to accept romantic and sexual love in his plays and in his life--this gives his plays a certain brittleness in my opinion. But they are fascinating. In the 1938 film he seems to have bowed to the public's desire for a conventionally "happy ending." I'm torn myself--Eliza is definitely a match in her intelligence and independence for Higgins, but he does seem emotionally incapable of a warm relationship with any woman.
The play has a far less romantic ending. Eliza tells Higgins she shall not see him again. When Higgins reverts to type and tells her to buy some things for him while she is out, she retorts "Buy them yourself" and leaves him for good. Higgins, rather than being crushed, is self-satisfied that his creation is complete. In a sequel, Shaw writes that Eliza marries Freddie, they set up a flower shop, and Eliza remains friends with both Pickering and Higgins. Shaw was constitutionally unable
Went into this expecting a dated inferior version, boy was I wrong. This film is sheer genius and it never flagged once, the acting and clever dialogue make this one of the best British movies of that era. It's the '64 Musical that seems dated now. For me this one will remain a timeless classic. Thanks so much for posting it ! JD
@jdollinter It depends on what you're looking for in a film, if you mean externally..well yes both are dated. I think what's fascinating about the 64 version is how "classic" it is. It's almost like poetic realism, internal realism at the expense of external realism. I think that's what actually allows the 64 version of My Fair Lady to still be regarded as a classic today. A lot of classic literature tends to take that same route.
oh i see. higgins can't do without eliza, and she realizes that, and out of desiring his sheer kindess, returns to him with dignity and compassion. But higgins, the fart, treats her the way he sees everyone else as a show that he is unwilling to change. In a sense, it could be likely, that now the masterpiece must perform work on the creator.
i think it's unfair to compare this film and My Fair Lady. Nobody will say that Pygmalion needed to be made into a musical, and rightly so, but My Fair Lady is a good musical. Because it's so long, you really make an emotional investment in what happens. This film is short and witty and that works too.
There's more chemistry in this version- the Hepburn/Harrison relationship is more platonic, or romantic in a quaint way.
I love both this version and the 1964 Cukor version. Both are excellent films in different ways. But I think this scene where Eliza and Higgins are arguing is much more intense.
I am sometimes puzzled by Shaw (and this not only because I got my English name form a play of his); one could think of him as Shakespeare being send back by the God of Theatre, great Dionysus himself, in order to write proper comedies as all tragedians ought to do after their tragedies are finished; but than again: The comedies of Shakespeare are full of life, vigour and passion; the story of Beatrice and Benedict may not be so much as funny but deeply romantic.
But with Shaw things are different: His characters lack love, passion and vitality; they are all exhausted, degenerated, boring, vain and shallow modern beings; their struggles and problems do not concern the audience and one does not know whom they bore most: Themselves or anyone who is forced to watch them going through their boring existence; and then all those modern nonsense like the belief in economic classes and the hatred between them; sure lines like these are funny:
"Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth."
But then again: His plays lack any importance; as clever his notes and remarks are above all they are boring; I guess this is what the late citizens of Rome felt; luxury and safety are for sure great poisons and means of decadence.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Interesting, I've always seen Shakespeare's characters as almost consumed by their intense passions, whereas Shaw's are consumed by their absolute lack of ability to emote and feel.
@Sshelly34213: You say true and I think I should invoke Nietzsche about the essence of all true tragic poetry (as Monsieur Nietzsche can usually explain things much better than I could):
THE MORALITY OF THE STAGE. The man who imagines that the effect of Shakespeare's plays is a moral one, and that the sight of Macbeth irresistibly induces us to shun the evil of ambition, is mistaken, and he is mistaken once more if he believes that Shakespeare himself thought so. He who is truly obsessed by an ardent ambition takes delight in beholding this picture of himself; and when the hero is driven to destruction by his passion, this is the most pungent spice in the hot ...
... drink of this delight. Did the poet feel this in another way? How royally and with how little of the knave in him does his ambitious hero run his course from the moment of his great crime! It is only from this moment that he becomes "demoniacally" attractive, and that he encourages similar natures to imitate him. There is something demoniacal here: something which is in revolt against advantage and life, in favour of a thought and an impulse. Do you think that Tristan and Isolde are ...
... warnings against adultery, merely because adultery has resulted in the death of both of them? This would be turning poets upside down, these poets who, especially Shakespeare, are in love with the passions in themselves, and not less so with the readiness for death which they give rise to : this mood in which the heart no more clings to life than a drop of water does to the glass. It is not the guilt and its pernicious consequences which interests these poets Shakespeare as little as ...
... Sophocles (in the Ajax, Philoctetes, CEdipus] however easy it might have been in the cases just mentioned to make the guilt the lever of the play, it was carefully avoided by the poets. In the same way the tragic poet by his images of life does not wish to set us against life. On the contrary, he exclaims: "It is the charm of charms, this exciting, changing, and dangerous existence of ours, so often gloomy and so often bathed in sun! Life is an adventure whichever side you may take ...
... in life it will always retain this character!" Thus speaks the poet of a restless and vigorous age, an age which is almost intoxicated and stupefied by its superabundance of blood and energy, in an age more evil than our own: and this is why it is necessary for us to adapt and accommodate ourselves first to the purpose of a Shakespearian play, that is, by misunderstanding it."
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Well Nietzsche himself was pretty a pretty dark and tragic guy. I don't know if I'd call him tragic in a pessimistic way, there was always an odd hint of optimism in his work.
@Sshelly34213: I think you misunderstand Nietzsche quite a lot: As he said that truth is nothing which must make its founder happy or blessed but that it only archived with great suffering, sacrifice and toil; and there are no hinds of merriment ins his writings as he is in general a rather joyous person and his merry sarcasm is legend; and though he is focused on serious matters he never fails to make his readers smile and laugh quite a lot, when he calls sweet Jesus an idiot for example:
"To make a hero of Jesus! And even more, what a misunderstanding is the word "genius"! Our whole concept, our cultural concept, of "spirit" has no meaning whatever in the world in which Jesus lives. Spoken with the precision of a physiologist, even an entirely different word would be yet more fitting here—the word idiot. "
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Well...lol, no I never said that his message was happy, just optimistic. His message is optimistic, in my opinion, despite the fact that he accepts the misery and disappointment of the world. His philosophy was about finding a way to deal with it. At least that's my take, I am a nihilist personally. My initial reaction to something is negative and cynical, but being an optimist doesn't mean you deny something that is negative. I wouldn't deny something that is positive.
@Sshelly34213: Well, you should read much more careful! As Monsieur Nietzsche is far from saying that there is misery and disappointment in the world but strongly upholds the opinions that the minions of decadence make life unjustly seen thus; and his philosophy included therefore a great deal of fighting this decadence movement, especially all sorts of nihilism, above all the religious one like Christendom; and out of this he teaches the essential equality between Socialists and Christians:
"When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering--what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils...
...to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too"--on such logic are revolutions made. Complaining is never any good: it ...
... stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself--the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter--really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: ...
... everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian--to repeat it once more--he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge--the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but ...
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Phew. That's a lot to think about. You have to remember that Nietzsche himself is not necessarily the people in his stories, he creates this characters to allow us to observe what they observe. Is his work nihilist? Most definitely at first, but in general he leaves us with a message of hope. I don't know...this is a nihilist speaking, so I guess anything, not utterly hopeless looks hopeful and optimistic to me.
@Sshelly34213: Well, according to Nietzsche there are two spheres: The one of declining life and the one of ascending life; and the declining life desires the void, the salvation, to be freed from itself; while the ascending lives enjoys its strength, creativity and above all its being and life; and Nietzsche feared nothing so much as a combination out of pity for mankind and disdain, as this unholy union would bring forth nihilism and with it the abolishment of mankind.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I've read a great deal of it...and I really think that the people who get pessimism out of it, are those offended by it. Is that Nietzsche fault? For example, "God is dead, we killed it" he's sharing what he thinks is a truthful observation of society, but he gives us a way to fix this. "We must become the gods we've thrown away" which makes me think of science and such. We can't pray to get well, but we can create medicine to make that happen.
@Sshelly34213: While you should not take Nietzsche that serious as he claims also that he was inspired by the God Dionysus himself; besides: The death of the Christian God is the catastrophe out of the 2000 years long desire of Christendom for truth, which has at last abolished itself by not allowing itself to believe anymore in the lie called God; and you should not try to make the teachings of Nietzsche that harmless as he considered science as part of the ascetic ideal as well.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I don't really take it that seriously, I was just pointing out that Nietzsche is often an observer in his stories and although they may appear nihilist, that doesn't necessarily mean Nietzsche himself was.
@Sshelly34213: Actually Nietzsche does not write stories, save his Zarathustra; and that is a poetical parable on his philosophy (and of course a mockery of the Bible of Luther); and you should take this seriously, else I will send you a certain statement by Nietzsche; which I will do now pre-emptively; I mean if kind Monsieur Bush the younger was allowed to invade any third world country because it could build mass destruction weapons some day I should be allowed to do this too!
@Sshelly34213 I wouldn't say Shaw's characters lack the "ability to emote and feel". They have very powerful emotions and feelings, and they often express them well. Their trouble is that they are stymied from acting on them by their own complicity in "polite society". Even the characters that are most reactionary against society, like Dick in The Devil's Disciple, are as surely trapped by it as flies on fly paper. Shakespeare's characters don't give a shit, and are bigger people in that way.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I take exception to your use of the word boring. Shaw's characters are fireworks shows, safe but amazing. The ideas behind his plays may be essentially trivial or outmoded, but I think it's a testament to the characters' enduring fascination that plays built on trivial, outmoded ideas are still being performed and filmed nearly a hundred years after being written. We watch Shaw's works now only for the characters, which we would hardly do if they were as boring as you claim.
@grummorsum: Nope, as you will find that Shaw was a supporter of such modern follies like socialism; and only when they are passed then will the works of Shaw be outdated; besides: All the great plays are form the past and it is their timeless essence and beauty which attracts the descendants to read and stage them; the Antigone of Sophocles for example is not only a brilliant tragedy but the question about the extent of state power arisen in it is timeless; but please read some Shakespeare.
@grummorsum: Though the comparison is unfair as Shakespeare was a great tragedian (in his own but not in the Greek sense, save in Julius Caesar or Coriolanus) while Shaw was a mere comedian; take Romeo and Juliet for example: When they commit suicide because they think their undying love is dead it is highly creditable; but the characters of Shaw are bored with life, their feelings and most of all themselves; you can notice the same luxurious exhaustion in the plays of Oscar Wilde for example.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I agree that the comparison is unfair, but remember that it was your own: "one could think of him [Shaw] as being Shakespeare sent back...". I don't think that Romeo and Juliet are more creditable that Shaw's characters, indeed they seem less so to me. They seem like knee-jerk teenagers of the sort who kill themselves in suicide pacts all the time, though with a greater gift of rhetoric than most. It was no part of their plan that their deaths brought about peace in Verona.
@grummorsum: Fie! Have you never been immortally in love? How very un-romantic of you! For me the words of Romeo and Juliet are full of fire, passion and vitality; and Romeo and Juliet never made a pact they mistook each other for being dead and decided that they could not live without each other and so killed themselves; this and the reconciliation of their parents over their dead bodies is the attempt of Shakespeare to be tragic; Shaw tried to label himself to be of Shakespearean eminence.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Shaw certainly did support some of our "modern follies", socialism, vegetarianism, feminism, etc. What makes me call his plays outmoded is that he is strenuously arguing for things that no longer need to be argued for; we have them. His arguments are vivid and compelling, but simply not needed now. So if we still watch Shaw (and we do) it is for the human drama, i.e. the characters, which you have called boring. I don't find them boring, but de gustibus non est disputandum.
Thank you so much! I have wanted so much to see this film, I must say, I detested trying to watch My Fair Lady, Leslie Howard is much more admirable in the stiff upper-class snob English role, and brings much more characteristic and definition to the character. Rex Harrison was too stiff and brute in himself, much too raw and boring, though the character itself is to be stiff and brute, Leslie makes it almost whimsical at times, sympatheize-able, though at the same time shameable, and wonderful.
@moonlightorchid99 I respectfully disagree, although Leslie Howard is a phenomenal actor and does a great job here, I just feel as if Harrison is much closer to the characterization of Henry Higgins. I also felt the story unfolded a bit too quickly here, the transformation from flower girl to "duchess" was much more emphasized. The relationship and closeness between Eliza, Higgins, and Pickering is much more evident, Freddy's intrigue with Eliza is more obvious in MFL, In my opinion.
@Sshelly34213 I can definitely see that, I respect that of course, but for me, personally, I wasn't crazy about Harrison's performance, I mean, to be frank, I actually didn't watch the rest of the movie, so therefore, my opinion could have changed. But it was to the point that I felt his acting, or just perhaps the style re-done of the movie in 1964 was something I wasn't really interested in watching. I do take into account the 1938 movie goes fast, but its part of the 1930s and movies had to
@moonlightorchid99 Hey be as honest as you want, if something is not right for you, it just isn't.
I would, of course, suggest giving it another look to see how you feel again. I myself was not crazy at all about Harrison's performance, I found it dull when I first saw it. In fact, it took me such a long time to get into the film My Fair Lady. I try not to say a film is "for me" or "not for me" because my tastes are always changing.
@moonlightorchid99 If you're big into directing, Pygmalion is more of a film for you. Everything is in its use of camera angles-the wealthy are filmed from low angles to look more dominating, there are thematic shots, such as the one where Eliza looks at Higgins from the staircase. There is something almost god-like about him. They use nudity to portray the sultriness you get from the film. A cloth over a mirror, which reflects Eliza's naked shoulder represents a fear of her own vulnerability
@moonlightorchid99 I love films, but what I love most is opening people up to films. I have people who blatantly refuse to sit down and watch a film with me, or when they do they criticize how much they don't like something very particular. I think it's kind of a cop out, people have trained themselves to point out flaws that they see in general, especially films. People want to be liked I guess, and doing so allows them to join in the "mocking" that is called socialization. aka the mob effect
@Sshelly34213 Well, of course, I don't deny or try to contradict the wide opinion that My Fair Lady is one of the best-prized films of cinema, but like you said, just not my taste. However, at first, I longed to see it because I like Audrey Hepburn and I love musicals. And the strange thing was, even after I stopped watching the film, my curiosity still ran on and I questioned to myself and in general why it was so successful and loved.
@moonlightorchid99 It takes time to "fall in love" with a film, so to speak. lol, I guess I'll leave you with that idea, one wasn't your cup of tea yesterday or today or may not even be tomorrow, could very well be your cup of tea one day.
@Sshelly34213 I myself would love to be open-minded to films, and even after my opinions are made, I still leave a space for later on if I ever were to find the joy of it. I simply expressed my opinion from genuine feeling, because I found the story to be quite interesting, and watching Pygmalion helped me realize more of the story's symbolism. Different styles reach different people in different ways, and like you said, I really did notice the camera angles, I felt they emphazied a lot. And
@moonlightorchid99 I'm not sure how old you are or how long you've been into films, all I can say is...it takes some time. I have been in love with movies since I was 10, I have spent 12 years watching, analyzing, and studying each film. I've scoffed at films and turned them off half way through just because I thought they were overrated. I've come back to those films several times and have still hated them, only to come back 1 more time and find out what was so "great" about the film.
@Sshelly34213 it was especially dramatic in the end when Higgins is shown in his pure lonely defeat of Eliza, alone, having achieved nothing, and the camera just zooms in. This is the type of film that made me think, if I were to watch My Fair Lady, I think I would only regard it as a musical, though, once again, I didn't watch all of it Either way, I don't think I would have gotten much out of it, and it definitely benefits me to the first movie, and because I like it, it may help me reconsider
@moonlightorchid99 Victorian London was all about manners and propriety, so showing their feelings would have been unthinkable.
Again, if you'd like I can give you my analysis via private message. It'll probably be fairly long and I don't want to spend the time incessantly having to create new comments. Just let me know! It might give you some new insight and possibly re-spark your interest in the film to see it in another perspective.
@Sshelly34213 my angle on My Fair Lady. But, haha, no, I'm not into directing, but I do assure you I don't criticize without opening. I had completely opened myself to the My Fair Lady film, but my walking away from it is from earnest letdown that the film is not what I expected and though perhaps not my taste, I can re-open to it later on. I have had a few cases where I disliked a film at first but after a while, I really like it, same with movie starts. I actually caught hold of a few moments
@moonlightorchid99 I believe the love "angle" in Pygmalion is much easier to see, it is on the surface of Pygmalion-that doesn't make it better or worse, it's just truthful. In My Fair Lady, it's almost like it's not even there to the point where it's frustrating. i think that is the idea, that there is such a non verbal or even physical communication. There is an emotional communication however and an unspoken love between the two characters.
@Sshelly34213 Yes. Leslie Howard plays Higgins with such a sharp, almost brittle sort of confidence, we can just glimpse an almost youthful vulnerability. His Higgins really seems to need Eliza - it's not just habit, as the script would have it. I appreciate what Shaw was aiming for, but if he *can* learn to bend a bit and show his emotions, appreciate her, he'd be a fine match for her - much more appropriate to her as an independent, intelligent woman than Freddy, the infatuated puppy.
@appliedhistory I really loved both portrayals by Howard and Harrison, but I definitely agree with your assessment. I think Howard brought that "brittle" quality to a lot of his roles. He seems very emotionally needy of Eliza. Harrison is like the opposite, dry, cold, detached, bitter, and yet still melancholic.
@appliedhistory I think that opposing quality in Harrison's version, his absolute "lack of neediness" makes him just as appealing as Howard, but in a very different way.
@Sshelly34213 ..to be shorter, almost all movies produced during the 1930s and so on were only permitted one and a half hour, and a lot of judgment and fate upon the handling of the movies in many cases were out of the director's hands. Plus, the style is simply different during then, the mood and the fashion of the movie in 1938 is something that pertains more to my interest. I actually really admire Audrey Hepburn, considering I'm not that into most post 1955-movies, but not My Fair Lady.
@moonlightorchid99 I don't know...I believe there is something realistic about films from that era, that simply isn't present in post 40s movies. If you look at art from that period, there is something nihilist and cynical about their work. Watching Battleship Potemkin or this, you can see it in the film making techniques. I believe films are starting to go back into realism again, the shaky cam technique from Jarhead and such. I guess post 50s were a reaction to all of that realism.
@Sshelly34213 they spoke like real people of that era, and undertoned it with theatrical pathos. these days, the film and atmosphere makes it seem like they're speaking a different language. the significant change is how it appeals to the audiences throughout the generations which desire according to the overall circumstances along with their times. Each want something different from the last like paper being outdone by plastic.
@moonlightorchid99 I feel that anything related to art, works in a reaction to something else. One era, say Rococo may focus on gaudy, bright colors, then the one after it will focus on dark lighting and realism and such. It's just a natural reaction to reject that which you are born into. It's why we rebel against our parents.
Anyway, if you'd like, you can check out a film analysis I wrote on My Fair Lady. I happen to adore both films for very different reasons.
@Sshelly34213 I also am stricken sometimes, though I don't if I can say I am completely visual, by art. I only lightly looked into the Rococo era, but I understand what you are saying, some got scandalous reviews, and I have come across the type of bright colors in one piece. Its funny, but I felt another film was derived from Pgymalion, though it kind of walks off into another contingency, called Kitty in 1945. Half of the movie has got a different storyline and its got a happy ending but
it still, at certain points, represent the same values, one man who tries to shape a street urchin by using trained trivial actions that get you accepted in society but still differs from and lacks conscious instinctive manners that would make him/her a lady/gentleman on in the inside only brings his own faults of humanity to view, as she manages to ascend above him eventually and inevitably, having only needed the main key of actions, jargon and other contemporaries learned to enter society.
@moonlightorchid99 Wow, a lot to reply to here. First of all...let me tell you, no one despised My Fair Lady more than I did. For purely emotional reasons, it wasn't what I expected either. It wasn't until recently that I "got it" or it "hit me." All I can say is that you never know when that's going to happen and you should definitely try watching the whole film as time goes on. I'm not sure if you'll ever change your mind and I don't have a problem with that, but just try to take my advice
@moonlightorchid99 All I can say is that they are two different types of movies that present the same idea and the same story. They work in different ways, My Fair Lady is so...solid as a film to the point where it almost seems as if it's lauded simply for being a well put together film. Everything seems so shallow, the relationships, the themes, the film almost comes off as a cardboard, cookie cutter, cut out, of a film. I have recently discovered that there is much more below the surface
@moonlightorchid99 Sorry I keep rambling on here, but youtube doesn't leave much room for comments.
I enjoy Pygmalion for that aspect, but I enjoy My Fair Lady for other reasons. I find that I am better able to analyze the story and relationship between the two characters much better-if you want, I can elaborate in a private message. I love the thematic aspect of the art direction, the songs which reflect the psychology of the characters. If you'd like to discuss this further, let me know!
@MerleOberon - I agree. I never really could believe in Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn as a couple, but Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard? That's hot stuff!
@MerleOberon Respectfully disagree, I enjoy both of them for very different reasons.
I think MFL unfolds better as a film, the relationship between the main characters is much more emphasized, so we understand why their departure is so upsetting.
If you're talking about "romantically speaking" I'd have to agree there, they have some MAJOR heat and chemistry. This film is downright sultry! I actually rather like the absolute sexless appeal of MFL though. It's a love story devoid of romance.
They play wonderful, but the girl has a bit strange face..not so attractive. Otherwise it would be a masterpiece.
tundra0707 3 weeks ago
to accept romantic and sexual love in his plays and in his life--this gives his plays a certain brittleness in my opinion. But they are fascinating. In the 1938 film he seems to have bowed to the public's desire for a conventionally "happy ending." I'm torn myself--Eliza is definitely a match in her intelligence and independence for Higgins, but he does seem emotionally incapable of a warm relationship with any woman.
Raggedy9 2 months ago
The play has a far less romantic ending. Eliza tells Higgins she shall not see him again. When Higgins reverts to type and tells her to buy some things for him while she is out, she retorts "Buy them yourself" and leaves him for good. Higgins, rather than being crushed, is self-satisfied that his creation is complete. In a sequel, Shaw writes that Eliza marries Freddie, they set up a flower shop, and Eliza remains friends with both Pickering and Higgins. Shaw was constitutionally unable
Raggedy9 2 months ago
i love my fair lady because i love the songs [and jeremy brett], but i prefer pygmalion's very last scene... <3 bravo leslie howard!
pGFTuv 6 months ago 2
Went into this expecting a dated inferior version, boy was I wrong. This film is sheer genius and it never flagged once, the acting and clever dialogue make this one of the best British movies of that era. It's the '64 Musical that seems dated now. For me this one will remain a timeless classic. Thanks so much for posting it ! JD
jdollinter 7 months ago 2
@jdollinter It depends on what you're looking for in a film, if you mean externally..well yes both are dated. I think what's fascinating about the 64 version is how "classic" it is. It's almost like poetic realism, internal realism at the expense of external realism. I think that's what actually allows the 64 version of My Fair Lady to still be regarded as a classic today. A lot of classic literature tends to take that same route.
Sshelly34213 14 hours ago
oh i see. higgins can't do without eliza, and she realizes that, and out of desiring his sheer kindess, returns to him with dignity and compassion. But higgins, the fart, treats her the way he sees everyone else as a show that he is unwilling to change. In a sense, it could be likely, that now the masterpiece must perform work on the creator.
rubberrand142 10 months ago 2
Oh god, the man who plays Higgins looks like Jeremy Irons!
nerdishh 11 months ago
i think it's unfair to compare this film and My Fair Lady. Nobody will say that Pygmalion needed to be made into a musical, and rightly so, but My Fair Lady is a good musical. Because it's so long, you really make an emotional investment in what happens. This film is short and witty and that works too.
There's more chemistry in this version- the Hepburn/Harrison relationship is more platonic, or romantic in a quaint way.
missbabyice 1 year ago 4
I love both this version and the 1964 Cukor version. Both are excellent films in different ways. But I think this scene where Eliza and Higgins are arguing is much more intense.
Mimio100987 1 year ago 2
I am sometimes puzzled by Shaw (and this not only because I got my English name form a play of his); one could think of him as Shakespeare being send back by the God of Theatre, great Dionysus himself, in order to write proper comedies as all tragedians ought to do after their tragedies are finished; but than again: The comedies of Shakespeare are full of life, vigour and passion; the story of Beatrice and Benedict may not be so much as funny but deeply romantic.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
But with Shaw things are different: His characters lack love, passion and vitality; they are all exhausted, degenerated, boring, vain and shallow modern beings; their struggles and problems do not concern the audience and one does not know whom they bore most: Themselves or anyone who is forced to watch them going through their boring existence; and then all those modern nonsense like the belief in economic classes and the hatred between them; sure lines like these are funny:
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
"Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth."
But then again: His plays lack any importance; as clever his notes and remarks are above all they are boring; I guess this is what the late citizens of Rome felt; luxury and safety are for sure great poisons and means of decadence.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Interesting, I've always seen Shakespeare's characters as almost consumed by their intense passions, whereas Shaw's are consumed by their absolute lack of ability to emote and feel.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213: You say true and I think I should invoke Nietzsche about the essence of all true tragic poetry (as Monsieur Nietzsche can usually explain things much better than I could):
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
THE MORALITY OF THE STAGE. The man who imagines that the effect of Shakespeare's plays is a moral one, and that the sight of Macbeth irresistibly induces us to shun the evil of ambition, is mistaken, and he is mistaken once more if he believes that Shakespeare himself thought so. He who is truly obsessed by an ardent ambition takes delight in beholding this picture of himself; and when the hero is driven to destruction by his passion, this is the most pungent spice in the hot ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... drink of this delight. Did the poet feel this in another way? How royally and with how little of the knave in him does his ambitious hero run his course from the moment of his great crime! It is only from this moment that he becomes "demoniacally" attractive, and that he encourages similar natures to imitate him. There is something demoniacal here: something which is in revolt against advantage and life, in favour of a thought and an impulse. Do you think that Tristan and Isolde are ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... warnings against adultery, merely because adultery has resulted in the death of both of them? This would be turning poets upside down, these poets who, especially Shakespeare, are in love with the passions in themselves, and not less so with the readiness for death which they give rise to : this mood in which the heart no more clings to life than a drop of water does to the glass. It is not the guilt and its pernicious consequences which interests these poets Shakespeare as little as ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... Sophocles (in the Ajax, Philoctetes, CEdipus] however easy it might have been in the cases just mentioned to make the guilt the lever of the play, it was carefully avoided by the poets. In the same way the tragic poet by his images of life does not wish to set us against life. On the contrary, he exclaims: "It is the charm of charms, this exciting, changing, and dangerous existence of ours, so often gloomy and so often bathed in sun! Life is an adventure whichever side you may take ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... in life it will always retain this character!" Thus speaks the poet of a restless and vigorous age, an age which is almost intoxicated and stupefied by its superabundance of blood and energy, in an age more evil than our own: and this is why it is necessary for us to adapt and accommodate ourselves first to the purpose of a Shakespearian play, that is, by misunderstanding it."
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Well Nietzsche himself was pretty a pretty dark and tragic guy. I don't know if I'd call him tragic in a pessimistic way, there was always an odd hint of optimism in his work.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213: I think you misunderstand Nietzsche quite a lot: As he said that truth is nothing which must make its founder happy or blessed but that it only archived with great suffering, sacrifice and toil; and there are no hinds of merriment ins his writings as he is in general a rather joyous person and his merry sarcasm is legend; and though he is focused on serious matters he never fails to make his readers smile and laugh quite a lot, when he calls sweet Jesus an idiot for example:
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
"To make a hero of Jesus! And even more, what a misunderstanding is the word "genius"! Our whole concept, our cultural concept, of "spirit" has no meaning whatever in the world in which Jesus lives. Spoken with the precision of a physiologist, even an entirely different word would be yet more fitting here—the word idiot. "
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Well...lol, no I never said that his message was happy, just optimistic. His message is optimistic, in my opinion, despite the fact that he accepts the misery and disappointment of the world. His philosophy was about finding a way to deal with it. At least that's my take, I am a nihilist personally. My initial reaction to something is negative and cynical, but being an optimist doesn't mean you deny something that is negative. I wouldn't deny something that is positive.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213: Well, you should read much more careful! As Monsieur Nietzsche is far from saying that there is misery and disappointment in the world but strongly upholds the opinions that the minions of decadence make life unjustly seen thus; and his philosophy included therefore a great deal of fighting this decadence movement, especially all sorts of nihilism, above all the religious one like Christendom; and out of this he teaches the essential equality between Socialists and Christians:
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
"When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering--what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
...to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too"--on such logic are revolutions made. Complaining is never any good: it ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself--the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter--really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian--to repeat it once more--he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge--the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but ...
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
... conceived as a little farther off. The "beyond"--why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Phew. That's a lot to think about. You have to remember that Nietzsche himself is not necessarily the people in his stories, he creates this characters to allow us to observe what they observe. Is his work nihilist? Most definitely at first, but in general he leaves us with a message of hope. I don't know...this is a nihilist speaking, so I guess anything, not utterly hopeless looks hopeful and optimistic to me.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213: Well, according to Nietzsche there are two spheres: The one of declining life and the one of ascending life; and the declining life desires the void, the salvation, to be freed from itself; while the ascending lives enjoys its strength, creativity and above all its being and life; and Nietzsche feared nothing so much as a combination out of pity for mankind and disdain, as this unholy union would bring forth nihilism and with it the abolishment of mankind.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I've read a great deal of it...and I really think that the people who get pessimism out of it, are those offended by it. Is that Nietzsche fault? For example, "God is dead, we killed it" he's sharing what he thinks is a truthful observation of society, but he gives us a way to fix this. "We must become the gods we've thrown away" which makes me think of science and such. We can't pray to get well, but we can create medicine to make that happen.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213: While you should not take Nietzsche that serious as he claims also that he was inspired by the God Dionysus himself; besides: The death of the Christian God is the catastrophe out of the 2000 years long desire of Christendom for truth, which has at last abolished itself by not allowing itself to believe anymore in the lie called God; and you should not try to make the teachings of Nietzsche that harmless as he considered science as part of the ascetic ideal as well.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I don't really take it that seriously, I was just pointing out that Nietzsche is often an observer in his stories and although they may appear nihilist, that doesn't necessarily mean Nietzsche himself was.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213: Actually Nietzsche does not write stories, save his Zarathustra; and that is a poetical parable on his philosophy (and of course a mockery of the Bible of Luther); and you should take this seriously, else I will send you a certain statement by Nietzsche; which I will do now pre-emptively; I mean if kind Monsieur Bush the younger was allowed to invade any third world country because it could build mass destruction weapons some day I should be allowed to do this too!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar lol well if you'd like to you can, I don't know if I'd go quite so in depth.
Sshelly34213 14 hours ago
@Sshelly34213 I wouldn't say Shaw's characters lack the "ability to emote and feel". They have very powerful emotions and feelings, and they often express them well. Their trouble is that they are stymied from acting on them by their own complicity in "polite society". Even the characters that are most reactionary against society, like Dick in The Devil's Disciple, are as surely trapped by it as flies on fly paper. Shakespeare's characters don't give a shit, and are bigger people in that way.
grummorsum 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I take exception to your use of the word boring. Shaw's characters are fireworks shows, safe but amazing. The ideas behind his plays may be essentially trivial or outmoded, but I think it's a testament to the characters' enduring fascination that plays built on trivial, outmoded ideas are still being performed and filmed nearly a hundred years after being written. We watch Shaw's works now only for the characters, which we would hardly do if they were as boring as you claim.
grummorsum 1 year ago
@grummorsum: Nope, as you will find that Shaw was a supporter of such modern follies like socialism; and only when they are passed then will the works of Shaw be outdated; besides: All the great plays are form the past and it is their timeless essence and beauty which attracts the descendants to read and stage them; the Antigone of Sophocles for example is not only a brilliant tragedy but the question about the extent of state power arisen in it is timeless; but please read some Shakespeare.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@grummorsum: Though the comparison is unfair as Shakespeare was a great tragedian (in his own but not in the Greek sense, save in Julius Caesar or Coriolanus) while Shaw was a mere comedian; take Romeo and Juliet for example: When they commit suicide because they think their undying love is dead it is highly creditable; but the characters of Shaw are bored with life, their feelings and most of all themselves; you can notice the same luxurious exhaustion in the plays of Oscar Wilde for example.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar I agree that the comparison is unfair, but remember that it was your own: "one could think of him [Shaw] as being Shakespeare sent back...". I don't think that Romeo and Juliet are more creditable that Shaw's characters, indeed they seem less so to me. They seem like knee-jerk teenagers of the sort who kill themselves in suicide pacts all the time, though with a greater gift of rhetoric than most. It was no part of their plan that their deaths brought about peace in Verona.
grummorsum 1 year ago
@grummorsum: Fie! Have you never been immortally in love? How very un-romantic of you! For me the words of Romeo and Juliet are full of fire, passion and vitality; and Romeo and Juliet never made a pact they mistook each other for being dead and decided that they could not live without each other and so killed themselves; this and the reconciliation of their parents over their dead bodies is the attempt of Shakespeare to be tragic; Shaw tried to label himself to be of Shakespearean eminence.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Shaw certainly did support some of our "modern follies", socialism, vegetarianism, feminism, etc. What makes me call his plays outmoded is that he is strenuously arguing for things that no longer need to be argued for; we have them. His arguments are vivid and compelling, but simply not needed now. So if we still watch Shaw (and we do) it is for the human drama, i.e. the characters, which you have called boring. I don't find them boring, but de gustibus non est disputandum.
grummorsum 1 year ago
Thank you so much! I have wanted so much to see this film, I must say, I detested trying to watch My Fair Lady, Leslie Howard is much more admirable in the stiff upper-class snob English role, and brings much more characteristic and definition to the character. Rex Harrison was too stiff and brute in himself, much too raw and boring, though the character itself is to be stiff and brute, Leslie makes it almost whimsical at times, sympatheize-able, though at the same time shameable, and wonderful.
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago 2
@moonlightorchid99 I respectfully disagree, although Leslie Howard is a phenomenal actor and does a great job here, I just feel as if Harrison is much closer to the characterization of Henry Higgins. I also felt the story unfolded a bit too quickly here, the transformation from flower girl to "duchess" was much more emphasized. The relationship and closeness between Eliza, Higgins, and Pickering is much more evident, Freddy's intrigue with Eliza is more obvious in MFL, In my opinion.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 I can definitely see that, I respect that of course, but for me, personally, I wasn't crazy about Harrison's performance, I mean, to be frank, I actually didn't watch the rest of the movie, so therefore, my opinion could have changed. But it was to the point that I felt his acting, or just perhaps the style re-done of the movie in 1964 was something I wasn't really interested in watching. I do take into account the 1938 movie goes fast, but its part of the 1930s and movies had to
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 Hey be as honest as you want, if something is not right for you, it just isn't.
I would, of course, suggest giving it another look to see how you feel again. I myself was not crazy at all about Harrison's performance, I found it dull when I first saw it. In fact, it took me such a long time to get into the film My Fair Lady. I try not to say a film is "for me" or "not for me" because my tastes are always changing.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 If you're big into directing, Pygmalion is more of a film for you. Everything is in its use of camera angles-the wealthy are filmed from low angles to look more dominating, there are thematic shots, such as the one where Eliza looks at Higgins from the staircase. There is something almost god-like about him. They use nudity to portray the sultriness you get from the film. A cloth over a mirror, which reflects Eliza's naked shoulder represents a fear of her own vulnerability
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 I love films, but what I love most is opening people up to films. I have people who blatantly refuse to sit down and watch a film with me, or when they do they criticize how much they don't like something very particular. I think it's kind of a cop out, people have trained themselves to point out flaws that they see in general, especially films. People want to be liked I guess, and doing so allows them to join in the "mocking" that is called socialization. aka the mob effect
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 Well, of course, I don't deny or try to contradict the wide opinion that My Fair Lady is one of the best-prized films of cinema, but like you said, just not my taste. However, at first, I longed to see it because I like Audrey Hepburn and I love musicals. And the strange thing was, even after I stopped watching the film, my curiosity still ran on and I questioned to myself and in general why it was so successful and loved.
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 It takes time to "fall in love" with a film, so to speak. lol, I guess I'll leave you with that idea, one wasn't your cup of tea yesterday or today or may not even be tomorrow, could very well be your cup of tea one day.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 I myself would love to be open-minded to films, and even after my opinions are made, I still leave a space for later on if I ever were to find the joy of it. I simply expressed my opinion from genuine feeling, because I found the story to be quite interesting, and watching Pygmalion helped me realize more of the story's symbolism. Different styles reach different people in different ways, and like you said, I really did notice the camera angles, I felt they emphazied a lot. And
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 I'm not sure how old you are or how long you've been into films, all I can say is...it takes some time. I have been in love with movies since I was 10, I have spent 12 years watching, analyzing, and studying each film. I've scoffed at films and turned them off half way through just because I thought they were overrated. I've come back to those films several times and have still hated them, only to come back 1 more time and find out what was so "great" about the film.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 it was especially dramatic in the end when Higgins is shown in his pure lonely defeat of Eliza, alone, having achieved nothing, and the camera just zooms in. This is the type of film that made me think, if I were to watch My Fair Lady, I think I would only regard it as a musical, though, once again, I didn't watch all of it Either way, I don't think I would have gotten much out of it, and it definitely benefits me to the first movie, and because I like it, it may help me reconsider
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 Victorian London was all about manners and propriety, so showing their feelings would have been unthinkable.
Again, if you'd like I can give you my analysis via private message. It'll probably be fairly long and I don't want to spend the time incessantly having to create new comments. Just let me know! It might give you some new insight and possibly re-spark your interest in the film to see it in another perspective.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 my angle on My Fair Lady. But, haha, no, I'm not into directing, but I do assure you I don't criticize without opening. I had completely opened myself to the My Fair Lady film, but my walking away from it is from earnest letdown that the film is not what I expected and though perhaps not my taste, I can re-open to it later on. I have had a few cases where I disliked a film at first but after a while, I really like it, same with movie starts. I actually caught hold of a few moments
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 I believe the love "angle" in Pygmalion is much easier to see, it is on the surface of Pygmalion-that doesn't make it better or worse, it's just truthful. In My Fair Lady, it's almost like it's not even there to the point where it's frustrating. i think that is the idea, that there is such a non verbal or even physical communication. There is an emotional communication however and an unspoken love between the two characters.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 Yes. Leslie Howard plays Higgins with such a sharp, almost brittle sort of confidence, we can just glimpse an almost youthful vulnerability. His Higgins really seems to need Eliza - it's not just habit, as the script would have it. I appreciate what Shaw was aiming for, but if he *can* learn to bend a bit and show his emotions, appreciate her, he'd be a fine match for her - much more appropriate to her as an independent, intelligent woman than Freddy, the infatuated puppy.
appliedhistory 14 hours ago
Comment removed
Sshelly34213 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@appliedhistory I really loved both portrayals by Howard and Harrison, but I definitely agree with your assessment. I think Howard brought that "brittle" quality to a lot of his roles. He seems very emotionally needy of Eliza. Harrison is like the opposite, dry, cold, detached, bitter, and yet still melancholic.
Sshelly34213 14 hours ago
@appliedhistory I think that opposing quality in Harrison's version, his absolute "lack of neediness" makes him just as appealing as Howard, but in a very different way.
Sshelly34213 14 hours ago
@Sshelly34213 ..to be shorter, almost all movies produced during the 1930s and so on were only permitted one and a half hour, and a lot of judgment and fate upon the handling of the movies in many cases were out of the director's hands. Plus, the style is simply different during then, the mood and the fashion of the movie in 1938 is something that pertains more to my interest. I actually really admire Audrey Hepburn, considering I'm not that into most post 1955-movies, but not My Fair Lady.
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 I don't know...I believe there is something realistic about films from that era, that simply isn't present in post 40s movies. If you look at art from that period, there is something nihilist and cynical about their work. Watching Battleship Potemkin or this, you can see it in the film making techniques. I believe films are starting to go back into realism again, the shaky cam technique from Jarhead and such. I guess post 50s were a reaction to all of that realism.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago 6
@Sshelly34213 they spoke like real people of that era, and undertoned it with theatrical pathos. these days, the film and atmosphere makes it seem like they're speaking a different language. the significant change is how it appeals to the audiences throughout the generations which desire according to the overall circumstances along with their times. Each want something different from the last like paper being outdone by plastic.
rubberrand142 10 months ago
@rubberrand142 Exactly, great points!
Sshelly34213 10 months ago
@moonlightorchid99 I feel that anything related to art, works in a reaction to something else. One era, say Rococo may focus on gaudy, bright colors, then the one after it will focus on dark lighting and realism and such. It's just a natural reaction to reject that which you are born into. It's why we rebel against our parents.
Anyway, if you'd like, you can check out a film analysis I wrote on My Fair Lady. I happen to adore both films for very different reasons.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@Sshelly34213 I also am stricken sometimes, though I don't if I can say I am completely visual, by art. I only lightly looked into the Rococo era, but I understand what you are saying, some got scandalous reviews, and I have come across the type of bright colors in one piece. Its funny, but I felt another film was derived from Pgymalion, though it kind of walks off into another contingency, called Kitty in 1945. Half of the movie has got a different storyline and its got a happy ending but
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
it still, at certain points, represent the same values, one man who tries to shape a street urchin by using trained trivial actions that get you accepted in society but still differs from and lacks conscious instinctive manners that would make him/her a lady/gentleman on in the inside only brings his own faults of humanity to view, as she manages to ascend above him eventually and inevitably, having only needed the main key of actions, jargon and other contemporaries learned to enter society.
moonlightorchid99 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 Wow, a lot to reply to here. First of all...let me tell you, no one despised My Fair Lady more than I did. For purely emotional reasons, it wasn't what I expected either. It wasn't until recently that I "got it" or it "hit me." All I can say is that you never know when that's going to happen and you should definitely try watching the whole film as time goes on. I'm not sure if you'll ever change your mind and I don't have a problem with that, but just try to take my advice
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 All I can say is that they are two different types of movies that present the same idea and the same story. They work in different ways, My Fair Lady is so...solid as a film to the point where it almost seems as if it's lauded simply for being a well put together film. Everything seems so shallow, the relationships, the themes, the film almost comes off as a cardboard, cookie cutter, cut out, of a film. I have recently discovered that there is much more below the surface
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 Sorry I keep rambling on here, but youtube doesn't leave much room for comments.
I enjoy Pygmalion for that aspect, but I enjoy My Fair Lady for other reasons. I find that I am better able to analyze the story and relationship between the two characters much better-if you want, I can elaborate in a private message. I love the thematic aspect of the art direction, the songs which reflect the psychology of the characters. If you'd like to discuss this further, let me know!
Sshelly34213 1 year ago
@moonlightorchid99 But that's kind of what I love about Rex Harrison's portrayal. He is the opposite of Howard. It's just different.
Sshelly34213 14 hours ago
This has a very different ending from the actual play.
MegW6 1 year ago
So much better than "My Fair Lady"
MerleOberon 1 year ago 15
@MerleOberon - I agree. I never really could believe in Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn as a couple, but Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard? That's hot stuff!
grummorsum 1 year ago
@grummorsum Me too! I like Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard as a couple in this one! Harrison and Hepburn were more platonic.
TheFahmad27 3 months ago
@MerleOberon Respectfully disagree, I enjoy both of them for very different reasons.
I think MFL unfolds better as a film, the relationship between the main characters is much more emphasized, so we understand why their departure is so upsetting.
If you're talking about "romantically speaking" I'd have to agree there, they have some MAJOR heat and chemistry. This film is downright sultry! I actually rather like the absolute sexless appeal of MFL though. It's a love story devoid of romance.
Sshelly34213 1 year ago