DVD Review HTF REVIEW: My Fair Lady SE (RECOMMENDED!) (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Mitch,

Thanks for sharing your Mac impressions. Great to hear! Do you currently have a DLP projector yourself at home? If so (or if you view it on some other FP system in the near future) please post back your "big screen" impressions here.

I'm in the camp of believing in the all-digital-signal-path myself (of course, if there is an artifact encoded on disc itself, this won't remove it, but it can prevent *additional* artifacts from accumulating into the signal). My current plan is to get a refirbished Sharp 10000 16x9 DLP front-projector--which has DVI input--and maybe get that forthcoming Bravo D2 DVD player for an all-digital path. The current Bravo D1 is one of the few DVI-equipped players that apparently introduces *no* (added) ringing artifacts (the Samsung DVI player adds lots of EE to the picture!) and the D2 should fix some of the performance bugs of the current D1.

Guess I'm getting off topic But wouldn't you guys all enjoy reading reviews knowing that I've just screened the discs using an all digital video connection feeding my Sharp 16x9 DLP projecting on a 100" diagonal screen? Why...the more I think about it...I *have* to do it...not for myself but for HTF!!

 

[Joe Bernardi]

Cheers to your forthcoming sacrifice for HTF, David!

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

A word of caution David. The 10K (as well as the 11/12K uses the infamous SHP bulp which has been prone to significant flicker problems. The Marantz 12S2 & 12S3 also uses this bulb and like the Sharps, many owners have been reporting LF.

Making the matter worse is that the flickering sometimes does not begin to occur until several hours of lamp life have passed so there is no safe way to be sure the projector you buy will have LF issues or not.

Adding insult to injury, if a projector displays LF beyond the first 90 days then the manufacturer’s warranty will not cover a lamp replacement. Not only that, but even if you buy a new $400 SHP bulb, there is no guarantee this might not happen again.

Frankly I am amazed that Sharp and Marantz continue to design projectors around the SHP bulb as this has been a problem with SHP bulbs for as long as I can remember. There were several data projectors using SHP bulbs a few years ago and they too had reported flicker problems.

There are other HD2 projectors that do not use the SHP bulb and may be worth considering.

 

[Mitch Kaufman]

In response to David, yes, I've got a little Plus Piano, which may not be a big Marantz or Sharp, but really produces a beautiful picture from DVD. It's also very tweakable, so I can get the color/gamma fairly spot-on, at least via eyeball (and I think my eyeballs are pretty good ;-)

I haven't yet had time to watch My Fair Lady, but I will. Note that my Piano signal path is not strictly digital: I'm connected from my old Sony DVP-S7000 via component cables. The Piano will accept a DVI input, but it's designed to take one from a computer. However, I've read on the AVS Forum accounts by someone who's bought the Bravo and used it successfully with the Piano (via the DVI input, of course), so I'm very intrigued. (Plus told me personally around a year ago that it was impossible.) We shall see.

Of course, I remember David from years ago and alt.video.laserdisc, so I know he agrees with me about how good we've got it now via any connection you care to mention!

MK

 

[DeeF]

The recent special edition of the DVD of My Fair Lady has prompted some new discussions about the show, and about the movie. A recent one I had with a friend who is a show composer turned into a debate about the merits of the movie (I'm not sure he's ever seen the show).

He doesn't like the movie, and his main argument is that it doesn't "improve" upon Pygmalion, or reinvent it in some unique way, but merely adds songs to a short play, making it a long musical. The play is still there, and it is still the reason to go to it.

I agree that there are some problems with the movie of My Fair Lady, but I disagree with both of my friend's points.

My Fair Lady needs to be judged alone on its own merits, not against its source material. Just as one wouldn't judge Otello against Othello (an impossible comparison, since both are great masterpieces), one should simply view My Fair Lady and hear the Shaw dialogue and listen to the ravishing songs, and then judge the experience.

What My Fair Lady brings to Pygmalion is the songs, the score, and it may be the only project that doesn't diminish or hurt the play, or tear it apart, by adding songs. The songs are an extra added treat, enhancing the romanticism of the original story, and further explicating some of the characters' impulses.

My friend suggested that most people go to My Fair Lady to hear Shaw, and I disagree; I think most people go to My Fair Lady to hear "I Could Have Danced All Night," i.e., the songs. To suggest otherwise is to make clear that musicals aren't needed at all -- simply remove the songs and the story can be told every bit as
artistically.

Until the DVDs of today, people haven't had the opportunity to "compare" the original Pygmalion movie and the My Fair Lady movie in one sitting, but we were able to do this very thing last weekend. What I think we discovered is that the old movie tells the story very well, very succinctly, and with more nuanced acting.

But it isn't "stylish," or romantic in feeling, but a rather depressing story about a couple of misfits who are thrown together haphazardly by a post-opera rainfall, and end up fighting and nearly destroying each other. There is the suggestion that they will remain together at the end, and in their mutual protestation, one gets that sense that they protest "too much," i.e., because
they really care. It is subtle.

My Fair Lady removes that subtlety, on purpose, and in this very subtle way, is a complete revision of the original, adding romance, style, color, and purpleness of feeling, and frank ardor to remove all stiffness.

It's the songs, guys, that make a musical live forever, and make this musical, and the movie which is faithful to it, superior to some other famous musicals and movies, notably, The Sound of Music.

P.S. An important codicil: because the songs are paramount to the show's success, I think this is the chief problem with the movie. Since people are going to hear the songs, and hear people "do" the songs, there is some real dissatisfaction in the artificial, technical way the songs have been produced in the movie. Julie Andrews may not have been the greatest actress,
but as an actress who sang, she is probably peerless, and so that particular thing she did was missed in the movie -- the ability to put over the songs with aplomb and style. Audrey looks great, and for most of the movie, is perfectly suited to the acting, but one knows she isn't actually singing, and it is dissatisfying.

 

[Carlo_M]

I agree - it's especially jarring in comparison to Harrison's vocals, where it is very clear he's the one singing.

Still, warts and all, I do love this movie! I do wish that I had one of those "wayback machines" so that I could alter the past and see what would have happened if Andrews were able to play the role in MFL.

 

[Brian W]

DeeF-

Would your friend have the same feelings about Romeo and Juliet being transformed into West Side Story?

I've seen Pygmalion the film with Wendy Hiller which must be pretty close to the original play, loved it, but did not need to make any comparisons to MFL as they both stand on their own merits.

That aside, I have to add that of course both these film versions have pretty much the same history from stage to screen (Natalie Wood being dubbed versus Carol Lawrence from the stage, I could go on and on).

In my opinion these are two of the most successful broadway stage to screen adaptations, all the right choices were made to adapt these stage musicals to the screen, INCLUDING Audrey and Natalie who had the screen beauty and presence (if not the voices) to bring the roles to the screen. The dubbing by Marni Nixon in both cases was flawless and does not distract from their performances.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well your friend has this in common with a prominent critic of the day (back in the 50s when the play hit Broadway), who wrote the same thing. I can no longer remember which critic, but even then it was a contrary opinion.

Even though taken from Shaw’s play (much of the musical’s dialogue is straight from Shaw), Shaw took the idea from Greek mythology. The story goes that a great sculptor, Pygmalion was determined to sculpt the ‘ideal’ woman. He made a statue of a woman so beautiful that he fell in love with his own creation and prayed to the Goddess Venus to bring her to life. His wish was granted and they lived happily ever after.

The point is that the story has been around for a while, every author putting his own spin on the Greek myth (the Roman poet, Ovid was probably the first to retell the story). Shaw merely being the first to do so in the twentieth century. I give George Bernard his due, as his play was undoubtedly the best of them all, but still, it seems to be nitpicking to complain that someone had not bettered the Shaw version.

 

[DeeF]

I think my friend's main point is that there is little artistic reason for My Fair Lady, other than making a buck with a big, splashy musical. With the movie version, a gargantuan production, one can understand his reluctance to give it "artistic" blessing, when the old movie is so available and so good. What does the new movie have that the old movie didn't, besides a huge budget, great costumes, beautiful actors and plenty of music, orchestrations, etc.? (By the way, it made less money than Mary Poppins that same year).

The old movie is undeniably great. If I want Pygmalion, that's where I would go. The actors are great, and the story is told very simply, to great effect.

But if I want those songs, which are fantastic themselves, I'll go to My Fair Lady, the movie, or the cast recording (which was the top selling album for many years).

The songs are what make My Fair Lady great, and the reason for it, and its artistic legacy, and future.

 

[Haggai]

Brian W., I agree 100% in both cases, I love both of these movies. I also have the original Broadway soundtracks for both, which are outstanding as well. My father saw one of the original West Side Story theatrical productions in its early '60s world tour version, when it came through Israel, with Chita Rivera as Anita.

I actually think that Natalie Wood's accent in the movie is pretty unconvincing, but her on-screen presence is so powerful that it never bothers me. Her performance in the last scene is one of my favorites by any actor or actress in any movie.

 

[Brian W]

And went on to win Best Picture, Actor and become among the most awarded and acclaimed screen adapted musicals. Mary Poppins (also great) was also considered a children's film and could have sold more tickets for that reason alone...

 

[Eric Paddon]

But the argument that Pygmalion is superior to MFL in my opinion overlooks the fact that Shaw's ending is not well-liked by most people, which is why it got changed in the first place in the 1938 movie.

The music in MFL adds texture and depth to the piece overall. It's not a case where the songs are just a bunch of production numbers thrown in to let us take a break from the action like so many other musicals, even great ones, do.

And I have to disagree with the harsh reviews of Audrey. I think if Audrey had been allowed to sing "Loverly" in the final cut of the film, where her unrefined singing voice is more true to the character then any other rendition I've heard of the song, she would have gotten at least the Oscar nomination she deserved because then she would have had one and a half numbers of her own singing to stand out (it's mostly her voice on "Just You Wait" except for the fantasy sequence, "One day I'll be famous....").

The practical reality of the time is that if Julie Andrews had been given the part, there's no way Jack Warner would have allowed Rex Harrison to play Higgins IMO, and if we had to be given the choice of Harrison or Julie in the film, I think it had to be Harrison.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Nice comments Eric (and others).

Agreed that Audrey should have had her own voice used for the loverly sequence. Your thoughts express my sentiments exactly.

If *only* it had been included on an optional 5.1 track on the DVD. Something to look forward to on the HD-DVD

 

[Brian W]

Well said! This is the point I was making when referring to the "huge budget, great costumes, beautiful actors and plenty of music, orchestrations, etc" and the comment implying: what did it add? It was HOW and WHY it was done and all of that DID add "texture and depth to the piece overall"

For example: Regarding the costumes alone, those Cecil Beaton designs for the "black and white" Ascot Gavotte production , I mean do you think that was maybe pretty well thought out and added something artistic to the flow of the piece, not just thrown in there because they could ?

 

[Mike Ackerman]

You can listen to an audio review of the new My Fair Lady DVD from February 24, 2004 at freshair.com . The reviewer includes an excerpt from an Ed Sullivan Show DVD which features Julie Andrews singing "Wouldn't It Be Loverly"

I assume the My Fair Lady DVD will be fixed to remove the timecodes on the extras disk, but I hope they'll also fix a couple other things. The minor problem was the commentary track was rather soft. I had to back up in several places to hear Allen, Harris and Katz. (Nixon was loud enough.) I only have a 2-speaker TV, so maybe it's better on a 6-channel setup.

Now for the major problem. Don't read further if you don't notice anything wrong, because once you know, you won't be able to not see it. There is a lot of horizontal jiggle from frame to frame. It's as if the film shifted from side to side as it was being scanned to video. I'd bet that the video could be manually fixed without re-scanning the film. Economically? Now that's a harder question. I'd prefer that the distributor spent the money on keeping a couple film prints in circulation around the country.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mike,

I'm certain that if the studio were to produce a new HD transfer today, that they would have taken care to stabalize the inter-frame jitter that you mention. That is indeed an artifact on the current DVD but at least it's a film-related artifact and not something introduced during mastering...

 

[Patrick McCart]

I just picked up My Fair Lady: SE (along with the "Franchise Collections" of Smokey and the Bandit and American Graffiti... you should have seen the weird look I got from the cashier )

This is actually the very first time I've seen the film in the full widescreen format... I saw the film in a drama class (10th grade high-school) in P&S and on VHS... not quite the ideal way to see a 70mm film...

First, the image is comparable to the Lawrence of Arabia Superbit... excellent detail, very film like, and extremely light edge enhancement (which is generally only in spots where black is on white). The sound is wonderful, too. One thing that really stood out was that the commentary has directional sound. Robert Harris seemed to be on the left, James Katz in the center, and Gene Allen on the right (I haven't gotten to any of the Marni Nixon parts, yet). Some of the extras are a little sloppy on the 2nd disc, but I suspect it's probably because of materials being owned by CBS.

And a big to Warner for classy menu and cover design.