A Few Words About A few words about...™ My Fair Lady (Take Two) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Gary Seven]

Agreed. The last scene does NOT work and your assessment is spot on, Mike.

 

[Robin9]

Agreed. The last scene does NOT work and your assessment is spot on, Mike.

It may not work for you, but it does for me and for many other people too.

 

[Robin9]

Me? The anti-romantic?


Eliza returns and finds Higgins listening to her recorded voice.


She had left because of the compounding abuse and realization she had been "used" with no reciprocal feelings of accomplishment/interest on Higgin's part.

Yes, exactly. She left because she believed her feelings were not reciprocated. When she found him sitting alone, listening to her recorded voice, she realised she had misjudged how he felt.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Right.


But he can't just feel it and then act inappropriately. And, even moreso, she should not accept it.


He was morose and moping while sitting alone. But in her presence felt compelled to be a demanding ass. Not the stuff of successful relationships.


And it bugs me that they have the person on the receiving end of poor behavior embrace it.


If I went home tonight from work, walked through the door and yelled, "where are my damn slippers" at my wife...I wouldn't expect her to stick around after too many more nights of such behavior.


=============


It's fine that we can agree to disagree about this. Like I have always said, I am thrilled with 99.99% of the film. It's just always bugged me (and not a lot of other people apparently) that the ending seems "off." I just do my best to set it aside and enjoy all that came before.

 

[Allansfirebird]

Here's the script page for that final scene:

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Agreed. The last scene does NOT work and your assessment is spot on, Mike.

Audiences *hated* it.

 

[Robin9]

Right.


But he can't just feel it and then act inappropriately. And, even moreso, she should not accept it.


He was morose and moping while sitting alone. But in her presence felt compelled to be a demanding ass. Not the stuff of successful relationships.


And it bugs me that they have the person on the receiving end of poor behavior embrace it.


If I went home tonight from work, walked through the door and yelled, "where are my damn slippers" at my wife...I wouldn't expect her to stick around after too many more nights of such behavior.

Mike, I get the impression you don't realise this, but your complaint is not with the film. It's with Eliza Doolittle. She's not the person you want her to be. You want her to have all your preoccupations and priorities, not her own.

 

[PMF]

The lost opportunity of "My Fair Lady's" ending was not with the script they used, but rather within it's final visual shot.

Instead of our seeing Audrey Hepburn standing at the doorway of Higgins library, Eliza's "return" should have been marked with a cameo appearance made by Julie Andrews.

And maybe, just maybe, Ms. Andrews would be costumed in one of the Guinevere gowns she used in the Broadway production of "Camelot".

Ah, yes..."Camelot".

Just another Lerner and Loewe collaboration brought to film by Jack L. Warner, to which he snubs poor Julie for the second time.

Now THAT's truly abusive.


On a final note:

I wonder if RAH might be inspired to design a 55th Anniversary disc of "MFL" that highlights an "all-new" alternate ending option.

In it, one can select their own favorite ending by staying with the 1964 version or branching directly to the 1938 conclusion of "Pygmalion".

 

[Rob_Ray]

Truthfully, Pygmalion has never had a satisfactory ending. Doesn't the script of the play come with a post-play epilogue explaining that she married Freddy? If the ending were successful, no addendum would be needed.


Regardless, this is why the ending was changed in 1938 for the film version and why the musical retained that ending. For me, part of the problem with MY FAIR LADY, apart from Mike's objections, lies with the fact that Jeremy Brett's Freddy is so handsome and isn't as convincing playing a gangly sort of idle-rich milquetoast, as David Tree was in 1938. One wonders why Eliza *doesn't* run off with Freddy. He's closer to her age, handsome, rich, poised, well-mannered and with a pleasant personality. There's nothing really wrong with him.


The 1938 version works a little better, though Mike's observations are still valid there too. But, in that version, David Tree seemed like someone you would "settle for" rather than love. He seemed more of a "Mama's Boy" which is clearly what the writers were intending. It makes a difference when accepting Eliza's choice.

 

[Panavision70]

I always wanted to the last shot to be a close up of Eliza's gloved hand gripping the fire iron as "The End" appears on the screen.

 

[Jim*Tod]

Just imagine if Tarantino directed a remake!!!

 

[anorthosite]

Hate the ending. Structurally, the film is plotted like boy-meets-girl rom-com. Emotionally, the audience wants it to end conventionally, with Higgins and Eliza being a couple. The awkwardness comes from it being set up as a love story and not ending like one.

Shaw said that, after Pygmalion ends, Eliza walks away from Higgins, marries Freddy, and opens a flower shop. He apparently intended it to be a feminist statement: Higgins is a jerk, Eliza doesn't need him, and she's emancipated enough to make it stick. That concept didn't go over so well with original London audiences, and some early productions gave it a "happy ending." Lerner and Lowe struggled with this issue when adapting Pygmalion. As to the film, no way would Warner have allowed it to end with "Goodbye, Professor Higgins. You shall not be seeing me again." I think that's where it _should_ end, but closing on a down note would have killed it with audiences. Therefore, the present awkward, ambiguous, compromise ending, which let you believe (if you want to) that she's accepted his rough edges and will marry him anyway.

I read the film as "Higgins is fond of Eliza, accustomed to her face, like a sister or a niece, but not an erotic interest." Frankly, to modern ears, when Higgins calls himself a "confirmed bachelor," you wonder if that's a coded description of his relationship with Pickering. If that subtext is real, no wonder he doesn't have any passion for her.

Have either of them changed? She's got better diction but was always a class act. He's still an upper-crust jerk.

 

[Race Bannon]

It may not work for you, but it does for me and for many other people too.

Same here.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Mike, I get the impression you don't realise this, but your complaint is not with the film. It's with Eliza Doolittle. She's not the person you want her to be. You want her to have all your preoccupations and priorities, not her own.

Hmmmm. Not exactly sure how to respond to that one.


Isn't it a common thing to decide one's personal satisfaction of a film/play/book by the actions/reactions of its characters?


If an action/reaction doesn't ring true...or doesn't follow a projected path of growth...I think it's fair game to fault the work.


And it's not just Eliza, it's Higgins, too.


My point here is that we follow these two characters on their adventure together and watch the inevitable closeness which results. When Higgins won't acknowledge that closeness, Eliza bolts (as one would expect). And then instead of the happy reunion and mutual understanding one might expect to resolve our time with the characters, we are left with him returning to his form and her acceptance of it.


I find that unsatisfying. I "get" that I am arguing with George Bernard Shaw and criticizing a beloved film. But I'm just calling it like I'm seeing it. It crazed me the first time I saw it and with each subsequent viewing.


Most good storytelling involves change in the characters. In those final few minutes of MFL we are lead to believe that change was percolating in both leads. Eliza was learning independence. Higgins was learning that he cared for her. But those final few seconds--for me--indicate that neither had really changed nor grown through the process.

I always wanted to the last shot to be a close up of Eliza's gloved hand gripping the fire iron as "The End" appears on the screen.

Now THAT would work! Really. It would make sense and be satisfying.

 

[Charles Smith]

I always wanted to the last shot to be a close up of Eliza's gloved hand gripping the fire iron as "The End" appears on the screen.

Throw in a "Blob"-style question mark, and leave the audience wanting more.

 

[Mark-P]

Mike, I think you have always misinterpreted the final line of the movie. Higgins has changed his ways and he delivers the "command" in a very playful manner. Until the discussion in this thread, I've always assumed the final line was just a joke between them.


Furthermore, I would say that the final line is simply a throwaway punchline meant to get a final laugh before the curtain falls. I'm a bit perplexed that one little piece of fluff could mar the movie for some people.

 

[Race Bannon]

Right.

But he can't just feel it and then act inappropriately.

Yes he can -- it's in character. The first breakthrough was recognizing himself that he does have feelings for her, and her knowing it. It's ambiguous -- perhaps the rest of his faults will still ruin it. He has a ways to go, and, and maybe won't get there. We're left to wonder -- will this proceed? Can it work?

And, even moreso, she should not accept it.

It's ambiguous as to whether she will ultimately find all the warts acceptable. She comes from the gutter class in Victorian England, and being asked to get slippers is not the worst slap in the face. She's tentatively continuing

He was morose and moping while sitting alone. But in her presence felt compelled to be a demanding ass. Not the stuff of successful relationships.

It may not be successful -- it's left undecided as to whether he can truly do this or if she could. A perfect ending point.

And it bugs me that they have the person on the receiving end of poor behavior embrace it.

It was a little more ambiguous than an embrace -- she's staying, she's glad he has feelings for him, but where it goes from there is left unknown.

If I went home tonight from work, walked through the door and yelled, "where are my damn slippers" at my wife...I wouldn't expect her to stick around after too many more nights of such behavior.

I would hope so. He said many things in that movie that were wickedly funny, in the sense of "how can he say that!?"

 

[JohnMor]

Right.


But he can't just feel it and then act inappropriately. And, even moreso, she should not accept it.


He was morose and moping while sitting alone. But in her presence felt compelled to be a demanding ass. Not the stuff of successful relationships.


And it bugs me that they have the person on the receiving end of poor behavior embrace it.


If I went home tonight from work, walked through the door and yelled, "where are my damn slippers" at my wife...I wouldn't expect her to stick around after too many more nights of such behavior.


=============


It's fine that we can agree to disagree about this. Like I have always said, I am thrilled with 99.99% of the film. It's just always bugged me (and not a lot of other people apparently) that the ending seems "off." I just do my best to set it aside and enjoy all that came before.

Mike, I think you have always misinterpreted the final line of the movie. Higgins has changed his ways and he delivers the "command" in a very playful manner. Until the discussion in this thread, I've always assumed the final line was just a joke between them.


Furthermore, I would say that the final line is simply a throwaway punchline meant to get a final laugh before the curtain falls. I'm a bit perplexed that one little piece of fluff could mar the movie for some people.

My take pretty much to a T, Mark. He didn't yell, "Where are my damn slippers?" He smiled and made a quiet joke. And she did NOT go to find his slippers as if she took his question seriously. She simply smiled at the joke. I think she had proved to him she would not be walked over any more. I never for a minute believed they were going back to the same type of relationship they had before the scene in Mrs. Higgins' home.

 

[MarkA]

JohnMor is right. I've played Henry Higgins on stage twice and it is said with a self knowledge after his mother and Eliza made him so mad he realized that he is indeed in love with her. She doesn't go get the slippers. He smiles and covers his eyes with his hat in contentment and he finally grew up.

He is grateful that she is back but is not yet mature enough to know how to respond because he has always been a confirmed old bachelor.

 

[octobercountry]

.....I read the film as "Higgins is fond of Eliza, accustomed to her face, like a sister or a niece, but not an erotic interest." Frankly, to modern ears, when Higgins calls himself a "confirmed bachelor," you wonder if that's a coded description of his relationship with Pickering. If that subtext is real, no wonder he doesn't have any passion for her.

Interesting you should say that! I saw the film in the cinema a couple of months ago, and---though I've viewed this picture many times over the years---at that screening, for the first time ever, I wondered if that interpretation was correct. For me, the idea originated with the dialogue at Mrs Higgins' home in the preceding scenes, where Eliza seems to be saying that she didn't think of the professor in a romantic way, but rather as a dear friend and companion, and was hurt that he didn't appreciate her at all.


Frankly, Eliza seems to be looking more for a father figure than a love interest (and who could blame her, with the awful father she had---I always disliked that character). And I think a valid point can be made that theirs was destined to be a platonic relationship, a very close companionship and friendship, but not a romantic one.


Well, plus I always thought Higgins was, like, super gay. Ha!


I never liked the relationship between the two of them; always thought the professor was abusive (and too old for her---seemed too much like her father) and Eliza ended up being a doormat. However, one of the interesting things about this film is that my opinion as to the exact nature of their relationship has varied from one viewing to another. Sometimes I'll think one way about it, sometimes another.