| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: PYGMALION endings over the years....Part two, 1937-1941 - showtunetrivia 10:30 am EST 03/09/21 |
| Next: | Thank you, Laura! - Michael_Portantiere 12:22 pm EST 03/09/21 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.018695 seconds.