My Fair Lady is on AMC
- Thread starter sunstruck
- Start date
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 94,047
sunstruck said:
A commercial?
sunstruck
Super Jewess
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Posts
- 26,888
Re: Re: My Fair Lady is on AMC
There are some movies I won't purchase on DVD only because it ruins the joy of catching them on AMC or Turner Classics or whatever. My Fair Lady, Guys and Dolls, Chitty chitty Bang Bang, Hans Brinker etc.
Oh, and did the Steelers win the super bowl last year? Uh uh. lol Pats game.
Lasher said:
There are some movies I won't purchase on DVD only because it ruins the joy of catching them on AMC or Turner Classics or whatever. My Fair Lady, Guys and Dolls, Chitty chitty Bang Bang, Hans Brinker etc.
Oh, and did the Steelers win the super bowl last year? Uh uh. lol Pats game.
Re: Re: Re: My Fair Lady is on AMC
The entire NFL season was fixed.
Did anyone notice that when Greise *fumbled* inside his own 5 yd line in the 3rd quarter of yesterdays Broncos/Rames game that his arm was moving forward and he was trying to *tuck* the ball away???
TUCK RULE!!
Should've been an incomplete pass - but was called a fumble, because NO ONE ever calls the stupid Tuck Rule.
The only reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl last year was because of their name!!!!!! PP_Man says he can prove it!!!!
(It's really a great DVD, btw. And AMC has gone to shit with commercials and stuff)
sunstruck said:
The entire NFL season was fixed.
Did anyone notice that when Greise *fumbled* inside his own 5 yd line in the 3rd quarter of yesterdays Broncos/Rames game that his arm was moving forward and he was trying to *tuck* the ball away???
TUCK RULE!!
Should've been an incomplete pass - but was called a fumble, because NO ONE ever calls the stupid Tuck Rule.
The only reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl last year was because of their name!!!!!! PP_Man says he can prove it!!!!
(It's really a great DVD, btw. And AMC has gone to shit with commercials and stuff)
sunstruck
Super Jewess
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Posts
- 26,888
Ok, the end of the movie. Now, it's not like the end of the theatrical rendition where you don't know what Eliza's future holds. No, they had to go for the Hollywood ending in which she goes back to Higgins and he continues to treat her like a piece of shit servant and she loves it.
Gee, how romantic. I mean I love the movie for the actors and the music, but the ending ruins it every time.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Gee, how romantic. I mean I love the movie for the actors and the music, but the ending ruins it every time.
Just had to get that off my chest.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
It just now finished? How many commercial breaks are they sticking in now?
The musical play "My Fair Lady" was the basis for the screenplay of the movie, and the ending is identical. Eliza's independence was established in the previous scene through the song, "Without You". Higgins himself calls her "a tower of strength, a consort battleship!" She returns to him as an equal.
Alan Jay Lerner wrote this note for the publication of the script:
The musical play "My Fair Lady" was the basis for the screenplay of the movie, and the ending is identical. Eliza's independence was established in the previous scene through the song, "Without You". Higgins himself calls her "a tower of strength, a consort battleship!" She returns to him as an equal.
Alan Jay Lerner wrote this note for the publication of the script:
sunstruck
Super Jewess
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Posts
- 26,888
phrodeau said:
The difference I was refering to was between the play and the movie. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I dont' think she returns to him equal at all! He calls her strong yes, but he is never going to treat her kindly as he doesn't really change in the end. He just realises he'd miss her if she was gone, not that he is at fault for her leaving.
And that whole conversation where she claims to only want his friendship. It's very realistic yes, but not nearly the romantic ending they seem to be going for. Which is why I don't understand why they changed the ending at all.
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
"A big vodka company wanted to do a prestige ad, and they wanted to get Noël Coward originally for it. He was not available, because he had aquired the rights to My Fair Lady, and he was removing the music and lyrics, turning it back into Pygmalion."
Woody Allen
Woody Allen
kotori
Fool of Fortune
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Posts
- 28,474
I love Cecil Beaton. Okay, that's my "girly" comment of the day.
I always thought that it was funny that almost the entire Broadway cast was in the film, except for Julie Andrews (who wouldn't of course needed Marnie Nixon to sing for her). Everyone won Oscars, except Audrey Hepburn. Julie Andrews won for "Mary Poppins."
I always thought that it was funny that almost the entire Broadway cast was in the film, except for Julie Andrews (who wouldn't of course needed Marnie Nixon to sing for her). Everyone won Oscars, except Audrey Hepburn. Julie Andrews won for "Mary Poppins."
Secret Kate
Driving around in my Jeep
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2001
- Posts
- 4,443
Last edited:
sunstruck
Super Jewess
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Posts
- 26,888
I love the movie. I love the play. I just don't like the ending of the movie.
Yes Audrey needed a voice over for the music, but while Juile Andrews would have been wonderful, Hepburn has this style, this irrepresible quality that was so perfect for the role it honestly doesn't matter to me.
I mean, Rex Harrison can't sing and that didn't keep him from being the lead in two of my favorite musicals, but Audrey truely could not carry a tune. lol
Yes Audrey needed a voice over for the music, but while Juile Andrews would have been wonderful, Hepburn has this style, this irrepresible quality that was so perfect for the role it honestly doesn't matter to me.
I mean, Rex Harrison can't sing and that didn't keep him from being the lead in two of my favorite musicals, but Audrey truely could not carry a tune. lol
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
kotori said:
For the curious, Cecil Beaton was the art director and costume designer.
Julie Andrews wouldn't do a screen test for Jack Warner, so she didn't get cast.
Jimmy Cagney was offered the part of Alfred P. Doolittle, but he refused, and said that if they didn't cast Stanley Holloway (who originated the role), he wouldn't even watch the film. Holloway was nominated for both a Tony and an Oscar, but did not win either for it.
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
In no version of Pygmalion or My Fair Lady does Eliza end up with Freddy (though Shaw did write about what happens next, and it's a very interesting read, and, again, it has everything to do with class -- and Brett did the film musical, not the play, which I'm sure is what you meant).
The end is simple, and it's the same in all versions, though "tone" changes. Eliza goes back to Higgins as an equal, despite Higgins' eccentrities and rudeness, where as before they were separated by class (read: "language"), also despite Higgins' eccentrities and rudeness. The change has come in a deeper understanding of their friendship. No love affair is ever considered. Shaw was not writing a Romance, but a treatise on how communication separates us. So, at the end, communication is what holds Eliza and Higgins together. When Higgins increased her vocabulary he gave her the gift of expression, something he understood would happen, and claims as his greatest achievement, yet, like Faust, Frankenstien and Seymore Krelborn, he never understood that the creature will devour the maker if you endow it with too much power to control its own destiny, (and feed it too much of your own soul) and, so Higgins' had to be humbled. It is not neccessary for Higgins to now be "nice" to Eliza, the humbling was enough. He knows who she is now, and she knows that he knows. There is true understanding and communication between them, and even affection and friendship. That's why Eliza comes back. It's what she wanted all along. To be "more friendly like". In no way does she come back as a servant or "baggage", but as an equal who accepts the eccentricities of her friend, which he playfully illustrates with the last line "Where the devil are my slippers?" It's a silly, rude thing to say, and he says it tongue-in-cheek, illustrating, quite plainly, that he's perfectly aware that she will not be fetching his slippers. (And you'll notice, she doesn't.) We suffer our friends because they are our friends. It is a subtle thing Shaw is after -- keep your ego, but do not permit that to crush your fellow man who is not "dirt beneath your feet". Eliza had to go back. It shows her grace and kindness and true affection. She is now complete. And she does it on her own, with no prodding from Higgins. He did not teach her how to do that. The statue completes itself. Leaving is the first thing Eliza does on her road to independence. But coming back sets her on her journey.
The end is simple, and it's the same in all versions, though "tone" changes. Eliza goes back to Higgins as an equal, despite Higgins' eccentrities and rudeness, where as before they were separated by class (read: "language"), also despite Higgins' eccentrities and rudeness. The change has come in a deeper understanding of their friendship. No love affair is ever considered. Shaw was not writing a Romance, but a treatise on how communication separates us. So, at the end, communication is what holds Eliza and Higgins together. When Higgins increased her vocabulary he gave her the gift of expression, something he understood would happen, and claims as his greatest achievement, yet, like Faust, Frankenstien and Seymore Krelborn, he never understood that the creature will devour the maker if you endow it with too much power to control its own destiny, (and feed it too much of your own soul) and, so Higgins' had to be humbled. It is not neccessary for Higgins to now be "nice" to Eliza, the humbling was enough. He knows who she is now, and she knows that he knows. There is true understanding and communication between them, and even affection and friendship. That's why Eliza comes back. It's what she wanted all along. To be "more friendly like". In no way does she come back as a servant or "baggage", but as an equal who accepts the eccentricities of her friend, which he playfully illustrates with the last line "Where the devil are my slippers?" It's a silly, rude thing to say, and he says it tongue-in-cheek, illustrating, quite plainly, that he's perfectly aware that she will not be fetching his slippers. (And you'll notice, she doesn't.) We suffer our friends because they are our friends. It is a subtle thing Shaw is after -- keep your ego, but do not permit that to crush your fellow man who is not "dirt beneath your feet". Eliza had to go back. It shows her grace and kindness and true affection. She is now complete. And she does it on her own, with no prodding from Higgins. He did not teach her how to do that. The statue completes itself. Leaving is the first thing Eliza does on her road to independence. But coming back sets her on her journey.
