Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

Our April 2019 Short Story read is Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, 82 pages, 1912

This is the spoiler thread, post all plot and character thoughts and comments about the book here.

So I get to "break the ice". I have been reading Pygmalion rather slowly for a couple weeks and just finished. I had seen the old Rex Harrison- Audrey Hepburn film version of "My Fair Lady" long ago and about 10 years ago saw it performed here in Salt Lake City, which was an excellent production. I was curious then to see how the original play differed from the musical.
I thought it an excellent play for its time; I don't think it would be very well received these days without the music/singing though. Shaw made a lot of comments on human nature and society through the course of the play which gave it a lot of interest for me. I thought the characters were well-developed too for so few pages. The rather long epilog was a surprise to me. I suppose that wasn't read out in productions but just included in the written texts.

I admired the character Eliza Doolittle, the flower girl. She shows courage, strength of character, and an independent spirit. I enjoyed towards the plays end her standing up to Henry Higgins and to a lesser degree Colonel Pickering. But my favorite character was Mr. Doolittle, Eliza’s father, a penniless scoundrel reduced to ruin because he becomes middle-class against his will.

I loved the play and the film, though they differ fundamentally at the ending. And really, the less conventional ending of the play works better for me - but the way Shaw relates it in a prose appendix is insufferable!

I thought Mr. Doolittle's role was very interesting. Shaw used him to illustrate his complaint about middle-class morality, and I thought he did it humorously and insightfully.

DOOLITTLE: ... Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.... [and later in Act 5] A year ago I hadn't a relative in the world except two or three that wouldn't speak to me. Now Ive fifty, and not a decent week's wages among the lot of them. I have to live for others and not for myself: that's middle class morality.

GR keeps correcting my contractionless contractions. I really like that Shaw refused to use contractions. He was ahead of his time.

I also thought Higgins' comment about the influence of language was spot on:

HIGGINS: ... But you have no idea how frightfully interesting it is to take a human being and change her into a quite different human being by creating a new speech for her.

Unfortunately, that can be turned on its head, as we did when we separated American Indian children from their parents and tribes and insisted they not speak their language and learn English instead as an attempt to assimilate them. And now, what we are realizing is that if we bring back the language we can resurrect the culture, as they are discovering in Hawaii with the Hawaiian language.

I much preferred the ending in the play. Higgins treated Eliza awfully and did not deserve her.

I agree with you, Jess. I had issues with the ending of the movie too.

I hadn't read this before or seen the movie/play although you can't help knowing the story! I think Eliza did have some affection for Higgins but at least she had the sense to not tie herself into pandering to him for the rest of her life. I think it's interesting that Shaw gave Eliza a weaker character for a husband, quite unusual, I thought, for writing of that time.

The movie is actually more sexist than the play. Old Hollywood loved to show women as being completely dependent on men and wanting to serve them forever. The answer to all of Eliza’s problems is to stay with her man-god Higgins in the movie. Sadly, in the book, Eliza has to find her way after her transition from flower girl to lady. Higgins has put her in a very confusing place. Eliza is very strong and intelligent and she will find her place in the world.It’s better not to depend on such a horrible and sexist man who sees women as objects to mold into his image of what a “lady” should be. It’s best for her to shake him off and move on. Old Hollywood ruined a few good classics even though they were fun to watch. Some of the songs in the Rex Harrison/Audrey Hepburn movie were wonderful! It was actually a delightful movie in spite of the extreme sexism. It’s a product of the era it was made in. So many movies of the past were fun to watch in spite of that. I think the story has much to to with misogyny as well as the class system.

The movie has wonderful songs and costumes, that's true. And Audrey Hepburn is good in the role of Eliza.

Rosemarie wrote: "The movie has wonderful songs and costumes, that's true. And Audrey Hepburn is good in the role of Eliza."

Julie Andrews was also up for the Eliza part, but it wasn't given to her even though she was a much better singer than Hepburn, because Hepburn was a bigger star who would help sell it. That freed Andrews to do The Sound of Music instead, released the following year ('65). Hepburn's singing was overdubbed with a professional singer's. Her acting was very good though.

Jess wrote: "I much preferred the ending in the play. Higgins treated Eliza awfully and did not deserve her."

I agree entirely! While reading, I kept having memories pop back to me of girls ranting about how they hated the ending after watching the film at a sleepover when I was in my preteen years...

Pygmalion is the June 2025 Old School Classics Group Read.

I haven't read this since High School, but I've seen the movie a number of times. I'm finding as I read this that I hear the actors voices in my head, saying the lines. I also seem to be humming the songs as I go...

I remember when we read this in school one of my friends hated the ending. I'd seen the play, and I have to say I preferred the original ending, myself.

I loved the play! I adore Eliza's intelligence and boldness. She refused to trade her independence for the little affection and security. Mr Dolittle is also an interesting character, middle-class morality is well narrated.

This is such a fun and funny story! I'm hearing Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn in my head, too! I know that some people really hate the perceived sexism in this play, but I don't think that's what Shaw is doing here. He has made Eliza, poor and uneducated as she is, quite intelligent, gifted, strong and courageous. Henry bullies her, but not in any way different than he bullies everyone, except his mother. He treats her as an equal which I think must have been rare in those days. And he respects her when she overcomes her emotions and stands up to him, making her own choices. One of the main themes seems to be, "What is she?" That is brought up repeatedly. I think Shaw is asking women to delve within, figure out who we are individually and collectively, and stand up for ourselves.

Higgins: "your native language is the language of Shakespear and Milton and The Bible;"

The world has changed. I don’t think anyone would write this today and expect everyone else to find it funny.

Is it supposed to be a joke from Higgins side or is Shaw making fun of Higgins English-centricness?

Kay wrote: " One of the main themes seems to be, "What is she?" That is brought up repeatedly. I think Shaw is asking women to delve within, figure out who we are individually and collectively, and stand up for ourselves.."

Personally, I don't know that Shaw is deliberately asking those questions, but they do arise for me as I read this. How much of our life is what we choose, and how much is what we allow others to choose for us?

I've always admired Eliza's courage in showing up at his house and basically cornering him into teaching her. I think she shows spirit and a sense of her own worth, even if others don't value her.

It was fun reconnecting with this play again. And I still definitely prefer this ending. :)

Finished. Surprisingly different than the "My Fair Lady" (Rex Harrison- Audrey Hepburn movie version). The play is way deeper.

The play is actually about British class structure and being limited by other peoples expectations. As far as I remember, the only class aspect in movie is how Eliza's speech is placing her low.

Seen with today’s eyes it is surprising that so large a part of adults can have so many reasons for not working. The strange thing is that Britain at the time was the economical powerhouse of the world and the British pound sterling was worlds reserve currency. (A status they lost around WWII. Once lost it is not something that can be easily gained again – or regained at all.) It is crazy to think of that the worlds power house and leading economy could have people not working for so many reasons.

Doolittle (just the name ‘do little’!) work and money limits his freedom. Respectable life, to him, equals constraints, obligations, and social expectations, which he wants to avoid.

Eliza in middle part of the play sees herself as too fine for work. She want to work, but expects others to see her as too fine.

Freddy doesn't work because he lacks practical skills and education, but he is convincing himself that it is beneath him. (“A clerkship at thirty shillings a week was beneath Freddy’s dignity, and extremely distasteful to him besides.”)

Clara see it as beneath her. It would be the final nail in that she is not upper class: (“after clinging for so many years to that step of the social ladder on which retail trade is impossible.”)

Did you notice the quote by Nietzsche? At first it felt like a disorienting time jump. Nietzsche!? Here?! But the play is from 1913 not 1890’ish. My second though was how super relevant Nietzsche is: Nietzsche deals with self-overcoming and of humans reshaping themselves beyond society's imposed limitations.

The long epilogue was a surprise. What do a stage play do with the epilogue?

Favorite character. Not anyone particular, but Higgings had some lines so over arrogant that they where self-satirical:

“How the devil do I know what’s to become of you? What does it matter what becomes of you?”

“I’m not going to have my masterpiece thrown away on Freddy.”

J_BlueFlower wrote: "The long epilogue was a surprise. What do a stage play do with the epilogue?"

Lots of good comments but on this one I think shaw meant the ending to be read as a closet drama is read and for the play to be performed with the epilogue material worked out as in the best interests of the fommercial success of the play. You can see the difference in how Shaw himself interpreted the ending in the 1938 film version, well worth watching for comparison.
.https://youtu.be/tmdPj_XbF30?si=awVtJ...

Maybe it is a clever thing to leave the ending open in the original play: Every production can make it’s own ending. The audience will not know what to come, even if they know the play.

Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmdPj...

Text says "Nominated for a best Picture Academy Award, and won one for Best Screenplay (Written by famed playwright George Bernard Shaw and adapted by Ian Dalrymple)." It is from 1938, and Shaw was still alive at the time. Is it known how much of a say he had in determining the ending?

I have no idea but think he had more than would be given a screenplay writer today.