Threaded Order Chronological Order
| The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Recent discussion of the virtues and flaws of the film version of MY FAIR LADY (see below) motivated me to finally sit down and write a detailed account of all of the flaws I find to exist in the film, despite its overall greatness. Please understand that the accent here is on what I see as wrong with the film, but that should NOT be taken to mean that I don't nevertheless view it as beautiful and brilliant overall. It's just that I find it hard to think of another major film that's so great overall yet so significantly flawed in so many ways, and this fascinates me. Of course, I would enjoy reading everyone's thoughts on any or all of these points. So, here you go: *********** 1. The main title sequence of the film begins with a series of gorgeous, ultra close-up, 70mm film images of beautiful flowers, one image fading into another while we hear on the soundtrack a brilliant adaptation of the original MY FAIR LADY overture as heard on Broadway. But the first flaw of the film occurs within the first few seconds, in that the quietly beautiful images of these delicately gorgeous flowers do not really comport with the music we hear at the start of the overture: a joyful, up-tempo, pulse-quickening orchestration of the song "You Did It." The flower images continue for what seems like quite a long time before the Warner Bros. logo finally appearas, and after the first few seconds of the film, the images begin to fade from one to the other more and more quickly, lending a somewhat frantic feeling to images that are supposed to give us a feeling of serene beauty. The pace of the fading out and in does slow when the Warner Bros. logo finally appears, and at that point, the music has switched to the lyrical ballad "On the Street Where You Live," which certainly fits the flower images better than "You Did It." But then we come to the final flaw of the main title sequence: As the title cards (MY FAIR LADY -- starring Audrey Hepburn -- Rex Harrison -- etc.) fade from one to the other, each new credit or set of credits begins to fade in before the previous one has faded out. Therefore, at each fade, two sets of lettering momentarily appear one on top of the other, looking very messy and marring the whole sequence with a sense of amateurishness. 2. The first scene of the film is a montage of people leaving a performance at the Covent Garden opera house, and then we see some of them getting caught in a rainstorm that suddenly begins. The transition from the elgantly attired patrons of the opera grandly exiting a temple of art and then suddenly scurrying about in the rain in topcoats, umbrellas, etc. is very effective, and the quick cutting of the sequence is exciting -- but then, in the middle of a shot of people milling about in the rain, there's a horrendous edit where everyone on screen suddeny shifts from one position in the frame to another. I can think of no other major movie that contains such a glaringly obvious editing error, and as many times as I've seen it, I still can't believe it was ever allowed to pass into this film. Anoter moment of sloppniess in this sequence: There's a shot of Freddy Eynsford-Hill and his mother walking through the rain as she says to him, "Freddy, go and find a cab. Do you want me to catch pneumonia?" But that line was obviously looped, and the actress's lip movements are not even close to matching it. (Note: MY FAIR LADY was famous restored some years ago, after the original elements had been allowed to deteriorate. Is it conceivable that a few frames of film were actually unsalvageable in this sequence, and that accounts for the awful edit mentioned above? Perhaps, although the background music continues to flow throughout the sequence with no obvious edit, so I don't think so.) 3. Rex Harrison's performance of "Why Can't the English?", recorded live on set, is absolutely brilliant, with a wonderful feeling of spontaneity. It gives us hope that all of the songs in the film will be performed and presented in the best, most meticulous and effective way possible. But then we get to "Wouldn't it Be Loverly," and the shift from the speaking voice of Audrey Hepburn to the singing voice of Marni Nixon is jarring. Over the decades, much has been written and said about why the vocal match between these two voices is so unconvicing, but I won't get into that here. Suffice to say that Marni herself always said she felt that, for various reasons, this was by far the least successful of her major dubbing jobs. 4. In the scene after "Wouldn't it Be Loverly?," Eliza's father, Alfred P. Doolittle, is introduced, along with two of his friends. These three are walking through London in the very early morning hours, and then comes one of the film's oddest blunders: We see the square in which the men are standing slowly fill up with people as the activities of the day begin, but this is done in the stagiest way possible, with actors entering the frame and walking for a bit, then freezing in their tracks as more actors enter before freezing in THEIR tracks, and so on. Eventually, the frame is full of actors frozen in their tracks until they all suddenly begin to move at once and the scene continues (finally). Aside from taking much more time than it should, this sequence is off-putting because the actors freezing in their tracks (rather than having them be frozen photographically) is a theatrical device that is almost never used in the film medium and, indeed, is used nowhere else in THIS film. 5. The song "With a Little Bit of Luck" is well performed and effecively filmed overall, but it's damaged by the excision of the chorus as heard on the original cast recording and other recordings of the stage version of MY FAIR LADY. I think the problem here was that, for all the tremendous popularity of the property, MY FAIR LADY was filmed at a time when directors, producers, etc. had become afraid of certain trappings of musicals that were now considered too stagey and unrealstic for film -- including choral singing and ensemble dancing. To one extent or another, this fear marred many musical films made over the past 60 years or so, as witness for example the highly unfortunate excision of ALL choral singing from the film version of the Stephen Sondheim masterpiece SWEENEY TODD. 6. The song "A Hymn to Him" suffers from ome of the egregious grammatical errors that exist in MY FAIR LADY's lyrics -- errors which, of course, were carried over from the stage show. The worst line of the song in this regard is "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever let a woman in my life," which contains TWO errors in the space of one sentence -- all the more embarassing because they issue from the mouth of a character who supposedly prides himself on speaking flawlessly. There are also grammatical errors in several other songs in MFL, including "Why Can't the English?" ("By rights, she should be taken out and hung," "Arabians learn Arabian," "The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears") and "You Did It" ("You should get a medal or be even made a knight"). Lerner might have taken the filming of MFL as his opportunity to correct his own grammatical errors, but he declined or refused to do so, for whatever reason(s). Perhaps he figured that fixing these lines would only point up how sloppy he had been in making these errors in the first place. 7. For the "Just You Wait" number, the decision was made that Eliza's fantasy of meeting the King and his retinue and asking the King to (metaphorically) cut off Henry Higgins' head should be acted out on screen by actors playing (and, in the case of the King, singing) those roles. As filmed, this scene then proceeds to the point where we see Rex Harrison as Henry Higgins get "shot" by a firing squad. Now, the effectiveness of presenting this sequence in this manner, rather than as a solo for Eliza as it was done in the show, is debatable. But at any rate, if the filmmakers felt they needed other actors to flesh out the number, they probably should have done something more filmic to show that we had entered a fantasy world, rather than simply blurring the edges of the screen image a bit and then having the king and his retinue march onto the very realistic set of Hggins' home, and having Higgins "shot" right there in the alcove. Yet another flaw in this sequence: Audrey Hepburn herself sings the first and final sections of the song, but Marni Nixon's voice was used for the higher, center section -- or, at least, that portion of it that was not sung by "the King" -- and, again, there's a major disconnect between the sound of Hepburn's voice and the sound of Nixon's. 8. The first few lines of "I Could Have Danced All Night" point up how much more successful the dubbing of Nixon's singing voice for Hepburn's might have been if it had been done more carefully. But then, for the bulk of the song, Nixon's voice sounds very little if at all like how we imagine Hepburn would sound if she could sing, and this partly because the key that was chosen for the song is not ideal for Nixon to have made such an impression. 9. For the entirety of the "Ascot Gavotte" song proper, the chorus members sing in the perfectly clipped, pretentious, uppper-crust British accent that's required. But when a brief, partial reprise of the song is heard towards the end of the Ascot scene, the chorus sings in a flat, 100 percent American accent. To me, they sound like a different group of people presumably recorded in a different sesssion at a different time, and their sudddenly American sound mars the scene just before its climax. How or why this happened is beyond me, but there you have it. 10. In Freddy's "On the Street Where You Live" and the separate little song that precedes it ("When she mentioned how her aunt bit off the spoon..."), the singing voice of Bill Shirley is, if anything, an even worse match for Jeremy Brett's speaking voice than Marni Nixon's for Hepburn's -- plus, Shirley's Brit accent is only very sketchily indicated. So, again, there is a disconnect and we are taken out of the movie whenever the dubber's voice replaces the actor's. 11. "Show Me" is one of two songs in MFL in which Lerner's lyrics include phrases that would never be spoken in British English. Here, the phrase in question is "Don't talk of June, don't talk of fall, don't talk at all" -- which would never be heard in England, because they don't say "fall." For the original London production of MFL, and the cast album of that production, this line was changed to "Please don't implore, beg or beseech, don't make a speech!" -- but, for some reason, it was changed back for the movie, maybe with the weird justification that it was an American movie, not a British one. 12. "Get Me to the Church on Time" also contains a non-British expression, "stamp me and mail me," which had been changed for the original London production (to "bond me and bail me") but was changed back to the original for the movie. But the biggest flaw of this number is the fact that, whereas it was a huge dance number on stage, there's virtually no dancing in the film -- just a few soft-shoe steps by Stanley Holloway at one point. To add insult to injury, although all the dancing has been excised, the sequence is attenuated by having Holloway and/or the chorus repeat the same lyrics over and over, and over and over, again, with the result that the number ends up being simultaneously boring and annoying -- until the choral tag at the ending, which is very well done. 13. The ending of the movie, after "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face," is what it is: apparenty, an almost exact recreation of the ending of the show as originally written, staged and directed. On the one hand, one can understand why neither Lerner nor Cukor, nor anyone else involved with the film, would have risked changing the ending of one of the most popular musicals in history, regardless of how controversial that ending had been from day one. But on the other hand, how wonderful would it have been if someone had come up with a more satisfying conclusion for the movie? |
|
| reply to this message |
| Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Last Edit: StanS 09:21 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
| Posted by: StanS 09:18 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Poetic license: "the freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect." This has come up many times on this site. Not only do these grammatical errors not bother me, I actually enjoy them for their very faults. It's almost as if Higgins is making them just to show he can, correctness be damned. It almost becomes part of the arrogance of his character. Has anybody found any "mistakes" in Higgins' dialogue? No, it's just in the songs, where heightened emotion particularly allows license. foreign/aren': When I first heard that I laughed. Why? Because it seemed to me that Higgins was winking at us ("I'll get this to rhyme come hell or high water"). It meets the basic requirement of any great rhyme: it gives pleasure. "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever let a woman in my life": I'm sorry, but that is just a f***ing great line, period. It rolls off the tongue so deliciously that if someone ever replaced it with a grammatically "corrected" version, I would ... (propriety forbids me). My Fair Lady has one of the greatest set of lyrics in musical comedy history, if not the greatest, grammatical "mistakes" and all. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:13 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - StanS 09:18 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***"I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever let a woman in my life": I'm sorry, but that is just a f***ing great line, period. It rolls off the tongue so deliciously that if someone ever replaced it with a grammatically "corrected" version, I would ... (propriety forbids me).***** In my opinion, the point is that it was Lerner's job as a Broadway lyricist, working at what is supposed to be the highest level of his craft, to come up with a lyric that would be witty, would roll off the tongue deliciously, and would ALSO be grammatically correct. I'm not sure why you put the word "corrected" in quotes, seeing how the line you focused on is unquestionably incorrect from a grammatical standpoint, and in fact contains at least two errors that are not debatable. ***My Fair Lady has one of the greatest set of lyrics in musical comedy history, if not the greatest, grammatical "mistakes" and all.*** Agreed, 100 percent. But I wonder why it angers you so much when the mistakes are pointed out. And again, you should have not put quotes around the word "mistakes," as there are several inarguable mistakes in the lyrics. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: StanS 11:53 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Michael_Portantiere 01:13 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| I put "corrected" and "mistakes" in quotes, because they are mistakes only from the point of view of grammatical correctness. I The line(s) in question are perfect from the point of view that matters: giving delight to the listener. When a line does that, most listeners who are not hung up on pedantic correctness will simply not notice the errors. When I first heard that line I didn't notice anything wrong with it at all, and I'm a native English speaker who knows the grammatic rules. Yes, when you point it out, then I notice it, but it's still of no real importance. I don't find it detracts from the brilliance of the line at all. I'm not angry that the mistakes are pointed out. It can be fun to point out these mistakes. But it's like pointing out the famous shot in Hitchcock's "North by Northwest": just before Eva Marie Saint shoots Cary Grant in a crowded cafeteria at Mount Rushmore, you can see someone holding his hands to his ears, as if he knew the shot was coming. It's a mistake. It's fun to know about it. Does it detract from the audience's enjoyment of the scene or the greatness of the movie? Not one whit. Yes, by all means, point out all the mistakes. It's interesting to know them. I only get angry when these types of mistakes are treated as an actual weakness, to say that Lerner wasn't doing his job. He did his job brilliantly. You agree that MFL is one of the greatest sets of lyrics. My point is that "I'd be equally as willing ..." is part of the reason for that greatness, not an exception to it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:00 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - StanS 11:53 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Yes, by all means, point out all the mistakes. It's interesting to know them. I only get angry when these types of mistakes are treated as an actual weakness, to say that Lerner wasn't doing his job. He did his job brilliantly. You agree that MFL is one of the greatest sets of lyrics. My point is that "I'd be equally as willing ..." is part of the reason for that greatness, not an exception to it." I don't understand and/or don't agree with your logic here. Lerner did his job brilliantly in the bulk of his writing for the show but NOT in those several sections when he put grammatical errors in the mouth of a character who, in my opinion, should speak with perfect grammar (and this also applies to the grammatical errors that Shaw wrote for Higgins in PYGMALION). The grammatical errors committed by Higgins in the songs of MY FAIR LADY are indeed an "actual weakness" in Lerner's work, in my opinion. For example, the overall concept and content of the line "I'd be equally as willing...." is indeed great, but the line would be far greater if the lyricist had tweaked it to make it grammatically correct. And you know what, during the course of this discussion over the past several days, I think I've pretty much fixed it with just some small modifications: "I would equally be willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever let a woman in my life." Maybe that's not 100 percent perfect, and "I would be equally willing" arguably sounds better, but the version above scans with the music, and it's a lot closer to grammatical correctness than the line that Lerner settled for. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Last Edit: StanS 05:40 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| Posted by: StanS 05:33 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Michael_Portantiere 11:00 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| I've been away so this might be too late to be seen, but ... My basic point which you either miss or don't agree with is that poetic license allows even a noted professor of speech to make grammatical mistakes IN A LYRIC (not dialogue) as long as the line makes the effect it's supposed to make. Grammar just doesn't matter. Sorry, but your version of the line is not as good as Lerner's. "I'd be equally as willing" just sounds better than "I would equally be willing" and "than" makes a better effect than "as". I don't give a rat's ass that yours is more grammatically correct. My guess is that Lerner probably thought of your version and other more correct versions, but just knew his was better. For lyrics, effect trumps correctness, even for professors of speech. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:09 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - StanS 05:33 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***My basic point which you either miss or don't agree with is that poetic license allows even a noted professor of speech to make grammatical mistakes IN A LYRIC (not dialogue) as long as the line makes the effect it's supposed to make. Grammar just doesn't matter.*** Yes, I do disagree strongly with that point, and I can't imagine why you would feel that grammatical errors would be acceptable in a lyric due to "poetic license," but not in dialogue. I can't wrap my head around that distinction -- and I have never known anyone but you try to make it. ***Sorry, but your version of the line is not as good as Lerner's. "I'd be equally as willing" just sounds better than "I would equally be willing" and "than" makes a better effect than "as". I don't give a rat's ass that yours is more grammatically correct. My guess is that Lerner probably thought of your version and other more correct versions, but just knew his was better.**** I'm pretty sure Lerner's version "sounds better" to you than mine because you've gotten used to it over a period of (I'm guessing) several decades. At any rate, when you start to make statements like "'than' makes a better effect than 'as,'" I know there's no point in continuing this discussion. As to your "rat's ass"phrasing, I'll restrain myself and simply quote Auntie Mame: "How vivid......" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: StanS 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Michael_Portantiere 12:09 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| You're absolutely right: there's no point continuing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:16 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - StanS 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Right, no point continuing to argue with anyone who feels that "equally.....than," which is glaringly incorrect, "makes a better effect" than "equally.....as," which is correct. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: StanS 02:43 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Michael_Portantiere 01:16 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Right, no point arguing with anyone who feels that grammatical correctness is necessary for effect. Are we in a battle to see who gets the last word before this thread goes off the board? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I'll take the last word | |
| Posted by: Ann 03:01 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - StanS 02:43 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Please. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 12:00 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - StanS 11:53 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm reminded of Ruth Sherwood's "One Hundred Easy Ways to Lose a Man". When her beau tells her "You're the one to who I give my heart" she responds "I'm afraid you've made a grammatical error. It's not 'to who I give my heart,' it's 'to whom I give my heart.' You see, with the use of the preposition 'to', 'who' becomes the indirect object, making the use of the word 'whom' imperative, which I can easily show you by drawing a simple chart." Ruth has missed the point of the moment. I feel, Michael, that you have, as well. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:14 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Billhaven 12:00 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| Of course, I don't feel I've "missed the point" at all. As I stated in my very first post on this matter, I think it's instructive and facinating to acknowledge and comment on flaws in great works of art, just as it's instructive and interesting to acknowledge and comment on moments of brilliance in works that most people would consider to be......less than great. And when people are unable or unwilling to do this, I would say that shows a lack of critical thinking on their part. A new thought: If anyone today were to write lyrics for a new musical with one or more characters who should be expected to speak with perfect grammar, and if those lyrics contained not one, not two, not three, but multiple grammatical errors, I expect that lyricist would be excoriated by many of you who either don't acknowledge or choose to disregard the errors in the lyrics of MY FAIR LADY simply because you're so familiar with those songs and probably didn't notice the errors until they were pointed out to you. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 10:53 am EDT 04/07/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Michael_Portantiere 11:14 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| There haven't been many lyricists in the past 40 years (outside of Sondheim and Lin-Manuel Miranda) who have delighted me as much as Alan J. Lerner. I look at Miranda's verbal brilliance and creativity first, I don't care if the rhymes aren't perfect (neither does he) or the grammar is not impeccable. These are not legal briefs or academic exercises. They are artistic expressions that are crafted like poetry. In any event, I wouldn't "excoriate" improper usage. I might make a note of it and question it but I would look at the piece in its entirety. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:57 pm EDT 04/07/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Higgins' grammatical "mistakes" - Billhaven 10:53 am EDT 04/07/21 | |
|
|
|
| Of course, the fact that the rhymes aren't perfect and the grammar is not impeccable in Lin-Manuel Miranda's lyrics has nothing to do with discussion of Lerner's lyrics for MY FAIR LADY, as the style and intent of those two sets of lyrics is completely different according to the characters and the styles of the musicals in question. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, Higgins makes a bunch of grammatical errors, including at least a couple that you didn't mention, but what is it that bothers you about "The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears"? I think I know but perhaps I'm wrong. Also, what bothers you about "You should get a medal or be even made a knight"? Again, I have a guess as to what bothers you, but perhaps my guess is wrong. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:54 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - AlanScott 04:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I had never noticed this error myself, but someone else pointed out to me that one should refer to people who live in Scotland not as "the Scotch," but "the Scots." Scotch is correct as a different form of the word. Also, later in that song, Higgins refers to people who live in Arabia as "Arabians" rather than "Arabs." As for the other line, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe it's correct to add a word in the middle of a two-word phrase such as "be made." I believe "or even be made a knight" would be correct. (But "even" doesn't scan with the melody, which is why I suggest "You should get a medal, or perhaps be made a knight"_ |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:23 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 10:54 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry that it has taken me a couple of days to get back to you. I got involved with responding to other posts, and putting this together took me some time, including cutting down a longer and more detailed draft. The person who told you that "one should refer to people who live in Scotland not as 'the Scotch,' but 'the Scots'" is correct if you're talking about what you probably should say in 2021. Calling inhabitants and natives of Scotland the Scotch is now considered offensive by some, especially in Scotland. But in 1912 and 1956, it was common to say the Scotch when referring to inhabitants of Scotland. If you go to Merriam-Webster.com and dictionary.com and look up Scotch, you will see even now such definitions as Scottish, Scots, the people of Scotland, and of Scottish origin. In the 1960s and even at least a couple of times in the 1970s (though less often), there were recordings issued of the Mendelssohn 3rd that called it the Scotch Symphony, rather than the Scottish Symphony. I didn’t ask about your objection on "Arabians learn Arabian" because it is incorrect. Since you volunteered an answer to a question I didn’t ask, I will mention that the reason is not the one you gave, which I guess is what the same person told you. Today you might be unlikely to use the term Arabians because now there is Saudi Arabia (which did not exist as a country with that name till 1932), and the people who live in Saudi Arabia are generally known as Saudis, but you very likely would have used Arabians as a general term in 1912. I’m no expert on this but I think Arabians is, even now, a valid if rarely used word since Arabia is still a name used (though perhaps not often) for a geographic area that includes but is not limited to Saudi Arabia. So you might use the word if you wanted to refer to all the inhabitants of that large geographic area. You could also call them Arabs, but that term encompasses more than just the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. And I think Arabs would not necessarily be used to refer to all of the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. If I’m wrong about that, I hope someone will correct me. The problem with "Arabians learn Arabian" is that there is no language called Arabian. The language is Arabic, which Higgins surely would have known. As for “You should get a medal or be even made a knight,“ I believe that is correct. To change it to “even be made a knight“ would be incorrect. I quote Bryan A. Garner from the third edition of his Modern American Usage: "Many writers fall into awkward, unidiomatic sentences when they misguidedly avoid splitting up verb phrases. Although most authorities squarely say that the best place for the adverb is in the midst of the verb phrase, many writers nevertheless harbor a misplaced aversion, probably because they confuse a split verb phrase with the split infinitive." The authority he specifically cites is (no surprise) W. H. Fowler. Fowler is quite confusing discussing this. If I hadn’t first read Garner, I might not have been sure what Fowler was saying. I am linking an article about this grammatical question. The relevant item there is 4. |
|
| Link | Where do adverbs go? |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:37 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - AlanScott 02:23 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for all this research for the purposes of clarification. Yes, I forgot to note that the name of the language is "Arabic" not "Arabian." Ironic that the error I failed to mention in that section of the lyric is the most indisputable error :-) In re "or be even made a knight," I don't know what to say. That still sounds and looks wrong to me, far less preferable to "or even be made knight." And regardless of what Garner wrote or what Fowler believes, I don't think "or even be made knight" sounds in the least awkward or unidiomatic. I'm glad my original post has led to such detailed discussion, because I think it's good for us all to be reminded that not everything is cut and dried when it comes to "rules" of grammar and usage. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:00 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - AlanScott 02:23 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| My cousin (by marriage), Cheryl, was born in the U.S. but her parents and older sisters are from Lebanon. Lebanon is a country in Western Asia, part of the Middle East, and is located in the Arabian hinterland. I assume the language her family and she have spoken in my presence is Arabic, although I've never actually asked her. Her parents' side of her family is Roman Catholic. Regarding ancestry, I have heard her refer to herself and her sisters as Lebanese or Asian-American. I don't believe she considers any member of her family to be an Arab. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 03:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Very nice job! I enjoyed reading each of the 13 points and found your arguments quite interesting. They made me think about certain elements in the film that I had not thought about before. I caught at least some of the grammar errors when I first listened to the OBC LP in '56, and eventually identified others. They don't really bother me because Harrison talk-sings them so beautifully. I can understand why they were not corrected for the film, and I'm fine with that decision. I agree that the American-expression lyrics should have been replaced with the British ones for the film. I actually like the film's ending. I think when Eliza smiles and moves toward Higgins, it's apparent that she loves him and now has a better understanding of his failings. Perhaps their mutual feelings for each other will evolve into romantic ones or (if not) a business relationship might be possible. I like your reasoning on the other points. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 04:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - BroadwayTonyJ 03:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| It occurs to me that the ending of the show/movie may reflect Eliza exercising a new found confidence/power in her relationship with Henry Higgins. For a good part of the story, she's very much alone in the world. She seems to have no friends other than other workers in Covent Garden (and even they don't pay enough attention to her to recognize her in a change of clothes). Her father just wants to use her for money. Even as late in the story as the Embassy Ball, Eliza is very much alone as even Colonel Pickering ignores her triumph in favor of praising Higgins for his. But, over the course of the second act, Eliza finds a true ally in Mrs. Higgins and a demonstration that she truly has options now that she never had before in Freddy. And she demonstrates, and Higgins confirms, that she has made herself indispensable in the household. Plus, she has proven herself a capable linguist to the point of potentially becoming a teacher herself. So, when she returns at the end of the story, this is a very different Eliza than we've seen before and I think she's feeling her power and realizing that she's the one actually in charge now (a less frantic version of a shocking and funny moment in AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY, perhaps). What she chooses to do with her new power is the question...one that people should be debating as they head up the aisle, Lincoln Center production notwithstanding. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:05 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - JereNYC 04:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Hopefully, she and Higgins will form a partnership in his business as a phonetician. I assume Henry's clients have all been males. With Eliza as an assistant, wealthy female clients might be interested in considering Eliza as a teacher. Higgins' business could easily double as a result. Economics first, increased mutual respect soon after, romance later (inevitably). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:25 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - BroadwayTonyJ 06:05 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| From Pygmalion: "I’ve taught scores of American millionairesses how to speak English: the most beautiful women in the world. I’m seasoned." At the link, you can read Shaw’s postscript to Pygmalion. He did not think that Eliza would become Higgins’s teaching partner. |
|
| Link | Postscript to Pygmalion |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:46 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - AlanScott 07:25 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yeah, I know. We studied Pygmalion in my H.S. English class. I'm with Lerner on this one. Not even my teacher thought Eliza would end up with Freddy. I like happy endings in musicals. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:20 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - BroadwayTonyJ 07:46 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Not even my teacher thought Eliza would end up with Freddy." Right. As I wrote elsewhere, it seems to me that Shaw liked to play devil's advocate, and that he may have written that postscript almost in a fit of pique, as a reactionary argument against other people's insistence that Higgins and Eliza would end up together (which I believe had even be reflected in the staging of at least one production of the play). I find it very difficult to believe that he honestly thought Eliza would/should end up with Freddy, as I don't think that would be a happy marriage due to the fact that the two of them are not intellectual equals (she's so much smarter than him). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:20 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 11:20 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, he was fighting with Mrs. Patrick Campbell and Herbert Beerbohm Tree were messing with the ending soon after opening. GBS railed at Tree, who countered, “My ending makes money; you should be grateful.” GBS replied, “Your ending is damnable; you should be shot.” Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:32 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - showtunetrivia 01:20 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, Laura, I'm familiar with that quote. Love it!!!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 10:44 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 10:42 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm no grammarian, but are you saying that this lyric: "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever let a woman in my life" Should be "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling as ever to let a woman in my life"? Making the "as" statements parallel and avoiding splitting the infinitive in "to let"? Are those the errors? - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| But was Higgins a grammarian? | |
| Posted by: stevemr 06:18 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: Quick point: just on the grammar... - GrumpyMorningBoy 10:42 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm confused by this thread. I thought Higgins' skill was his uncanny ability to tell WHERE people came from based on their accents and pronunciation, not on how perfect their grammar was. Is there anything in Pygmalion OR My Fair Lady that says that Higgins is at all interested in the correct application of grammatical rules? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But was Higgins a grammarian? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:35 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: But was Higgins a grammarian? - stevemr 06:18 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I thought Higgins' skill was his uncanny ability to tell WHERE people came from based on their accents and pronunciation, not on how perfect their grammar was. Is there anything in Pygmalion OR My Fair Lady that says that Higgins is at all interested in the correct application of grammatical rules?" I have certainly thought of this argument. Of course, we see Higgins focus on correct pronunciation far more than correct grammar -- but first of all, he does have that wonderful speech about "the majesty and grandeur of the English language." That speech is so powerful and so moving that it finally motivates Eliza to correct pronunciation of "The Rain in Spain," and I can't believe anyone so concerned with correct pronunciation would be so cavalier about grammar, which I think everyone would agree is also a very important element of correct speech. Also, there are a couple of times in the text when Higgins corrects Eliza's grammar rather than her pronunciation, or she corrects herself, realizing that she had made a grammatically error: "You're nearer my age than (what) he is," "I come -- came to care for you." And, in "You Did It," when Higgins recounts what happened at the embassy ball, he quotes Karpathy as saying of Eliza, "....and although she may have studied with an expert dialectician and grammarian." (Which doesn't necessary mean that Higgins would identify himself as a "grammarian," but as I noted, he does correct Eliza's grammar as well as her pronunciation.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And speaking of Zoltan... | |
| Posted by: BigM 10:18 pm EDT 04/04/21 | |
| In reply to: re: But was Higgins a grammarian? - Michael_Portantiere 11:35 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ... why is his last name spelled Karpathy when characters in the show insist on pronouncing it Kaparthy? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And speaking of Zoltan... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:42 pm EDT 04/04/21 | |
| In reply to: And speaking of Zoltan... - BigM 10:18 pm EDT 04/04/21 | |
|
|
|
| Where do you think you have heard that "Karparthy" pronunciation? In the film, and/or in stage productions? I can't recall hearing that pronunciation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And speaking of Zoltan... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:48 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: And speaking of Zoltan... - Michael_Portantiere 11:42 pm EDT 04/04/21 | |
|
|
|
| His point was that he hasn’t heard it pronounced Karpathy. It’s spelled that way but on the OBCR, the OLCR, and the film, it isn’t pronounced that way. On the 1976 recording, they go for pronouncing as it looks like it should be pronounced. Still, it sounds like Ian Richardson may have said something more like Karparthy, but Sylvia O’Brien clearly does pronounce it Karpathy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And speaking of Zoltan... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:43 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: And speaking of Zoltan... - AlanScott 12:48 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| "His point was that he hasn’t heard it pronounced Karpathy. It’s spelled that way but on the OBCR, the OLCR, and the film, it isn’t pronounced that way." I would say it IS pronounced that way on those recordings and in the film, but I guess the main issue here is whether the vowel sound in the "path" part of the name should be the same as it is in the stand alone word "path" and in the word "cat," or if it should be sound more like "pahth." I'm thinking that, since all these characters who are talking about the man are Brits, it would be the latter -- and I guess "pahth" can sound like "parth." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But was Higgins a grammarian? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:11 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: But was Higgins a grammarian? - stevemr 06:18 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think nowhere in Pygmalion is it said that he is a grammarian, but in "You Did It," Higgins quotes Zoltan Karpathy saying, "And although she may have studied with an expert dialectician and grammarian." Obviously that is there just for the rhyme, but Higgins doesn’t then say, "And the fool thinks I’m a grammarian!" Besides, if Higgins teaches people to speak properly — Eliza is far from the first person he has taught — then presumably he knows the rules of grammar and usage quite well. Some of the points that have been raised are questions of usage, not grammar. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Quoting a section of Pygmalion about grammar | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:05 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: But was Higgins a grammarian? - AlanScott 07:11 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Liza: I got my feelings same as anyone else. Higgins [to Pickering, reflectively]: You see the difficulty? Pickering: Eh? What difficulty? Higgins: To get her to talk grammar. The mere pronunciation is easy enough. Liza: I don’t want to talk grammar. I want to talk like a lady. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quoting a section of Pygmalion about grammar | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:59 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: Quoting a section of Pygmalion about grammar - AlanScott 04:05 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| Ah yes. Presumably, Shaw was being pointedly ironic in having Higgins make a huge grammatical error (or would it be classified as an error of usage?) in discussing the importance of teaching Eliza to speak in a grammatically correct fashion. At least, I HOPE he was being ironic... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: But was Higgins a grammarian? - AlanScott 07:11 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Starting with GBS himself, Higgins is called a professor of phonetics. But that’s not strictly right. His field is linguistics, his specialty phonology. This was a field that was really taking off in the Victorian-Edwardian era; Shaw has Higgins declare he wrote HIGGINS’ UNIVERSAL ALPHABET, a method of recording what was known as “visible speech.” In fact, at the time of PYGMALION’s debut, the standard International Phonetic Alphabet had not yet been created (though I think they were working on it). (Ridiculous digression: Warner hired Peter Ladefoged, professor of linguistics at UCLA as technical advisor to the film. That’s his handwriting and his personal version of Higgins’ alphabet in Rex’s notebooks.) But, as stated above, a man so extensively educated would be quite familiar with grammar and proper usage of speech, though he would not be considered a grammarian. I think Lerner was just thrilled at something reasonably close to his subject matter that rhymed with Hungarian! Michael, that’s a great piece you wrote. I’m still going to cherish the brilliance (especially preserving so many OBC portrayals) and wave away the messy bits. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:47 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics - showtunetrivia 01:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I may very well be wrong but I have never thought that the book Higgins’s Universal Alphabet was primarily concerned with putting forth a method of recording "visible speech." (I just noticed that Shaw has it as Higgins’s. Did Lerner decide that Shaw was wrong when he changed it to Higgins’? Or was it changed by the person who copy-edited or proofread the published script?) I’m glad that you brought this up as you led me to go searching for more info. Higgins says to Pickering just before Eliza enters in Act II that they will take her down first in Bell’s visible speech and then in Broad Romic. Henry Sweet, the inspiration for Higgins (for those who may not know or may have forgotten), invented the latter in the 1870s while Bell’s visible speech was invented in the 1860s. Broad Romic was Sweet’s attempt to build upon and improve Melville Bell’s method of notating pronunciations. (I imagine you know all that. I hope that I’m understanding it correctly.) If Higgins’s Universal Alphabet was meant to be understood as a method of recording speech, wouldn’t Higgins say that they will take her down in that? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:24 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics - showtunetrivia 01:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| In fact, at the time of PYGMALION’s debut, the standard International Phonetic Alphabet had not yet been created (though I think they were working on it). There was a marvelous production of My Fair Lady in Boston a few years ago (I subbed in as music director for a week of it), and the set design included panels that had International Phonetic Alphabet symbols all over them. (Never mind whether that was anachronistic or not, lol.) I remarked that in this production, you got your IPA during the show, instead of waiting to go out for one afterwards. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:15 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics - Chromolume 09:24 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| What a fantastic design! Love it! Love the other IPAs, too. My spouse is less fond of the hoppy ones, preferring dark, malty ales. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 06:30 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: He’s actually a phonologist, which is a branch of linguistics - showtunetrivia 01:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***Michael, that’s a great piece you wrote. I’m still going to cherish the brilliance (especially preserving so many OBC portrayals) and wave away the messy bits.*** Thanks so much. I, too, am going to continue to cherish the brilliance, which is considerable. I just wish I could wave away the messy bits as easily as you and other some others are able to do so. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| His class | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 06:42 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: But was Higgins a grammarian? - stevemr 06:18 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Although, as you point out, he may or may not have absorbed the overwhelming tendency of class to assert itself via correct grammar usage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 03:40 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: Quick point: just on the grammar... - GrumpyMorningBoy 10:42 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Sidebar: It's okay to occasionally split an infinitive in proper English. Sometimes, it prove helpful when one is trying to clearly state one's case. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:41 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 03:40 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "It's okay to occasionally split an infinitive in proper English. Sometimes, it prove helpful when one is trying to clearly state one's case." I don't think I have ever fully understood or even necessarily agreed with the "never split an infinitive" rule, and I certainly don't understand the difference as to when it might or might not be acceptable to do so. Seems to me this is one of the grammatical rules that might be considered more of an opinion, like whether or not it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. Still, I recognize that many people do consider it a hard and fast rule. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: pagates 01:03 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 11:41 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| My recollection from studies of a bygone past is that the "rule" about not splitting infinitives derives from the import of Latin grammar into English (when was that? I dunno ... I wasn't there, although I feel like I could have been). The rule is occasioned because in Latin the infinitive form is always a single word. See below for examples. Note there are multiple forms of infinitives for different tenses. "To sing" = present infinitive active canere to sing present infinitive passive cani to be sung perfect infinitive active cecinisse to have sung perfect infinitive passive cantum -am -um -os -as -a esse to have been sung future infinitive active canturum -am -um -os -as -a esse to be about to sing future infinitive passive cantum iri to be about to be sung |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thank you | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:53 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 03:40 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Except I would say that frequently it is OK to split an infinitive. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Method to madness | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 06:39 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: Thank you - AlanScott 03:53 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I was trying to lessen the shock to the grammar deceived. (It's like emerging from QAnon to let go of grammar myths, especially the most engrained.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:57 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: Quick point: just on the grammar... - GrumpyMorningBoy 10:42 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Close. A more grammatically correct version, though it still sounds awkward to me, would be "I'd be equally willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever (ever to) let a woman in my life." "Equally as" is a redundancy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 01:29 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 01:28 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 12:57 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I believe the entire sentence is grammatically incorrect. It needs to be constructed differently. I'm pretty sure "willing for a dentist to be drilling" is not proper. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 01:28 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| ****I'm pretty sure "willing for a dentist to be drilling" is not proper.**** I don't see anything wrong with that particular part of the lyric. What error do you perceive? However, this thread has pointed out to me that there are actually THREE grammatical errors in the one sentence "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever let a woman in my life." And the three errors are: 1. "equally as" is redundant; "equally willing" would be correct. 2. "than to" is incorrect; "as to" would be correct 3. "to ever let" is incorrect, because it's a split infinitive; "ever to let" would be correct |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 04:41 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 03:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| It's a very awkward sentence to which my high school English teacher would have surely objected. The phrase "to let a woman in" should actually be "to let a woman into". The phrase "willing for a dentist to be drilling" makes absolutely no sense. An individual can not be "willing for" a dentist to do anything -- one can be "willing to have" or "willing to let" a dentist do something like drill or pull a tooth. I think the best way to have a grammatically correct sentence is to rephrase it like this: "I'd be equally willing to have a dentist drill than to let a woman into my life" or "I'd be equally willing to let a dentist drill than to have a woman in my life." Years ago, an ATC poster tried to rewrite Lerner's lyric. What he came up with was so stilted, it made Lerner's grammatical error much preferable. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Last Edit: Michael_Portantiere 11:13 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:07 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 04:41 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***The phrase "to let a woman in" should actually be "to let a woman into".**** Yes, and I hate to say it, but doesn't this mean that "When Mabel Comes in the Room" is also incorrect? :-( ***The phrase "willing for a dentist to be drilling" makes absolutely no sense. An individual can not be "willing for" a dentist to do anything -- one can be "willing to have" or "willing to let" a dentist do something like drill or pull a tooth. I think the best way to have a grammatically correct sentence is to rephrase it like this: "I'd be equally willing to have a dentist drill than to let a woman into my life" or "I'd be equally willing to let a dentist drill than to have a woman in my life."**** Well, forgive me, but I think the correct forms would be, "I'd be equally willing to have a dentist drill AS to let a woman into my life" or "I'd be equally willing to let a dentist drill AS to have a woman in my life." At any rate, adding your identification of two more errors in that sentence, that would bring the number to five (5) errors in one line: 1. "equally as willing" is redundant, it should be "equally willing." 2. "willing for" should be "willing to," as you noted (assuming you're right that "willing for" is indeed incorrect; I'm not sure about that one) 3. 'than to" should be "as to" 4. "than to ever let" should be "as ever to let" 5. "....let a woman in my life" should be "....let a woman into my life." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 11:07 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Come + in vs. come + into "Won't you come in?" is a perfectly usual and correct sentence. You would never say "Won't you come into?" "She comes in, I go out" is also correct. You'd never say, "She comes into, I go out." Also we'd say, "Let the dog in", "Don't let a draft in", "Don't come in the kitchen until I finish the cake." So, letting a woman in anywhere, even a non-literal location such as "a life" is just fine. That said, if one wants to be very specific, "When Mabel Comes in the Room" has a double meaning that "When Mabel Comes into the Room" does not, wicked though one of the former's meanings may be. And to further belabor my point stated elsewhere--it is always okay to split an infinitive. It is a matter of preference and style, not grammar. Injunctions against it, as mentioned before, come from a overzealous appreciation for Latin where infinitives are single words. The non-rule against ending sentences with prepositions comes from this era and enthusiasm as well. And lucky us that it essentially stopped there as English is hard enough to master without also having to follow all the Latin rules. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***"Won't you come in?" is a perfectly usual and correct sentence. You would never say "Won't you come into?"**** True enough, BUT....I think "Won't you come in" is correct when the sentence doesn't continue with "the room," whereas "Won't you come into...." is correct when the sentence DOES continue with those other two words. Of course, in that particular case, no one would ever say "Won't you come into the room?" because it would sound ridiculous to specify what's obvious. But, to me, "You came into our home and changed everything" sounds right, whereas "You came in our home and changed everything" certainly does not. ***"When Mabel Comes in the Room" has a double meaning that "When Mabel Comes into the Room" does not, wicked though one of the former's meanings may be.**** Are you joking, or are you seriously suggesting that Jerry Herman had that other meaning in mind and intended the audience to grasp it????? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 12:22 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 10:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I am joking. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:27 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 12:22 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... Pirini Scleroso | |
| Posted by: blue70 09:15 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| This discussion of the phrase "Come in" reminds me of the SCTV sketch with Andrea Martin and Catherine O'Hara Pirini Scleroso - English for Beginners (link). Of course, there's also SCTV's version of My Fair Lady starring Pirini Scleroso (link). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:38 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Come in" is fine because "in" is being used as an adverb, not a preposition. You can say "He is in the room", but if there is motion toward something and the preposition is followed by an object, it has to be "into": "Let her into my life". "Let her in my life" is grammatically incorrect. The sentence "Don't come in the kitchen until I finish the cake" is not correct, although most people would probably say it that way as a shortcut. It should be "Don't come into the kitchen." I think it's a mistake to start down the "correcting grammar" path to the extent we are doing it here. Most people when they are speaking, take shortcuts and don't speak the way they would write something. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Last Edit: Quicheo 09:08 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 08:59 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 08:38 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I certainly agree with your second paragraph! And my only additional argument with the first is that the line "let a woman in my life" does not necessarily mean movement. It can mean "inside" his life, like in his soup, in his fridge, in his bed, or in his head. But as you say, spoken language is the point here and plenty of folk, especially in a moment of exasperation, speak in a less meticulous way. Thank you for your instructive correction of my argument, though. I appreciate your knowledge. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:21 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 08:59 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ****"let a woman in my life" does not necessarily mean movement. It can mean "inside" his life, like in his soup, in his fridge, in his bed, or in his head.**** Your phrasing confuses me, especially what you wrote about movement. Of course, Higgins means he will never allow a woman to have a place in his life -- i.e., to be inside it. Anyway, bottom line, "I shall never let a woman into my life" or "I shall never have a woman in life" both sound and read as correct to me, whereas "I shall never let a woman in my life" does not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 12:21 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 10:21 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| My response was to the immediate poster above mine that spoke of "into" needing to be used if there was a sense of motion, something moving into something else. And as we all seem to agree, different things spoken or sung sound right to the ear that may not be grammatically perfect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:25 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 12:21 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Different things spoken or sung sound right to the ear that may not be grammatically perfect." Agreed 100 percent. But if Higgins is supposed to be such a stickler for perfect speech, both in terms of pronunciation AND grammar, then he of all people should not make the dozen or more grammatical errors that are present in the lyrics of MY FAIR LADY. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 02:53 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 01:25 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Really? Does Higgins seem to you to be an internally consistent, free from hypocrisy, self-possessed fellow? Is there not more than a hint of suggestion that he may hold others to a higher standard than he holds himself? Are we not all guilty of the same to greater or lesser degrees? Is this not part of the appeal of this and many other shows, to provide a mirror to our own humanity, grammatical errors and all? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:49 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 02:53 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Does Higgins seem to you to be an internally consistent, free from hypocrisy, self-possessed fellow? Is there not more than a hint of suggestion that he may hold others to a higher standard than he holds himself? Are we not all guilty of the same to greater or lesser degrees? Is this not part of the appeal of this and many other shows, to provide a mirror to our own humanity, grammatical errors and all?" I think your interpretation is 100 percent valid, even though I don't personally agree with it. Regardless, although of course I can't say for sure what was in Lerner's head, I strongly doubt that he intentionally had Higgins make SO MANY grammatical errors in the lyrics of MY FAIR LADY as a way of purposely pointing out that Higgins may hold others to a higher standard than he holds himself. That's a very charitable interpretation on your part, and I think you're giving Lerner too much credit. I suspect the truth is that Lerner himself was extremely sloppy in regard to correct grammar and usage, presumably because he never learned and/or never digested many of the rules -- and that includes rules that I would hope ALL of us can agree on, such as "If I were..." (correct) rather than "If I was..." (incorrect), along with the debatable ones, such as the one about split infinitives. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:15 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 03:49 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| "and that includes rules that I would hope ALL of us can agree on, such as 'If I were...' (correct) rather than 'If I was...' (incorrect),," In the published script and published score, it is consistently "were" where it should be. Harrison gets one of them wrong on both the OBCR and the OLCR, and Ian Richardson gets all of them wrong. They both also start with "What in all of Heaven can have prompted her to go?" instead of "What in all of Heaven could have prompted her to go?" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:39 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault - AlanScott 10:15 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting, thanks! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 10:13 pm EDT 04/04/21 | |
| In reply to: re: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault - Michael_Portantiere 11:39 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Sidebar again: The writers on Cheers and Frasier consistently had a similar problem--Kelsey Grammer's background and education were not as grammar-intensive as his character's and that, coupled with the actor's preference for little rehearsal, led to some whoppers to deal with in the editing suite. Thank you, Alan, for that information. It add another dimension to this discussion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 03:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I'd be every bit as willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever let a woman in my life." This solves the redundancy and the as/than problem without altering the rhyme, the rhythm, or the meaning. The split infinitive, to me, is inconsequential--everybody does it from time to time--even grammarians--in agitated speech as opposed to careful writing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:10 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I'd be every bit as willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever let a woman in my life." This solves the redundancy and the as/than problem without altering the rhyme, the rhythm, or the meaning. The split infinitive, to me, is inconsequential--everybody does it from time to time--even grammarians--in agitated speech as opposed to careful writing. Believe it or not, I once came up with that same correction of the lyrics, and I do agree if it's a good job if one doesn't mind the split infinitive. (Another poster here would still object to "willing for," but I'm not entirely sure that's an error.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:35 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I love the flow of your revised lyric. Are there different grammatical rules for lyrics as opposed to prose? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:49 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - BroadwayTonyJ 08:35 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Are there different grammatical rules for lyrics as opposed to prose? Oh, I don't think there are really any grammatical rules for writing lyrics, or we wouldn't have such fine songs as "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" and many others along those lines. I quoted one E.Y. Harburg lyric in the "songs about spring" thread yesterday that is--deliberately--a grammatical train wreck, but a delightful lyric all the same. It all depends on the character who's supposed to be singing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:49 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 08:49 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Oh, I don't think there are really any grammatical rules for writing lyrics." I think there are, or should be, in cases where we would expect that the character singing the lyrics in question (if the song is from a show) would/should express himself/herself/themself according to rules of correct grammar and usage, but of course, not in other cases -- to cite only one example among a great many, Tony's songs in THE MOST HAPPY FELLA. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 12:09 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 11:49 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| But we are talking about writing for the theater, not for a master's thesis or a legal brief. Songs have to be make theatrical sense. Singers have to be able to sing them. If the lyrics can not be understood or do not flow easily off the tongue then they are useless. I feel badly that instead of appreciating the wit and elegance of these songs you are obsessed by a split infinitive. Shelley Winter's shoes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:21 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Billhaven 12:09 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| "But we are talking about writing for the theater, not for a master's thesis or a legal brief. Songs have to be make theatrical sense. Singers have to be able to sing them. If the lyrics can not be understood or do not flow easily off the tongue then they are useless." I honestly can't understand why you see this as a choice between the two. Why shouldn't Alan Jay Lerner have been expected to write lyrics that were grammatically correct and would ALSO be very singable, would "flow easily," and would "make theatrical sense," when most other lyricists who are held in esteem were perfectly capable of doing so? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think that adjusted lyric is the same as one I posted years ago. As for splitting infinitives, there is no reason for grammarians not to do it in careful writing. The basic rule is: It's best not to do it, except when it's better if you do. This goes back to at least as long ago as the first edition (1926) of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (a book so famous and so widely used that Thurber wrote a long multi-chapter parody of it). I'm surprised that people here think that there is any hard-and-fast rule against splitting infinitives. The Thurber parody is one of the funniest things I've ever read. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:52 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - AlanScott 07:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "As for splitting infinitives, there is no reason for grammarians not to do it in careful writing. The basic rule is: It's best not to do it, except when it's better if you do." So, in other words, it's a matter of opinion :-) And I suppose different people might have different opinions as to whether "to ever let" is better phrasing than "ever to let," or if they are equivalent. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:33 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 11:52 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Pretty much everything is a matter of opinion when it comes to writing. Or perhaps that should be: When it comes to writing, pretty much everything is a matter of opinion. Or: When it comes to writing, everything is pretty much a matter of opinion. Still, anyone who thinks that "ever to let a woman in my life" is better than "to ever let a woman in my life" is someone whose writing I probably don't want to read. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:40 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - AlanScott 06:33 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***Still, anyone who thinks that "ever to let a woman in my life" is better than "to ever let a woman in my life" is someone whose writing I probably don't want to read. :)*** Really? "than ever to let a woman in my life" doesn't sound at all awkward to me, whereas I think attempts to avoid using prepositions at the ends of sentences often sound INCREDIBLY awkward. So that's a "rule" I never pay attention to :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: pagates 01:12 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 11:52 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Another question that occurs to me in all this is what differences might there be between English (British) grammar in 1912/13 and 1955/56 and 2021. I trust the relevant rules and expectations for grammar would be those that were current in Edwardian England. I don't pretend to know what they were, but I venture that they have been changes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:03 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - pagates 01:12 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| In the New York Times of August 18, 1929, there was an article titled “The Split Infinitive Again Finds Support.” From the article: “[S]ince about 1919 it has ceased to be a crime to split infinitives. Dr. Frank H. Vizetelly, lexicographer, indicates as much, and he is warmly seconded by Dr. H. W. Fowler, editor of the New Oxford Dictionary.” Later in the article: “Writers of current literature increasingly violate the old rule that, perhaps more than any other, made composition stilted and tended to discourage the spread of learning.” As I mentioned in a reply to keikekaze, Fowler in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, first published in 1926, spent several pages writing about why the blanket prohibition against split infinitives was pretty silly. I never read it till last night, and I was surprised to find that it was very funny. Fowler knew how to make fun of people. Split infinitives can be found in Chaucer, Shakespeare, Byron, Hardy, Keats, Twain, Matthew Arnold and I’m sure plenty of other major English-language writers before Shaw. In fact, I found a few articles from the early 1900s mocking academic strictures on what is supposed to be unacceptable in good writing, with the prohibition on split infinitives being among the targets. But Shaw was an iconoclast, and he created another iconoclast in Higgins. While Higgins certainly would have been very knowledgeable about what was considered good grammar and what was not, he might well have found some of the rules silly and not worth following. Indeed, I found a number of articles and books in which a letter that Shaw is said to have written in 1907 to the London Times was quoted. I wish I could have found proof that I considered definitive that the quote was for real, but I did find it quoted by some well-respected writers. Attesting most of all to the likely authenticity of the quote, the Times itself published a letter in 1992 in which Shaw's letter was quoted. I presume that if the widely quoted letter was bogus, someone at the Times would have picked up on it. Here is what Shaw (it seems) wrote: “There is a busybody on your staff who devotes a lot of his time to chasing split infinitives. Every good literary craftsman splits his infinitives when the sense demands it. I call for the immediate dismissal of this pedant. It is of no consequence whether he decides to go quickly or quickly to go or to quickly go. The important thing is that he should go at once.” If the letter is not authentic, it should be. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thank you. This is excellent. nm | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 11:13 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - AlanScott 08:03 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| See? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: pagates 08:32 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - AlanScott 08:03 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Amazing research! And outstanding information and analysis. Many thanks. The quotation is brilliant. I too hope it’s authentic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:34 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - pagates 08:32 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| I also hope the quote is authentic, and it makes a lot of sense. The rule against split infinitives is not one that I personally subscribe to, but I will say that, to me, if split infinitives are acceptable some of the time "for the sense of the phrase," I don't understand why they aren't acceptable all of the time. That said, I suppose a split infinitive would look and sound clearly wrong if one were to add SEVERAL words in the split -- for example, if instead of "to ever let a woman in my life," Lerner had written "to ever, under any circumstances, let a woman in my life." :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:51 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - Michael_Portantiere 01:34 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Some experts who think the prohibition is silly and invalid might say something like this: There is no prohibition on using split infinitives but neither is it especially desirable. Sometimes splitting infinitives can lead to a sentence that lacks clarity or is clumsy (or both). Sometimes not splitting infinitives can lead to a sentence that lacks clarity or is clumsy (or both). There is always the option of recasting but sometimes that leads to something verbose and unnecessarily complicated. If the best solution is to split, then split, but usually it is not the best option. I just basically summarized what Fowler writes in his last section discussing split infinitives. At the link you can find the whole entry on split infinitives. There are those who say something like this: Avoid splitting infinitives because if you split there will be people who think you’re ignorant or careless. That seems a bit silly, but if, say, you’re writing a cover letter for a job or submitting an article to someone who doesn’t already know your writing, it’s probably good advice. I admit to not being sure why even some grammar experts who say that it is fine to split infinitives if that will give you the best sentence also say that as a general rule it is also best to avoid splitting. I think the reason may be because most of the time not splitting gives you a better sentence but I’m not 100-percent sure that’s the reason. I certainly understand the reasoning that you should avoid it because people will think you’re ignorant or careless. |
|
| Link | Fowler on split infinitives |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:34 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - pagates 01:12 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***Another question that occurs to me in all this is what differences might there be between English (British) grammar in 1912/13 and 1955/56 and 2021. I trust the relevant rules and expectations for grammar would be those that were current in Edwardian England. I don't pretend to know what they were, but I venture that they have been changes.*** Excellent point! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: pagates 10:31 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 02:34 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for your excellent original post! It has stimulated an outstanding, thoughtful, instructive, and uncommonly enjoyable thread about a musical I have long held as one of the giants of the century, if evidenced only by this conversation it prompted. I saw it first as the movie in ’64 (I grew up in the hinterlands), and not onstage until 2011 (in a respectable summer stock production). But it was in seeing the most recent LCT production - three times - that I was able fully to appreciate (or to fully appreciate) its richness and wit, its depth and its power, its highs and its lows. I loved all three viewings, but was most deeply moved by the two I saw with Benanti and Haden-Paton (with changes in supporting cast). It's great to be reminded of them all. I will say that while the movie has great charm, it never reached me the way the stage production did. Possibly because of my age difference on viewings, but I prefer to think that the “life” of a stage production offers emotional depth that a movie musical rarely - if ever - achieves. The fixedness and gloss of film is valuable in many ways, but live art engages the whole person more fully and complexly. I suppose that’s why it has devotees like us on this board and thread. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - AlanScott 07:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I wish I still had my Fowler--I used to enjoy reading it just for the fun of it. Unfortunately I lost it somewhere in one of my too many changes of address. (My creditors were always just on the verge of catching uo with me! ; ) ) I'm not familiar with the Thurber parody, so I'll have to look it up--thanks for the tip that it exists! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 07:51 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| This message board is so freaking arcane sometimes and I totally love it. I'm so glad we're here instead of on Reddit. And that's a terrific rewrite, keikekaze. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:58 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - GrumpyMorningBoy 07:51 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, GMB! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: larry13 02:03 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 01:28 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I must say as an English major and someone very interested in good writing, but clearly not a grammarian, I have never minded Lerner's lyrics for Higgins. I guess that, just as several people have noted not minding the continuity errors in "A Star is Born," I relish all of MFL, even these "mistakes." Playing the OBCR repeatedly from a very young age has obviously been the deciding factor. Plus, of course, the brilliance of Harrison's delivery of all the lines. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 02:48 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - larry13 02:03 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I taught high school for 3 years ('69 -- "72), although I wasn't an English teacher. However, Lerner's lyrics never bothered me because Harrison delivered them so brilliantly and the words themselves just seemed so right for the context of the story. I saw the 154-minute version of A Star Is Born many times on TV and eventually had it on VHS. I never noticed any continuity errors, but sometimes they can be hard to catch unless specifically pointed out. For the last 28 years or so, I have watched the 175-minute restored version, which has full sound and a combination of cut scenes and still photos for the missing footage. I'm just thrilled that the longer, restored version was able to be made. I would never criticize any continuity problems it may contain. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:36 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 02:48 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Has anyone yet pointed out Higgins' failure to invoke the subjective in "A Hymn To Him" "If I was a woman / who'd been to a ball...." should be "If I were a woman / who'd been to a ball..." Sondheim made a virtue of the subjunctive in Act Two of A Little Night Music: "If she weren't so awfully perfect It would have been wonderful!" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:10 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - peter3053 05:36 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I just saw your post here. I responded about that matter elsewhere in this discussion but perhaps you missed that. That is Harrison's fault, not Lerner's. Lerner had it t as were. Harrison did it as was and later so did Ian Richardson, who changed it every time from Lerner's were to was. Harrison at least did it as were the other times in the song. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 06:41 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - peter3053 05:36 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I haven't pointed it out here, but I've noticed it! I believe that, at various points on the various recordings and in the film of MFL, various actors sometimes correctly say (or sing) "If I were...." and sometimes incorrectly say (or sing) "If I was...." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I will say that I have never been a big fan of the musical but have always found the film totally unsatisfying. Hepburn was an amazing actress but a very uncomfortable fit for Eliza. The costumes were extraordinary but the sets, except for Higgin's home, look cheap---particularly the Ascot set. The cinematography looks flat and is plagued by terrible lighting. Look at the stark shadows in most every scene. The background actors were often so bad that they dominate the scene. There is a woman in the Get Me To The Church On Time who seems to have wandered in off the street and has no idea what she is doing---she can't seem to do anything properly and is often pushed into place by other actors. As a result I can never take my eyes off of her. How Cukor allowed this is beyond comprehension. For me the film is almost entirely flawed. Yes, Harrison is good but Higgins is such an unpleasant character that it can't save the film, for me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Last Edit: keikekaze 07:34 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 07:31 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| In point number 6, the song you're referring to is "I'm An Ordinary Man," not "A Hymn To Him." To address several of your other points, I imagine that the reason several lyrics that had been re-written for London reverted to their original Broadway form in the movie was that Warner et al. were aware that by 1964 approximately two-thirds of the American public had committed the Broadway cast album to memory. That cast album was the best-selling record in any genre of the 1950s. You don't fool around with that kind of success, if you're commercially wise. As I tried to indicate in the thread below, the uppermost thought in the movie people's minds in 1964 would heave been to reproduce the most celebrated Broadway musical experience of all time as precisely as possible in every detail. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 07:53 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - keikekaze 07:31 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***In point number 6, the song you're referring to is "I'm An Ordinary Man," not "A Hymn To Him."*** Thanks, I will make that correction :-) As for your point about the London lyrics, I'm sure you're correct, and I think I gave pretty much the same reason in my post. Although Lerner was apparently persuaded to rewrite those non-British expressions for the London production and for the cast album, when it came time to make the movie, he probably felt that to use the rewritten lyrics would be jarring to SO many people who had committed the billion-selling original cast album to memory. Also, such a course of action would only have served to underline how sloppy he had been in allowing those non-British expressions to slip into his lyrics in the first place (because he apparently wasn't interested in working hard enough to do the research necessary to prevent that from happening). I guess he didn't have the courage for that. So, incongruous as those Americanisms were, he decided to keep them as the path of least resistance. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 10:31 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 10:25 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 07:53 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| That's an interesting point, but I still think that whomever made the decision was very short-sighted. Had the London revisions been allowed to stand, been inserted into the Broadway production, and used in all subsequent productions, including the movie, by now, 50+ years later, those would be the lyrics ingrained in the mind of the public and the originals would be curiosities revisited only on Broadway trivia nights. I also find the idea of Hollywood execs deciding that they absolutely cannot change anything in the Broadway musical that they're adapting to be a bit rich coming from the same Hollywood where they never met a hit they couldn't make changes to for their adaptation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Last Edit: keikekaze 04:31 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:30 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - JereNYC 10:25 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I also find the idea of Hollywood execs deciding that they absolutely cannot change anything in the Broadway musical that they're adapting to be a bit rich coming from the same Hollywood where they never met a hit they couldn't make changes to for their adaptation. Yes, Hollywood had been cheerfully wrecking Broadway musicals for decades--and critics and the public had been complaining about it for decades. My Fair Lady was not just any old Broadway musical. In 1964, it was considered the Broadway musical, the one to put in a time capsule, the one to take to a desert island, the one to rescue from a burning library--the one. I can't over-stress this point to people who may not have been there at the time. The moviemakers who brought My Fair Lady to the screen were determined to prove that, for once, they could do it right. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 05:00 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - keikekaze 04:30 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. I was there at the time (although only 8 years old). From '56 through '64 certainly, My Fair Lady was considered the greatest Broadway musical ever, not to be fucked with, if and when filmed. I just wish they had chosen Minnelli over Cukor as the director. Cukor had never solely directed a "book musical" film. Regarding One Hour with You, the great Lubitsch replaced Cukor, although George continued as his assistant. In A Star Is Born and Les Girls, the songs were all musical numbers, performed diegetically. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| CORRECTION -- should read: (although only 8 rears old in '56) (nmi) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 05:52 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - BroadwayTonyJ 05:00 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:02 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - JereNYC 10:25 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Had the London revisions been allowed to stand, been inserted into the Broadway production, and used in all subsequent productions, including the movie, by now, 50+ years later, those would be the lyrics ingrained in the mind of the public and the originals would be curiosities revisited only on Broadway trivia nights." Exactly. P.S. When the original London cast recording was released, there was an attempt, at least for a while, to position it as the definitive recording (it's NOT!) and to have it replace the Broadway album, to the point where I believe the Broadway album actually went out of print for awhile (I'm not sure for how long). Anyway, Columbia CERTAINLY pushed people to buy the London album, whether or not they already owned the Broadway album, and I'm sure many people DID buy the London album, so the revised lyrics included there would have become familiar to all those consumer. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 06:36 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 01:02 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| My mom bought me the OBC LP in '56 at Goldblatt's in Chicago. I played it so often that by '64 it had considerable wear (diamond needles and turntables back then were not the greatest) and needed to be replaced. I had not heard good things about the '59 OLC LP, even though it was in stereo. I received the soundtrack LP for Christmas in '64, but wasn't crazy about it. We drove all over Chicagoland trying to find the '56 original without any luck. I actually contacted the Columbia Record Club, offered to become a member if I could get the original recording, but was told only the London LP was available. I ended up buying the London version at our local Polk Bros. store. Ironically, my girlfriend at the time did have the '56 LP, having gotten it pre-'59. However, she dumped me for this big guy on the basketball team my senior year, so I learned to appreciate the London. Decades later I was able to purchase the '56 recording on cassette. Today I have CDs of the '56 original, the '59 London, the '93 Jay Records, the '01 London, the '18 Broadway, and Benanti's CD of selections. The '56 is easily my favorite; however, I do enjoy the '18 revival, and Benanti's vocals (especially "I Could Have Danced All Night") are thrilling. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - BroadwayTonyJ 06:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "My mom bought me the OBC LP in '56 at Goldblatt's in Chicago. I played it so often that by '64 it had considerable wear (diamond needles and turntables back then were not the greatest) and needed to be replaced. I had not heard good things about the '59 OLC LP, even though it was in stereo. I received the soundtrack LP for Christmas in '64, but wasn't crazy about it. We drove all over Chicagoland trying to find the '56 original without any luck. I actually contacted the Columbia Record Club, offered to become a member if I could get the original recording, but was told only the London LP was available. I ended up buying the London version at our local Polk Bros. store. Ironically, my girlfriend at the time did have the '56 LP, having gotten it pre-'59. However, she dumped me for this big guy on the basketball team my senior year, so I learned to appreciate the London." Great story :-) I distinctly remember at one point buying the London cast album on cassette, when I was maybe about 13 years old -- except I THOUGHT I was buying the Broadway cast album, because the background of the cassette sleeve with the logo, the Hirschfeld, the credits and the song titles was white, NOT gold. In fact, I didn't realize it was the London album until I started playing it and thought, "Hmm, that sounds like a different recording of the overture....." I think this was a deliberate attempt to mislead on Columbia's part, which was unlike them. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: larry13 08:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - BroadwayTonyJ 06:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I enjoyed reading of your history with MFL recordings and especially your attempts to get back the OBC. Not that you need another but may I suggest the '76 revival with Christine Andreas; it is quite good and probably can be obtained cheaply. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:14 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - larry13 08:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I enjoyed reading of your history with MFL recordings and especially your attempts to get back the OBC. Not that you need another but may I suggest the '76 revival with Christine Andreas; it is quite good and probably can be obtained cheaply." I just re-listened to the whole thing yesterday for the first time in a long while, and yes, there is a lot to love on it :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:46 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - larry13 08:34 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Oh my God, how could I forget the '76 recording with Andreas' divine vocals and George Rose's almost definitive portrayal of Doolittle? Let's just blame it on covid-19, (which I did contract in January). Of course, I do have the '76 revival CD. I would l rank it in my favorites list as 3rd after the original and Benanti's CD. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: simbo 02:28 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 01:02 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| The London cast was recorded in stereo, which the Broadway wasn't, so it was considered an upgrade (plus of the cast with a substantial singing role, only the performer playing Freddie was different). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:45 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - simbo 02:28 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Umm, yes, I know. Stereo was the big selling point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 04:19 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 04:19 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 03:45 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| If the Broadway album had been recorded in stereo, do you think the London album would even exist? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - JereNYC 04:19 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "If the Broadway album had been recorded in stereo, do you think the London album would even exist?" I highly doubt it, especially not with the same three (or four) leads: Harrison, Andrews, Holloway, and Coote. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:47 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 05:59 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Michael - thank you for this - there's so much to digest and think about here. I love it! :-) One slight point, though - you say "10. In Freddy's "On the Street Where You Live" and the separate little song that precedes it ("When she mentioned how her aunt bit off the spoon...") - I would say that's not a separate song, but simply the verse - same as in the stage show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 07:01 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Chromolume 06:47 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Good point, but I guess I would say it's arguable. As you may know, that whole section ("When she mentioned how her aunt bit off the spoon....") was not originally in the score and was added only after the show began performing out of town pre-Broadway. And the reason it was added was that, apparently, at least some of the audience did not recognize Freddy as the fellow from the Ascot scene, and "On the Street Where You Live" was not going over for that reason. So the new section was added to clarify Freddy's identity, but it was not originally conceived as a verse for the song. Plus it's separated from the song proper by a few lines of dialogue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:26 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 07:01 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. But there are any number of verses that are separated by dialogue before the refrain. Plus, it's not the only time a verse has been written after the fact. (One that comes to mind is the verse that Sondheim had supposedly written to go with "Some People," but Merman wouldn't learn it. One that he DID add is the verse to "Good Thing Going" as sung by Gussie in the revised Merrily.) In any case, the section works as a verse usually would, as a sung intro to set up the refrain. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: JohnDunlop 10:07 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Chromolume 08:26 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I saw Ethel Merman in Gypsy when I was 16 years old. One could not fire Merman in preparation for the musical in 1959. Who could have replaced her? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:39 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - JohnDunlop 10:07 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I saw Ethel Merman in Gypsy when I was 16 years old. One could not fire Merman in preparation for the musical in 1959. Who could have replaced her?" Ummm.....what????? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: larry13 10:37 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - JohnDunlop 10:07 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. But who was suggesting she should have been fired? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:49 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - larry13 10:37 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think anyone was. :-) The story of that unused verse to "Some People" is, I think, recounted in Zadan's "Sondheim & Co" if I recall correctly. He sought legal advice after she refused to learn the verse, and he was told the story about Merman refusing new lyrics in Call Me Madam, where she (in)famously said, "Call me Miss Bird's Eye - this show is frozen." :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:29 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Chromolume 08:26 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Gotcha. I don't own the printed score of MY FAIR LADY, so I don't know if the piece of music in question is presented therein as a verse to "On the Street Where You Live" or as a separate item. I guess that would give us our answer. Anyone? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:55 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 09:29 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have several different copies of the score, and all of them include that section at the top of what is called "On The Street Where You Live" - it's not a separate number. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:40 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Chromolume 09:55 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Okay, thanks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: peter3053 06:09 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The messy brilliance of the MY FAIR LADY film (VERY LONG!) - Michael_Portantiere 11:40 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| First, thank you Michael for a fabulous analysis which started such an illuminating thread - so stimulating and precise! For me, one of the more egregious faults of the lyrics is this attempt at rhyme from "You Did It!" (pardon if I've missed some reference to it above): Her English is too good, he said, Which clearly indicates that she is foreign. Whereas others are instructed in their native language English people aren'. (Quoted from the appendicized lyrics published in "On The Street Where I Live" by Alan Jay Lerner) Where to begin? First, in the English accent, "foreign" and "aren't" don't rhyme at all, because whereas in New York "aren't" is pronounced as a two-syllable word and, yes, in New York does have an "a" sound that sounds more like the "aw" sound of "foreign", in England the word is pronounced as a single syllable word, sounding like this: "Uhnt". Unlike the Irish and Scots (and Elizabethan English) who influenced the strong "r" sound in the American accent, the English have much more clipped pronunciations and fewer dipthongs, as we all know. Second, as published by Lerner himself, he cheats on the alleged rhyme by dropping the final "t" of "aren't" - for no reason. (Keeping it wouldn't have helped!) If Higgins were attempting to imitate the accent of Kaparthy at this point, it would mean that the foreigner learned his English in America ("where they haven't used it in years!). But then why would Higgins pick up on this most unusual accenting of Kaparthy when there is no evidence of such a peculiarity in the scenes in which the man himself appears? I suspect Lerner had a brief attack of the Yip Harburgs when he tried on this bit of "peculiarish" not so "grandish" whimsy! One other moment in the film that appalls me is that during "Just You Wait" (apropos of the bad dubbing you identify above) Audrey Hepburn's mouth is clearly shaped to sing "Ha Ha Ha, 'Enry 'Higgins" whereas the dub sound is "Ho Ho Ho, 'Enry 'Higgins", which happens the second time she does that bit of the song just after she stands up out of the chair. Who was it who said that, in George Cukor's hands, "My Fair Lady" had "not so much been preserved on film but rather, embalmed"? Embalmed, with several inherited flaws. But like so many, none of these matters prevent me from loving the whole glorious show, which just goes to prove that humans can love the imperfect sometimes with even more zeal than the perfect ... if we ever find such a thing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:32 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - peter3053 06:09 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***If Higgins were attempting to imitate the accent of Kaparthy at this point, it would mean that the foreigner learned his English in America ("where they haven't used it in years!). But then why would Higgins pick up on this most unusual accenting of Kaparthy when there is no evidence of such a peculiarity in the scenes in which the man himself appears?***** Not only that, but even if Karpathy were attempting to pronounce "aren't" in the American English way, he'd still be mispronouncing it by leaving off the "t" at the end -- and since it is hammered home to us that Karpathy himself is a stickler for correct pronunciation, that would NEVER happen. I'm sure Lerner self-justified "aren" as an attempt to make fun of Karpathy's pronunciation, but again, that makes zero sense for that character. ****But like so many, none of these matters prevent me from loving the whole glorious show, which just goes to prove that humans can love the imperfect sometimes with even more zeal than the perfect ... if we ever find such a thing.*** EXACTLY. As I've noted elsewhere, it really bothers me when people who love a show, film, etc. can't recognize and discuss its flaws while still loving it -- and, conversely, when people who despise a show, film, etc. can't acknowledge what might be good in it. P.S. Thanks for your kind words about my OP :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| T-glottalization: “aren’” | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:43 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - Michael_Portantiere 12:32 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Swallowing the T consonant sound is known as T-glottalization, and it’s prevalent in many British dialects, especially Cockney and the northern dialects like Mancunian, where it most often occurs in the middle of words. Listen to Stanley Holloway do it when he sings, “Wi’ a lih-ul bit o’ bloomin’ luck.” The whole song is full of glottalization. That said, sometimes the better educated classes—especially ladies—did it, too, with the ending of contractions. So it can happen that one says “aren’” in place of “aren’t.” The situation here is murky and weird, though, because Higgins is presumably imitating Karpathy at this point, so none of this makes sense. Chalk up another one to Lerner being messy. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:52 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - peter3053 06:09 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I suspect Lerner had a brief attack of the Yip Harburgs when he tried on this bit of "peculiarish" not so "grandish" whimsy! Funny you should say that, because my first instinct when reading your comments on "aren'" was to think of the horn/your'n rhyme in "The Great Come And Get It Day." Normally, rhymes like that would be fine, IMO, in the spirit of having fun with the language. Ira Gershwin did a lot of that too. But for Higgins to be doing that doesn't make a lot of sense at all. (If the guy actually had a sense of humor about language it might be different...but he clearly doesn'.) :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:40 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - Chromolume 08:52 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***Funny you should say that, because my first instinct when reading your comments on "aren'" was to think of the horn/your'n rhyme in "The Great Come And Get It Day." Normally, rhymes like that would be fine, IMO, in the spirit of having fun with the language. Ira Gershwin did a lot of that too. But for Higgins to be doing that doesn't make a lot of sense at all. (If the guy actually had a sense of humor about language it might be different...but he clearly doesn'.) :-)*** Agreed completely. But also, I have no problem with "your'n" in FINIAN'S RAINBOW, because it seems to me that even if Woody wouldn't necessarily use that word, he would be familiar with it because some of the sharecroppers he lives with might speak that way. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:23 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - Michael_Portantiere 12:40 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| And of course, "If Ever I would Leave You" in Camelot comes completely undone over "Fall" - Oh no No in Springtime, Summer, Winter or .............. autumn... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 06:33 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - peter3053 05:23 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Ha! I never thought of that! But maybe we can argue that, since Camelot was (is?) a mythical place, regular rules of grammar, usage, and Britishisms/Americanisms don't apply :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: lyrics (above) et al. | |
| Posted by: peter3053 09:43 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: lyrics (above) et al. - Michael_Portantiere 06:33 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I did think that, but couldn't help point it out. (I'm wicked.) Also, Lancelot is French ... so now we have a Hungarian Grammarian AND a French Knight who studied English in America courtesy of Lerner, who, when it comes to national idiom, seems to have been a slow learner. Mind you, let's not get into Sondheim's struggles with anglicisms in Sweeney Todd ... where politicians in England don't strictly "run" for office, and "crumpet" doesn't quite mean the same as "parsley"... but perhaps the Brechtian quality of the show excuses those; certainly nobody ever seemed to worry that Len Cariou didn't bother with an English accent, nor a likely dialect for a lower-class barber; indeed, I remember how the audience laughed at the line "What's the sound of the world out there ... / It's man devouring man my dear ..." which seemed to make the show about New York in the late 70s more than England in the 1840s. But I'm not complaining about the most brilliant night in the theatre ever. Meanwhile back to an English phonologist from an English tonsorialist ... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.549182 seconds.