Saw this last night (February 13) with Michael Halling giving a sensational performance as Henry Higgins and no less than two Colonel Pickerings (Allan Corduner had what audience was told was a back issue toward the end of Act I, Laura Benanti stepped out and charismatically entertained the audience with some patter and a song, and when the play resumed, Adam Gruppner had seamlessly subbed into the Pickering role). This is a peerless My Fair Lady with Benanti giving a towering performance as Eliza and everyone else up to that standard as well. In spite of the above described series of not really unfortunate events, it was an unforgettable evening. Well, I guess stuff like that is what makes events unforgettable.
1
'My Fair Lady' with Rex Harrison and Julie Andrews was the first Broadway show I ever saw (age 7). My mother said I floated out of the theater.
That being the case I saw all the reincarnations of the show (and the movie) and none of them were as good until this one.
Staging, directing and costumes were first rate. My only criticism is 'Freddy Hill' was supposed to be the spoiled son of an aristocrat. Instead he was a stunning slim man who didn't look as if he ever debauched in his life.
I would see it again in a heartbeat.
The greatest musical ever. Just saw the show with the incandescent Laura Benanti and the regal Rosemary Harris, who took over, respectively, for Ambrose and Riggs. The entire cast is fantastic. The sets, costumes, direction are stellar. I do not understand the quibble about the ending. It's clear throughout the show that befuddled Higgins is outmatched by the spirited, intelligent Eliza. Shaw saw that times were changing in Edwardian England, feminist that he was. The book, score, and music is seamless. The songs are part of the fabric of our lives. Artists cover them, jazz musicians improvise on them. Immortal as Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms--without a doubt. This is a musical that makes you glad you're alive.
8
I'll admit that I fell in love with My Fair Lady in 1964 when I was 13 years old and saw the movie. So my viewpoints are based on the film rather than the Julie Andrews Broadway show from the 50s. However, over these many years, I've read all versions; seen all films; been to all stage shows. I was lucky enough to see Rex Harrison with Cathleen Nesbitt (playing Mrs. Higgins) on Broadway in the 80s. She was in her 90s and when she forgot her lines, Rex Harrison improvised the script to cover for her.
All of the comments here so far have conveyed my opinions from this past week (August 22 was my show date). I felt that none of the performers were outstanding; they were okay but none great. One viewpoint that I have and haven't read is how Mrs. Pierce manhandled Eliza when she arrived at 27A Wimpole Street, grabbing her arms and pushing her around. Even if Mrs. Pierce views Eliza as a lower class woman she should not feel that she can physically handle her.
I'm glad that I saw this version and was really looking forward to it. I agree that hearing the overture caused tears to well up in my eyes from memories of My Fair Lady's past.
When I'm on my deathbed I want to hear that overture as I fade out of this worldly existence.
2
I love My Fair Lady. Last night, I saw the current production at Lincoln Center, and I did not love it. As a child, I grew up with the music, every word, every song. This production is uneven. The overture is thrilling and alive; but sadly, the music doesn't flow consistently from scene to scene, and chemistry between important characters is often lacking. Standouts are Jordan Donica and Norbert Leo Butz. The other voices? And why that over the top "I'm Getting Married in the Morning" scene with can-can girls? The set design is often lovely and would have been even better without all those turns. And the ending is simply bewildering to me. When is Julie Andrews bringing her production to New York?
3
@Lois
They showed that can-can girls scene on the Tony broadcast and I found it so awful I just decided then and there that this production wasn't for me, much as I like Lauren Ambrose, and much as I adore the music.
1
A beautiful revival with a needlessly confusing, surprisingly wrong-headed final staging choice--which Mr. Green praises at the end of his review. The musical (as written) does enough to punish the priggish and flummoxed Higgins, and to elevate to a position of power the radiant Eliza. An adjustment of the iconic ending betrays a lack of understanding of this shift (Eliza was never really going to reassume the role of slipper-fetcher, and nor would Higgins want her to). A blunder from one of the best directors working in the American theater. But otherwise, a gorgeous production with a very competent set of leads, a golden-voiced Mr. Donica, and an endlessly inventive and thrilling Mr. Butz.
1
Congrats to Ms. Ambrose for having the courage to tackle this one but she was obviously struggling to get through the songs (especially "I Could Have Danced All Night"). She squints and mugs and thrusts her arms and body through every number. She looks uncomfortable most of the time but not as uncomfortable as I was watching it. The real find of this production was Harry Haddon-Patton who was superb. Norbutt Leo-Buttz is about as English as american pie. Diana Rigg was a delight.
2
A very accurate review of a great revival--one cheated by the TONYs--but it gives too little, too late recognition of Lerner and Lowe, true geniuses,
1
When we left the theater I heard other theatergoers discussing was Eliza right when she left Henry. I have mixed feelings. I do think her decision was motivated by the text. She didn't see, after all, his "growing accustomed" to her. So she didn't see his vulnerability and real love for her. She just heard his "slippers" comment. So she chose herself over him. That seemed the right decision in the moment.
4
I began to shiver when Eliza finally said it correctly : "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plane ".
At last this hodgepodge revival of MFL was allowed to
BREATHE ! The actors were able to connect with each other and their character. The set finally stopped twirling and Shaw and Lerner and Loewe FINALLY took center stage.
This "LADY" is too fat for its own good.
2
I saw this production in mid June. Is her vocal ability is under strain? Lauren Ambrose’s articulation is failing. She sounds like early Patti LuPone, where if you didn’t already know the lyrics you wouldn’t understand.
“Not for all the jewels on the crahh.”
Excellent Harry Hadden-Paton brought better singing and conveyed more emotion from his bottled up Higgins than the Rex Harrison version. Alan Corduner was a wonderful Pickering, and Diana Rigg’s small part was fully alive.
Kudos to Catherine Zuber costumes!
Of course Norbert Leo Butz brought pizzazz, and did some fun dancing that illustrated his rise in the world. But what was the director thinking in adding French can can dancers to the mix, along with cartoonish cross dressing men? Does every revival have to include anachronisms in the interest of virtue flaunting the production’s wokeness? Get Me to the Church is a great number and doesn’t call for distracting, nonsensical intrusions from 2018.
Nicholas Hytner made a similar gaffe 20 years ago in Lincoln Center’s Carousel. Carrie’s family were portrayed by a racially mixed group of children, a Bennetton ad of diverse cuteness. But their role was to convey snobbery and judgement toward the family of a lowly carnival barker. A racially and ethnically diverse family doesn’t signal snobbery, but tolerance and inclusion. This PC casting worked against the theme. British directors, if you hope to show off your PC bona fides, you need to up your game!
6
I looked for this review after seeing a still at the Tony awards of men in drag. What would a NY performance be without some sort of revisionist addition of the irrelevant?
However: The songs aren't 'banal'. They emerge from the original Shavian text.
One of the delights of My Fair Lady is to sit down with the script & the original play, side by side, and study how Lerner & Loewe adapted the text. In many ways it’s a lesson in humility, the acknowledgement of a greater master, by two men who weren't exactly slouches themselves.
The film version with a princess-waif Audrey Hepburn has blurred the original in which first, Wendy Hiller & then Julie Andrews, both portray a character who was a tough survivor of remorseless poverty.
It was ‘feminist’ from Day One. No need to ‘reconstruct’.
5
Just saw the production last night. It was lovely and we (my friend and I who are former Broadway actresses) especially enjoyed Harry Haddon-Paten as a younger, and even sexier than typical Higgins. We were confused about the casting of Lauren Ambrose. Her acting was quite good, but if you are looking at hiring an actress who cannot sing the HELL out of one of the most iconic songs in all of musical theater...please keep looking. How one can be expected sit through a MUSICAL without good singing is bizarre. I noticed everyone around me shifting in their seats, looking at the program during I Could Have Danced All Night and my friend and I leaned forward to strain to hear her and try and figure out when the singing would finally kick in. The trend of hiring TV actors to sing is tiresome. The set was spectacular.
4
Having enjoyed Lauren Ambrose on "Six Feet Under," but not in her musical performances on YouTube, I was extremely wary of this revival. My hopes were raised by the good reviews, but ultimately dashed in a surprising way. Ms. Ambrose can actually sing the role. It's her acting that destroys the night: she squints and purses and clenches and mugs throughout, her early dialogue is oddly flat and disconnected, and her evolving accent is erratic at best. Other problems exist: the glacial set changes, the ludicrous climbing-the-Alps final exit. "My Fair Lady" IS a perfect musical AND a great one, and this production is a lumbering disappointment.
5
I was stuck inside by the computer most of the weekend, and this helped kill the time (a wonderful vocal by my neighbor Jan Horvath). I don't see the show until late May, so this is based on the reviews and coverage, if it's not too late to put it here.
"TONY NOW!" - LET'S RIGG THE VOTE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sFgqusGSOs
(in tribute to luxury casting - the legendary Diana Rigg as Mrs. Higgins in "My Fair Lady" - parody to tune of "Show Me")
1
P.S. Er, yes, that is the photo from this very article, by 2018 Tony honoree for extraordinary achievement in the theater Sara Krulwich - at 0:50 to 0:57. (Thanks to my friend Keith for noticing that and reminding me!) Since that YouTube just above quotes Mr. Green and Mr. Paulson, too, I guess this may be a meta-comment video?
1
I loved it. The Ascot scene was perfect from the silhouetted start to the embarrassed end - the highlight of the evening. The singing was excellent: *everyone* was on key (apparently unlike some commenters' experience). Yes, there are quibbles one could make about some of the over-the-top bits, but they were tremendous fun. Get Me to the Church on Time was deliberately campy and hence extreme, but also exuberant and funny. Wouldn't It Be Loverly was also great fun (again, my experience did not mirror some commenters'). Lauren Ambrose has incredible range as an actor - her Juliet in Central Park several years ago was a marvel and she's very good here. The ending is nicely ambiguous and thus truer to Shaw's intentions than most musical productions of My Fair Lady are.
2
Having just seen MFL i found it bland. One reason is that Neither Higgens nor Eliza relates to anyone and there is zero chemistry between them or between anyone except Ms Riggs whose art seems to begin with "the relationship". The review read more like the press release. hmmm same issues as The King and I.No fire between characters. Certainly no sex.
Get me To The Church was so overdone that one would think it was the highlight of MFL! Why was it necessary to blow it up out of all proportion to the rest of the production...Can Can girls?!!
5
@Jo In this viewer's mind the problem is Bartlett Sher, a critic's darling who doesn't seem to get what musical theater is about. South Pacific, The King and I, and now My Fair Lady have all suffered from the lack of chemistry between the leading characters. Whether they ultimately end up together, as Nellie and Emile do in South Pacific, or don't, like Anna and the King, or leave us wondering,as Henry and Eliza, there must be the spark of romance between them if we are to be fully engaged in their fates. Time for a new Lincoln Center "wunderkind."
1
@Jo So often in reviews these days one reads the criticism of "no chemistry." It is hard enough to determine what this phrase means standing alone; much harder when in the context of the play. In the present era does it take a trip to the bedroom to prove "chemistry." But that could of course just mean lust.
I can think of no greater injustice in the use of the that phrase than in Mr. Sher's South Pacific. The overture has scarcely ended before Kelli O'Hara and Paulo Szot are deep into their exploration of the feelings they have for each other in "Twin Soliloquies." This is followed by awkward feeling out of each other. How would he feel about a wife who had never read a piece of literature? Would she be bored by the long hot season? And I suppose that the great love songs "Some Enchanted Evening" and "Wonderful Guy" would also furnish for me significant proof of their chemistry.
Thk King and I probably presented greater impediments creating chemistry between the King of Siam and his English schoolteacher. I know that most of the local types, at least, wanted the King to haul Anna into the bedroom to prove chemistry, but in this time and place such was almost impossible. You had to wait to nearly the end of the show for the King to seal the chemistry deal with his deft maneuvering of Anna into the position where he slipped his hand down her back and commanded her to "Come." You saw no chemistry but I swear I saw a small electric spark jump from him to her.
1
Diana Rigg...'the definition of luxury casting'...I concur (and I haven't even seen the show).
2
With luck my granddaughter and I will see it before it is gone.
We saw a wonderful adaption of MFL at the Olney Theather in Olney Md not long ago.
It was an interracial main couple , she was black he was white, the sexual energy between the two main characters was very noticeable, and at the end of the play they go off toward the bed room together.
It was a wonderful production and an interesting and different look at a timeless classic
Saw his last week. Loved it. Thought that the recapitulation of La Cage Aux Folles in the I’m Getting Married number was a bit much, but the number dd bring he house down, as did Ms. Ambrose’s “I Could Have Danced All Night.” This is a wonderful achievement. Bravo!
3
It's always seemed to me that there is a simpler fix to the "slippers" scene at the end of the show. You needn't change a line, or block an exit for Eliza. You pre-set the slippers some distance both from where Higgins is sitting and from where Eliza enters. When he gives his "Where the devil are my slippers?" line, she gestures toward the skippers and they both move toward them coming together at the fadeout. This not only preserves the possibility of their future relationship, but shows that Henry has learned something about his own humanity.
And why the attraction and possibility of an ongoing relationship? Because the two characters are intellectual equals, the smartest people in the show, and they cannot resist one another's intelligence. And there has to be real sexual chemistry between them, which neither of them recognize, because both are utterly inexperienced in such matters.
Re Mrs. Higgins: I saw a regional production of Pygmalion at Washington's Arena Stage in which Broadway great Tammy Grimes played the role. Not simply an irascible older lady who deplores her son's lack of manners, Grimes' Mrs. Higgins absolutely adored her son and his mind. I expect Ms. Rigg can steal a good deal of the show in the role as well.
12
It never fails to amaze me how intelligent people get so much so wrong. Henry Higgins doesn't set out to give Eliza a full 'makeover' All he wants to do is to change her accent, to prove a point - that a different speaking voice will change the way society sees her. In Great Britain, as it once was.That's all he wants to do. Win a bet. The fact that during the process he changes for the better, as does Eliza, is what it's all about. To alter the ending destroys all the charm and romance of that. When Henry asks Eliza 'where his slippers are' in the final scene, he's testing her, and himself. They both come out on top. This revival is so awful it defies belief. The recent one in Australia directed by Julie Andrews, wiped this turkey off the map.
17
Why do you gushingly praise a musical that has "updated" by bringing it closer to its original source? A modern audience should have no problem with Eliza slamming the door -- if Higgins' personality and motivations have been properly conveyed prior to that.
The writer is right about one thing -- the songs are bland and banal, verging on the vapid. G&$, Ashman/Menken, and Frank Loesser wrote "better" songs that are a lot more fun to sing (eg. the Jack Point/Shadbolt duet in which they explain how they shot the escaping prisoner). Indeed, though operettas (like musicals) are usually lightweight affairs with (generally) happy endings, "Yeomen of the Guard" has an overall nastiness about it and a sour ending quite untypical of the genre.
1
A few years ago, one critic at the Times described "My Fair Lady's" Lerner and Loewe songs sounding, "as if they descended from heaven." I can't disagree; it is the perfect musical, with not a weak tune in the whole show, from the amusingly wistful, "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" to the comic "Get Me to the Church on Time" to the whirlwind fury of "Show Me" to the display of Higgin's obtuseness in "A Hymn to Him." Vapid? Well, to each his own, but I respectfully don't think so. I still believe none better has emerged in musical theater than "My Fair Lady."
20
To the best of my knowledge, no one in the history of the show has ever taken note of the hidden-in-plain-sight commentary found in its title: My FAIR Lady. While Lerner and Loewe are no longer around to confirm or deny what seems nose-on-my-face obvious, the current MeToo climate only makes more apparent Eliza’s eventual clearheadedness regarding her relationship with Higgins. After all his acidic comments and borderline sadistic misogyny, she can still see the vulnerable humanity in the man.
It’s a broad statement, but every drama, to one degree or another, rests on the concept of fate, something the ancient Greeks knew only too well, not least when the legend of Pygmalion was dreamt up. In setting out to transform Eliza, motivated by a vulgar wager, Higgins set in motion the inexorable mechanism by which he would be drawn, figuratively kicking and screaming (hs is a proper and reserved English gentleman, after all) into being a better man than he ever would have been had he not put Eliza through his sadistic ordeal. Who knows; a few more Elizas and England might’ve found something better to do with its energies than wrest a quarter of the earth's landmass from its rightful owners. Enough fair ladies would surely have led to a more fair socieity.
6
Why is this transformation a 'sadistic ordeal?' He falls in love, she does too, but she needs to make a point, which she does, and she gets the right speaking voice to potentially open the flower shop she always dreamed of. If she still wants to that is.
We saw the first night of previews on March 15. This is a ravishing show that recalls a bygone era of glorious sets, costumes and music. Upon entering the theater, one beholds a magnificent mural of London, circa 1900. Already the mood is set that we're in for something special. For the ballroom scene, the pit orchestra has been brought on stage to be the orchestra playing at the ball. Marvelous! Mr. Butz, as Eliza's dad, brought the house down with his antics in "With a Little Bit of Luck," and "Get Me to the Church On Time." The ensemble is sublime. Listen for the barbershop harmony in "Wouldn't it Be Loverly." I also loved Higgins' butler who has a brief scene announcing Mr. Doolittle, and did it to a T. Mrs. Pearce is a hoot saying so much with just a few words. This show lifts the spirits and sends the audience out with smiles. What could be better than that?!
12
Actually, Shaw imagined a 20 year difference between Eliza and Henry. Lauren Ambrose is 3 years older than Harry Hadden-Paton, Leslie Howard 19 years older than Wendy Hiller, in the film Pygmalion. Julie Andrews and Rex Harrison were 27 years apart. Current casting is furthest away from Shaw's vision.
Shaw, in "What Happened After: "Eliza, in telling Higgins she would not marry him if he asked her, was... was announcing a well-considered decision. When a bachelor interests, and dominates, and teaches, and becomes important to a spinster... she always, if she has character enough to be capable of it, considers very seriously... becoming that bachelor's wife.... Her decision will depend a good deal on whether she is really free to choose; and that, again, will depend on her age and income. If she is at the end of her youth, and has no security..., she will marry him because she must marry anybody who will provide for her. But at Eliza's age a good-looking girl...feels free to pick and choose.... Eliza's instinct tells her not to marry Higgins. It does not tell her to give him up.... It would be very sorely strained if there was another woman likely to supplant her with him. But as she feels sure of him on that last point, she has no doubt at all as to her course, and would not have any, even if the difference of twenty years in age, which seems so great to youth, did not exist between them."
3
Mrs. Patrick Campbell, who created the part (written for her by Shaw) was 49 at the London premiere; her Higgins, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, was 61. According to Pickering, Eliza's about 21.
As always on the stage, the only valid vision is the one that works on the stage. Shaw wanted the 26-year-old Wendy Hiller for the film because of her spirit and radiance; anyone's who's seen the film knows how right he was. Those qualities, and not a calendar, determine casting.
4
As an out-of-towner I've been trying to fit this revival of My Fair Lady at Lincoln Center into my annual trip to NYC ever since I read an article in NYT last spring.
Having reading this fresh review by Jesse Green with stage photos/stills and readers comments below, I'm feeling relieved that I don't have to see this production, which changes the ending of the story to get in tune with the #MeToo movement and/or other PC currents.
As a strong supporter of #MeToo and feminist movements, I love the original My Fair Lady, the music, the stage performance and, of course, the costume by Cecil Beaton!
Although I'm too young to see the original My Fair Lady on Broadway during last century, I caught the chance to see it at the Lyric Opera in Chicago and love it! The only drawback of the Chicago Lyric's version is the costume because I LOVE the movie costume designed by Cecil Beaton so much! If I remember correctly Kelli O'Hara played Eliza in Chicago Lyric's version and she did a wonderful musical job even her costume distracted me a little bit.
I loved My Fair Lady so much that I went on to fly to London after Chicago's show to visit Covent Garden for the First Time as a frequent visitor to London! I was thrilled to see the flower market there!
A classic is a classic no matter how political currents change. That's why I'm relieved that I don't need to see this MFL at LC. The photos shown here help make my decision as the costume looks even worse than those at Chicago Lyric.
1
The Lyric Opera’s production was very good, but Kelli O’Hara did not play Eliza. It was Lisa O’Hare (no wonder you thought of Ms. O’Hara), who was terrific. I was six years old when I saw the original “My Fair Lady” on Broadway in 1960 with Sally Ann Howes and Edward Mulhare. It was my first musical ever and I’ll never forget the scrims designed by Cecil Beaton and the double rotating stages. Now I’ll be visiting New York this summer to see this production. Can’t wait.
6
It doesn't bother you that the original MFL is so far removed from Shaw?
Thank you for correcting my error! In Chicago Lyric's production Eliza was played by Lisa O'Hare, not Kelly O'Hara!
I'm relieved that I don't have to see this new production in NYC because of the change in the end revealed by this review and the costume in photos looks even worse than the Chicago Lyric.
I'm now hoping there will be My Fair Lady staging in London and hopeful that the Brits will use costume inspired by Cecil Beaton's Oscar-winning designs and keep the original ending of My Fair Lady!
Australia has just been lucky enough to see a brilliant production of ‘My Fair Lady’ directed by the original Eliza herself, Julie Andrews which played to sell out house using replications of the original sets and costumes. And it still felt fresh, relevant and very funny so from this review it’s great to see that Mr Sher has also been able to channel Mr Shaw’s vision of female empowerment into an entertaining show.
1
Saw it recently and LOVED it. LOVED Lauren Ambrose. It was another feather in Bartlett Sher's cap.
3
I saw MFL last week and thought it was OK, with the major disappointment being Lauren Ambrose. I thought her acting inconsistent, and she had no chemistry with pretty much anyone she shared the stage with. For example, in the "Wouldn't It be Loverly" number, she didn't seem to have a connection with anyone else on stage. Since one of her challenges after her growth is to figure out where she fits in, unless the audience believes she has a life before she came to Higgins, it's not a big deal if she feels she can't go back. There was also no connection between her and Higgins (so who cares if they get along, or don't), or even between her and Pickering (when he is sad that she's gone, I was surprised since he show any concern for her while she was under Higgins' instruction), or her and Mrs. Pearce (she seems initially to be concerned about Eliza's well-being, but Eliza then didn't ever turn to her). As for her singing, I thought Ms. Ambrose was behind on almost all her songs, and I have to admit that I just didn't personally like the tone of her voice and I thought her voice was quite harsh and cold, but that's just my preference. When I think how good someone like Sierra Boggess or Laura Osnes could have been in that role, I wonder why Mr. Sher went with her. Finally, I didn't understand the end - why have Eliza walk out through the audience (when the rest of the show didn't break that wall) instead of through the door? Confusing.
10
Not sure what show you saw. That's too bad. I thought she was fantastic. And I see almost every show on Bway and tend to be jaded and cynical. Loved this production.
4
Although I agree with your excellent taste in names, I respectfully disagree with you on your review! And I usually find things to like in most performances!
1
I, too, saw this production in previews and left feeling so disappointed! Lauren Ambrose has a lovely voice, but there was no soul to it, no umph or emotion, and it was lacking the dynamic range required of the role. I didn’t see much beyond her performance level as Claire from Six Feet Under! There was no chemistry between the actors, as each one seemed to perform a solo act. The sets were very good, but after awhile, I found the changes more annoying and distracting than exciting. Overall, flat performances, dull casting, and a major let down.
3
Do we really need MY FAIR LADY to give us a "lesson" on female empowerment? Why does EVERYTHING have to be shoved through a PC filter?
The new ending is terrible. I was at the press performance and the audience was clearly confused and dissatisfied.
19
I think any opportunity to correct the past faux pas is warranted. Having seen PYGMALION before I ever say MY FAIR LADY, I have to say the musical was a real let-down.
4
In a way, your question answers itself. Anyway, sounds like this was not so much filtered as restored to original intent.
"Such telltales of a feminist reading are not merely opportune; they are accurate to Shaw’s intent."
2
Maybe it was the original intent of Shaw's PYGMALION, but MY FAIR LADY is a whole other theatrical work.
Lerner and Loewe made a deliberate decision to make their ending different from PYGMALION's. The enduring success of MY FAIR LADY would suggest that their decision was the right one.
9
Am also seeing the show in a few weeks and after reading this review, if its possible, looking even more forward to it. I do tend to be more in sync with Mr. Green's views versus the other guy, so appreciate the analysis he suggests about the staging/direction, which sounds to me will make the show most enjoyable. I am surprised at all the varied opinions in the comments. I do get that this musical has been around a long time and people have certain expectation, and though I am not quite old enough to have seen the original, have seen 4 or 5 productions over the past 40+ years and most have been exactly the same and pretty much based on the Andrews/Harrison mold. To see a different interpretation, especially by the talented production crew involved here will be fun.
BTW, on a different topic, have to also thank Mr. Green for his review of The Winter's Tale. Based on that I went to see it at TFNA. Had seen it before a couple of times and never really "got it". But that production came alive for me and the play made a lot more sense (at least as much as I think it probably can).
1
This isn't a review of whether the show is any good. It is a review of whether the show is politically correct. We don't care whether the show is politically correct. We want to know whether it is worth watching. The two have nothing to do with one another.
23
Actually, this is one of Mr. Green's better reviews. It encompass the best of putting the show in context of "dramatic criticism" and not just a review. Shaw's place have a history of powerful women characters (ie MAJOR BARBARA, MISALLIANCE, etc.) and it looks like Bartlett Sher has moved this musicalization into a new realm. I was going to take a pass on seeing it, but now it has considerable more appeal.
3
Why can't we have both? I quite enjoyed reading this perspective. Considering the subject matter and text, it would be difficult to avoid discussing it. It's about a man attempting to mold a woman, after all. Also, the review is quite effusive about how good it is!
6
In the film PYGMALION .... Wendy Hiller conveys that she is remaining with Higgens .... but sees through him and is staying on her own terms. The portrayal was of a strong, evolved woman who was remaining with the Higgens knowingly, on her own terms.
1
Amazing that these revivals are sparking these incredible and at timse heated discussions. It must be tough on the comment moderators trying to do their jobs, but I would wager that theater historians will be grateful for all this discussion of Broadway theater in what's becoming a nation-changing era. How great that the Times has been opening up more theatre articles to reader comments, and it seems even leaving them open longer.
7
I saw this show the second week of previews, and I was pretty disappointed. Everything the review claims, I did not see or hear. I don't know if Ambrose was sick, but in 'Wouldn't it be Loverly' every high note was flat. I was honestly worried that she wouldn't hit the final notes in 'I Could Have Danced All Night'. I did not find her exciting or powerful, which made the power dynamic between Higgins and Eliza unequal (contrary to the review). I read the director's notes of in the playbill about trying to make this show to reflect the current political climate and the #metoo movement, and the changes were not obvious for me.
I thought the rotating stage and different scenery took too long and Eliza's costumes made her look washed out. I hope there were improvements made.
I recently saw Carousel as well, where the talent in that show blew this one out of the water. I love My Fair Lady as a show so much better than Carousel, but I preferred the production of Carousel over this production.
24
Saw her a few weeks ago and she was magnificent. I knew nothing of her but walked away impressed. I see almost everything on B'way and tend to be jaded and cynical. Loved this show.
3
Saw MFL and Carousel both in previews and could not agree more. Both shows show their age in terms of their female characters, yet not only did Carousel deal with this more effectively and thematically, but it was far more entertaining and lovely. That can-can thing in MFL just came out of left field. And the ending was some kind of socialist realism.
3
Saw the original Andrews/Harrison on Broadway. This is a different time and performance. I enjoyed it and was stunned by Ms Ambrose wonderful, full, voice. Harry Haddon-Paten was excellent-very fun in the role. I guess others prefer Mr Buzz’s slapstick performance which I did not. But Ms Rigg was excellent! The great thing about theatre is every night is different. I don’t want my Broadway to have feet of cement. Grow a little.
7
Would be fun to see, but Telecharge orchestra for weekday night is $187 (plus whatever el$e gets tacked on). Ridiculous. For $400+ my spouse and I could go away overnight! It's a shame that Broadway theater excludes all but the richest.
29
Must you sit in the orchestra? I always buy the "cheap seats" which seem to have doubled in price in recent years, but still much less and the view is usually fine. Also, there's a ticket lottery. See Playbill.com for options:
http://www.playbill.com/article/broadway-rush-lottery-and-standing-room-...
5
@Jo Also try TodayTix. I just got $89 orchestra seats for My Fair Lady.
You'd think feminism had been invented this year, judging from this review. The trivialization of it, and its reduction to "Me Too" has caused social critics to see everything through that lens. But Shaw was a feminist, and this musical always had a strong feminist and social-critical theme. It's always there. Some productions seize on it, others don't, and the lovely music tends to soften all the blows. I haven't seen this production yet, but the review is untrustworthy because advance publicity connected it to the "Me Too" movement leading perspectives down that road when there are so many other ways to look at this work - that's its gift. A pity reviewers can only glide along with what they're expected to see. And if she throws his slipper at him at the end, that's just more trivia.
27
I have one free day in late May during my semi-annual NYC visit. The review makes me want to see MFL, but the negative comments make me think maybe I should save my money and hope for a ticket to Colbert’s Late Show. Because I’ve never seen a live stage production, Audrey Hepburn will always be the gold standard ... in this dawning age of Bitcoin.
3
By now everyone should realize that no matter how good the production and no matter what the opinion of the critic there are going to be dyspeptic reader comments. Sometimes they are justified, but read carefully. Many of them are just people who through their attachment to some previous version can't or won't accept anything that's not a carbon copy. In this case I would definitely give more weight to the critic.
6
You could probably do both. Colbert tapes late afternoon.
I think that would be a foolish choice. Get a ticket if you can. This production is brilliant and a must see. Ignore the always nasty and usually uninformed comments that are appended to such reviews and DVR Colbert if you can't live without his lame and often vulgar political humor. And if you're going to laud the not terribly satisfying film, give equal credit to Marnie Nixon who sang Eliza's songs.
Disgraceful travesty of both the Shaw text and the Lerner and Loewe musical. The music director I worked with when I understudied Eliza decades ago in summer stock is fit to be tied; and rightly so.
4
I think some practitioners lose perspective in retrospect of a cherished production and are not generally open to other interpretations. I think Mr. Sher did his dramaturgical homework here, and maintains the integrity of Shaws work, and Mr. Sperling is one of our top musical directors. Let's try and approach a classic reimagining with an open mind. Travesty? I think that's a little harsh.
2
I am thrilled that I decided to take a chance and grab tickets to this production. I am very much looking forward to it. I knew Mr. Butts years ago when he worked with Terri Hatcher and lived in a friend's house in Chicago--such a talent! And I have been a Lauren Ambrose fan since watching her sublime performance in 6 Feet Under.
A great show for the ages. Eliza was always the strong woman, that's the way Shaw and L&L wrote the scripts. And Kiss Me Kate is being re-evaluated? Then I guess Taming of the Shrew is as well, its source? All of Shakespeare? Historicism in criticism?
5
This review could easily have been written for the 1957 touring company that I saw in Chicago. Diane Todd played Eliza against Michael Evan's "Higgins" with all of the grace and strength possible considering the restrictions of her social status. By the end of the play, when she reenters Higgins Office and he makes his infamous "Eliza, fetch me my slippers." remark, we know that she has become his equal if not more. I'm not sure what later productions did in their relationship, but the original touring company was easily a match of equals. I also saw Rex Harrison reprise the role of Higgns in a later anniversary revival. He easily portrayed a pretentious Higgins who was working very hard to cover his own insecurities. The misogynist songs of Higgins are intended to portray Higgins as a pompous jerk, which he is. Remember that this is a parody on social norms and expectations that premiered in a time very different from today.
16
What a great review. Have always thought this musical is one of the best, if not the best of it's era. And while it's classic material, it's far from foolproof. Does anyone else remember that the Michael Moriarty version closed in under a year? Or what about the Richard Chamberlain version? I'm far to old to ever see this and not imagine hearing Rex and Julie sing it --- or even Marney Nixon/Hepburn. But I am happy that this show lives on -- now fetch me my slippers.
10
I’m afraid I saw a very different show than the author of this review. The songs felt rushed and the dialogue slow which meant the wittiest lines got lost. Henry was played flat with zero flair and sex appeal. As Eliza, Ambrose’s poor cockney accent goes in and out as she staggers hunched forward and pigeon toed around the stage drowning in her costumes. There is no transformation into a regal woman who could possibly pass for a princess. Elizas costume for the embassy ball is supposed to transform this gutter snipe into a grand lady, but the skin tone gown and a top knot hair style reminiscent of the King and I, only worked to keep her small and uninteresting.
As for the lack of chemistry between Henry and Eliza, might have been played that way so we wouldn’t be surprised by her departure at the end.
All in all it was a disappointing experience of a show that I grew up listening to the original ‘56 cast album and of course the ‘62 screen version. I will say the set of the Higgins Home was beautiful, although during the “just you wait” number, I felt I needed a dramamine.
26
That's certainly the buzz in the orbit I occupy--my theatre-playing and theatre-attending cohort is utterly unimpressed.
9
While Ambrose may be a capable actress and singer, she clearly lacks star quality. There is no special charm or charisma or magic in her performance.
She's also not a marquee-level star that would boost ticket sales.
One wonders why this enormous production should have been built around her. With hundreds of actresses in New York, is this the best Eliza they could find? Really?
14
Surprised to read people saying this. I saw it and the only weak link I saw was the guy who played Freddie. His singing was flat.
Shaw noted that Eliza dreamed of making love with Higgins alone on a desert island. No slipper necessary.
2
Doug, great that you brought up Shaw's intent, as did the review. I hope Leslie Howard's estate can't cite me with a "Me too" reflection from 35 years ago, but when I saw the "Pygmalion" film for the first time at a revival house when I was 22 or 23, with all my great admiration for Ms. Hiller's and Mr. Howard's acting, fleeting thoughts along those lines about Mr. Howard's Henry Higgins crossed my mind. :)
For some reason, the musical's Henry Higgins casting that I'd seen before that tended to seem a bit oddball in terms of Henry and Eliza being a logical couple. Very fresh in my mind was the revival where Rex Harrison was over 70 and Nancy Ringham under 30. (I see Mel Gussow had said in his review of that production: "Mr. Harrison is older, but he is still the quintessential Higgins, who, after all, could never be considered youthful.")
Mel Gussow Times review 1981
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/19/theater/the-stage-my-fair-lady-return...
2
To Freddy:
At over 70, some men can still seek and find true romance, and younger women can find them attractive. And visaversa, as the saying goes. As one who stood in line for standing room to catch a first performance of Harrison-Andrews: never forgotten experience. That we can revive and revisit great theatre with new eyes, new performers attests to the power of stage production. I have a book inscribed to "Edwin Booth," a great performer -- but how many fine Hamlets have
followed in his wake. Get us to the show on time.
DG
Doug, absolutely! Sometimes we ask casting questions in entertainment about why two people are together that we'd never ask (out loud, anyway) in real life.
I was just trying to compare what's happened in the musical's revivals to what we can find out of Shaw's view of an OK age gap. I also see (in the wikipedia for the 1938 Pygmalion film) that Shaw's first choice for Higgins in the film had been Charles Laughton, who was six years younger than Leslie Howard, even if to many a less dashing presence onscreen.
I saw it in a preview. All the PC nonsense aside, go see it! It is quite good!
4
I hope this was filmed for PBS.
5
Not sure what I missed— aside from Lauren Ambrose's extraordinary performance and seeing Diana Rigg. But I left the show scratching my head about Why? This show, with all due respect, is a product of its time and should be left there. A stage littered with overbearing, misogynist men. Am not sure why sometimes these old theatrical tropes are brought again, the nostalgic factor, the sing-along factor, the escapist fantasy (in this show that is so incredibly problematic in light of our current times).
3
Do you also think we should throw out Shakespeare and the Greek Tragedies? They're also products of their time and full of overbearing, misogynist men as well.
22
Somebody thought they could make a buck; that's why it's being done again. Never mind the fact that imagination, daring, and brilliance is dead in the American Theatre - especially the Broadway Theatre.
2
And to take Jim from Boston's comment one step further, are we now forbidden from producing, consuming and/or enjoying contemporary plays, musicals or movies where say, a damsel in distress or a knight in shining armor are portrayed as protagonists? Are we no longer permitted to like such characters, or root for them, or wish them a happily ever after ending?
I certainly hope the #MeToo movement (which I whole-heartedly support) hasn't signed the death knell on such characters or scenarios because I, for one, did not sign up for that.
3
This week I saw a preview performance. Lauren Ambrose has a nice voice and is a fine young actress. However, she's not my idea of Eliza Dolittle.
The production was fine generally, and the score remains a great American Songbook Broadway score. But the stage with a serious redhead Eliza (with a redhead's translucent skin) never looked quite right. I have nothing against redheads generally, but this Eliza also comes across as colder than she should be. The audience does not get to fall in love with this Eliza. IMO the "new" ending blows chunks.
But then I'm a strong believer that a revival of a show should be trying to show the audience what the show was in its good ol' days and even "woke" diversity casting (here as in "Freddie's" mother or Billy Bigelow in the new Carousel) is a modern 4th wall breaking PC mistake - I think.
Still, it was nice to hear the score, words and music, live.
PS: Norbert Leo Butz gets to show off as Alfred Dolittle, and was a lot of fun to watch.
12
Had my quibbles, but overall was happy with the show--until the ending. It completely ruined the production for me; out of politically correct trendiness, they devised a downer that makes no sense with the arc or tone of My Fair Lady. The audience alongside me seemed let-down too--applause was subdued.
Agree with poster DG below--the concert version with Kelli O'Hara, Kelsey Grammer and Charles Kimbrough (a delightful Pickering) had a lot more joy and oomph, despite its limits.
5
Maybe it's just me, but I just didn't feel any "connection" with the characters or their situations. I didn't sense any romantic involvement between Eliza and Higgins, nor did I ever feel Freddy stood a chance with Eliza. I did appreciate the ending, though; not only because it speaks to today's #MeToo climate, but also because Eliza deserved better than Higgins.
5
Cindy wrote: "nor did I ever feel Freddy stood a chance with Eliza."
The name Shaw gave him says a lot about Shaw's intention. Us guys named Freddie or Freddy never really got taken seriously with that name until we prove otherwise, though actor Freddie Highmore seems to be changing that. I've got to assume (really) that's part of the reason August Wilson ditched his real name "Freddie" before he sent out his first play. (And might it be why the My Fair Lady composer stuck to "Frederick" for all billing credit purposes, and was normally Fritz when the name was shortened.)
2
And to think that this paper recently ran a story about the dissonance caused by the openings of My Fair Lady, Carousel, etc. in the age of metoo. How silly that article seemed when it was published and how silly it seems now as the shows have opened.
These great shows are great because they contain truths. Truths about the times they represent, truths about the times in which they were written, timeless truths, or combinations of the three. In the hands of great directors and actors, and in front of open-minded audiences, these works can still be great. They can be relevant. And they can teach us something...probably much more than shows carefully selected or written to conform to the political moment.
32
But SJC, their trying to cover differing points of view on the exact same subject has been one of the great things about the Times (as opposed to the NY Post and even - though also beloved to me - the Daily News.) I've never understood when we complain about one Times article bring inconsistent with another journalist's or Op-Ed writer's article. I think it's only the official Editorials that are the Times' position. Even their theatre critics have openly differed in their print or cyber pages.
As an example, take a look at Ben Brantley and Jesse Green's lively chat with Jennifer Schuessler while they all watched and live-blogged the Tony awards show together. Up to three different viewpoints at times!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/11/theater/tony-awards-chat....
3
I enjoyed the review much more than the show.
At the end of the first act I wondered why there was no curtain call. Then I realized that there was more to come and consulted the Playbill to make sure there was no third act. This production focused more on re-interpreting the storyline than creating the lively production quality of LTC's South Pacific and The King and I.
4
Thank you so much for this review. We have tickets to see it in a few weeks. I was looking forward to it before - but now I'm positively bouncing with anticipation.
I haven't been this excited about a revival since ... well, since we saw "Carousel" last month!
As a great fan of the play as written, and of Shaw's original introduction to the text on page, you give me great hope for this version! Thank you!
Bravo to all involved. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it.
Before the intermission I was looking at my calendar to see when i could get tickets again. I liked the subtle shift and the ending open to interpretation. I thought Ambrose was great and the shift in casting to an older Eliza and younger Higgins was brilliant.
You will enjoy it. Politics change... good music doesn't.
g
16
I saw this production last month, and enjoyed the production. What a surprise Lauren Ambrose is as Eliza! My only issue was the massive and rotating home of Prof. Higgins. I found it at times a distraction.
5
I saw this last week and was disappointed. The first half was enjoyable, but the second half was just a mess. Lauren Ambrose performance came across as very cold and her character as extremely ungrateful. Instead of her growing, learning, and evolving into something "better," her Eliza actually regressed. I think that the director over-shadowed this production too much, and the end results created a very blurry picture of the the masterpiece this show really is. I saw a semi-staged concert with Kelli O'Hara and the NY Philharmonic awhile back. She, and the production were perfect, it was fun... this current production is not, it's totally angst ridden. By Bartlett, you didn't get it!
19
Well-said. Completely agree.
5
Jesse Green writes, "But as Eliza’s father, Alfred, faces marriage . . . we watch as the shabby tavern that helped maintain his status among the 'undeserving poor' flips around to become the shabby church that will deliver him into the worse fate of middle class morality."
Both Shaw and Lerner have Doolittle say that his wedding will be at St. George's. I'm not a Londoner, but my impression is that St. George's is not shabby
8
St. George's would be St. George's, Hanover Square...a posh church which has seen a lot of very fancy people marry there. (Take a look online). By choosing that for Doolittle's marriage, Shaw is underlining Doolittle's money-fuelled social rise.
9
I had looked it up online. In fact, I read a good deal about St. George's. Since I'm not a Londoner, I hedged a bit in my post just in case the impression I had gotten was wrong. I was perhaps being excessively cautious.
And, yes, that's what I was saying — that it's a posh church where upper-class people get married. I figured it would be understood that my point was that Shaw was using that line of Doolitle's to underline his new status.
So while Mr. Green tells us how Shavian this production is, he inadvertently puts in a detail showing us a way in which it misses Shaw's point. Indeed, that's not the only point of Shaw's that the production seems to miss, if I'm to trust Green's review.
Now I'm not sure that a production of My Fair Lady should worry too much about Shaw's points on every matter., but Green brought it up so . .
My husband and I saw Diana Rigg as Eliza in the London production 44 years ago. It was such a treat to see her as Mrs. Higgins on Wednesday. We absolutely loved the Lincoln Center production. The costumes and sets were wonderful. The music was absolutely fabulous as were the actors. Who knew Lauren Ambrose could sing? She did a wonderful job. The ending was perfect for this day and age.
21
Well, lucky me. Before this very positive review was published, I purchased perhaps the last ticket for the Saturday matinee in May when I will be in Manhattan for my annual visit from Boston. Of the many magnificent musicals from the fifties and sixties the entire score of My Fair Lady is hummable and singable by all. I am thrilled that I have this treat to look forward too. Last year I had the good fortune of seeing Oslo in the same theater and can't wait to see the creative staging I have been reading about.
9
Lauren Ambrose is absolutely extraordinary. The strength and vulnerability she brings to Eliza is nothing less than breathtaking. Harry Hadden-Paton is remarkably strong. Of course, Butz delivers. As does Danica as Freddy. Sher uncovers new layers in this "Lady" that touch the heart. "How lucky we are to be alive right now in New York!"
36
Loved this show. Thrilling indeed! Congratulations to all involved. I found myself humming "I Could Have Danced All Night" and "On the Street Where You Live" and "Get Me to the Church on Time." What a treat. And every seat is a good one in that theater. Snag a ticket if you can. Lots to talk about at the end, too.
8
This production is magic- the cast superb and the production values are exceptional. A great show that will leave you humming the timeless tunes and wanting to see again.
7
I'm not at all sure that the producers and directors of revivals should be "improving" their source material by adding new dialogue and bits of business- even when those contributions are coming by way of G.B. Shaw. It's one thing to use actors, lighting and set design to emphasize a specific aspect of a play that hadn't been so noted in previous productions. It's quite another thing to reshape the play itself by adding text that wasn't there to begin with. The same thing appears to have happened in the new production of "Carousel," as was alluded to in last week's review. Too bad the authors of these shows aren't still around to offer their opinions, but from my point of view it seems more like tampering than the exercise of artistic license.
49
"bits of business" ... Absolutely! Done in the wrong spirit, which is all too often the case, it can be very disrespectful of the creative artists who first conceived the works.
When it is done, it is often done to be "timely". But timely very quickly becomes out of date, which is antithetical to the nature of great art, and some of these Golden Age musicals are indeed great art.
Do people watch the original "My Fair Lady" and fail to see that, in Prof. Higgins bullying approach to attempting to change his world it is he, himself, that is changed and that Eliza's own personal power is in large part responsible for this?
If I were in NYC I would go to see this production for Diana Rigg alone! Great lady!
9
Although Shaw certainly wasn't given prior approval for the alternative ending of the great film adaptation, there's a lot of scholarly wonderment about how much he DISapproved of it. I'm not sure this is the right place to complain about emendations to the text — certainly, the creators of this Fair Lady do a lot less tinkering than that Porgy and Bess of a few years back!
2
If the theatre ever becomes a museum it will be dead.
6
So Jesse Green doesn't think My Fair Lady is a great musical? I and a lot of other musical theater lovers would disagree. The book and score are right up there with the best of them.
38
Yes spot on. Lush and lavish, for sure. Modern interpretation, no doubt. Three hours of bliss. Thanks for writing a review that taught me things I didn't realize about the show two days ago. Kudos to all the lead players; I thought they were superb. The singing is, well, "wouldn't it be [uber] lovely." Congrats to Lincoln Center -- very classy splurge. This ain't your mama's MFL, Go see it.
37
Nothing wrong with "your mama's MFL" ... I think Alan Jay Lerner knew full well what he was doing and doesn't need any "help" from a revisionist director trying to fix something that ain't broke. This new ending isn't just a matter of altering the blocking, it's changing the story.
21
@beb11572 I agree--nothing at all wrong with "your mam's MFL". In fact, something's wrong with this one!