Ending
Pygmalion was the most broadly appealing of all Shaw's plays. But popular audiences, looking for pleasant entertainment with big stars in a West End venue, wanted a "happy ending" for the characters they liked so well, as did some critics. During the 1914 run, to Shaw's exasperation but not to his surprise, Tree sought to sweeten Shaw's ending to please himself and his record houses. Shaw returned for the 100th performance and watched Higgins, standing at the window, toss a bouquet down to Eliza. "My ending makes money, you ought to be grateful," protested Tree. "Your ending is damnable; you ought to be shot." Shaw remained sufficiently irritated to add a postscript essay, "'What Happened Afterwards," to the 1916 print edition for inclusion with subsequent editions, in which he explained precisely why it was impossible for the story to end with Higgins and Eliza getting married.
He continued to protect the play's and Eliza's integrity by protecting the last scene. For at least some performances during the 1920 revival, Shaw adjusted the ending in a way that underscored the Shavian message.
When Eliza emancipates herself — when Galatea comes to life — she must not relapse. She must retain her pride and triumph to the end. When Higgins takes your arm on 'consort battleship' you must instantly throw him off with implacable pride; and this is the note until the final 'Buy them yourself.' He will go out on the balcony to watch your departure; come back triumphantly into the room; exclaim 'Galatea!' (meaning that the statue has come to life at last); and — curtain. This ending is not included in any print version of the play.
Shaw fought uphill against such a reversal of fortune for Eliza all the way to 1938. He sent the film's harried producer, Gabriel Pascal, a concluding sequence which he felt offered a fair compromise: a romantically-set farewell scene between Higgins and Eliza, then Freddy and Eliza happy in their greengrocery/flower shop. Only at the sneak preview did he learn that Pascal had shot the "I washed my face and hands" conclusion, to reassure audiences that Shaw's Galatea wouldn't really come to life, after all.
3.2 Origin of the play’s title
Shaw wrote Pygmalion in 1912, but he took its name from something way, way older: an Ancient Greek myth. The most famous of its many versions can be found in the Roman poet Ovid's Metamorphoses.
In the myth, Pygmalion, a sculptor from Cyprus, hates women, and especially hates the idea of getting married. With wondrous art, he creates a beautiful statue more perfect than any living woman. The more he looks upon her, the more deeply he falls in love with her, until he wishes that she were more than a statue. This statue is Galatea. Lovesick, Pygmalion goes to the temple of the goddess Venus and prays that she give him a lover like his statue; Venus is touched by his love and brings Galatea to life. When Pygmalion returns from Venus' temple and kisses his statue, he is delighted to find that she is warm and soft to the touch. Pygmalion marries the ivory sculpture changed to a woman under Venus’ blessing. They had a son, Paphos, which he took from his home.
Myths such as this are fine enough when studied through the lens of centuries and the buffer of translations and editions, but what happens when one tries to translate such an allegory into Victorian England? That is just what George Bernard Shaw does in his version of the Pygmalion myth. In doing so, he exposes the inadequacy of myth and of romance in several ways. For one, he deliberately twists the myth so that the play does not conclude as euphorically or conveniently, hanging instead in unconventional ambiguity. Next, he mires the story in the sordid and mundane whenever he gets a chance. Wherever he can, the characters are seen to be belabored by the trivial details of life like napkins and neckties, and of how one is going to find a taxi on a rainy night. These noisome details keep the story grounded and decidedly less romantic. Finally, and most significantly, Shaw challenges the possibly insidious assumptions that come with the Pygmalion myth, forcing us to ask the following: Is the male artist the absolute and perfect being who has the power to create woman in the image of his desires? Is the woman necessarily the inferior subject who sees her lover as her sky? Can there only ever be sexual/romantic relations between a man and a woman? Does beauty reflect virtue? Does the artist love his creation, or merely the art that brought that creation into being?
Famous for writing "talky" plays in which barely anything other than witty repartee takes center stage (plays that the most prominent critics of his day called non-plays), Shaw finds in Pygmalion a way to turn the talk into action, by hinging the fairy tale outcome of the flower girl on precisely how she talks. In this way, he draws our attention to his own art, and to his ability to create, through the medium of speech, not only Pygmalion's Galatea, but Pygmalion himself. More powerful than Pygmalion, on top of building up his creations, Shaw can take them down as well by showing their faults and foibles. In this way, it is the playwright alone, and not some divine will, who breathes life into his characters. While Ovid's Pygmalion may be said to have idolized his Galatea, Shaw's relentless and humorous honesty humanizes these archetypes, and in the process brings drama and art itself to a more contemporarily relevant and human level.
3.3 Literary analysis of the play Pygmalion
George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian Socialist who editorialized and lectured on the need for uprooting obsolete notions of a rigid English class-structure in order for individuals to realize their full potential. He wrote the play Pygmalion in 1912 and 1913 as part-social protest, part-satire, part-comic farce. Of all of Shaw's plays, Pygmalion is without the doubt the most beloved and popularly received, if not the most significant in literary terms. Several film versions have been made of the play, and it has even been adapted into a musical. In fact, writing the screenplay for the film version of 1938 helped Shaw to become the first and only man ever to win the much coveted Double: the Nobel Prize for literature and an Academy Award. Shaw wrote the part of Eliza in Pygmalion for the famous actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell, with whom Shaw was having a prominent affair at the time that had set all of London abuzz. The aborted romance between Professor Higgins and Eliza Doolittle reflects Shaw's own love life, which was always peppered with enamored and beautiful women, with whom he flirted outrageously but with whom he almost never had any further relations.
The characters of Pygmalion are unique and fascinating including the common favorite, Eliza Doolittle. Her background and mannerisms not only provide comedy, but a major aspect of the overall conflict. She is the primary protagonist that arrests the audience’s attention and sympathy. Her character is portrayed as diligent, hard-working, and inherently intelligent. She is a young woman thrust out into the working world by her equally unwealthy father. Although Eliza’s appearance and actions are quite rough at the beginning she does improve and allow her own natural beauty to shine through. This is evidenced when her father says after Higgins has taken her in, “I never thought she would clean up as good looking as that (Act II). Apparently, Eliza impressed the other characters with her transformations.
Eliza’s spirit is as much a part of her as her outward appearance. Instead of cowering under Higgins biting comments and fiery temper she matches his with one equally as caustic. Her intelligence also helps her survive in the world, both the aristocracy and the slums. She shows a true perseverance and loyalty to both her lessons and her teacher. Eliza most likely gains most of her emotional appeal by her unfailing innocence and thirst for knowledge.
The other remarkable character presented in the drama is the infamous Henry Higgins. This character is the direct protagonist of Eliza and yet the observer oftentimes can identify with him as well. He is brilliant in the study of phonetics, but awkward and rude in the area of social graces. Even his own mother comments undesirably when she says “You offend all my friends: they stop coming whenever they meet you.” (Act III) His eccentricities and brusque attitude are almost presented as comical. He is very unconcerned about other’s feelings and desires but that does not necessarily mean he is centered on himself. Rather he feels he is serving the human race at large and that anyone in the way of that is not worth his time.
The conflict of Pygmalion is basically the undertaking of teaching Eliza to rise in society. The motives held by each of the characters differ but the desired outcome is the same. This conflict is probably the most obvious humor in the play for two reasons. One, the audience can relate to the use of slang and improper English in their own speech causing Eliza’s mistakes to be funny. Secondly, is the use Eliza makes of her new found knowledge at Mrs. Higgins house. While there, Eliza is trained to stick to two topics, that of health and the weather. Although Eliza has mastered perfect enunciation by this point her subject matter and word choice isn’t exactly refined.
Shaw uses the conflict between Eliza and Higgins to express his own thoughts on the diversity of people. He likes to set these characters on two different sides of a spectrum and develop how they relate. Although the play has a resolution, it is not exactly a story book happy ending. Higgins and Eliza continue on their respective paths of complete opposites but not in the same way as before. Whereas previously, the thing separating them was social class, at the end of the drama, the largest gulf is primarily between their goals in life. Higgins’ intent is to better the world through himself, and Eliza’s purpose is to better herself through the world.
In analyzing the play Pygmalion, one cannot fully evaluate the characters and conflict without understanding the themes. The themes are based on the legend behind the play’s title and Shaw’s commentary on social status. The title is derived from an ancient Greek legend which has many parallels with Shaw’s play. Professor Higgins is an expert in his field, just as the sculptor Pygmalion was in his. Higgins also holds the same view of women demonstrating this when he says “ I find that the moment I let a woman make friends with me, she becomes jealous, exacting, suspicious, and a nuisance.” (Act II) The final analogy is that both men turned uncarved stone into something beautiful using their talents. Unfortunately, Shaw does not allow the happy ending of the legend to occur in his play as sentimental people would hope. Rather after Higgins has molded her into his special creation, she develops her own defiant self that is totally independent from her creator. This illustrates Shaw’s dislike of overdone romantic plays with unrealistic endings.
Another effective literary technique Shaw uses is by writing colloquially, whereby he encapsulates the cockney accent in his writing. This is a common technique used in literature to create a vivid setting and atmosphere and helps to draw the reader into the writing. In this case, the colloquial technique not only serves these purposes but also highlights the stark difference between Eliza's cockney accent and the 'upper class' accent that she eventually develops.
Overall Shaw uses simple literary techniques in Pygmalion to create atmosphere, reflect the setting and captivate his audience. These are his tools but there is much more than literary techniques at work in Pygmalion which makes it one of the classic literary works in history.
The other prominent theme is that of social class and its affect on the novel. Examples of this are presented in the poverty stricken characters of Eliza Doolittle, Mr. Doolittle, and the Eynsford Hills. They all have their own reaction to the circumstances of life. Eliza fiercely strives to better herself, while her father floats contentedly along in his lower class position. The Eynsford Hills represent the “in name only” upper class that have experienced poverty but still continue their snobbish attitudes. However, Shaw gently pokes fun at this hypocritical faсade and inconspicuously praises the family’s son Freddy who refuses to carry on so needlessly when he can be happy without money.
The spiritual philosophy of Mr. Alfred Doolittle is one of the most remarkable yet comic beliefs presented in Shaw’s drama. Due to Shaw’s emphasis on social class as a prominent theme it seems appropriate that the most profound statements come from the most surprising source. Shaw enjoys weaving his own personal convictions throughout all of his work vicariously and wittily, Pygmalion being no exception. Through Mr. Doolittle, a lower class dustman, the observer can get a real glimpse into the thought behind the play.
According to Mr. Doolittle, arriving shortly after Eliza’s appearance on Wimpole Street, he is only a member of the undeserving poor, who is concerned about his daughter. Doolittle maintains that he is looking out for his daughter when in actuality, he is attempting to blackmail Professor Higgins. Naturally, Higgins sees through this ruse and listens as Doolittle continues, quite entertained. Doolittle then insinuates that unless he is compensated, he will make it known that his young unwed daughter is staying with Higgins. The professor is so amused with this tactic and Doolittle’s simulated interest in his daughter when it is apparent that his real motive is only money. He offers Doolittle more than the five pounds that he has requested. Eliza’s father, however, refuses this because as he states, it will give him the responsibility of “middle class morality.” (Act II) In answer to Higgins question “Have you no morals, man?” Doolittle replies “Can’t afford them. Neither could you if you were as poor as me” (Act II). Evidently, Doolittle feels that if he has only a small sum of money he is not required to be responsible for its investment, therefore making it possible for him to squander it on alcohol. Because he is not treated as the “deserving poor” who receive charity, he believes that he has no obligation to be wise with the small amount of money he does have. While some drunks or slothful impoverished people become bitter over this, Doolittle actually prefers this lifestyle as an excuse to be irresponsible and lazy.
The irony of this spiritual philosophy is seen in the actual outcome of Mr. Doolittle. At the conclusion of Pygmalion, Doolittle inherits a great amount of money. Although this upsets Doolittle’s lifestyle, he still holds to his interesting philosophy. As he asserts to his daughter and Higgins, “Middle class morality claims its victim” (Act V). Doolittle has denounced something most people crave when he resents wealth.
This drama comprises so many of George Bernard Shaw’s personal opinions, beliefs, personal background, and humor. It overflows with his sarcasm and bluntness, while appealing to the human quality in us all. Just as Eliza has a rough exterior and a beautiful interior this play contains critical facts coupled with endearing humor. The characters, conflict, theme, and spiritual philosophies presented in Pygmalion have been wrapped admirably into a package that is truthful but acceptable.
In the preface of Pygmalion Shaw already gives some ideas about the necessity of reforming the English education in language. He points out the connection between way of speaking and class membership in those days. Social rise assumed taking over the way of speaking of the higher social class. His aim was a society without different social classes. All these critics on society Shaw weaves in with loads of humor. Shaw always tried to make his work educational and amusing at the same time. He once said, “It is so intensely and deliberately didactic, and its subject is esteemed so dry, that I delight in throwing it at the heads of the wiseacres who repeat the parrot cry that art should never be didactic. It goes to prove my contention, that great art can never be anything else. “This means, in easier words, great art has to be educational.
Pygmalion gave Shaw a platform for many of his concerns. He was passionately interested in the English language and the varieties of ways in which people spoke (and misspoke) it. Shaw longed to simplify and reform English; he once pointed out that the rules of spelling in English are so inconsistent and confusing that the word fish could conceivably be spelled “ghoti” if the speller used the sound of gh in enough, the sound of o in women, and the sound of ti in the suffix –tion. The text of Pygmalion reflects some of his efforts at simplifying English usage – principally his omission of apostrophes in contractions such as Ive and dont. Pygmalion also allowed Shaw to present ideas about other topics that concerned him — such matters as social equality, male and female roles, and the relationship between what people seem to be and what they really are. Like his other successful plays, Pygmalion wins us over with its charm and then startles us out of our preconceptions with its keen intelligence.