I'm inviting back a couple of PoYB film contributors to discuss this movie. It's not new to get different perspectives from other people in this column, but it is new that we'd have a discussion with more than two people. But it turned out great! Thanks to Pam and to Fisher for contributing their thoughts and their emails. We mapped out a little schedule, the emails flew into inboxes, and now I've compiled the discussion below.
Pam: Ok so does the "language equals social status" thing hold up? I think no. It makes sense in the movie, but only because it takes place during a time when that exact idea of high society existed—with all the etiquette involved in the horse race and the ball, etc. I get it, but the question is: does it hold up? In 2023, the only example of this I can think of is, like, meeting the King or Queen of England. And I'm only getting that idea from watching
The Crown. The whole notion of knowing who to address as "your majesty" vs "your highness" and who to bow for and when. And I still don't think you'd be, like, thrown out as a fraud if you messed anything up.
Otherwise, speaking "properly" in 2023—what does that really even mean? It sucks that at one time it did, but I don't think that it's something that necessarily equates to social status any longer. Is there still a correlation between education and social status in the US? Sure. But in this day and age, there are many people who are working to close the gaps that enable these disparities. We know it's not a good thing.
My Fair Lady just kind of exploits it, and then laughs about it. I mean—and now I feel like I'm just picking it apart—isn't the way Eliza Doolitle speaks just a dialect anyway? I guess her grammar is a bit off, but it's sort of like Henry Higgins (and the whole lot of them) is just treating her like dirt because she doesn't speak the way that they think is the best.
In 2023, would they make a movie about a woman who is berated by men because of the way she talks, then coached into a person who is deemed acceptable by society, and also maybe loves the man who literally called her "baggage" and a "creature" all those times? Oof. This time around I don't think Henry Higgins would walk away smelling like a rose.
Fisher: Overall Response—I think that first paragraph is bang on. The level of offense caused by a real world facsimile of Eliza at the Ascots wouldn't leave everyone as "dashed" (Pickering ✊🏿). But I *would* bet me last schillin' that there are numerous institutions today that wouldn't tolerate such dialectical freedom. I think high-class diction is less a requirement but still a very strong recommendation for the upper-crusters.
But I have a feeling that I dare to assume too much intent on this film. The cynical/sincere balance is imperceptible to me based on age and my ignorance of the filmmaker's personalities. And this is a time where going against the grain was verboten. There are likely examples of films up to this era that whitewash endings or other bits of dubious people and acts but otherwise excoriate them throughout. Studios might not have tolerated a non-flowery ending to such a light movie.
I found "Quit Professor Higgins" to be cynical as hell. I let out an honest guffaw a couple seconds into it. I saw that number as a huge "We think he's a scumbag, not Mr. Cool. We know what's goin' on here." Higgins gets a way too easy ending, that's no doubt. But I would say the script was pillorying him for almost the entire length of the movie. His heinous insults, his consistent denial that he insults her, his emasculating relationship with his mother, the list goes on. Intentional or not, I posit he's painted as a sociopath, or just shy. His view of the world is assured and horrifying. I think the filmmakers were in on it, just unavoidably handcuffed. I hope.
Answer to last paragraph—Oh God no. Not any chance in hell would such a film be made. And I'm down with that. Even regardless of the human beings involved, such a dynamic isn't something our society is interested in seeing. And I'm down with that. I hope.
Question, inspired by Pam's question: could there be a market for a return to similarly idealized, escapist films, but with a dose of today's zeitgeist? I stand by this movie's premise not flying today or tomorrow, but fanciful, happy-go-lucky love stories and others? I see other things trend toward resurrecting simplicity or antiquated versions but with a "modern bend."
Joe: I like this kind of exercise. We get to FIX THE MOVIE, and in the process probably make it much, much worse. For the record, I don't think that there's necessarily anything "wrong" with a movie featuring a psychopath who kidnaps a hot homeless woman and tortures her until she talks differently. I just think that the issue is what the film is trying to tell us about that. Is the film
itself saying that this is okay? Even though it's clearly not? I really do think that the 1964 film
My Fair Lady has no problem with Higgins' behavior.
So if you're asking what
My Fair Lady (2023) would look like, then I think you could have a very similar movie, just allow space for the question of whether this is okay. You don't even have to be preachy about it. Like, maybe just have the greek chorus of maids and butlers be on Eliza's side instead of Henry's side (they could sing "Poor Eliza Doolittle!" instead)? Maybe have Higgins show in at least two or three tangible ways that he has grown to like and respect Eliza instead of begging her to live with him because he doesn't know how to wipe his own ass?
But there's gotta be a balance, because if you give too much space for that shit, then it gets preachy and boring.
My Fair Lady in its original form does not believe that there is anything wrong with the situation between Eliza and Henry. I could see a modern version believing it, but not trusting its audience to believe it. That wouldn't be any fun, and would lose the fancy and whimsy that you speak of.
Musicals are supposed to be fun. They don't have to be "real" or "down to earth" (e.g. I enjoyed how there were moments when the whole cast of extras just froze at the beginning of a scene, making it clear that this is not real life). They don't have to teach a lesson about the morality of language. But I also think that musicals and films in general have to at least have some self-awareness about it. Tough to expect that of an almost 60-year-old movie.
Pam: Yep, totally agree that having the greek chorus of maids and butlers on Eliza's side would make this more palatable for modern consumption. I could see this movie being re-done yet again (
Pretty Woman being the remake that now kinda even seems out of touch). I could envision, like in a lot of modern takes on old movies, some role reversal. I'll use the
Barbie movie as an example (without spoiling anything) of a movie that makes you think and has something to say without being preachy simply because it's really fun and "escapist," as Mike put it.
It also makes me think about how many movies have been written based on the plays of Shakespeare. I love that the bones of the story remain but the details are what constantly evolve to essentially put the timestamp on the art. Actually, reading more about
My Fair Lady, I just found that this was based on George Bernard Shaw's play
Pygmalion, which was based on the Greek myth of Pygmalion. Pygmalion makes an ivory sculpture of his ideal woman and then falls in love with his own creation. The goddess Venus brings his statue to life in answer to his prayer. So there we go—same story, different details.
So I guess my question will have to do with that: Is
My Fair Lady really a story about a man who creates his ideal woman and then falls in love with her?
Fisher: I would say it is but only to an extent. Certainly it was never his intent to mold her into an object of his desire. To Higgins (one of the most assured fictional characters I've ever witnessed), there is no ideal woman.
But it also kinda is because the machinations of the plot can't be ignored.
I might say it's a story about an egotist whose pursuit ended up showing him the error of his ways. He laughed at and derided the notion of love. But then he fell in it. Much as he is the master of his own mind, he's still human. He can think love is fake all he wants. But he's human. And Eliza has a backbone now, she ain't putting up with half as much shit.
Five years later and they're hand-in-hand, antiquing in SoHo. I bet money on it. She's taking his ass down several pegs.
Joe: I like the description of Higgins as one who realizes the errors of his ways. That allows us to have sympathy for this otherwise very unsympathetic character. We might even go so far as to say something cliché like "they bring out the best in each other." I don't know. That might be a little too pat.
I think this is important, the conversation about whether this film is fit for modern audiences, but I also think we should talk about the fun. Was there any fun? Of course there was. This is a musical! It's supposed to be fun! A movie musical has an excuse in this way—it might not be the best film ever, but if the musical numbers are good, then its rises the tide for the rest of the boats.
So my general question is: are the songs in this film worth the price of admission? I wasn't as thrilled as I usually am with musicals. Maybe because I wasn't familiar with any of the songs? That was something that Pam was surprised about, that I didn't know any of them. Even without the recognition, I thought most of them were good-not-great. Nothing stood out to me as outstanding. Nothing felt like a showstopper. Maybe the big "Get Me to the Church on Time" number? Though with that one, it was both larger-than-life and also
completely fucking unnecessary.
Anyways, yes, that's the question. What do we think about the music?
Pam: I'm a musical person, so I do love the music from
My Fair Lady. My personal favorites are "I Could Have Danced All Night," "Wouldn't It Be Loverly?," and "On the Street Where You Live." But these are definitely old-school classic musical songs. I could totally see my high school putting on a production of
My Fair Lady (in fact, I think they did after I graduated). The songs are totally what I expect to get from a musical such as this. In the same vein as those from
Oklahoma!,
Hello Dolly, etc.
My hangup is that Audrey Hepburn didn't do her own singing! She even took voice lessons but still couldn't cut it. She was cast over Julie Andrews, who was playing the part of Eliza Doolittle on Broadway at the time, because she was a bigger name. Audrey Hepburn's acting in
MFL is superb, but it does kinda burn me up that she didn't sing. Especially since Julie Andrews was already a great Eliza. Julie Andrews did, however, end up getting cast as Mary Poppins that same year, which propelled her into stardom, so she was okay. After discovering all of this, I did feel like I was betraying Julie Andrews by watching the movie.
Apparently the reviews weren't great for
MFL, in part because of Audrey Hepburn not doing her own singing. Maybe that's like the curse of
MFL; actors cast in singing roles nowadays would likely make it their business to do their own singing. And usually they are rewarded for it (Renée Zellweger in
Chicago, Anne Hathaway in
Les Mis, etc.).
Fisher: "Get Me to the Church on Time" is the only showtune I've sang at a karaoke, and "With a Little Bit of Luck" is the only showtune I've put on a mix CD.
Couldn't nail down how or why, but
MFL won an extremely uphill battle to be the star in my eyes that it is. My junior year English teacher popped this in for us, and I was so upset. I'm a seventeen-year-old man I don't wanna watch this crusty old MUSICAL. But it didn't take too long before I was just in it.
"Why Can't the English" is a lot of fun. "Ascot Gavotte" is a good quasi-takedown of the elite. I was in Eliza's pocket hard during "Show Me." That felt the least like "Oh we're doing a number now" as opposed to this chick is just speaking her truth.
Not much I actively disliked, I was pretty down for all of them.
Question: Did you discover any actors and think "I want to see more of what this person has done"? I'm on record as being big on Pickering. But honestly I want to explore all the main actors of that house. And Eliza's dad.
Joe: Great question. There's a thing that I like about old movie that you don't really get with new movies, and that is being able to avoid being bothered with the "where the
fuck have I seen this actor before?" question. Yo, it really bothers me, and then I have to pause the movie or miss a couple minutes while I look it up on Wikipedia where I know them from. I don't have to worry about that with too many old movies! I don't want to celebrate that too hard, because it's a sign of my ignorance when it comes to film, but still. Audrey Hepburn I knew only because I watched
Breakfast at Tiffany's for this film project 1000 years ago it seems like. I didn't recognize anyone else. That's a good thing. Clean slate.
Kind of a relatively bit part, but I liked Theodore Bikel as Zoltan Karpathy. He was really only in that one big scene at the beginning of Act II. It was one of those moments where you're like "oh shit, this new guy looks like trouble, I wonder how he's going to disrupt the status quo our characters have thus far established?" And the best part was... he was kind of an idiot! That's more fun, to laugh at it then for him to be a serious, mustache-twirling antagonist. (Also not really noted in the film was that Higgins apparently taught this guy everything he knows, which reflects poorly on Higgins.) It's tough to say "I want to check out what else he's in" because I recognize very few movies on any given filmography of these old actors. Maybe
The African Queen? That's early in his career, so I assume it's a bit part. Actually, probably the most relevant to this blog is that he played Tevye for a while in
Fiddler on the Roof on Broadway. There's a decent chance that
Melissa Peterman and Theodore Bikel looked alike at some point.
Honestly, Audrey Hepburn was great in this, and I hate that the thing that Pam mentioned—the controversy of being casted over Julie Andrews, despite not being able to sing apparently—sullies her performance in any way here. She did great! And singing your own songs is overrated anyway. Don't people give Russell Crowe a lot of shit for doing that? Where was
his reward? I mean reward beyond one single wayward blogger out of earth's entire population defending his honor to the death? And, I don't know, I'm cool with Danny Osmond singing B. D. Wong's
Mulan parts. See what I'm saying? Who the hell is Julie Andrews anyway? (That's not an official question, it's not my turn.)
Pam: Oh boy, do not get me started on Russell Crowe in
Les Mis. Not today!
I found Stanley Holloway as Eliza's father to be charming and very funny. He was cast perfectly, and really hammed it up in his two songs. He is the blueprint for portraying the comic part in productions like this. I also thought the actor who played Freddy did a really excellent job. I hope he did his own singing, because his voice was beautiful, and if he didn't, he certainly had me fooled. [Editor's note:
it was dubbed!] Turns out that actor (Jeremy Brett) played Sherlock Holmes for years. I've never been too interested in Sherlock Holmes but maybe I would like it... I like TV crime shows.
Yes, Audrey Hepburn was phenomenal as Eliza. Especially since seeing her in
Breakfast at Tiffany's in such a different character. It definitely showcased her range. I will stand by the singing thing, but everything worked out for Julie Andrews as it should have so I have no ill will towards Hepburn's performance.
I was counting the costumes that the ladies of Monterey used to dress as Audrey Hepburn in their self-indulgent-ultra-rich-people school fundraiser (or whatever it was) on the show
Big Little Lies.
There were two from
MFL. All of the costumes were from either
MFL or
Breakfast at Tiffany's, by the way. Couldn't they have picked a person who had recognizable looks from more than two movies? That show...
Anyway I guess my question is this: what do you think the big take-away is from
My Fair Lady, if there is one?
Fisher: The big takeaway? I mean I could speculate on several. First: "Let's give the people a nice time at the movies." Set decoration, costume design, dancing, singing, acting, cinematography, intermission. This film really is a celebration of cinema.
I don't know that it sought to teach much in the way of morality. Certainly not heavy-handed.
It's a wonderful piece for a time capsule. Any and all art is valid for critiquing whenever and however the hell we please. Good or bad we can learn lessons. I wouldn't call this movie malicious. "Dated" is more than sufficient for my taste.
I had fun. I laughed. I might have welled up a bit once or twice (I'm tough so). It's fun and beautiful and regardless of any damn thing any of us say: it's being talked about 60 years later. Mission accomplished.
Joe: I'm really glad I had you two to discuss
My Fair Lady with, because I don't think I would've liked it as much without both of your respective level of appreciation of it. The fandom is wearing off! I would still say that your first possible takeaway was most accurate for me, Mike—"Let's give the people a nice time at the movies." We went deeper than that in the discussion, obviously, but I don't think I necessarily would've felt compelled to if we were chatting for the blog. Maybe that's just my own personal issues with musicals in film. There always seems like too much of an emphasis on the spectacle and not enough on creating a satisfying story or developing any deeper issues to discuss.
I am going to give this film a score of
3 pukes out of 5 for that reason. I thought it was nice, I thought it was pleasant, I thought that its time and place in movie history gave me some stuff to think about, I thought some of it was fun and some of it was funny, but I don't think I'll be itching to go back to it any time soon. It does a lot of things pretty well but does nothing perfectly, I'd say. Except attempting to dress up Audrey Hepburn as a street derelict. That was perfect.
Thanks again to Pam and Fisher! Good times!
NEXT TIME: Mystery Men has me thinking "cult classics" again, and wondering whether it makes the cut.
