Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison), on a bet with Colonel Pickering (Wilfrid Hyde-White), takes in flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) with the intention of teaching her proper English such that she could pass as a high class lady.
My Fair Lady is a nice film, a pleasant viewing experience. That sounds like Iâm damning it with faint praise, which is the case only because it tends to be overrated. Itâs well made, and beautifully filmed (if clearly set-bound). The songs are all wonderful. Hepburn is lovely, as she always is. Harrison is one of the better talk-singers and pulls off the role of Higgins admirably, even if he doesnât equal Leslie Howardâs performance in the 1938 Pygmalion. It is one of the better Broadway musical to film adaptations.
Itâs a good film, perhaps a very good film, but it isnât a great one. Why not? The editing isnât top rate, with some pacing problems, but thatâs minor. Likewise some of the sets are less than they should be, but again, not a big deal. However, there are two items that matter, that keep it from being what it could have been. Firstly, it follows the stage musical, thus it has the same problem that it did: the ending. Pygmalion originally ended with Eliza leaving, with plans to marry Freddy. It’s the ending the entire play was moving toward. Shawâs notes have Eliza and Freddy married, running a shop set up with money from Colonel Pickering. They all visit from time-to-time, though with some tenseness between Eliza and Higgans. But the theater wanted to make more money, and persuaded George Bernard Shaw to change the ending because it was assumed that people would buy more tickets if the two protagonists end up together, no matter that the entire play said they shouldn’t. So Shaw tacked on Eliza returning, changing nothing else, thus leaving it clear that she shouldn’t. The musical took the changed ending, as did the film. Itâs stranger in the musical, since Freddy is given the one great romantic song, On the Street Where You Live, which is structurally odd since it leads to nothing.
The second issue is Hepburn. She is lovely, and always bewitching. Iâve no doubt she does a better job than almost any other actress could have, but then weâre looking at the difference between âvery goodâ and âgreatâ and in two ways, Hepburn is lacking. She is always elegant; either by talent or choice, she is incapable of being grungy. That elegance servers her when sheâs supposed to be mistaken for royalty, but as a poor, dirty, guttersnipe, it doesnât work. You always notice her, and she always seems like a princess.
Of course the biggest problem is that Hepburn doesnât have a very good voice. She did an excellent rendition of Moon River in Breakfast at Tiffanyâs, but thatâs because the song was specifically written for her limited vocal range. The songs of My Fair Lady were not. She tried, but she wasnât good enough, so her songs were dubbed by Marni Nixon. And listening to the now released Hepburn versions, they were right to dub her. Nixon has a strong voice and could hit the notes Hepburn couldnât, but she wasnât the same caliber of actress, or maybe it was just the distancing nature of dubbing that leaves the songs lacking in emotion. They sound the way youâd expect to hear them in a musical reviewâA Night With Mani Nixon and the Songs of Lerner and Loeweâinstead of with the weight they needed in a narrative musical.
And yes, this does lead to Julie Andrews. As is well known, Andrews played Eliza on Broadway, but was passed over in favor of Hepburn as Jack Warne didnât consider Andrews a big enough draw. So she was hired by Disney for Mary Poppins, became a big draw, and rightfully won the Oscar. Clearly Andrews would have been the better choice, but it didnât have to be her, just someone who was a high quality singer and actress (granted, no one else is coming to mind besides Andrews, but Iâm sure thereâs someone). Itâs easiest to hear the problem with direct comparisons, and luckily YouTube allows for that.
The first is the Marni Nixon dub of Show Me as heard in the filmânice singing, but emotionally lacking. (Try from :18-:28 seconds)
This is the Hepburnâs attempt. The emotions are there, but the notes are painful to listen to. (:49-48 is the same section)
Finally, hereâs a version of July Andrews singing the same song. Her voice is even better than Nixonâs, and she has emotion to spare, which brings life to the role. (:31 to :45 in this version)
So, Hepburn/Nixon were good. Even very good. But âvery goodâ isnât enough for greatness. Which is fine. A good film is a good film, and this is nice. It just isn’t a masterpiece, and shouldn’t be elevated beyond it’s range, as was done in 1964 when it won the Best Picture Oscar over Doctor Strangelove.