So, Irsquo;m immersed in the wonder of the stage, and I got to thinking about Julie and My Fair Lady. Irsquo;m listening to her One on One concert from like 1992 or something, and she tells some wonderful stories about working on Broadway in MFL. It occurred to me that she most likely knows this play by heart to this very day, and subsequently, I realized that, every time she tells us about MFL and also incorporates lines from the playmdash;not necessarily Elizarsquo;s linesmdash;that she jumps immediately into character. Itrsquo;s justhellip; itrsquo;s a huge ldquo;wowrdquo; factor. Itrsquo;s almost as if shersquo;s still working on that play in the back of her mind, still trying to put it down definitively for herselfmdash;because she loved it that much. Juliersquo;s not going to dwell on things that mean nothing to hermdash;that much is evident from her lifemdash;and when you realize that her body of work could also encompass that, itrsquo;s just rather mind-blowing.
Julie tells us that she accepted Warnerrsquo;s choice to cast Audrey in place of Julie for the film at the time without much of a fight. She also tells us that in hindsight, she almost regrets not having done MFL on film because she never got the chance to ldquo;put the role down definitively.rdquo; In one way, Irsquo;ve always understood what she meant when she said that, but in another, it left me somewhat confused. Wouldnrsquo;t doing the role of Eliza Doolittle for three and a half years in
To some people, Eliza is just black and whitemdash;shersquo;s either this or that, or she is not. In reality, Eliza literally is just black and white, as well as read all over. Her existence is two-dimensional on paper. It was Juliersquo;s job to read into her and bring her to life. That is probably the most difficult aspect of actingmdash;at least with material as brilliant as MFL. So therefore, to othersmdash;because of Juliersquo;s interpretation of hermdash;shersquo;s very much alive and vibrant. In truth, Eliza Doolittle wins above any other of Juliersquo;s work for me, despite having never seen her do the job of acting her out, except for the occasional reenactments over the past fifty years. Eliza comes alive just when Julie mentions her name, and thus, Irsquo;d like to draw out some comparisons between the Eliza of AJL/Julie Andrews and the Eliza of Jack Warner/Audrey Hepburn. I have also read Pygmalion and MFL several times, and it is there that the differences screamed out at me and it really started to hit me. Yes, I admit, Irsquo;ve only watched the film about three timesmdash;it depresses the hell out of me.
Irsquo;m going to start with Jack and Audrey, simply because I noticed that Jackrsquo;s aim with Eliza was strikingly different to Juliersquo;s. Jack was actually aiming for the ldquo;realrdquo; Eliza, the one created in Shawrsquo;s Pygmalion. Shawrsquo;s Eliza has a strong basis, but in the end, she wilts down to just another weepy female, the exact kind of female that Henry despises. I find that ironic though, because Pygmalion was based from the Roman myth of Pygmalion and Galatea, and Pygmalion actually does marry Galatea after appeal to Venus to make her a living being and not just his model of the perfect woman. Shawrsquo;s Eliza has a fire to her personality, but shersquo;s more prone to whine, scream, and cry under instruction and rebuke from menmdash;naturally the stereotypical view of women at the time that Shaw wrote Pygmalion. Yet in the midst of that shortcoming, Eliza still manages to walk away with the prize of Freddy, who is more of a sap than she is, so that gives Pygmalion its overall successful appealmdash;Eliza goes through crap, and in the end, walks away with a (merely) ldquo;adequaterdquo; prize as a reward. With Warnerrsquo;s Eliza, he basically takes Pygmalion and My Fair Lady and uses them as bookends to Elizarsquo;s character and story. Pygmalionrsquo;s Eliza is used, but MFLrsquo;s story is used.
People will say that MFL was a huge success, but why doesnrsquo;t anyone know what it is anymore, if it was so amazing? In the long run, to me, success equals lasting impression and legacy. I think it all comes down to the interpretation of Eliza that Audrey was asked to employ. She whines, she screams, she cries, and in the end, she comes back to Henry with her head down and her tail between her legs. There is literally no substance to Eliza Doolittle, the life of the story. MFL was supposed to be a love storymdash;perhaps the greatestmdash;in which the word ldquo;loverdquo; was never spoken. Indeed, that word never was spoken, but when it comes down to the bottom line, Warnerrsquo;s MFL is a huge sob story that leaves the viewer feeling sorry and apprehensive for Eliza, though she is supposed to be in love with Henry. Being in love with someone doesnrsquo;t mean coming back submissively to let him be a tyrant againmdash;it means making your stand and then starting afresh. Irsquo;m afraid that because of the botched interpretation of MFLrsquo;s Eliza, it botched the full potential of the beauty of My Fair Lady as a masterpiece on film.
On the other hand, Irsquo;d like to deal with Lernerrsquo;s Eliza now. Alan included a note in the script of My Fair Lady that reads, ldquo;I have omitted the sequel because in it, Shaw explains how Eliza ends not with Higgins, but with Freddy andmdash;Shaw and Heaven forgive memdash;I am not certain he is right.rdquo; I tend to agree with him on disagreeing with Shawmdash;Pygmalion is unfulfilling in the light of both real life and the hearts of romantics. It honestly does leave you feeling hopeless. Almost as if you have to despair to the fact that you will never be able to do better than a maniac tyrant that hates women for their natural characteristics and ultimately sees men as the ones with the upper hand at all times. Maybe this is influenced by the fact that both AJL and I are romantics at heart, but I think the crux of the real problem laid within the character of Eliza Doolittle. I say this because throughout Pygmalion and My Fair Lady, all the other characters remain constant, with perhaps a change here or theremdash;Eliza is the only major change.
I think the strong basis accompanied with lack of substance bothered AJL the most, and is probably what led him to restructure Eliza the way he did. He built her up from the established foundation, and Julie brought that to life through her interpretation of Elizarsquo;s structure. Juliersquo;s Eliza Doolittle also possesses a fiery personality, but more goes along with it. The determination, the indignation, the confidence, and the perseverance. She knew what she wanted, and she set out to get it. She got it. She got what she wanted, and she did it in a way that remained true to who she really was. She didnrsquo;t let Henry turn her into a woman that she wasnrsquo;t. As a greater reward, she realized that although Henry was a classic pain in the bloominrsquo; arse, she just couldnrsquo;t do without him. She didnrsquo;t go back to him out of dog-like obligation and devotion, but of her own free choice. She was not guilt-ridden, but heartsick and knowingly so. The defining characteristic of the end of My Fair Lady, the play, is that Eliza established through her entire stay with Henry and also during their ldquo;fightrdquo; (Without You) that she would not let him rule over her. He could instruct her and help her to become a better Eliza, but he couldnrsquo;t ever change her into the model of his perfect woman. That is precisely what makes Eliza Henryrsquo;s ldquo;Fair Lady.rdquo; That is what captured the hearts of everyone sitting in front of that stage every time the casts got up to perform it.
The film was identical to the play, with one exception. Eliza Doolittle. That one exception alters the entire view of the story. Itrsquo;s quite scary. In Warnerrsquo;s MFL, Eliza is literally Henryrsquo;s devoted slave. In Lernerrsquo;s, Eliza is her own individual that will stop at nothing to accomplish what she wants. Which is more appealing? Which leaves the lasting impression?
You got it. The play version.
Julie has said that she wasnrsquo;t always so sure that she ever got Eliza down properly. Itrsquo;s a wide-open statement, though, and herersquo;s why: Eliza is the most complex and detailed character I have ever encountered that is actually a human being. Therersquo;s so much room within her structure for interpretation, for alteration, for improvement. Therersquo;s no way Eliza could ever be put down definitively, for her facets are limitless. Any actress who takes her on is trying to fill the biggest shoes out there. I donrsquo;t know for certain, but Juliersquo;s huge sense of responsibility, her passion, her sense of professionalism, and her desire for perfectionism truly helped to pull the talent she had together to form the character of Eliza Doolittle, and shersquo;ll probably be the only person who completely filled Elizarsquo;s shoes perfectly. For Julie didnrsquo;t just take on Eliza to the best of her abilities, she let Eliza grow over the years. Julie grew as an actress.
And if Juliersquo;s said that she understood why she wasnrsquo;t cast for the film, why was she kicking herself later in life for not making a bigger fuss and putting up a fight? I think itrsquo;s because putting a character down on film for the entire world to see means closing the book on Eliza for Julie. Doing the film would have meant her last shot at bringing Eliza to life in the way that she and AJL saw her, and she would have been able to do it as close to her own satisfaction as ever could be possible. She could have really and honestly brought the Cockney flower girl to life in the closest stroke of perfection that she could possibly reach, and that would be the Eliza Doolittle that the world would fall in love with, and the Eliza Doolittle that she wanted to keep alive. Looking back and realizing something like that, wouldnrsquo;t you want to strangle yourself? I wouldmdash;look at the impact Juliersquo;s interpretation of Maria in TSOM had on the world. My Fair Lady is probably one of the best things she was ever a part of, and it honestly wasnrsquo;t done justice on film. Kind of how TSOM wasnrsquo;t done justice on stage but was a roaring success on screen.
I canrsquo;t believe I even understand what Irsquo;m trying to say. Therersquo;s my food for thought for today, and gosh, I hope it made sense.
