My Fair Lady

The classic case of an embarrassment of riches. The infrastructure of this jewel reads like a Who's Who of American Cinema. Take the play by George Bernard Shaw. It's in the Western Canon of Literature, for heaven's sake. Then add lyrics by Jay Lerner and his longtime collaborator composer Frederick Loewe who gave us everything from An American in Paris, to Gigi, to Brigadoon, among many others. Directed by George Cuckor, whose credits include not only Gone With the Wind, but also a string of Katherine Hepburn films, My Fair Lady bears Cuckor's brilliant touch in directing leading women. And what a leading woman he had to work with this time. Audrey is breathtaking in every move and every syllable she utters. But that's not all. Those stunning costumes designed by Cecil Beaton are without peer in modern cinema, especially the Ball Gown. Audrey was so exquisite that she looked unreal, perhaps of another species, as she descended the stairs and donned her velvet cape. With music direction by Andre Previn, the baton behind Gigi, Porgy and Bess, Kiss Me Kate and even Jesus Christ Superstar, My Fair Lady's musical pedigree is complete. From this perspective, My Fair Lady is the culmination of a generation of America musicals, and the greatest one of them all even before the first frame was filmed. Ironically, Audrey was denied a well-deserved Oscar. She didn't even get nominated, which from an historical perspective boggles the mind. The Oscar that year went to Julie Andrews for Mary Poppins. Andrews, who had popularized the role of Eliza Doolittle on Broadway before the movie was made, passed on My Fair Lady to do Mary Poppins. Andrews, a gifted singer, was reportedly miffed at the casting of Hepburn, whose singing was dubbed by an uncredited Marne Nixon, and Hepburn's exuberant performance was completely ignored by the SAG. But there were enough Oscars to go around. Beaton, Harrison and Previn all collected statuettes, and My Fair Lady collected eight total and was nominated for four more. This immense achievement was almost lost to deterioration, but the newly restored version is stunning. If you don't have this one in your collection, you can't call it a collection.

This lame musical, so grossly overrated, can't hold a candle either to other musicals of the same time (The Music Man) or to the stage play upon which it is based. The musical is woefully miscast at every turn, and I can only say that anyone who thinks well of it has missed the 30s film version and Shaw's wonderful skill. 1) Hepburn is a lovely girl, and a good actress. She's a bad choice for the Eliza role because she's TOO lovely. No one in their right mind would believe her as a common guttersnipe. Compare to the 30s Eliza, Wendy Hiller -- who is just plain enough to play her, yet scrubs up excellently. 2) Harrison is a lame choice for Higgins, and totally misses the role. Harrison plays him as a cold fish, right to the core, whereas the 30s Higgins, Leslie Howard, nailed it right on -- Higgins is a very passionate man who has subordinated his passion into his language studies. Eliza becomes the subject of his passion -- first as his student, then as a woman (hence Shaw's title, Pygmalion, with Eliza his Galatea). 3) All the smaller roles, from Pickering and "The Count", to Freddie and Eliza's father, are all far better cast in the 30s film. 4) The idea that a play, written by a master of the stage like Shaw, can be converted to a musical is as ridiculous as colorizing a Hitchcock film (and yes, it's true people are stupid enough to have done both). Shaw is arguably the second greatest playwright of the English language (and certainly *one* of the best), and his use of dialogue is as masterful and mindful of its rhythms as Hitchcock's use of light and shadow. The songs in MFL only serve to disrupt those rhythms. The 30s film, mind you, had the screenplay adapted by Shaw himself, so I believe it is safe to presume that the play's rhythms were retained in the film. All in all, if you watch the 30s film before you see MFL, you'll be greatly annoyed with the excess of acclaim given the latter. It's lame at best, and overrated by any measure. I say: *Hack-ptui*.

A Professor of Misogyny takes advantage of a young woman and turns her into something she isn't. It's similar to the treatment forced on those whose sexual orientation didn't conform to the views of the 'holier than thou', and therein lies the paradox, with the prof and his colonel chum. Weighing in at an almighty 170 minutes, you can remove Eliza's father from the scene as he adds nothing to the story, excepting a song about the imminent demise of an individuals freedom. Nothing wrong with Eliza's aspirations and Audrey Hepburn is delightful, although it was education not enunciation she needed and, after twenty years without a bath, delicing, steroids and some powerful antibiotics. How about - My Equality Lady, now wouldn't that be luverly.

My Fair Lady, loosely based on George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalian was a film I saw recently, and I absolutely loved it, and I am 17. It wasn't just the acting, but also the overall look of the film and the music. Mind you, I saw the restored version. The film looks exquisite, with stunning sets and truly luscious costumes. A prime example is the ballroom scene. Audrey Hepburn's dresses were also a marvel to look at. This was also helped by the superb cinematography, and the detailed direction, provided by George Cukor. The scene at the racetrack was one of my personal favourite scenes from the film. Oh, and the choreography is fabulous. The script is witty and acerbic, with excellent scenes with the social commentary. The story is simple, but is well told, and fits the lengthy running time perfectly. The music by Frederick Loewe is just outstanding. Asides from the costumes, the songs are ones that you hear once and never forget. Songs like I Could Have danced All Night, With a Little bit of Luck, Just You wait, Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? and Wouldn't it be Loverly linger long into the memory, and are a joy to the ear. I loved the incidental music at the beginning, then again I am the sort of person who is raised on classical music, and appreciates music for what it is. The performances also added a lot to the film; Rex Harrison was just superb as the cynical, misanthropic Professor Henry Higgins, who transforms Eliza Doolittle to the woman she is at the end of the film. The Belgian actress Audrey Hepburn is perfectly enchanting as Eliza, and Marnie Nixon provides her singing voice beautifully.(yes she was dubbed, and Audrey Hepburn is not a *) There is solid support from Stanley Holloway and Gladys Cooper, and watch out for Sherlock Holmes actor Jeremy Brett as Freddy. In conclusion, a truly beautiful film, that deserved all the praise it got, it is an amazing film, that is misunderstood. It is also a perfect treat for around Easter time. Honestly, for those who think it is the worst movie ever made, see something like Home Alone 4, the only film I can think of that deserves a minus rating, that's how terrible that film is. My Fair Lady gets a 10/10 from me, Bethany Cox.

... that being the late 50s to the late 60s. They don't particularly age well .Looking back on them in the context of the 1960s they seem downright anachronistic. . At least this film is not offensive. Gigi, which won Best Picture of 1958, has a young woman's relatives trying to turn her into a prostitute, from which she wisely figures out there is no coming back, while Maurice Chevalier musically ogles little girls from the shelter of the bushes. That one didn't age well in a bunch of ways. This one has fabulous music, magnificent art design, quite a bit of great dry humor, and perfect casting - except I really wish James Cagney had taken the part of Eliza's father. It would have made a great bookend for his film career. The direction is perfectly on target for late career George Cukor. He won Best Director Oscar for this and didn't make another film for five years. Rex Harrison certainly deserved his Best Actor Oscar as misanthropic phoneticist Henry Higgins. He is both stern and humorous, his vocals in both song and word are alive and nothing less than perfect. Also, Wilfrid Hyde-White as Pickering adds a great deal to the film, and I appreciate him more on successive viewings. Thus it is hard to give a film with such great production values less than a 7/10. I have a couple of problems with it. First, it is just too long. Clocking in at two hours and fifty minutes, there is just too much movie for too little story. Pygmalian, starring Leslie Howard, was perfect at ninety minutes, and I actually prefer that film to this one. Second, I don't like the resolution because there isn't one. After all of that squabbling at Higgins' mother's house, after Higgins realizing he has "grown accustomed to her face", the end is just a let down. Had it gone on any longer it would have become Season Four of Moonlighting.

I've seen MY FAIR LADY several times. However, it wasn't until last night that I finally saw the 1938 version of PYGMALION and this was very interesting indeed. It seems that MY FAIR LADY is actually NOT based on the George Bernard Shaw play as much as it's based on the Leslie Howard movie. That's because the dialog (particularly Henry Higgins') is often word-for-word that of the film. Additionally, both films have the same ending--one that is NOT the same as the original play. In the play, the ending was more sad but also much more realistic and consistent with the characters and their growth (or lack thereof in the case of Henry Higgins). Quality-wise, both films are superb and I enjoyed them immensely. One very obvious difference is that MY FAIR LADY is a musical with lovely songs, so it's a much longer movie. Another is that although Leslie Howard did a very fine job, somehow Rex Harrison came off as grouchier and more entertaining in the lead. Another major difference is that MY FAIR LADY feels more like a comedy and PYGMALION feels much more sad and deeper emotionally. Because it is a bright and colorful musical, the characters in MY FAIR LADY seem a bit less real, but with PYGMALION you are almost brought to tears late in the film. My recommendation is that you see them both. Both are exquisitely produced and acted and you can't go wrong with either one. I could say more in my review about this film, but considering that there are already a zillion other reviews, I'll end it here. UPDATE--Only days after posting this review, I got quite a few "not helpfuls". I assume this is from fans who adored this 1964 film. Well, my response is that it can't merit anything more than an 8 because the dialog was directly lifted from the earlier film AND so much of the singing was NOT done by the stars themselves. To me, these are flaws that prevent the film from earning a higher score. And, while I think about it, cannot justify the many 10s I see for the film.

Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) attempts to turn ignorant, lower-class flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) into a lady. He does but she falls in love with him while he just sees her as an experiment. THIS won the Best Picture Academy Award? The picking must have been slim that year. I'm a great lover of Hollywood musicals like "Sound of Music", "Singin' in the Rain" etc etc but this one has always left me cold. The main problem is how it's directed. George Cukor was a great director but he (unwisely) didn't "open" this up cinematically--it looks just like a staged play. You're always aware of that and it's a distraction. The sequence at the race horse track especially was bad--it was SO obviously a set! It makes the movie seem slow and dull. The songs vary. There are some classics ("I Could Have Danced All Night") but to every one classic there are at least two bad ones--VERY bad ones. Also it seems strange to have a musical with next to no big production numbers (unless you count the ball). Rex Harrison also doesn't sing--he talks his numbers through and it doesn't work. He's also far too old for the role. As for Audrey Hepburn--her singing is dubbed and VERY badly. She never convinces as a flower girl either. The only actor that comes through is Jeremy Brett playing Freddy Evansford-Hull. He wisely doesn't take the film seriously. Worst of all is the truly disgusting misogyny in the film. Higgins thinks of women as slaves and "baggage" and, at the end, Eliza happily agrees to be that for him! THAT'S a happy ending??? I found it disturbing. Also the subplots with Eliza's father and Freddy lead to nothing and just succeed to slowing the film down even more. A long, boring musical with a very questionable "happy" ending. I give this a 1.

Having undergone extensive voice training for the role, upon learning that all of her songs would be dubbed by Marni Nixon, Audrey Hepburn walked off the set in a state of bitter disappointment but humbly apologized to the cast on the next day. Class act, Audrey. Even in the worst of circumstances, she never failed to live up to our idealized image of her. When I recently listened to the film soundtrack, I decided that Nixon did not enhance the music significantly enough to warrant Hepburn's abrupt replacement. For the sake of authenticity alone, I would have preferred Audrey's singing. Audrey was Eliza and should have sung Eliza's songs. While Rex Harrison "talked" his songs, often as he contemplated his feelings and course of action, and while Ms. Nixon intoned Eliza's tunes, the one member of the cast who actually sang his songs was Stanley Holloway, who replayed his original Broadway role as Alfred P. Doolittle, Eliza's father. Holloway was born for the role. Sporting a dustman's cap with great authenticity and then donning an elegant tuxedo for his own wedding, he stole the show with his two iconic musical numbers. Unforgettable! Unfortunately, not all of the songs in the show were as impressive as Holloway's, and, for me, a musical is only as good as its music, especially when it is brought to film. A few of the lesser tunes could have been eliminated without losing the gist of the story. The film also ran much too long with dialogue that seemed to repeat itself and actually became tiring. Eliza felt used and abused while Professor Higgins was slowly falling in love with her. Got it! No need to hammer these situations into our heads more than necessary. I also had trouble with the ending. While Harrison perfectly performs "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face", again in that special, introspective manner, and suddenly realizes how emotionally attached he had become to Eliza, what was the message of the final scene? That Henry was still the same arrogant egotist that he had always been? Shouldn't the movie have ended with a much more confident Eliza assertively instructing him to get his own bloomin' slippers? To the very end, Henry and Eliza never enter into a physical relationship, and I suppose that was consistent with Shaw's original play, upon which this musical was based. I can somehow accept that, but what had Henry learned during the past two hours and fifty minutes of film time? Apparently, not much. He was the same pompous ass at the end that he was at the beginning.

Rex Harrisons character is. And it's also one of the musicals, that I can't watch/hear. I'm not a special musical fan to begin with, but this didn't convince me either to like it. And although I do like Rex Harrison, his character behavior makes you wonder, how anyone would/could like this guy? Especially a fine woman (or should I say a fair Lady), as in this movie? But then again it's only a movie, some would argue. But I'm pretty stunned by the fact, that even women like this movie, because although another user made a few good points, about the Rex Harrison character not being a misogynist, but a misanthrope, the overall tone of the movie remains misogynist as I see it! (and many other too) And that just takes the edge of a movie, that is supposed to be a romantic musical, in my book at least ...

During the first two hours of this movie, I had thought that it was the greatest musical ever brought to film. It's only during the last hour that it begins to languish and plod. If the first two hours are a solid 10/10, then the last hour is about a 4/10. It brings the average to about 8/10, which is exactly what I gave the movie, but it's fun to think about how great the movie could have been had the producers decided to find a better ending to an otherwise superb story. It goes to show that film is a tricky medium, and regardless of how great musicals can be, live action simply isn't as interesting when it's recorded. 'My Fair Lady' could have used a bit of trimming, especially in Stanley Holloway's pieces, WITH A BIT OF LUCK and GET ME TO THE CHURCH ON TIME. Although they may have been spectacular to see on stage, movie audiences will yearn to see more about Eliza and wonder why the director spends so much time on her father. On the brighter side, I believe that I have never seen Audrey Hepburn in a more perfect role. Eliza Doolittle is a lot like she, in their rise from poverty. And watching Audrey is like being invited to see a person shine in their most perfect niche. She isn't gorgeous in a modern sense, but even a decade after her death, her image still carries that immortal appeal. Some critics call it the "it" factor. We don't know what "it" is but we know it's there. Billy Wilder once said, "God kissed her face, and there she was." For me, I just like her smile, and my smile when I watch her exuberance in one of the defining roles in her career.