, and therefore what I want for the ending will be the ending on the screen." And that's what his contracts said, for the German, Dutch, and English film adaptations: that they were supposed to stick to his screenplay, completed in 1934. The screenplay emphasized a wedding for Eliza and Freddy. The contract was signed in February 1935, the German film directed by Erich Engel debuted that September, the Dutch in early 1937. Meanwhile, before seeing that German film, GBS made a deal with Gabriel Pascal, who seemed honest, but was broke. The British film would be delayed while he raised money. When GBS finally saw Engel's work, he was irked they had ignored his contract and tacked on a romantic ending with Higgins, not Freddy (the Dutch would do the same). He hoped he would have better control over the Pascal-produced British version, set to star Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard. Meanwhile, both the German and the Dutch films were financial successes. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part two, 1937-1941 | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:30 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part one, to 1937 - showtunetrivia 10:28 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| So GBS's own 1938 screenplay had more Freddy (not much of a character in the 1916), edited any comments that could be construed as romantic on the part of ED or HH, and overall, shifted the focus from HH to ED. And, as I said above, implied a marriage with ED and Freddy. GBS's screenplay wasn't a proper shooting script, so other hands came in, notably Cecil Lewis and W.P. Lipscomb. GBS was reportedly adamant that none of his words could be altered, but he didn't mind if things got moved around. And he wasn't present during shooting. Tsk tsk. Pascal, however, brought romance in from the opening titles, which explained the myth of Galatea to the viewers...and by casting Leslie Howard,,fresh from playing the Scarlet Pimpernel--and what's more romantic than that? And he added to all that with sentimental music, close-ups, and dramatic cuts. And while GBS's ending was filmed, as was a so-called "compromise" ending--Pascal and the movie folks hated those. So they chucked them. Here's GBS's ending: HH outside his mother's,,with a kind of dream sequence showing the past and the future (ED--Freddy), then returning to the present. The movie has HH,,after ED coolly leaves him at his mom's, storming through the streets of London, back to his flat. And the now familiar scene of playing the recordings, ED's return, his intense surprise, and the immediate covering those feeling with the slippers line. The movie was an international smash and the screenplay won the Oscar for GBS, Lewis, and Lipscomb. GBS said it was an insult for the Academy to give him and award,,as they undoubtedly had no idea who he was. There are stories he refused it--not true, Mary Pickford saw it in a prominent spot on his mantle.(After his death,,however, his estate's caretakers obviously has no notion what the hell it was, and may have used it as a doorstop. It needed refurbishing.) August 1939--GBS knew he couldn't do a damn thing about the movie,,but he was concerned that it would have an effect on future stagings of the play. ("Ere, now, that ain't the way it ended when Leslie 'Oward did it!") So this ending has HH casually tell ED to order the ham, cheese, and buy him the gloves and tie. She says, buy them yourself and sweeps out. Same as before. But then... Mrs.H: I'm afraid you've spolit that girl, Henry. I should be worried about you and her if she were less fond of Col. Pickering. HH: Pickering? Nonsense. She's going to marry Freddy! Ha ha! Freddy! Ha ha ha ha! (Roars with laughter) This edition was published but didn't get much use, partly because the earlier edition was ubiquitous, and partly due to the war. In 1941, GBS published his definitive edition, incorporating five scenes from the film, a new preface, a note to stage technicians on how to incorporate those new more cinematic scenes ( or options around them), etc. Remember ED looking for that ring in the fireplace, how Stella Campbell had started clutching to her bosom, swooning? Now GBS has her retriving it, thinking,,then dashing it down on a table and storming upstairs to pack. No sentimental souvenirs here! And we have a further revised ending. After HH issues his casual order, instead of "Buy them yourself," we get: ED: Number eights are too small for you if you want them lined with lamb's wool. You have three new ties you have forgotten in the drawer of your washstand. Col. Pickering prefers double Gloucester to Stilton, and you don't notice the difference. I telephoned Mrs. Pearce this morning not to forget the ham. What you are to do without me, I cannot imagine. (Sweeps out) And we close as in the 1939 version. "Freddy! Ha ha ha ha!" This is what you see if you see PYGMALION, the version licensed by the estate. I haven't read the 1939 version, but I have read the 1916 and 1941...and I like the former better. It's more focused, it's more Shavian in tone. You get more philosophy from HH. (indeed, Lerner put back many lines from that edition that GBS had cut,,either for the screenplay or the 1939/41 versions. And they're good lines.) Also, unlike his other plays, this version was not performed before publication...and it shows. The 1916 may seem more static (there were huge technological developments between 1914 and 1941), but the later version seems clunky. At least to me. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part three, MFL | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:42 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part two, 1937-1941 - showtunetrivia 10:30 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| AJL explained, in the published edition of MFL that he was ignoring Shaw’s sequel about ED and Freddy, opting for the movie ending, because “Shaw and heaven forgive me!—I am not certain he is right.” Add to this: it was 1956, when musicals tended to have romantic, happy endings; the way songs and underscoring (note the sweeping surge of “I Could Have Danced All Night” as the final curtain falls) heighten the emotions. AJL’s stage directions for that final scene describe what he, the librettist, thinks is going on with the pair. I’m paraphrasing, since my copy’s not handy, but he has HH startled, disbelieving, when ED interrupts the phonograph. “He would run to her, if he could, but he can’t. He slouches in his chair.” He says “Eliza, where the devil are my slippers?” Eliza smiles, and moves slowly towards him. She understands.” Many audiences enthusiastically accepted that, or it wouldn’t have become the smash it was. Other people, however, reacted as Adam did, and never fully bought the ED-HH pairing. Which brings us to the recent Bartlett Sher revival, with the controversial ending. I haven’t seen it, but I’ve read Sher’s comments on his choices, and many reviews. HH is an acerbic, cranky, short-tempered character; it seems his portrayal here emphasized all those qualities, rather than softening the edges. The story here is ED’s journey to independence, and (again, I’m working at second hand here), there were directorial nuances throughout to build towards that revised ending, to make it convincing and logical. As a theatre historian, I know there’s nothing worse than mounting museum pieces. Theatre evolves with the times. But part of me has a Big Problem with wholesale futzing with a playwright’s explicit stage directions. I’m troubled by the recent, dark OKLAHOMA! which also radically altered stage directions. The AJL and R&H estates have signed off on these productions, but I can’t help wondering what those writers would say, were they living. Sondheim has okayed the recent London revival of COMPANY, changing Bobby to Bobbi, but would librettist George Furth approve? To what extent do we adhere to what dead playwrights intended and how much can we alter that for modern audiences? On the other hand, as an audience member, I know that directors and actors can do much to implement their own imprint on classic material. I cite my own experience with an altered MY FAIR LADY. 1991, Houston Grand Opera. Frank Langella in his musical debut, soprano Lee Merrill as Eliza. The most physical, sexy, charged MFL ever. Through the entire production, you knew this Higgins, for all his dismissal of women as “infuriating hags,” definitely noticed that this “squashed cabbage leaf” was an attractive woman. The key moment in the lessons, when all are exhausted and ED is despairing, when HH recognizes her efforts and spurs her to go on...hoo boy! If Frank Langella looked at me like that and told me he thought I could do the impossible, I’d try it. The underlying sexual tension built and built, solely from the way they played it, with looks, subtle touches, reactions. Final scene: as broken and defeated a Higgins as I’ve ever seen. (Trust me, I’ve seen a few, including Rex in his last revival.) He jerks upright when he hears her lines. Pause, as he kind of melts, gathers himself, says the slipper line. She moves towards him, slowly, as in the stage directions. And....he can’t control himself any longer. He leaps up, runs to her, grabs her in a clinch, whirls her around, and kisses her. And the historian in me is screaming, “That’s NOT in the stage directions!” But the rest of me, every red-blooded corpuscle of me, said, “Shut the hell up! Bravo!” Theatre. Why I love it. As for Michael’s original post about why the Sher production might have cut the “black eye” lines, my take (for what it’s worth—and again, I did NOT see this version) is that domestic violence was so common in 1912, GBS’s original audiences likely thought little of it. Over a century later, we cringe at the notion of such commonplace violence...and maybe Sher also wanted us to cringe that even someone who has grown and developed a sense of worth and independence would continue to regard it as commonplace. Laura, with apologies for retelling the Langella anecdote twice in the same month, but it sort of fit here |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thank you, Laura! | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:22 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part three, MFL - showtunetrivia 10:42 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| For that brilliant essay. Really stellar work. And thanks specifically for detailing exactly where the line " What you are to do without me, I cannot imagine" came from. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Thank you, Laura! | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:29 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Thank you, Laura! - Michael_Portantiere 12:22 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| My pleasure, Michael. These posts were cobbled together from a discussion I had on my FB page last year, and I thought, “I should keep this where I can get at it.” Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Thank you, Laura! | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 08:33 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 08:32 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Thank you, Laura! - showtunetrivia 01:29 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for your analysis, Laura. You're abso-bloomin'-lutely wonderful to share those ''Loverly'' posts about ''Pygmalion.'' You might be interested to know that Turner Classic Movies will be re-examining ''My Fair Lady'' on its ''Reframed'' series. According to the Associated Press: ''During the “My Fair Lady” conversation on March 25, [the TCM hosts] talk about why the film adaptation has a less feminist ending than the stage play, and Henry Higgins’ physical and psychological abuse of Eliza Dolittle. Not feeding her and stuffing marbles in her mouth are played for cute laughs in the film. Is it a commentary on misogyny or just plain misogyny?'' |
|
| Link | AP News: In a New Film Series, TCM Takes a Look at 'Problematic' Classics |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Thank you, Laura! | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 01:29 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Thank you, Laura! - Michael_Portantiere 12:22 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Always knew that you were amazing, Laura, but these posts support my presumptions (based on the one time we actually met). I hope that you will save copies of them. Bill, in San Diego (virtually - actually physically in Denver for a couple of days) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A graduate seminar on Pygmaiion! | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 10:54 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part three, MFL - showtunetrivia 10:42 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the intricate history. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A graduate seminar on Pygmaiion! | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 11:09 am EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: A graduate seminar on Pygmaiion! - Billhaven 10:54 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| My pleasure, Bill. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thanks | |
| Posted by: Whistler 04:25 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: A graduate seminar on Pygmaiion! - showtunetrivia 11:09 am EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks. A really nice piece of writing. It shows what this site can do at its best. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Thanks | |
| Posted by: singleticket 05:23 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Thanks - Whistler 04:25 pm EST 03/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed, what a delight to read. And I doubt I’ll forget “My ending makes money”... it’s such a great showbiz motto. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.130102 seconds.