I prefer
Pygmalion
(1938) to
My Fair Lady
(1964). It is a little like comparing apples to pears, as Pygmalion is a play and My Fair Lady is a musical version of that play.
I prefer Leslie Howard to Rex Harrison as Prof. Higgins. Howard is quite outstanding in his role. Of course, I haven't noticed Howard in a singing role. Wendy Hiller is also outstanding as Eliza Doolittle, but Audrey Hepburn is good in her role and very pretty. Of course, they dubbed Hepburn's voice for the singing part - which doesn't always fit well.
I think the supporting cast was chosen with a lot of care for
Pygmalion
. I think Marie Lohr really shines as Mrs.Higgins. Scott Sunderland has a nice, dignified look as Colonel Pickering which works well. While I am a fan of Jeremy Brett in his Sherlock Holmes shows, I think that David Tree is more how I envision Freddy. The Scottish maid, played by Jean Cabell, stands out also.
Of course, in
My Fair Lady
, Higgins tests Eliza by taking her to the Ascot horse races, while in
Pygmalion
we visit Higgin's mother for tea. The Ascot race scene is fairly amusing. They use some of the dialog from the tea party in the play at the Ascot, although it doesn't come off quite as well. The dialog at the tea with Higgin's mother in
Pygmalion
is quite outstanding. I like both.
The music in
My Fair Lady
is some of the best for musicals of that period. It is also a little bit nostalgic for me, as my parents played the record album of
My Fair Lady
a lot when I was a child back in the 1960s. It's not really my genre of music, although I do like it. One could see that for someone really into the music, that it could cause them to prefer
My Fair Lady
. That is not me though, and I do think the music does make
My Fair Lady
drag some - 2 hours and 50 minutes. Meanwhile,
Pygmalion
has nice pacing just like the play.
Overall,
Pygmalion
is one of my favorite movies and I would put it in my top 10 movies of all time.
My Fair Lady
is also very good. I would give it a rating of at least 8/10, and that given that I am not a fan of musicals in general.

I much prefer this version. Leslie Howard is brilliant as Higgins. Also he isn't miles too old for the part like rex harrison is. and wendy hiller is great as Eliza.

My Fair Lady is one of the greatest musicals of the American Theatre, and the film is good, although, as lovely as she is in it, Audrey Hepburn is miscast as Eliza. Wendy Hiller was chosen by Shaw himself to portray Liza, and she is, of course, one of Britain's greatest. If you don't believe me, see her in I Know Where I'm Going, Major Barbara, Separate Tables, A Man For All Seasons and The Elephant Man.
Leslie Howard played Higgins the year before he was cast as Ashley Wilkes, a role he always hated. He co-directed this film with Anthony Asquith.
This is a brilliant movie and can be seen again and again!

I agree with this whole thread.
This movie really amazed me. It was so powerful and I agree, it showed that Eliza was intelligent from the start and was very talented at learning.
I watched My Fair lady two days after watching this version twice. I had watched My Fair Lady on several occasions before but for me it was always just some musical.
When I watched Pygmalion I was like "My George, I finally got it". After watching this movie, you realize how much less powerful My Fair Lady is when you THEN see My fair Lady again.

I agree that Pygmalion is better-paced with generally better acting and directing, but I actually thought Hepburn's Eliza was much harsher and more vulgar than Hiller's Eliza in the beginning. As someone mentioned above, Hiller's cockney is hardly annoying or vulgar-sounding, and her transformation into a lady isn't as surprising. Her cockney is more convincing, but she doesn't come off as loud and vulgar as Hepburn. As a result, Hepburn's transformation is technically much more stunning than Hiller's, as the contrast between Hepburn's flower girl and lady performances is much more dramatic and profound.

Elisa's cockney accent was supposed to be irritating. Higgins describes it as a bilious pigeon, ear-piercing, detestable, and so on.
Although Hiller was fantastic in this movie, I could hardly find her accent irritating at all. Yes, Audrey's cockney was not right, but through MFL you see a transformation that includes the way she speaks into a more lady-like.
As much as I liked this movie, I found the reading of the book much more interesting. As for the acting that everyone is praising so much, at times I found it too soft and somewhat bland. The actor that played Freddy is a joke. He seems to be retarded.

I had no idea that "My Fair Lady" was a remake of "Pygmalion." I had no idea what "Pygmalion" was even about! I had been told again and again to watch "My Fair Lady," by peers, friends, enemies, and even pop culture. One day I attempted to watch it My Fair Lady and two minutes into it I had to stop, mainly because of Audrey Hepburn's accent; it was odd, squeaky, like nails on a chalkboard. It vexed me terribly, and dissuaded me completely from going forth into a film bleeding with color, music and movie stars.
but then I saw "Pygmalion," with Leslie Howard . . it had been on my list for many moons, and oh what a pleasant surprise. A truly nice, pleasant, intelligent film that just flows, solely focusing on the important, not dragging on, cohesive and with great dialogue and acting. Amazing. Absolutely glad I didn't watch "My Fair Lady," prior to watching this.
.;We Live Inside A Dream;.

The acting in this version especially of Howard, Hiller and Lawson is fantastic.

I like the musical of my fair lady very muchbut not the film because Audrey Hepburns casting is fatal to its credibilty as several others have noted.I suspect the film would have been better with Julie Andrews, esp as it would have been her film debut and she would not have been familiar to audiences.(and at least Julie was English)That said, the film of Pygmalian was perfect, probably Leslie Howards best work on film, and a brilliant starmaking performance for Dame Wendy.
It is not our abilities that show who we truly areit is our choices

I've always liked My Fair Lady, but not loved it - its pretty long for a musical. I only just saw Pygmalion for the first time last week (well, I could say twice because I loved it so much I immediately watched it again!!!) - I immediately and absolutely fell in love with Pygmalion - I just thought it was so wonderful, clever - and funny! (i had no idea it would be so hilarious!) and I think the scenes between Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller were far better than between Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn. I'm a big fan of both Hepburn (esp Roman Holiday) and Harrison (esp The Ghost and Mrs Muir) - and now I'm a great fan of Leslie Howard - (pity his films are so hard to find in Australia, save GWTW).

• but i was pleased to see a young Jeremy Brett in the musical version as Freddy (he's a brilliant Sherlock Holmes)
  So I would definately vote for Pygmalion - just a wonderful wonderful film!!!
  Do you have monkeys in Scotland?
  ~No, but if we did we'd probably deep fry them!

Harrison, on the other hand, was, I think, well-cast in the film. He had already garnered a Tony for his stage performance as Higgins, and for his portrayal of the callous, egomaniacal professor in the film, he was awarded an Oscar.
I made my case against Harrison's interpretation much earlier in this thread, and I stand by it. As far as Tonys and Oscars, well, in my experience, the Oscar voters get things wrong much more often than they get them right. The 90s was the only decade with more accurate choices than misses. Can't say much about the Tonys, I don't follow Broadway, but if Harrison won for playing Higgins as he did in the film, I will say the Tony voters were as incompetent at judging a skilled performance as the Oscar voters, for that year at least.
As far as your assertion about musicals, I disagree there, too. While I would not say musicals are my favorite form of filmed entertainment, I certainly don't have a problem with them. I will ack I prefer Fosse's later style of the form
Cabaret
, and
All That Jazz
, most notably, to almost all of the sixties-style musicals (
The Music Man
being an exception). But I can't say I dislike the MUSIC in MFL, only its presence in a play that, in terms of timing and flow can't possibly be improved upon, only detracted (and distracted) from, due to Shaw's talents as a playwright.
And yes, I grasp that the studio wanted a "big name", but that is idiots meddling in things they don't grasp. Andrews would have been vastly greater than Hepburn because, just as with Hiller, while she is capable of appearing quite attractive, she can also do "plain jane" much, much better than Hepburn ever could.

I wouldn't exactly characterize the musical as boring. It's a musical, not a movie. And musicals, as a genre, fall into two basic categories for viewers: you either hate them or you love them. Lerner's lyrics are nothing short of brilliant, but if you're not a fan of musicals, you simply won't like this telling of the story.
As for Hepburn, she was cast in the role of Eliza because the studio wanted a big name. And although Julie Andrews had solidified the role on stage and was an obvious choice in the film, the producers didn't think she would be a big enough draw. In the end, the one glaring flaw in the musical was indeed Hepburn. She could not sing, and, as many have pointed out, she was unable to capture the inherent vulgarity of Eliza's character.
Harrison, on the other hand, was, I think, well-cast in the film. He had already garnered a Tony for his stage performance as Higgins, and for his portrayal of the callous, egomaniacal professor in the film, he was awarded an Oscar.

I've just watched the musical version. It is about as moving as agricultural policy and about that believable. It is a colossal letdown after Pygmalion. To me, Eliza is Wendy Hiller and there can be no other. And whilst I might just imagine another actor playing Professor Higgins, it could only be by an identical performance to Leslie Howard's. Even good old Wilfrid Hyde-White was slightly ridiculous as Pickering in the musical film, but Scott Sunderland was perfect. And Mrs. Pearce and Mrs. Higgins both shine in their roles in Pygmalion, but they don't merit a second glance in My Fair Lady.
I don't really think you can top Pygmalion any more, because Shaw himself wrote the screenplay and worked with the actors and actresses. You might in a thousand years get such talent together again in the cast, but even then the best they could hope to achieve would be by copying every gesture and expression and inflection in Pygmalion. It's really a perfect picture.

This version is miles ahead of my fair lady. and as dmacdonald3 said i can not understand this fascination over Audrey. moreover i think she overacted a bit whether it was because its a musical or she just couldn't act right i do not know and in one scene it is most apparent is when she is invited to prof. Higgins' mother's house. Hiller was super hilarious in that scene and very natural, while Audrey was like one of those "carry on.." movie character.
one trivia. guess who plays Freddy in MFL.. (clue- think of new Downey jr. movie)

Much, much, MUCH better than the oh-so-boring My Fair Lady. That version is too long, too many songs, too much bad acting, just hate it on all levels. The only change I would make is improve Hiller's Caulkney.

i dont really like the musical version, i thought it was kind of boring, i just didnt really think it was great, to me it was like, i was suppose to like it because it was old, and audrey hepburn was in it, but i just didnt really,i think i would like this better

If you are reading this: Well said. Hiller puts everyone else in the shade. No one I know has put done the role as well, certainly nothing photopgraphed. As for the character's quick ascension:made plausible by her father's like transformation. As Shaw intends us to think. Agree with all except the evaluation of Shaw. But I love his stuff, and charmed to learn he had a hand in the movie. "Pygmalian" was the first professional play performance I ever saw. That was almost sixty years ago.

I'm amazed it took me this long to see this film. I've seen "MY FAIR LADY" 3 times. It's one of the few musicals where I love both the story and the music; usually I love one and hate the other. (Examples: "WEST SIDE STORY", I love the music but hate the story; "GUYS AND DOLLS", I love the story but can't remember a single song in it they just get in the way!)
The one thing that has always bothered me about "MY FAIR LADY" from the start was Audrey Hepburn. When I learned her singing had all been dubbed by someone else, that made it even worse. Then I happened to see a documentary on PBS about Broadway, which included 2 songs from the play. It brought tears to my eyes. Julie Andrews was SO MUCH BETTER!!! The next day, I bought the original cast CD. The studio were idiots for not having Julie Andrews in the film. (Then again, they didn't want Rex Harrison or Stanley Holloway either!)
It was fascinating to see pretty much the identical story, only without the songs. It certainly moves along much faster this way. And yes, I don't recall any mention in the musical of Eliza being brilliant when it comes to phonetics, which I did notice in the original film. I think it safe to say that both Higgins and Pickering are better in the original, as well as Wendy Hiller. (Until this, the only thing I'd ever seen her in was "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", as "Princess Dragomiroff".) But I did prefer Jeremy Brett as Freddy. He seemed believbably sympathetic. The Freddy in the '38 version is just too exagerated of a charicature. As someone said, "Upper Class Twit Of The Year".
I think Stanley Holloway also stood out more in the remake, particularly the scene where he's goin on about "I'm dyin' t' tell ya!" They also added a scene to the remake where Higgins is seen writing a letter about Doolittle, which sets up the surprise later on when Doolittle tells how his life has been "ruined".

I enjoyed the acting in "Pygmalion" (Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller) more than that of the actors in the musical version. "My Fair Lady" has an outstanding musical score and I can visualize where the songs broke in during the dialogue, etc., but Rex Harrison - Tony and Oscar winning actor for his stage and screen performance of Henry Higgins is no Leslie Howard.
Howard should have won the Oscar in 1938, but lost to Spencer Tracy (who won the second of his two consecutive Oscars, this time for "Boys Town") and Wendy Hiller was a very strong nominee as well, only to lose to Bette Davis in "Jezebel".
Wendy Hiller was also excellent in another film made a few years later co-starring Roger Livesey, "I Know Where I'm Going".

I agree. Wendy Hiller is gorgeous and an incredible talent, which is why Shaw cast her in Saint Joan and Major Barbara in addition to Pygmalion. She had a long and distinguished career.

?
You think that Audrey Hepburn is only for gay guys?
LOL
You are a libtard.

Agreed. What's more, Wendy Hiller had the remarkable talent of being able to appear plain or beautiful as she chose. This is really apparent in Separate Tables, here in Pygmalion, and in Major Barbara. No makeup or lighting change needed she can choose to appear to be unremarkable or bring out her extraordinary natural beauty, as the scene requires. It wasn't, as a poster above said, that she "scrubbed up well" her face was so expressive that she could make us glance over it, take a disinterested look, or do a double-take and swoon, all as she pleased, or rather the moment required.
Hepburn basically had one face, rather pretty but not animated a static painting, which we forgive because of the big eyes. She didn't have the tenth of the range of Wendy Hiller, though she was a good actress enough.
And another thing, Wendy Hiller had beautiful diction!

Well call me a blind man but I'll take Hiller over Hepburn and day of the week - and twice on Sundays. I've never understood the Hepburn fascination, but apparently the gay guys do so I'll leave her to them.

I concur by far, and am far more critical of the musical.

1. Shaw is generally considered the second greatest playwright of the English language, and Pygmalion is probably his greatest masterpiece. To add songs and shift things about for music is to mess with the rhythm and timing of a master of his craft. You might as well update Mozart because "he needs more cowbell". Modify Beethoven's Ninth because it doesn't have a kazoo. The very idea of anyone "improving" on Pygmalion by altering it substantially is almost utterly laughable. To do that you'd have to be as great a playwright as Shaw himself, and there's only one man who can inarguably claim that crown.
2. The casting of the musical is just
   atrocious
   :
   a) Hepburn is absolutely gorgeous, and a blind man could see that. Hell, a flaming homosexual could see that, and did

. One look at Hepburn "in the gutter" and you would KNOW she had no business being there. So she's horribly miscast, because there would never be any question you could turn her into a duchess.
b )Wendy Hiller, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect for the role, she is pretty, but not specacularly so, and "scrubs up well".
c) Rex Harrison had no clue how to play Higgins he portrayed him as a cold, emotionless fish.
d) In contrast, Howard understood Higgins perfectly he's a very passionate man, but he has directed all his passion into his love for language. When he meets, and changes, Eliza, she embodies, in human form, all that he loves of language and culture, and becomes his Pygmalion.
e) Even the lesser roles are cast so much better in the 1938 film Eliza's father, Freddy, Higgins' housekeeper, Colonel Pickering, Count Karpathy.
*
Truman Capote