Admittedly, when I first picked up George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, I was expecting a wordy, twentieth-century social commentary superimposed upon a dated Greek myth, but was pleasantly surprised to learn that I was actually just reading My Fair Lady. With that being said, it must be noted that A)Shaw’s original play is much better, and B) the original title is irrevocably important to understanding Shaw’s original message, one which was clearly lost in the light-hearted musical for which this play might ultimately and unfortunately be remembered.
The original myth of Pygmalion deals with an Ancient Greek sculptor who falls in love with his own artistic masterpiece and asks the gods to bring his statue to life for him to love as a real woman. Shaw turns this love story into a work of feminist literature not unlike Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. Shaw’s Pygmalion, Henry Higgins, takes this mere flower-girl, Eliza, and comes to think of her as an artistic piece of his own. At no point does Higgins seem to appreciate Eliza, not even after he has transformed her into the masterpiece that he intended, and upon realizing this, Eliza chooses to leave him and the lifestyle that he has to offer her. In Shaw’s mind, the happy ending is Eliza’s newfound independence and her strength in walking away. However, the makers of My Fair Lady (must have been men) could not see the glory in this ending and insisted on turning Shaw’s work back into the love story from which the original name was derived, ultimately defeating Shaw’s purpose and turning an otherwise socially-illuminative play into family-friendly drivel.
No comments:
Post a Comment