Skip to main content

Don’t sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon.

My Fair Lady
(1964)

(SPOILERS) As an adaptation, My Fair Lady is hardly a cinematic triumph. George Cukor brings none of the acumen Robert Wise did to The Sound of Music (or West Side Story), or even the comic-strip brio Robert Stevenson daubed across Mary Poppins. It’s (very) expensive, sumptuously costumed, shot and lit, and rather inert. But as a performance piece, this take on the 1956 Lerner and Loewe stage musical, itself an adaptation of George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, is irresistible.

I certainly can’t countenance the idea that Julie Andrews was robbed of the part. I mean, yeah, she didn’t get to repeat her stage performance, but could that most perfect and precise of performers have been as affecting, adorable and hilarious as Audrey Hepburn? Maybe she could – she essayed the role on Broadway and in London for three-and-a-half years, so she must have been doing something right – but I haven’t seen even a kernel of supporting evidence on screen (and John Gielgud vouched for Hepburn being better, for what it’s worth).

As for the popular idea that Hepburn is diminished through not having sung herself, it may be germane to the purist, but the most important thing is how funny and touching her performance is, which is all her. The criticism of her being too old for the role is probably legitimate, though (35 playing 21; Andrews was 29), albeit nothing out of the ordinary by Hollywood standards; it also has the corollary that the age gap between Eliza Doolittle and Professor Higgins seems less extreme.

Hepburn’s rendition of Wouldn’t it be Loverly? on YouTube sounds perfectly respectable to my tin ear; indeed, I’d argue there’s a note-perfection to Marni Noxon that takes you out of the character and so actively diminishes Eliza at points (Jeremy Brett suffered similar indignity as Freddy Eynsford-Hill, and all reports suggest his singing voice was perfectly fine too). Pauline Kael was blunter with regard to Hepburn’s dubbing, referencing “that dreadful impersonal Marni Nixon voice that has issued from so many other screen stars”.

Whatever the ins and outs of the decision – and it seems very much that Warner Bros did the dirty on their star – it ended up being doubly devastating. Not only was Hepburn humiliated through being cast over Andrews and then having her voice rejected, she was also passed over for an Oscar nomination, with Julie duly winning (the latter famously thanked Jack Warner when she won the Golden Globe; with Oscar, she thanked American hospitality). Which seems like a pretty clear case of being sided against by her peers (leap forward 55 years, and no such fate awaited Rami Malek for Bohemian Rhapsody, fickle as these matters are). Hepburn showed she was above such things by presenting the Best Actor Oscar to Harrison (Patricia Neal, the previous Best Actress winner, had suffered a stroke).

Harrison “charitably” dedicated his award to his “two fair ladies” (having co-starred with Andrews on stage). He was, more characteristically, said to be acutely unimpressed with Hepburn’s casting “Eliza Doolittle is supposed to be ill at ease in European ballrooms. Bloody Audrey has never spent a day in her life out of European ballrooms”. Of course, there’s a thing called acting, but since Rex always played himself (and was accomplished at the same, as you might expect), he might not have been aware.

In The Secret History of Hollywood’s Academy Awards, Anthony Holden was of the view Dr. Strangelove nominee Peter Sellers’ criticisms of Hollywood effectively handed an otherwise shoe-in to Harrison. Kael witheringly surmised “Rex Harrison had already played Higgins more than a bit too often”. She also found time to suggest Hepburn was a “totally unconvincing guttersnipe”. This seems to be a common complaint, per Geoff Andrew in Time Out: “Hepburn is clearly awkward as the Cockney Eliza in the first half”. In contrast, I’d argue her performance in the first half is comedy gold. Her exaggerated bag lady act (“I’m a respectable girl, so help me”) and “simply ghastly accent” are contrasted perfectly with Higgins’ meticulously snobbery (“Why can’t the English learn to speak?”), and to sparkling effect.

Indeed, My Fair Lady is on a high all the way to the Intermission, the high being the just preceding visit to Ascot, and Eliza traversing the terrain of gutter talk with now-precise diction and her enthusiasm for the race itself (“Move yer bloomin’ arse!”) The subsequent attendance of the embassy ball is where My Fair Lady peaks; I enjoyed Theodore Bikel’s imposterologist. I also note Elite monster Baroness Rothschild was at the ball as the Queen of Transylvania (you just can’t make these things up, including that Hepburn would later be a guest at that 1972 Rothschild masked ball, the one with all those freakish photos). Good the scene is, it means, per Kael, “The film seems to go on for about 45 minutes after the story is finished”.

The blame for which is surely at the door of Cukor and Alan Jay Lerner (adapting his stage work), who should have recognised that a judicious use of scissors was necessary. Songs wise, there are a good five that are keepers (so not quite boasting The Sound of Music’s batting average), which is enough to be getting on with. However, with Cukor’s inertia behind the camera, you do notice it when the material hits a soft spot.

Doubtless this is sacrilegious to some, but I’d happily have lost the Stanley Holloway/Alfred Doolittle subplot, which adds little of substance and never really comes alive in the way the main scenes with Harrison, Hepburn and Wilfrid Hyde-White (as Colonel Pickering) do. Holloway’s great in, say, Passport to Pimlico, but here, Alfred and the studiously stagey surrounding performances appear to arrive unfiltered from the musical. The character is far more entertaining when Higgins is talking about him – “… a certain natural gift of rhetoric. That’s the Welsh strain in him”; “A philosophic genius of the first water”; “One of the most original moralists in England” – than in person.

It’s many years since I last saw My Fair Lady, so I had no recollection of precisely how the shebang ended, except that Higgins and Eliza were reconciled and their mutual attraction affirmed. That it doesn’t leave them on at least an equal footing surprised me slightly, with Eliza adopting her submissive tone (“I washed my face and hands before I came, I did”) and Higgins assuming his superior one (“Where the devil are my slippers?”)

This could be argued as playful, but if they were going this route – which differed to Shaw’s intent for Pygmalion – they needed to embellish the change in Higgins more affirmatively. Certainly, I don’t buy he’s going to develop in any substantive way, so he will likely make Eliza’s life a right pain. Much of the fun of Higgins – yes, fun! – is that he is both sexist and classist. But as energising and hilarious as this is in the first half of the musical, the very same qualities make him a tedious, tiresome irritant during the second. You’re willing him to recognise his own limitations in order to allow love in, and I don’t think I’ve Grown Accustomed to Her Face is sufficient to do that on its own.

Ben Neutze argued “Shaw exposes Higgins for the hypocrite and misogynist that he is, but the musical choices in My Fair Lady sometimes let him off the hook”. I’d suggest it’s the ending that does it, rather than the songs. Charlotte Atler held that “Their musical is not about a genius attempting to transform a weak woman. It’s about a strong woman attempting to retain her identity in spite of the controlling machinations of a small-minded man”. Which is kind of fair, but going too far in the opposite direction. Most important is My Fair Lady’s destination, and it’s in a very different place to the emancipation Shaw insisted was all-important. He resisted Eliza-Higgins endings to the play; his take was that Eliza would marry Freddy and open a flower shop with money gifted by Pickering. I’m not particularly arguing for fidelity to Shaw’s intentions – which represent practicality, rather than freedom – but the in-between ground of the movie’s conclusion is thematically unsatisfying to all.

Obviously, My Fair Lady wasn’t the Best Picture out of the Oscar nominees that year, but it remains a perfectly respectable pick, only diminished slightly by the welter of musical nominees and winners in the surrounding decade. It’s telling that Cukor had directed little of note since the A Star is Born remake a decade earlier, and would direct little of note subsequently (Something’s Got to Give, famously Marilyn Monroe’s last and unfinished picture, would be remounted as Move Over, Darling). My Fair Lady, shot entirely on soundstages, is handsome but static, was expensive ($17m – $156m inflation-adjusted!) but profitable ($72m accounts for the US only, but $659m inflation-adjusted is a tidy take). It’s the kind of filmmaking that would soon come a cropper, with the likes of Camelot, Dr. Dolittle and Hello, Dolly! underperforming or flopping, but at this moment, the musical goldmine was still tapping rich veins for everyone.




Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…