MovieChat Forums > My Fair Lady (1964) Discussion > Still Loverly: Remembering "My Fair Lady...

Still Loverly: Remembering "My Fair Lady" on its 50th Anniversary


http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy--showmanship/my-fair-lady-50th
--
Ant @ The Ant Farm (http://antfarm.ma.cx) and Ant's Quality Foraged Links (http://aqfl.net).

reply

I just saw the 50th Anniversary presentation in theaters for the first time. It was great. It looked better than ever. It sounded better than ever. But, the audience couldn't relate to any man in the movie for any reason. Sure, they laughed at Henry's crude humor. But they didn't seem to get it when he was clearly trying to deny his love for Eliza by getting more cruel than usual. It's not hard to see why Henry wished Eliza when she left him the last time. She just broke his heart. She sang about killing him twice. WTF? And Freddy, when he came on screen, all people did was cackle and mock him for being the stalker of the movie. But, why wouldn't a woman want a man who looks so nice and sings so well, romanticizing a life with her? No. Today, that kind of infatuation creeps people out. They don't want to become the one and only love of a person's life. It's like the ultimate way to get out of commitment and responsible. Just make up more and more reasons to hate and fear this person that clearly loves you.

I mean, seriously. If you actually read up on the psychology of obsessive stalkers, Freddy really does not fit the description.

Of course, I really think obsession should be a feeling everyone should feel toward their partner. They should want to lift that person up on a pedestal or else, what's the point of being with one person?

reply

I agree completely, Freddy is completely sweet, if not simple. (His only obvious fault.) And honestly, he is the most healthy option avaliable in the movie for Eliza (relationship-wise). I'm also surprised that anyone viewed him as a stalker/obsessive while not viewing Henry as a misogynistic, abusive, ego maniac. (who was clearly aesexual btw, a interpretation supported by the author of Pygmalion/My Fair Lady, George Bernard Shaw.)

No amount of hollywood fluff can dissuade or dilute the overall narrative/point of the story, which is Henry Higgins was wrong, society and Henry are the problem, not Eliza. (or her up bringing even.)

The problem is that the only way she would be able to run her own business or at least stay independent, would be if she stayed poor, shunned because of her accent and demeanour. I mean, how rich can you get when you're selling flowers on the street? You'll never improve your circumstances. And if/when she 'improved' herself enough to be accepted into higher society, she found that she would be even more trapped, forced to remain a ward or become a wife, Eliza would have less independence then ever before. And it would be/it was all Henry Higgins' fault.

Besides, he never viewed her as anything but a trophy, an accomplishment of his. His 'affection' toward her, is a form of gratification for himself. He wishes to keep her because of his needs, not her own. He doesn't respect her, doesn't value her and even if you would go so far as to interpret his feelings as 'love', it's not the romantic kind, and it certainly isn't healthy. It's possessive, controlling, the definition of abusive.

I can't for the life of me understand how audiences have so wilfully misinterpreted this beautiful story ever since it's conception. Although, I suppose the fault lies with George Bernard Shaw himself, he put romance down as the genre and the general public expected romantic love, not 'romance'. In the original play, Eliza ends up independent and happy, Col. Pickering supporting her financially, free of Henry Higgins and his abusive control.

Audiences didn't like it, and directors started to take liberties, insinuating a slight 'amour' between Mr Higgins and Eliza. This outraged Mr Shaw and he quickly amended the story to include an epilogue (at the recommendation of a friend), explaining how Eliza ended up marrying Freddy, how Freddy was disowned by his mother and how Col. Pickering helped them open a flower shop and taught them finance. Mr Shaw would then proceed to explain why a relationship between Henry and Eliza was ludicrous and disfunctional. He summed it up by stating: 'Eliza could either face a lifetime of fetching Henry's slippers; or a lifetime of Freddy fetching hers'.

/personally I think that she ended up with Freddy in the movie, yes she returns to see Henry, but after her previous scene with him... how he requests she fetch his slippers, and she smiles sadly... Love isn't always romantic and it's quite clear that while Eliza had a crush on Henry, by the end of the film it had evolved into a healthy feeling of appreciation, nothing more. She came back to repair their friendship and he feigns ignorance, continues his misogynist attitude. How horrible./

The ending of this film still maintains the same bittersweet, feeling of the play, not overstating any sort of romantic conclusion. For that, I'm grateful. At least it's open enough not to drive reasonable minded people mad. Henry is a selfish, odd sot who is supposed to lose his friendship with Pickering and lose his companionship/ownership of his 'muse', Pygmalion loses his 'creation'. He doesn't deserve her. That is the correct ending, and that is how I will always interpret it.

reply