My Fair Lady Ending

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 2:46pm

Since a couple people expressed boredom/annoyance with the discussions over the ending of My Fair Lady on the revival’s previews thread, let’s move the discussion over to here so the other thread can get back on track.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 02:46 PM

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 3:08pm

Can someone describe the ending? I've seen the show in various productions, but its never bothered me. So, I guess I'm missing the "upset" over this one. 

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 3:10pm

Good idea. Thanks to those who suggested it, and thanks, Elfuhbuh, for starting it!

[enjoyable2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 3:13pm

yes, thanks for taking the initiative to start it. And I'm sure this will be a lively discussion for months to come. Just also want a thread for thoughts on the entire show. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 4:44pm

For those curious and unfamiliar, here is a link that includes the entire text of Pygmalion including the epilogue:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3825/3825-h/3825-h.htm

Some funny quotes that may not actually fit all the way with Lerner's version of the story:

"Almost immediately after Eliza is stung into proclaiming her considered determination not to marry Higgins, she mentions the fact that young Mr. Frederick Eynsford Hill is pouring out his love for her daily through the post. Now Freddy is young, practically twenty years younger than Higgins: he is a gentleman (or, as Eliza would qualify him, a toff), and speaks like one; he is nicely dressed, is treated by the Colonel as an equal, loves her unaffectedly, and is not her master, nor ever likely to dominate her in spite of his advantage of social standing. Eliza has no use for the foolish romantic tradition that all women love to be mastered, if not actually bullied and beaten. "When you go to women," says Nietzsche, "take your whip with you." Sensible despots have never confined that precaution to women: they have taken their whips with them when they have dealt with men, and been slavishly idealized by the men over whom they have flourished the whip much more than by women. No doubt there are slavish women as well as slavish men; and women, like men, admire those that are stronger than themselves. But to admire a strong person and to live under that strong person's thumb are two different things. The weak may not be admired and hero-worshipped; but they are by no means disliked or shunned; and they never seem to have the least difficulty in marrying people who are too good for them. They may fail in emergencies; but life is not one long emergency: it is mostly a string of situations for which no exceptional strength is needed, and with which even rather weak people can cope if they have a stronger partner to help them out. Accordingly, it is a truth everywhere in evidence that strong people, masculine or feminine, not only do not marry stronger people, but do not show any preference for them in selecting their friends. When a lion meets another with a louder roar "the first lion thinks the last a bore." The man or woman who feels strong enough for two, seeks for every other quality in a partner than strength.

The converse is also true. Weak people want to marry strong people who do not frighten them too much; and this often leads them to make the mistake we describe metaphorically as "biting off more than they can chew." They want too much for too little; and when the bargain is unreasonable beyond all bearing, the union becomes impossible: it ends in the weaker party being either discarded or borne as a cross, which is worse. People who are not only weak, but silly or obtuse as well, are often in these difficulties.

This being the state of human affairs, what is Eliza fairly sure to do when she is placed between Freddy and Higgins? Will she look forward to a lifetime of fetching Higgins's slippers or to a lifetime of Freddy fetching hers? There can be no doubt about the answer. Unless Freddy is biologically repulsive to her, and Higgins biologically attractive to a degree that overwhelms all her other instincts, she will, if she marries either of them, marry Freddy.

And that is just what Eliza did."

Regarding their future, it seems after some financial, but not personal, hardships where they thought they could learn bookkeeping by attending the London School of Economics and other such, some how their struggling flower shop started taking care of itself and they finally learned the value of hiring people who knew what they were doing. Freddy also became a grocer first selling asparagus and then other vegetables with the flowers which somehow made the place seem even classier. Of course, they relied on the generosity of Col. Pickering, but that's honestly to be expected considering Eliza was taught speech and how to pass herself off as a duchess but not much in the way of owning a business and having real business skills (selling discarded flowers on the street is a much different venture) and Freddy not having not been brought up to work nor his family having much money to provide a real education outside learning Latin. The way Shaw describes Freddy's interactions and devotion to Eliza in the aftermath seems she was quite content with her choice.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 4:58pm

I have kind of two minds about the ending. First, there's the rational, feminist side of me that is completely thinking, yes, Shaw has some great points. Eliza should be with someone who treats her like an equal. But then there's the romantic side of me that just loves seeing Henry soften up over time and is always up for "love/hate" romances. That side of me is sad that the revival doesn't include that ending. And, honestly, that's probably the side that's more affected by musicals. I always connect to the emotion of them more than the logic. 

That being said, I think both can be true. I think that you can understand why Eliza didn't end up with Henry and also be sad about it.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 5:07pm

I definitely see where you are coming from. I honestly don't see Higgins as the complete monster that some do, though I do think too many seriously underplay his more bullying and verbally abusive tendencies that requires a completely understanding woman to see through (which people like because it sounds super romantic to some). Higgins has something that pretty much prevents him from interacting with ANYONE in a way that's really acceptable in social situations or even intimate situations. 

I think what I'm seeing after reading so much about it AND remembering how I fell for Higgins/Eliza when I was younger was that I think we audiences project so much into these works (which is great) that authorial intent can only go so far. One can argue Shaw never really humanized Higgins that way his audiences did and they see Higgins as a more complicated person that needed to be understood past his gruff, temperamental, and angry persona and they projected Eliza as being the one to do it. Conversely, we can argue Shaw gave Higgins the most human treatment in recognizing that all of the understanding in the world wouldn't make a leopard change his spots and just because one can understand him doesn't mean he should be matched with Eliza especially if he's not really going to change except for giving her more love kernels that she can cling to in-between all of the bad or having her pretend all of his bad is coming from a loving place.

I also think whether we want Eliza with Higgins sort of depends on how the actors are with one another. With Ambrose and Hadden-Paton being close in age actually looking pretty good together (from what I see of them out-of-costume) then I can see people wanting them to be together. I actually wouldn't have minded if the film version ended with the way Sher's producution did (though a random imaginary/ghost scene in a film wouldn't work as well) because I didn't think Rex Harrison was somebody that Audrey Hepburn desperately needed to be with though there were cute moments together...especially in the pre-Ball and post-Ball scenes in the study.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 05:07 PM

[bk]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 8:47pm

I think this Higgins as complete monster malarky is a product of now, of today's stuff.  No one thought he was a monster when My Fair Lady opened.  Oh, some will tell you they did and that would be a boatload of BS.  This is all people who can't deal with context, in this case both when My Fair Lady was written, and the era in which it takes place.  As I said in the other thread, there's a very easy way to stage the final sequence just as its written by not following the stage directions but by giving your actors something fun to play - it would work perfectly and satisfy everyone.  But all this analyzing is strictly from 2018 and I find THAT a bore.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 8:48pm

Actually a lot of the criticism pretty much matches what Shaw himself said in the Epilogue written in the early 20th century before My Fair Lady existed. I know people like to think women only woke up in 2018, but that is not true. Plus, it's sort of fine because there was a lot of behavior that was considered acceptable or something to tolerate back in the 1950s that people don't think is ok now and probably didn't think it was ok then either but they had to keep their mouth shut until no-fault divorce made it easier for women to escape which is why divorced boomed in the 1970s and why people still think 50% of marriages end in divorce when that's far from the case now even if it was close to being true back then.

Updated On: 3/19/18 at 08:48 PM

[blm2323]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 10:36pm

I also think whether we want Eliza with Higgins sort of depends on how the actors are with one another. With Ambrose and Hadden-Paton being close in age actually looking pretty good together (from what I see of them out-of-costume) then I can see people wanting them to be together. I actually wouldn't have minded if the film version ended with the way Sher's producution did (though a random imaginary/ghost scenein a film wouldn't work as well) because I didn't think Rex Harrison was somebody that Audrey Hepburn desperately needed to be with though there were cute moments together...especially in the pre-Ball and post-Ball scenes in the study."

 

This is exactly what I was thinking! 

 

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 3/19/18 at 11:04pm

fashionguru_23 said: "Can someone describe the ending? I've seen the show in various productions, but its never bothered me. So, I guess I'm missing the "upset" over this one."

 

I haven't seen this production yet, but reports from the other thread claim that 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Higgins listens to the recording, and Eliza comes in and delivers her line as usual, but when Higgins goes, "Where the devil are my slippers?" Eliza comes up to him, touches his face, and then exits into the audience and leaves out one of the exit doors. Apparently there's some sort of blue light on Eliza during this scene, which is giving people the impression that her returning at all was just Higgins' imagination. 

 

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 8:49am

Elfuhbuh said: "fashionguru_23 said: "Can someone describe the ending? I've seen the show in various productions, but its never bothered me. So, I guess I'm missing the "upset" over this one."



I haven't seen this production yet, but reports from the other thread claim that

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Higgins listens to the recording, and Eliza comes in and delivers her line as usual, but when Higgins goes, "Where the devil are my slippers?" Eliza comes up to him, touches his face, and then exits into the audience and leaves out one of the exit doors. Apparently there's some sort of blue light on Eliza during this scene, which is giving people the impression that her returning at all was just Higgins' imagination.

"

Elfuhbuh, thank you very much! I appreciate it. I like that ending, actually.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 10:57am

It's a musical so it was written that they end up together.

Any other ending is a fabrication.

I wonder if they got permission to change it?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 11:36am

I'm interested in hearing from people who've actually seen this revival what they think of the ending in the context of this specific production.  Does it work for them or not work for them?  And, if so, why.  Is the libretto of MY FAIR LADY up until the ending, and particularly the way it is performed in this production, somehow antithetical to this denoument - and if so, why?  Especially since the bulk of the libretto is very close to Shaw's play?  Or is the bulk of the libretto closer to the 1937 screenplay, which employed a similar twist on Shaw (than it is to Shaw's play) in key ways which make this approach to the ending jarring and unconvincing?  And, if so, what are the ways Lerner's libretto is more akin to that screenplay than it is to Shaw's play?

What I'm not persuaded by are any on-principle objections to the ending as a corruption of Lerner's libretto, particularly from people who have not yet seen this production.

As I have always found the ending of the screenplay to the 1937 movie of PYGMALION (the same ending traditionally performed in MY FAIR LADY) to be compelling and charming and to serve Shaw in a different but equally enlightening and thought-provoking way, and not at all objectionable as a corruption of Shaw's play, why would I possibly come to the utterly inconsistent conclusion that changing Lerner's stage directions in the final scene to better cohere with Shaw's equally compelling and charming original intent for the denoument is an appalling corruption of MY FAIR LADY?

If a reworking of the play's ending worked in a classic movie version OF THE PLAY, why shouldn't - AT LEAST IN THEORY* - a converse reworking of the musical's ending be equally acceptable in a major revival OF THE MUSICAL?   

And if that THEORY* doesn't hold in Sher's production (in anyone's opinion), then why specifically doesn't it hold?

All that being said, Curtainpulldown raises a valid point - is the change in direction of the final scene a legal violation of the rights to perform the play?  I have no idea and leave that to the more theatrical law savvy.

Updated On: 3/20/18 at 11:36 AM

[carnzee]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 1:20pm

CurtainPullDowner said: "

I wonder if they got permission to change it?"

I would guess that they didn't need permission to change a stage direction, so long as the words and music are unchanged. It's rare that any production of any musical adheres to the printed stage directions.

But that's just a guess on my part.

It's interesting how much a change in stage direction can alter perceptions of a work.

 

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 1:29pm

But the script says nothing. The final line/stage direction is: 

HIGGINS

Eliza? Where the devil are my slippers? 

(ELIZA smiles. The music of "I WANT TO DANCE ALL NIGHT" reaches a crescendo in the orchestra, as the curtain falls...)

To me, this neither says the get together, or they part ways. I feel like you can have her do anything at that point. Just because its a musical doesn't mean they end up together. 

Also, its interesting that I copied word for word from the Tams-Witmark libretto, and look at the title of the song...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:13pm

My original script from Signet says: (There are tears in Eliza's eyes. She understands).

That's pretty obvious but yes, open to some interpretation, but not storming out of the house by any means.

[Christoph]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:29pm

Truthfully, I am A-OK with that ending.  Even as a kid, I thought Higgins as portrayed by Rex Harrison in the film was an arrogant jerk who treated Eliza little better than a stick of furniture.  I could still love the music and the story itself, but I never saw them as a romantic pairing.  At the end, when Eliza starts telling him off, I thought finally she is going to put him in his place, but then after justifiably leaving him...she returns for some reason and his final line to her is about "fetching his slippers" as though she is a lowly servant to bend to his will was just disheartening and ended the show/film on a low point.  If Eliza wanted the company of another man, then Freddy was more age appropriate and agreeable.  If she did not need the company of a man, then she could have set herself up in that flower shop she wanted and give elocution lessons on the side.  Either way, the ending from the show/film always depressed me and marred an otherwise enjoyable experience. 

Also, the fact that Harrison would ultimately play Higgins into his dotage opposite younger and younger women making the age difference between Higgins and Eliza into a Grand Canyon chasm increased the ick factor of having them together as a romantic coupling. Subsequent actors in the role, more often than not, have been a bit too long in tooth to be considered age appropriate for Eliza.  Reading Pygmalion, while I got the impression that Higgins was older than Eliza, I never came away with the impression that he could pass for her grandfather!

I was glad years later to hear that Shaw never wanted Eliza and Higgins together romantically.  Ironically, his idea of how things progressed seems to be what has inspired D.E. Ireland in the cheeky Eliza Doolittle/Henry Higgins mystery series, which sees Eliza and Higgins as platonic friends, with Eliza still socially interacting with Col. Pickering and Mrs. Higgins, and Freddy still hanging about wooing her in moony-eyed fashion.  Truthfully, this whole revelation about the ending his only increased my enthusiasm for seeing the show.  I hope that do not change it back.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:40pm

I can’t believe this is still being debated. I understand some of you are romantics, but my God, pick another hill to die on.

The argument that the stage directions call for them to end up together doesn’t wash when we see, in this thread alone, that the stage direction differs from edition to edition. More often than not, those directions are dictated by whatever production the edition is based off of. If Sher’s production were to be the new standard published edition of the libretto, we would see his ending reflected in the stage direction.

I can understand the upset if Sher had taken an approach to the material that drastically altered the trajectory of the story. But given that the rest of the show is pretty by-the-numbers and he clearly went back to Shaw’s source for inspiration, the ending makes perfect sense. Yes, there are flickers of romantic feeling between Eliza and Henry, but they are simply not meant to be together and any other ending would ring both false and uncharacteristic.

[darquegk]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:41pm

Your comment about Harrison sticking to the role into his old age, while the average Eliza got younger, reminds me of a discussion I had on Facebook. The current licensed script for "Annie" has deleted much of the explicit statement of a relationship or attraction between Warbucks and Grace (though it is hinted at once or twice); I suspect this is in part also because the average Warbucks has gotten older and older through the years, a star role for a veteran actor "of a certain age."

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:48pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "I can’t believe this is still being debated. I understand some of you are romantics, but my God, pick another hill to die on."

You can't believe this is still being debated in the thread that was specifically set up to debate it?

[JIMG3]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:52pm

Perhaps we should put Ms. Doolittle and Professor Higgjns on a couch, and subject them to an extensive round of psychoanalysis.

Jesus, lighten up people!! It’s a bloody musical!!!

Updated On: 3/20/18 at 02:52 PM

[Loopin’theloop]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:54pm

bk said: "I think this Higgins as complete monster malarky is a product of now, of today's stuff. No one thought he was a monster when My Fair Lady opened. Oh, some will tell you they did and that would be a boatload of BS. This is all people who can't deal with context, in this case both when My Fair Lady was written, and the era in which it takes place. As I said in the other thread, there's a very easy way to stage the final sequence just as its written by not following the stage directions but by giving your actors something fun to play - it would work perfectly and satisfy everyone. But all this analyzing is strictly from 2018 and I find THAT a bore."

The fact that in 1960s people were more accepting of abuse doesn’t make ok. 

Theatre is always seen through the lens of the time in which it is produced. That is no different to the original production of ‘My Fair Lady’. The Shaw ending was changed so that it was more palpable for an audience, hungry for a sentimental musical comedy ending. They chose to go that way, not for arts sake but to be more commercially viable. 

You cant do a production of a Shakespeare play, completely untouched by modern ideas and set within its original time frame and hope to give the audience, the same experience as the original audience had. It’s impossible because the plays were written to speak to people of the time. That is why so many productions of Shakespeare’s work are radically adapted, sometimes yes it’s be use directors Luke to be different but the good theatre makers are making these changes so that the play can seem as resonant and immediate now as it was then. The other choice is to allow the play to become a museum piece but that isn’t what they were written for.

The question of the end of ‘My Fair Lady’ is no different. The original ending was written so that it appealed to the audience of the time but by leaving it as it is, you cannot hope to do the same in 2018. The authors intent was to have the ending give the audience what they want, you cannot honour that intent by leaving the work unmoved by the time. If the show was written, purely as a period piece with no condensations made for a 60s audience, then the show should be left alone but it want. 

So the choice is, leave it as a period piece or try and give yourself present day audience the experience the original production gave its audiences. And to do that, you take the same steps Alan Jay Lerner and the his collaborators took back then. 

Everything you post involves some degree of self praise. You did the album better. You know how to direct young people. You directed a college production that didn’t make any changes to the text and everyone thought it was wonderful. Either you have no self awareness or you don’t care that people know your actual identity and how much of a conceited, if faded would be A list player you are. If you have an idea that makes the ending work, then why are you repeatedly mentioning it without actually saying what it is? 

[JIMG3]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 2:54pm

Elfuhbuh said: "Since a couple people expressed boredom/annoyance with the discussions over the ending of My Fair Ladyon the revival’s previewsthread, let’s move the discussion over to here so the other thread can get back on track. "

^This^

Updated On: 3/20/18 at 02:54 PM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/20/18 at 3:01pm

MCfan2 said: "ColorTheHours048 said: "I can’t believe this is still being debated. I understand some of you are romantics, but my God, pick another hill to die on."

You can't believe this is still being debated in the thread that was specifically set up to debate it? "

Yes. It’s a circular conversation of people either bending abusive behavior to fit some romantic mold or giving  examples of why an ending tailored to late-50s America doesn’t work for 2018. The ending takes on new meaning as time goes on. Even after reading all these responses, I’m still unclear about what’s so debatable about that.