|
|
Post by janntosh on Jun 17, 2021 14:45:34 GMT
Watched it for the first time on the Fathom Events showing. It’s not really my type of film but it’s also a movie that’s hard to dislike and of course you can just admire it for the fine performances and production quality
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 17, 2021 16:58:39 GMT
Lots to like in performance, but little in story, lots in directing, little in writing.
It's not a "guy movie", though, because Henry Higgins is impossible to relate to or even empathize with. He's total trash.
This story is meant for women, because Eliza is easy to relate to for most people, and Audrey makes her gorgeous at the same time, so women get to relate to someone they can relate to, and be physically beautiful at the same time. A woman's fantasy.
Eliza's father and the other poor folk don't really come across as actual "poor people" either. They're contrived. One gets the feeling that the writers, going all the way back to Shaw, have never experienced anything close to poverty and base their views on the few gang members who were successful enough to engage in conversations with the rich and famous.
Pickering is the character a male viewer could relate to, but who wants to be an old fuddy duddy? Even one as charismatic as Wilfrid.
I'd much rather that Eliza just kick Higgins down the stairs and throw his slippers at him, then go marry that rich kid. Whatever else the rich boy is, at least he shows potential to be a human being.
i
The music is likable. The words really don't match the music, though, which means it isn't inspired.
I remember the first time I heard the music was I was in school Band, when we didn't have the words, just the music, and I would imagine words going with the music, but they weren't close to the actual lyrics by Lerner. The Lerner and Loewe team was no Lennon-McCartney. In that regard, the lack of inspiration goes to both parties, but mostly to the dull lyrics provided by Lerner.
While Lerner is an unimaginative lyricist in this case, Loewe does give us a lot of pep with his music. It's likable and pompous, and fits the story.
Rex, Audrey, and Wilfrid make this what it is, though. A superb trio, each with outstanding charisma.
It's very rare that I allow "performance" to overshadow weak writing, but here I give it about three extra stars for the star trio. 7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jun 17, 2021 22:29:04 GMT
My Fair Lady (1964), directed by George Cukor. Lavish stage sets and costumes and Audrey Hepburn is always adorable, but she is essentially elegant and could never be dirty enough to be Eliza Dolittle, who has never had a proper bath. I don't suppose Julie Andrews could, either. None of the performances are as good as in Pygmalion (1938), but that's really not fair because this is a musical: we see it for an extra layer of fantasy, not dramatization. The biggest problems are the length (nearly 3hrs) and the music. Lerner and Loewe have some strong tunes ("I Could Have Danced All Night" and "On the Street Where You Live") but too much of the running time is padded with inconsequential and tuneless elaborations of trivial dialog. How long do you want to hum along with "Poor Professor Higgins"? Strange fact: the Shaw estate insisted that as much of the original text be sung as possible. Much to her disappointment, Hepburn's singing was dubbed. Jack Warner could have had Julie Andrews from the stage version but wanted a big name. Ironically, Andrews won Best Actress for Mary Poppins (1964) that year and became a big name because of it. Jeremy Brett's (later Sherlock Holmes!) singing is obviously dubbed. Rex Harrison barely sings a note and talks his way through the songs with his own voice. Andre Previn arrangements. It won eight oscars including Best Picture, Director and Actor. You never know what the Academy is going to do. I'll save analysis of the story for a review of Pygmalion (1938) someday. Is it nature, nurture, or just a new coat of paint? As Eliza says: you speak differently and people treat you differently, making you feel differently, making you a different person. Available on Blu-ray with a lovely image. The commentary track is from the DVD years: technical details on the original production and 1990s restoration by Gene Allen, Robert Harris and James Katz. Marni Nixon, who dubbed Hepburn's singing, is spliced in from time to time. - Although Hepburn could sing, they agree this material was out of her range and she struggled when trying to do it.
- Nixon says the music auditions were in New York and she was initially snubbed: they didn't want California talent, only real singers.
- There was no fixed budget for the sets.
- Cukor liked to shoot in sequence and there were a lot of movable walls so he could film in the right order.
- Harrison wore an early wireless mic for his "singing" and they would sometimes pick up taxi cab calls.
- Rogers and Hammerstein were originally supposed to do the musical.
- Harry Stradling Sr. was cinematographer for both this and Pygmalion (1938).
- Henry Daniell died the night after his ballroom scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jun 17, 2021 22:31:09 GMT
I know it’s considered a classic, but I found it boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 17, 2021 23:36:43 GMT
The movie is lionized by critics and fans, but I've seen it in its entirety only once, and barely got through it.
The score is hit and miss. I Could Have Danced All Night (properly done) rivals the excitement of Shall We Dance from The King and I. On the Street Were You Live at least rises to mild exhilaration and Get Me To the Church On Time is a boisterous, free wheeling romp.
Rex Harrison insisted he could never properly lip synch to the lyrics of the recorded (and interminable) I'm An Ordinary Man and did the song live for the camera.
Music aside, at three hours, the movie is fatally overlong. Don't start watching at 9PM. You'll be comatose by 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 18, 2021 0:03:20 GMT
The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain.
I have never seen it.
Interesting the theme is "nurture over nature."
It's suggesting that anyone can be taken and educated into a different class.
Isn't La Femme Nikita an assassin version of the same story?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 18, 2021 0:13:38 GMT
Shaw would be horrified at that thought. Hitchcock would love it. Ah, those wacky Englishmen!
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 18, 2021 0:21:00 GMT
I think its a decent movie, but i think the movie should have ended when Eliza left Higgins Mother`s house when she said he would never see her again. Which i think is how George Bernard Shaw originally ended it the original play that premiered in 1914. If i remember correctly in the play Eliza leaves Higgins for good to marry Freddie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 18, 2021 0:22:12 GMT
The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain. I have never seen it. Interesting the theme is "nurture over nature." It's suggesting that anyone can be taken and educated into a different class. Isn't La Femme Nikita an assassin version of the same story?
No its not
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 18, 2021 0:38:05 GMT
Isn't it? A street person is taken in and given a makeover.
It's a Pygmalion kind of story. Just with murder instead of songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 18, 2021 1:00:21 GMT
I think its a decent movie, but i think the movie should have ended when Eliza left Higgins Mother`s house when she said he would never see her again. Which i think is how George Bernard Shaw originally ended it the original play that premiered in 1914. If i remember correctly in the play Eliza leaves Higgins for good to marry Freddie. You got the ending right. Eliza walks out. Higgins exclaims, "Marry Freddie!" and begins to laugh heartily.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jun 18, 2021 3:49:51 GMT
I really like Wifrid Hyde-White in it, and 'On the Street Where You Live' is a great song, but otherwise I'm not a fan of this film. I prefer Pygmalion by a massive degree.
|
|
