It Could be Loverly:
The Pygmalion Theme through Time
BA Thesis English Language and Culture, Utrecht University
Jewel-Joan Geurtsen
3627829
Supervisor: P.J.C.M. Franssen
Second Evaluator: D.A. Pascoe
July 2013
Table of Content
2
Introduction
Chapter 1: Ovid’s Pygmalion
5
Chapter 2: Shaw’s Pygmalion
8
2.1 Teaching a Common Flower Girl
2.2 Feminism & Romance
Chapter 3: The Films Pygmalion and My Fair Lady
8
10
14
3.1 The Film Pygmalion: Education
14
3.2 The Film Pygmalion: A Different Ending
17
3.3 My Fair Lady: A Romance
19
Chapter 4: The Film Educating Rita
22
4.1 Fighting for an Education
22
4.2 An Ending Worthy of Shaw
26
Conclusion
29
Works Cited List
31
Introduction
Everywhere in the world there are people with wishes or desires. It seems only logical that
after the fulfilment of one’s wish a person is completely happy. Still this is not always the
case, for sometimes the outcome of the wish is not what the wisher thought it would be. Like
Oscar Wilde once wrote: “when the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers” (2.1). In
both Shaw’s popular play Pygmalion and its musical adaptation My Fair Lady, Wilde’s
statement seems to hold some truth. In both of these works the leading male character
Professor Henry Higgins gets the opportunity to shape the leading female character Eliza
Doolittle into his perfect woman. By doing so Higgins in a way fulfils his own wish of
creating, what he believes is, a real woman. However, in the end Eliza seems to become too
much of a real woman to Higgins’s liking and because of this a clash arises. Also Eliza, who
wishes to learn how to speak like a lady eventually learns that there are several factors that
have be to taken into consideration before jumping into such a life changing metamorphosis.
Even though Pygmalion and My Fair Lady are both based on a story in Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, this work does not yet foreshadow Wilde’s statement. Pygmalion creates his
perfect woman and prays to the goddess Venus that his creation may come to life. Eventually
Venus grants Pygmalion his wish and he and his creation named Galatea live happily ever
after. So in the case of the original myth by Ovid, finding one’s prayers answered is not in any
way a punishment or a disappointment to Pygmalion.
There are many more differences between the original myth by Ovid and later
adaptations, but also among the adaptations themselves. In this thesis I will be looking at a
number of differences between Ovid’s version of the Pygmalion myth and later adaptations
such as Shaw’s Pygmalion (both the play and screen adaptation), the film version of My Fair
Lady and the film Educating Rita. I will also be looking at the differences between the
adaptations and how certain themes, such as feminism, social class, education, ethics and
romance, seem to develop over time and throughout the adaptations of Ovid’s Pygmalion
myth.
Shaw’s Pygmalion has been analysed from many different points of view: feminism,
social class and phonetics and sociolinguistics are the most analysed ones. According to Elsie
Adams there are several sorts of female stereotypes in Shaw’s works:
In play after play, [Shaw] presents us with various combinations of the traditional
figure of temptress, goddess, or mother (usually with a capital M); and, even when
he creates a woman who has broken out of a traditional "female" role, he tends to
draw on another literary type - the "emancipated" woman. [...] [or] career girl. (17-22)
In fact Shaw was quite a feminist and actually favoured the idea of the emancipated woman
which will be made clear through the further analysis of Pygmalion. Social class distinctions,
feminism, education, ethics and romance in Shaw’s Pygmalion will be further discussed in
chapter two of this thesis.
There are still many more things that can be said about Pygmalion and its protagonists.
Rodelle Weintraub claims that Higgins is not just an unfriendly man without manners, but that
he actually suffers from a mental disorder called the Asperger syndrome.
[A]n Aspergen has difficulties in social interaction, lacks empathy, or has difficulties
with it, has trouble with social role-taking and has unusual responses to the
environment similar to those in autism. [...] Aspergens often lack common sense.
They may be socially aware but display inappropriate reciprocal interaction, and
are often clumsy, awkward and fidgety. [...] They can almost always achieve
professional success, usually in highly specialised academic professions. (388-397)
Even though Asperger syndrome was not officially named and characterised until 1944, it
does seem that Shaw’s Higgins fits this picture rather well. Phonetician is a highly specialised
profession, Higgins cannot keep still, jingling coins in his pockets and often does not realise
when he is being impolite.
Since Shaw himself in the preface to Pygmalion pays quite a lot of attention to
phonetics and several phoneticians like Henry Sweet, Alexander J. Ellis and Tito Pagliardini,
Milton Crane finds it strange that: “virtually nowhere in Pygmalion do the characters discuss
phonetics, despite Shaw's specific statement that phonetics is the subject of the play” (879885). However in later adaptations such as the film version of Pygmalion and My Fair Lady
the phonetic aspect of the original play seems to be more elaborate because here the audience
does get a better view of Higgins’s teaching methods.
Zennure Köseman states that Shaw’s Pygmalion and the film Educating Rita have
another similarity other than the fact that they were both based on Ovid’s myth. According to
Köseman: “George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion (1914) and Willy Russell’s Educating Rita
(1985) reflect ‘nature versus nurture’ debate [by] applying [Ovid’s] [...] mythic tale” (248254).
As shown above there a many aspects one can focus on when analysing Shaw’s
Pygmalion or the screen adaptations Pygmalion, My Fair Lady and Educating Rita. I am
aware of the fact that different genres require different techniques. However, I shall treat the
previously mentioned compositions as texts only, without looking at filming or staging
techniques. In this thesis I will focus on how the Pygmalion story has been used to express
many different themes such as feminism, social class and phonetics and sociolinguistics, in a
number of later adaptations.
In chapter one I will discuss Ovid’s Pygmalion. In chapter two I will discuss Shaw’s
play Pygmalion. Chapter three will be concerned with the film version of Pygmalion and the
film version of My Fair Lady. In chapter three I will discuss the film Educating Rita.
Chapter 1: Ovid’s Pygmalion
The Metamorphoses is considered to be Ovid’s greatest work. It is a collection of myths,
which all contain some kind of transformation, like the myth of Apollo and Daphne, in which
Daphne is eventually turned into a laurel tree. In book ten of Ovid’s Metamorphoses the story
of the Greek sculptor Pygmalion is told. According to Ovid the Greek goddess Aphrodite,
called Venus by the Roman Ovid, cursed the women of Cyprus, known as Propœtides,
because they refused to acknowledge her as a deity.
[T]he obscene Propœtides presumed to deny that Venus is a Goddess; for
which they are reported the first of all women to have prostituted their bodies, with
their beauty, through the anger of the Goddess. And when their shame was gone,
and the blood of their face was hardened, they were, by a slight transition, changed
into hard rocks. (10.6.240-242)
Their living hearts were transformed into inanimate rocks. Thus the women of Cyprus became
unfeeling prostitutes, and therefore Pygmalion chooses to live alone. Still Pygmalion starts to
feel lonely and in need of a woman, and therefore he sculpts a beautiful ivory statue of a
woman. With this ivory lady1 Pygmalion falls in love, he touches and caresses her, speaks to
her and he even takes his creation to his bed.
Often does he apply his hands to the work, to try whether it is a human body, or
whether it is ivory; and yet he does not own it to be ivory. He gives it kisses, and
fancies that they are returned, and speaks to it, and takes hold of it, and thinks that
his fingers make an impression on the limbs which they touch [...] he brings her
presents [...] He decks her limbs, too, with clothing, and puts jewels on her fingers
[...] [and] calls her the companion of his bed. (10.7.252-256)
In the original Latin the word ‘ebur’ from ‘eburneus’ is used which literally means ‘ivory’ (The Latin
Dictionary).
1
Pygmalion, so much in love with his own creation, prays to Venus, the goddess of love, and
asks her to make his “ivory girl” come to life.
‘If ye Gods can grant all things,
let my wife be, I pray,’
and he did not dare to say ‘this ivory maid,’
but ‘like to this statue of ivory. (10.7.261-262)
Venus grants Pygmalion his wish and his creation becomes a real living woman, known by
the name of Galatea2. This is the main transformation of this myth. The Propœtides hearts
were transformed from animate into inanimate, while Galatea’s heart transforms from
inanimate to animate. Galatea and Pygmalion are married, have a son and live happily ever
after.
In the case of Ovid’s Pygmalion the creating of the perfect woman is mainly about the
physical aspect of perfection. Although it is mentioned that Pygmalion is not interested in the
women of Cyprus because of their conduct, there is nothing mentioned explicitly about
Galatea’s personality, while her physical appearance is discussed elaborately.
[He] gave it a beauty with which no woman can be born [...] The appearance was
that of a real virgin, [...] Pygmalion admires it; and entertains, within his breast,
a flame for this fictitious body. (10.7.249-251)
From this excerpt it could be concluded that indeed Galatea’s physical appearance mattered
most to Pygmalion. Also creating a human figure out of ivory, or sculpting, literally is about
creating a form. A sculptor cannot sculpt a character for his statue. Still there is one rather not
so explicit detail that can be seen as an indication of Galatea’s pureness of heart. The fact that
she was made out of ivory is this detail. The colour white of course symbolises purity,
chastity and virtue. It seems only logical for Pygmalion to create a woman who represents
Galatea means ‘she who is white like milk’ or ‘milk-white’, which also refers to the ivory from which she was
made (Dunkling).
2
these things, for it was the opposite which made him decide to remain a bachelor.
One of the main differences between Ovid’s Pygmalion and the later adaptations is
that in Ovid, the main transformation is mainly focussed on the transformation from ivory to a
living woman. Since most of the description is about Galatea’s physical appearance one may
conclude that in Ovid the creation part is mostly about Galatea’s looks. Still the fact that she
is made out of ivory does hint at her virtuous personality. However her personality is not a
part of her overall transformation. Galatea as a statue already was pure and virtuous, which
she remains after she comes to life. The real transformation is in her physical appearance from
inanimate ivory into flesh and blood. In the later adaptations the transformation or the creation
of the woman involved are not only focused on a physical transformation, even though it is a
part of the overall transformation, but they focus mostly on the transformation of the mind.
It can also be said that Pygmalion in this case, as the creator or maker of Galatea, can
be viewed as a god-like figure. This idea of the creation which in a way worships the creator,
is something that can also be found in some of the later adaptations. In this case it can indeed
be argued that Galatea might worship Pygmalion, but unlike some of the later adaptations
Pygmalion does not seem to be dominating towards Galatea. Ovid’s Pygmalion story is the
only one which does not contain a rebelling created woman, which seems to be indicating that
Galatea is satisfied with her life and that Ovid does not seem to have thought that such a way
of creation is morally wrong. This last aspect does get more attention in the adaptations.
Chapter 2: Shaw’s Pygmalion
2.1 Teaching a Common Flower Girl
In 1914 George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion was performed in England for the first time.
The title of the play clearly referred to Ovid’s Pygmalion tale. The Pygmalion figure in
Shaw’s play is a phonetician by the name of Professor Henry Higgins and the Galatea figure
is a common flower girl by the name of Eliza Doolittle (also called Liza). They meet and
Higgins boasts that he could pass Eliza off as a duchess simply by teaching her how to speak
more sophisticatedly. The result of this boast is a bet between Higgins and an acquaintance
named Colonel Pickering. Pickering thinks that Higgins cannot pass this common flower girl
off as a duchess within only six months and Higgins has his mind set on proving him wrong.
So the story begins and Eliza participates in this bet or teaching experiment and moves in with
both Higgins and Pickering.
Higgins seems to believe that the way people speak is of great importance when it
comes to social class distinctions. Higgins therefore also believes that by teaching Eliza how
to speak more sophisticatedly she will be elevated to a higher social class.
Higgins: [T]ake a human being and change her into a quite different human being by
creating a new speech for her. It’s filling up the deepest gulf that separates class from
class and soul from soul. (43.2)
Eliza also seems to believe that the way a person speaks is of importance, because she wants
to learn how to speak sophisticatedly so that she can become a lady in a florist shop. Eliza
wants to climb the social class ladder from low class to middle class, but after Higgins’s
lessons she finds herself having the conversation skills of the upper class. Even though Eliza
has acquired the speech and behaviour of a highborn lady, she still does not have the bank
account to match this new social status. Professor Higgins’s mother, Mrs. Higgins believes
that her son has given Eliza: “The manners and habits that disqualify a fine lady from earning
her own living without giving her a fine lady’s income” (45.2). The question arises whether it
is morally justified to teach a common girl high class speech while in fact she can never truly
belong to the high class. Eliza herself also seems to notice that even though she can speak
properly she is not part of the upper class society. Not only is she not a part of the upper class
she does not longer fit in with the lower classes either.
Liza: What am I fit for? What have you left me fit for? [...]
Higgins: You might marry, you know. [...] I daresay mother could find some chap or
other who would do very well.
Liza: We were above that at the corner of Tottenham Court Road. [...] I sold flowers I
didnt3 sell myself. Now youve made a lady of me I’m not fit to sell anything else. I
wish youd left me where you found me. (51-52.4)
Whether Eliza’s new speech is indeed an advantage to her can be questioned. Instead of
belonging to a certain group she is now an outcast even in the eyes of the society which she
once belonged to. From Pygmalion it can be concluded that Shaw does not seem to think it is
morally wrong to teach lowborn people upper class speech if it is done scientifically.
According to Shaw:
[F]or the encouragement of people troubled with accents that cut them off from all
high employment, I may add that the change wrought by Professor Higgins in the
flower-girl is neither impossible nor uncommon. [...] But the thing has to be done
scientifically, or the last state of the aspirant may be worse than the first. (xii.Preface)
It is not very clear what Shaw means with ‘scientifically’ or whether he believes that Higgins
has taught Eliza scientifically. It might seem anti-scientific to teach a girl because of a bet and
3
In this particular edition of Pygmalion, Shaw’s particularities in spelling and punctuation are preserved.
to let her live in your house, which is what Higgins does. The question of what Shaw believes
is scientific remains unanswered, but it can be said that Eliza’s last state is better than the
state we first see her in. Although she does not really belong to any class it is not worse.
Especially when looking at the afterword also named “Sequel”, where it is made clear that
Eliza marries Freddy (the son of Mrs. Eynsford-Hill, who is a friend of Mrs. Higgins. Eliza
runs into him during the very first scene of the play) and that they open their own shop.
Eventually the shop is a success and from that it can be concluded that Eliza’s last state is in
fact better than her first. However, Eliza proclaimed earlier that she would not marry because
she thought that was like she was selling herself, but Freddy does love her and although he
belongs to the upper class his family is not very rich. It seems that because Eliza will still be
providing for herself and for Freddy she does not seem to think that marrying Freddy is the
same as marrying herself off to a rich man to whom she would be no more than a trophy wife.
Still Eliza would not have met Freddy again after their initial meeting if she had still been a
flower girl.
Shaw seems to agree with the fact that speech really is what creates class distinctions
and has no commentary on Higgins’s teaching skills. Still he does not seem to agree with
Higgins’s overall treatment of Eliza. Unlike Ovid, Shaw does seem to have some commentary
on the creator which, in the case of Pygmalion, is Higgins. The way this commentary is
voiced within the play shall be further discussed in the following section.
2.2 Feminism & Romance
During the time that Shaw wrote Pygmalion the feminist movement was at full blast.
Suffragettes were marching and protesting throughout London for women’s suffrage. Shaw
himself can also be seen as some sort of an emancipator. A well-known feminist comment by
Shaw: “a man is a woman without petticoats” (qtd. in Holroyd 20), indicates that Shaw saw
men and women as equals. Still, when first reading Pygmalion it might not be entirely clear
that it really is quite a feministic play. According to Chen Lihua:
Man is superior, woman is inferior. [...] [T]he male character, the language professor,
is an upper-class gentleman, whereas the flower girl is only a ‘creature’ with visible
and distinguishing marks of the lower class society. [...] [T]he male protagonist is
simply a misogynist. [...] The man is learned, and the woman is ignorant; the man is
intelligent, and the woman is stupid; the man is reasonable, and the woman is
emotional, etc. (41)
Lihua also states that it cannot be expected from Eliza to be learned because she never had the
opportunity. Eliza also shows that she is not stupid once she gets the opportunity to learn. For
instance she can play anything she heard on the piano while she never touched a piano before,
which makes Colonel Pickering proclaim: “that girl is a genius” (44.3). If Shaw had been a
women’s oppressor he could have made Eliza return to Higgins and obey like a good little
girl. Instead of this Eliza realises that she is not “dirt under [Higgins’s] feet” (69.5). “Eliza’s
awakening of self-existence and self-respect comes from the oppression and contempt she
receives” (43). Lihua’s statement suggests that Higgins’s behaviour towards Eliza was
necessary for her development. Still Higgins’s behaviour towards Eliza is also the reason why
she leaves him. Not only is Higgins not very kind to Eliza, he would never fall in love with
her because of his Oedipus-like devotion to his mother, as can be seen in the following quote
from the scene where Higgins tells his mother that Eliza is coming to visit her.
Higgins: Oh, I cant be bothered with young women. My idea of a lovable woman is
something as like you as possible. I shall never get into the way of seriously liking
young women: some habits lie too deep to be changed. Besides theyre all
idiots. (34.3)
Eliza never would have had a chance with Higgins in a romantic way, which is why Shaw
makes Eliza leave Higgins at the end of the play.
[T]he ending of Pygmalion provokes an interesting controversy among critics.
Higgins and Eliza do not marry at the end of the written text, while the play as it is
usually produced often does reconcile the two main characters. (Solomon 59)
Since the title of Shaw play clearly refers to Ovid’s romantic tale it does not seem strange that
the audience expects a romantic ending. The audience and actors of Pygmalion therefore often
interpreted the ending romantically:
[Shaw] explicitly instructed Max Beerbohm Tree as Higgins to ‘occupy himself
affectionately with his mother’ in the final scene, and to dismissively ‘throw Eliza the
commission to buy the [tie and gloves] &c, over his shoulder,’ Tree instead deviated
from the script and, following Eliza’s departure, ‘like a bereaved Romeo . . . shov[ed]
his mother rudely out of the way,’ rushed to the window, and threw a bouquet of
flowers into the wings, presumably into the arms of Eliza outside, thus creating the
impression of a romantic ending. Shaw was furious. ‘My ending makes money,’ Tree
protested, ‘you ought to be grateful.’ Shaw’s response: ‘your ending makes
nonsense, you ought to be shot. (qtd. in Connoly-Smith 138)
To prevent any further assumptions about a romantic ending between Eliza and Higgins Shaw
wrote what is known as the “Sequel”. This ten-page-long sort of afterword, which is in
Shaw’s words, but still part of the play, lets the audience or reader know what Shaw’s actual
intention was: Eliza marries Freddy.
The rest of the story need not be shewn in action, and indeed, would hardly need
telling if our imaginations were not so enfeebled by their lazy dependence on the
ready-mades and reach-me-downs of the ragshop in which Romance keeps its stock
of “happy endings” to misfit all stories. (72.Sequel)
Shaw breaks with tradition by not giving the audience the ending they expect. Doing so, Shaw
creates a more independent Eliza.
The aspect of romance in Pygmalion is quite different from Ovid’s tale. In Ovid the
protagonists Pygmalion and Galatea end up together and get married and live happily ever
after, while Higgins and Eliza do not. According to Shaw: “Galatea never does quite like
Pygmalion: his relation to her is too godlike to be altogether agreeable” (82.Sequel). Which
made Shaw decide on a more feminist approach ad create a woman with a free will and
determination to make it in life without depending upon her creator.
Chapter 3: The Films Pygmalion and My Fair Lady
3.1 The Film Pygmalion: Education
The 1938 Academy Award winning film version of Pygmalion, also called Pygmalion, with
Leslie Howard as Professor Henry Higgins and Wendy Hiller as Eliza Doolittle, was the first
English film adaptation of Shaw’s play. Pygmalion is a British production, produced by
Gabriel Pascal and directed by Anthony Asquith and Leslie Howard. Pascal, Asquith and
Howard all already had some experience with converting a novel or a play into film.
Especially Anthony Asquith who already directed film such as The Runaway Princess, Dance
Pretty Lady and later on in 1952 The Importance of Being Ernest, which are all based on
novels. Leslie Howard already played in the 1934 film version The Scarlet Pimpernel and
1936 film version of Romeo and Juliet. Only a year after Pygmalion Leslie Howard worked
on a major film which was also based on a popular novel: Gone with the Wind. The
screenplay of Pygmalion was mostly done by George Bernard Shaw himself, in co-operation
with William Percy Lipscomb and Cecil Lewis. The main differences between this screen
adaptation and Shaw’s original play are of course the added scenes. The extra scenes between
Eliza’s arrival and her visit to Mrs. Higgins and between the visit to Mrs. Higgins and the ball
provide the audience with some of Higgins’s teaching methods and an insight into Eliza’s
education. There is also the scene of the Transylvanian embassy ball, which provides the
audience with a view of the obstacles Eliza had to face during this final test. We also see more
of Freddy in this screen adaptation than in the original play. The thing which might be
categorised as the biggest difference is the ending of the film, where there is an additional
scene added after the original ending. After when Eliza walks out of the Mrs. Higgins’s house
and leaves Higgins with his mother, which is the original ending of the play, the film
continues. In this section I will be merely focussing on the educational element in the film
Pygmalion. The other main differences will be discussed in the following section.
When looking at the educational element in this adaptation we get a far better look at
the actual teaching process which Eliza goes through. In the original play the setting of
Higgins’s laboratory is described as are some of the devices like a phonograph and a
laryngoscope, but they never make any other appearances throughout the play. Now the
audience gets to see some of these phonetic devices in action. Higgins uses singeing flames to
help Eliza with the pronunciation of her h’s. Every time Eliza pronounces the letter h
correctly the flame will waver. In this adaptation we also encounter the world famous
sentence: “The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain”, for the first time. Eliza has to repeat
certain lines, like the previously mentioned one, over and over again until she gets the
pronunciation and intonation right. Another of Higgins’s methods is to make Eliza speak
while having marbles in her mouth. The fact that Eliza swallows a marble by accident was
inspired by the incident when actress Wendy Hiller actually swallowed a marble during
rehearsals (IMDB). Even though Eliza tries very hard and is making immense progress
Higgins does not compliment her: “Bad, bad, bad. Do it again, you’re not trying, do it again.
That’s not good Eliza. [turning to Pickering] Not bad” (Pygmalion). Eventually Eliza gets her
pronunciation and grammar right and Higgins decides it is time to try her out in public and
sets up a visit to his mother. Now Eliza knows how to speak, but like Higgins tells his mother
before the guests arrive: “You see dear, I’ve got her pronunciation alright, but you got to
consider not only how the girl pronounces, but what she pronounces” (Pygmalion). Eliza
proves Higgins’s supposition to be correct when she starts telling the story about her
supposedly murdered aunt and answering Freddy’s question whether she is going to walk
across the park with: “Walk? Not bloody likely, I’m going in a taxi” (Pygmalion). After that it
is even more practising for Eliza to make sure that not only her pronunciation and grammar
are perfect but her vocabulary as well. Higgins pushes Eliza to the limit and beyond it,
making her practice how to address different people, like an archbishop or a duke, until half
past four in the morning, repeating and repeating until Eliza gets it right. In this film the
audience is shown what Higgins is like as a teacher, which is something we did not get the
chance to see in the original play. By providing the audience with a clearer view of Higgins’s
personality makes Higgins seem even less likable than in the original play. Of course teachers
often push their students, but what Higgins does might be a little over the top.
The ball scene was written by Shaw especially for this film (IMDB), and it gives the
audience a view into the obstacles that Eliza had to face during her final test. The biggest
obstacle is the Hungarian Count Aristid Karpathy, Higgins’s first pupil in phonetics. Karpathy
is “indispensible at [...] international parties”, because “[He] can place a man anywhere in
Europe” (Pygmalion), which makes him an expert at unmasking any frauds such as Eliza.
Eventually after conversing with Eliza, Karpathy announces to the ambassadress of
Transylvania that Eliza is a fraud, because according to Karpathy she is not English because
she speaks English too perfectly. Eventually Karpathy comes to the conclusion that Eliza is
Hungarian and of royal blood. So Higgins succeeded into passing Eliza off as a duchess or the
Queen of Sheba, but was it not also thanks to Eliza that it all went so splendidly? After all
Eliza is the one who had to execute the task. However Higgins still does not compliment Eliza
on her accomplishments and thanks God that it is all over now.
It can be seen that in the film Pygmalion the audience get a better insight into Eliza’s
education than in the original play. Unlike Shaw’s original play, the film gives the audience a
view of the actual teaching and how this is done. It also shows that Higgins is quite a strict
and demanding teacher and pushes Eliza to the limit. The difficulty of Eliza’s task becomes
even clearer when looking at the ball scene, where we get an insight into Eliza’s final test
with all the obstacles that it entails. All of these added scenes make it even clearer how much
of a challenge it is for Eliza to learn how to speak and behave like a lady. In the original play
it was already clear that it is not an easy task, but seeing how Higgins pushes Eliza and how
straining it is on her and how she eventually puts on a great performance, makes it even
clearer. It also causes the audience to sympathise even more with Eliza when Higgins almost
completely ignores her after returning from the ball. This also causes the audience to have
more understanding for Eliza’s decision to leave Higgins, but unlike the original play the film
does provide the audience with the desired romantic ending.
3.2 The Film Pygmalion: A Different Ending
Like already mentioned in section 2.2 Shaw did not intend for Higgins and Eliza to end up
together. However, the audience did not seem to agree with this because most people
interpreted the ending romantically, including the actors. It seems that the audience finally
gets the desired ending because in the film Pygmalion Eliza does return to Higgins after their
quarrel at his mother’s house.
In the film version of Pygmalion we get a better view of what kind of teacher Higgins
is and how much of a challenge it is for Eliza to learn how to behave and speak like a duchess.
From this information the audience sympathises with Eliza when she is almost completely
ignored by Higgins after the ball and it makes it more understandable why she leaves Higgins.
It would have made more sense for Eliza not to return to Higgins in the film because of this
increase in sympathy. Still it happens to be the other way around. Eliza does return to Higgins
in the film version of Pygmalion, indicating a potential reconciliation between Eliza and
Higgins. However, this is not acted out and much is left to the audience’s imagination.
Another thing that we see in the film which does not occur in the original play is the frequent
appearance of Freddy Eynsford-Hill who keeps trying to visit Eliza, but time and again is sent
away. These appearances of Freddy could have made it less of a shock if Eliza were to marry
him, because the audience is aware of his attraction to Eliza, but she does not marry him in
this case. The only thing which differs from the original play which may foreshadow Eliza’s
return to Higgins is the fact that in the film the part where Higgins tells his mother that he
only wants a woman who is like her is omitted. This almost completely removes the Oedipal
aspect of the relationship between Higgins and his mother. The removal of such a short
sentence can make a world of a difference for Eliza’s chances, because she now has a chance
of being good enough for Higgins. Whether Higgins is also good enough for Eliza remains
questionable, because in this film we get a better view of Higgins’s character, which makes
him even less deserving of Eliza than in the original.
After Eliza leaves Higgins at his mother’s house, Higgins also makes his way home.
When he arrives home he smashes the recordings of Eliza’s voice, but turns on the
phonograph by accident, which starts to play Eliza’s voice in her old Cockney accent. Almost
melancholically listening to the recording at first, but turning it off after a few sentences,
looking as if he can no longer bear to listen to it. Letting his face rest in his hand, until Eliza
starts to speak. Taken by surprise Higgins looks up at her, the focus shifts from Higgins’s his
face to Eliza, when Eliza stops speaking, the focus shifts back to Higgins, he directs his eyes
towards to floor and turns away from her. He sits back in his chair and starts rocking it, we
now only see the back of his hat covered head when he casually asks: “Where the devil are
my slippers Eliza?” (Pygmalion). This does not seem to indicate any form of a bright future
for Eliza and Higgins, but the fact that Higgins seem to ignore the fact that they quarrelled
only a short time ago, seems to indicate that all is forgotten. He could have started the entire
argument again, but chooses not to and refrains himself from doing so. Also after Higgins
speaks the final line of the film the image fades out and is followed by some romantic music.
And thus the film ends with the implication of a happy and maybe even a romantic future for
Higgins and Eliza.
3.3 My Fair Lady: A Romance
The 1964 screen adaptation of the popular musical My Fair Lady, which goes by the same
name, was an immense success. The film won several awards including eight Academy
Awards and three Golden Globes. This adaptation is an American production, directed by
George Cukor, who also worked on several other films that were based on novels such as
Gone with the Wind, Little Women and The Wizard of Oz. He also made many musical films
like A Star is Born. The screenplay was done by Alan Jay Lerner, who also had done many
famous films such as Royal Wedding, An American in Paris, and Gigi. My Fair Lady is a
musical film starring Rex Harrison as Henry Higgins and Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle
and is very similar to the film Pygmalion. Except for the addition of several musical numbers,
there are also some other changes in scenes. Unlike both of the predecessors there is some
actual interaction between Eliza and Freddy besides their initial meeting and their meeting
during Eliza’s visit to Mrs. Higgins. Also the scene in which Eliza visits Mrs. Higgins at
home for the first time is replaced by a scene in which Eliza goes to Ascot, where she meets
Mrs. Higgins. Still the first and foremost difference remains the addition of songs. Most of
these songs give some further insight into the characters’ personalities and thoughts which
helps the romantic ending of this film.
Higgins in My Fair Lady is still a stern and demanding teacher, who makes Eliza
practise until very early in the morning. During a late night practising session, Eliza finally
gets her pronunciation right, after which Higgins, Pickering and Eliza start dancing and
celebrating. Higgins expresses his happiness about Eliza’s progress, which is something we
have not seen before in either the play or the film Pygmalion. This makes this version of
Higgins somewhat more likeable. After the dancing scene Eliza starts to sing the famous song
“I could have danced all night” where the first signs of Eliza’s feelings towards Higgins
become clear.
I’ll never know what made it so exciting.
But all at once my heart took flight.
I only know when he, began to dance with me.
I could have danced, danced, danced, all night. (My Fair Lady)
The other thing which makes the audience see that Higgins does care for Eliza, and will miss
her is the song “I’ve grown accustomed to her face” (My Fair Lady), which is sung by
Higgins after he leaves his mother’s house. Higgins is very irritated because Eliza said she
would marry Freddy and she will not be coming back to him. While striding home, during
which we hear a very upbeat tune, Higgins eventually calms himself and starts to sing: “I’ve
grown accustomed to her face. She almost makes the day begin” (My Fair Lady), etc. This
entire song is in fact an internal discussion Higgins is having with himself. Even though
Higgins does not want to admit it, he really likes Eliza and is used to having her around. “But
I'm so used to hear her say ‘good morning’ ev'ry day” (My Fair Lady). However he also states
that “I [Higgins] shall never take her back!” (My Fair Lady). Against his will Higgins in fact
has gotten used to having Eliza around and will miss her. When returning home Higgins takes
a little stroll through his own house, going through the room Eliza used to practice her
vowels, which is now dark and unoccupied. When he arrives in his living room, he turns on
his phonograph with a record of Eliza while she still spoke like a common flower girl. While
Higgins melancholically listens to the recording of Eliza’s voice, Eliza herself walks in, turns
of the phonograph and speaks the next line of the recording herself. Higgins is almost
grinning when he hears that familiar voice. He whispers to himself “Eliza” (My Fair Lady),
composing himself, slipping his hat over his face and finally asking “where the devil are my
slippers?” (My Fair Lady). We then get a shot were both Higgins and Eliza can be seen,
Higgins still sitting in his chair his face covered by his hat, and Eliza slowly making her way
towards Higgins, during this the music of “I could have danced all night” starts playing in a
triumphant sort of way, and the image fades out.
Since “I could have danced all night” was the song which stands for Eliza’s feelings
for Higgins it can be concluded that it is quite a romantic song. By giving the audience a shot
of both Eliza and Higgins, while playing this romantic tune, indicates that there is a possibility
of a romantic future for Higgins and Eliza, or at least a beautiful friendship. It might not be so
surprising that this adaptation of Pygmalion has quite the romantic ending, because of the fact
that it is a musical and a Hollywood production. From the early thirties up until well into the
sixties, musical films were very popular. Most musical films had romantic storylines and
ended in the well known Hollywood kiss. In My Fair Lady we do not get this famous kiss, but
we do get a romantic ending, the ending that Shaw despised, but pleased the audience.
Chapter 4: The Film Educating Rita
4.1 Fighting for an Education
Almost twenty years after My Fair Lady a new play based on Shaw’s Pygmalion appeared on
the London stage. Educating Rita is a play written, and based on a novel, by Willy Russell.
The play opened in 1980 and three years later a film version of Educating Rita was made. The
screenplay was done by the writer of the original play, Willy Russell, and the film was
directed by Lewis Gilbert, who among others also directed Moonraker and You only live
twice. The leading female character in this story is Susan White, who initially calls herself
Rita, played by Julie Walters, who was also the leading lady in the original play. Rita is a
twenty six year old, simple English hairdresser, who has grown tired of the working class and
the future that comes with it. Rita therefore enrols at the Open University to pursue an
academic career in the field of literature. Her tutor at the Open University is Dr. Frank Bryant,
played by Michael Caine, a professor of English literature who seems to have lost his passion
for literature some time ago and has taken to the bottle. Frank’s wife left him years ago
hoping to give him something new to write poetry about. His current girlfriend Julia is having
an affair with both her and Frank’s colleague Brian and only stays with Frank because she
thinks that she can fix him. Frank initially refuses to teach Rita, because he believes he is an
appalling teacher, which is good enough for his appalling students, but not good enough for
Rita. Rita, however, decides that she does not want a different tutor, she only wants Frank,
and so Rita’s academic journey begins. To prevent any confusion, I will use the name Rita
and not Susan when referring to Miss White.
Like Shaw’s Pygmalion, Educating Rita also contains some feminist aspects. The first
feminist wave during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was mostly concerned
with women’s suffrage, but from the 1960’s to well into the 1980’s there was, what we now
know as, the second feminist wave. On the sixth of March 1971 the very first National
Women’s Liberation Conference was organised. The protesters demanded: “Equal pay for
equal work, equal education and job opportunities, free contraception and abortion on
demand, free 24 hour nurseries under community control” (Hughes). Also it was only in 1983,
the same year as Educating Rita was released, that the Corpus Christi College of Cambridge
admitted women for the first time (“Women’s History”). Women like men should have the
opportunity to have an education and a career with or without a family. The influence of this
second feminist wave can clearly be seen in Educating Rita. Rita is married to Denny, who a
simple man, who wants his wife to live a simple life as well. The only thing Rita has to do is
join him at the pub and have babies. Rita however does not want to have a baby until she
discovers herself, which she intends to do by means of an education. Because of this, Rita
takes the pill and goes to the Open University. Unfortunately for Rita, her husband does not
seem to understand her need to discover herself and especially not through an education, so
Denny provides Rita with an ultimatum: either you (Rita) quit going to University or this
relationship is over. So Rita leaves Denny, because she cannot give up on her education, not
now she finally feels that she is discovering herself and finding “a better song to sing”
(Educating Rita). So like other women of the eighties, Rita also fights for am equal education
and the right to use contraception. This might even have encouraged other young women to
pursue their dreams of getting an education.
A major difference between Educating Rita and the other adaptations, let alone the
original play by Shaw, is that this is the first time that the Pygmalion figure refuses to create,
because he already thinks that the Galatea figure is perfect the way she is. Frank initially
refuses to teach Rita, because he does not want to spoil her enthusiasm and interest for
literature by teaching her cold hard facts. Frank does not want to see Rita end up like himself.
Frank knows what it is like when everyone around you tries to make something out of you,
like his wife wanted to make him a better poet and Julia also tries to ‘fix’ him, but he seems to
be fine with not writing anymore. However, Rita does want to made into someone else, and
does not agree with Frank, she believes it is easy for him to say that she should not want to
study literature, because he already has everything, or so she thinks. So Frank ends up
teaching Rita, whether he likes it or not. When Rita comes to Frank’s house one day, when he
did not turn up for their tutorial, they clash. Frank had given her some of his own written
poetry to analyse and Rita believes it is brilliant. Frank however seems to think that his work
is absolutely worthless and that Rita would have thought so too if she had read it before her
time at the University. Rita says that this is because she could not understand before, but that
she now knows everything there is to know about literature and poetry and everything else
that matters such as which wine to buy and which clothes to wear. Frank believes that he has
created a monster, which he expresses by calling himself Mary Shelley. “You know, Rita, like
you, I'm going to change my name. From now on I am going to insist on being called Mary.
Mary Shelley” (Educating Rita). Mary Shelley as the author of Frankenstein literally created
a monster. By comparing himself to Mary Shelley, Frank expresses that he feels as if he has
turned Rita into a monster. A monster who thinks that literature and poetry are the most
important things in the world and loses sight of what is really important. Rita finds out the
hard way that high culture is not everything. After her separation from Denny, and when
returning from summer school Rita moves in with Trish. Trish is a very cultured sort of
person, who lives a very highbrow lifestyle, and whom Rita believes is very cool. Coming
home one day Rita finds Trish unconscious after an attempt to kill herself. After calling an
ambulance and saving Trish, Rita sits by her bedside in the hospital and asks Trish why she
wanted to kill herself.
Trish: You think I've got everything, don't you?
Rita: Trish, you have.
Trish: Oh, yes. When I listen to poetry and music... then I can
live. You see, darling, the rest of the time, it's just me.
That's not enough. (Educating Rita)
Rita realises that being a literature or music expert does not guarantee happiness, and that
there are other things in life to live for. After her exams Rita seeks out Frank to thank him, but
Frank seems to believe that there is nothing that she should thank him for.
Rita: You think you did nothing for me, you think I just ended up with a load of quotes
and empty phrases. Well, all right, I did, but that wasn't your doing. I was too hungry
for it all. I didn't question anything. I wanted it all too much so I wouldn't let it be
questioned. (Educating Rita)
Through her education Rita learns to be critical of the world around her and not just taking
things for granted. By questioning, she finally realises that education and high culture might
not be everything in life. In the end Rita does find herself through her education by
questioning. Even though Rita does not know what she will be doing after graduation, she
does know that she has the choice and the brains to do whatever she wants to do.
Another difference between this film and the other adaptations is the fact that in
Pygmalion and My Fair Lady Eliza’s education is mostly focussed on her speech, while in
Educating Rita, Rita and others do not seem to bother with the way people speak. In
Educating Rita, speech is not what differentiates class from class, but education is. However,
there is a scene in which Rita walks into Frank’s office trying to speak really sophisticated
saying that: “[...] there's not a lot of point in discussing beautiful literature with an ugly voice”
(Educating Rita). This turns out to be a joke, but can also be seen as a reference to Pygmalion
and My Fair Lady. Michael Caine himself also always stayed close to his native Cockney
accent rather than learning how to speak more posh. In an interview with Charles McGrath, a
New York Times writer, Caine said:
I was always very aware of the class, in you know, system in England, and so when I
became a success I sort of shoved it [the fact that Caine became a success despite his
accent] down their throats. It was to encourage other people from working class
backgrounds to say that they could do it [...] You never thought of being an actor,
because first of all you didn’t talk properly, everybody said that to me. [...] I kept the
accent in the hope that it would sort of break down the class barrier and say to young
people like myself, uhm, you can do it. [...] Anything, you can do it, it doesn’t matter
how you speak. (McGrath)
In a way this is exactly what Educating Rita is about. A working class girl, who speaks with
an accent, who aspires to discover herself through studying English literature and succeeds.
The film also seems to represent a more perfect reality by creating a world where the way a
person speaks is not important, but his or her skills are. When looking back at Pygmalion and
My Fair Lady this is also some sort of progress. Class is no longer a matter of birth, finances
and the way one speaks, but a matter of education and skills. People like Rita can now climb
the social class ladder and work their way up to the top, something that was unheard of in
Shaw’s day and age.
4.2 An Ending Worthy of Shaw
Throughout the film there are indications that Frank has romantic feelings for Rita. Rita
however does not seem to sense this. Unlike My Fair Lady, Educating Rita is an English
production, which might explain why Educating Rita does not have a clichéd romantic
ending. The audience might expect Rita to go to Australia with Frank, just like in the play
Pygmalion the audience expected Eliza to return to Higgins, but like Shaw, Willy Russell
creates an ending where the hero and the heroine ride off into the sunset together.
From the beginning Rita tells Frank everything about her personal life and asks him
personal questions, too. Frank invites Rita to his home, picks her up at the train station when
she returns from summer school, etcetera. After summer school Rita has changed and keeps
on changing, which Frank does not seem to like. Jealousy kicks in when Frank hears Rita
talking about one of the students named Tyson, but is called Tiger. It appears that Tiger has
invited Rita to come to the south of France with him and the rest of the group during the
summer. This is the point where Frank’s jealousy starts to show.
Frank: Is there any point in working towards an examination if you're gonna fall in
love and set off to the south of France?
Rita: Fall in love? With who? My God, Frank, I'm just talking to some students
down on the lawn. Jesus, I've heard of matchmaking but this is ridiculous.
Frank: Well, stop burbling on about Mr Tyson. (Educating Rita)
Further on in the film Rita does not turn up for one of her tutorials and so Frank starts
searching for her. He starts by calling the hairdresser’s shop where he thinks she still works,
only to discover that she has not worked there for some time. He finds her at her new work
and seems to be hurt that Rita did not tell him about her new job. Frank: “Well, it struck me
that there was a time when you used to tell me everything” (Educating Rita). Rita does not
seem to think much of it, but to Frank it means a lot. He asks whether she could come to him
that evening for their tutorial but Rita cannot because she and Trish are going to the theatre.
Frank: “You really can't bear to spend a moment with me now, can you?” (Educating Rita).
This show of feelings by Frank continues throughout the film, until the very end.
After one of Frank’s drunken episodes, which results in him falling asleep on the
lawn on the school grounds, the University board decides to send him to Australia for a year
or two. Frank invites Rita to join him to Australia. Rita declines because she has not yet
decided what to do with the rest of her life. Frank gives her a dress which he bought for her,
and Rita says: “All I've ever done is take from you. I've never given you anything. There is
something I can really give you” (Educating Rita). She orders Frank to sit down and takes her
jacket off, Frank watches her not knowing what to anticipates, until Rita says: “I’m gonna
take ten years of you” (Educating Rita), and starts cutting his hair. In this small scene there is
some sort of sexual tension when Rita orders Frank to sit down etcetera, but this tension is cut
short when Rita starts cutting Frank’s hair. In a way Rita is also teaching Frank something
here. Like Frank is a literature expert and Rita is an expert at hairdressing, and both of these
have value.
In a way it can be said that the ending of Educating Rita is quite similar to the
original ending of the play Pygmalion. The Galatea figure, in this case Rita, does not go to
Australia with Frank even though there are indications that he loves her. Rita has the chance
to do with her life as she pleases, and does not give that opportunity up by tying herself to
Frank. However, the difference between this ending and the ending of the play Pygmalion is
that Eliza and Higgins do not part well, while Rita and Frank part as friends, both thankful for
the things taught by the other.
Conclusion
In my Introduction I announced that in this thesis I would discuss how the Pygmalion theme
is used in several works and how it is used to express certain themes. Starting at the beginning
with Ovid’s Pygmalion myth it can be concluded that Ovid does not seem to think that it is
morally wrong of Pygmalion to create Galatea. Also Galatea’s greatest transformation is her
transformation from ivory to flesh and blood. Both of these aspects are quite different when
looking at Shaw’s play Pygmalion, because Shaw does have some commentary on the creator,
Higgins. This commentary becomes clear when looking at the ending of Pygmalion when
Eliza does not return to Higgins. Because of this ending, Shaw can be viewed as a
revolutionary writer, who was far ahead of his time because he did not create the clichéd
romantic ending the audience and actors craved for, but a feminist sort of ending where Eliza
gets more independence. Eliza’s overall transformation was mostly based on her speech and
not her appearance which is also quite different from Ovid. The film version of Pygmalion
and My Fair Lady do have a romantic ending where Eliza does return to Higgins with the
possibility of a romantic future. Which in the case of My Fair Lady seems more logical
because of the fact that it is an American production and a musical, which both often linked to
a romantic ending.
Like the play Pygmalion, Educating Rita also contains some feminist elements, such as
education for women and the right of abortion and the usage of birth control pills. The way
one speaks is no longer what divides class from class like it did in Pygmalion and My Fair
Lady, but high culture and education are now the new fashion. Even though Educating Rita
was written eighty one years after Shaw’s original play, they both have a feminist streak and
both lack the romantic ending. In both cases the hero and heroine do not live happily ever
after, or at least not together.
Overall there are certain themes that clearly develop throughout all the discussed
works. Shaw described his play as a purely didactic play about phonetics, but the play
contains very little actual phonetics, in the later adaptations (the film Pygmalion and My Fair
Lady) the whole teaching process of Eliza and therefore phonetics becomes more prominently
present. Social class, was very speech related in Pygmalion (both the play and screen
adaptation) and in My Fair Lady, while in Education Rita is it no longer necessary to speak
perfect English. The feminism which quite prominent in the play Pygmalion and in Educating
Rita is almost completely absent in the film Pygmalion and My Fair Lady. This can be seen
when comparing the endings of both the feminist and non-feminist works, because the works
that contain feminism do not have romantic endings, while the non-feminist works do have
romantic endings. In both the play and film Pygmalion and in My Fair Lady the Pygmalion
figure, Higgins, wants to teach Eliza because he believes that she will gain something from
his education. In Educating Rita however, Frank does not want to teach Rita because he
believes that by teaching her, Rita might not be better off.
The Pygmalion theme like it was in Ovid’s The Metamorphoses has come a long way.
Popular plays and film, even now, are created based on this well-known popular theme. They
might not always be as simple as Ovid’s Pygmalion myth or as complex as Shaw’s original
play, but they are always entertaining, often also educational and all timeless and lovely.
Works Cited List
Adams, Elsie. “Feminism and Female Stereotypes in Shaw.” The Shaw Review 17.1 (1974):
17-22. Web. 4 June 2013.
Caine, Michael. Interview by Charles McGrath. Times Talks. Video Interview. Youtube. 10
July 2010. Web.
Connoly-Smith, Peter. “Shades of Local Color: Pygmalion and its Translation and Reception
in Central Europe, 1913-1914.” Shaw 29.1 (2010): 127-144. Web. 15 May 2013.
Crane, Milton. “Pygmalion: Bernard Shaw's Dramatic Theory and Practice.” PMLA 66.6
(1951): 879-885. Web. 15 May 2013.
Dunkling, Leslie, William Gosling, Alfred J. Kolatch, E.G. Withycombe.
Thinkbabynames.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013.
Educating Rita. Dir. Lewis Gilbert. Acorn Pictures, 1983. Film.
Holroyd, Michael. “George Bernard Shaw: Women and the Body Politic.” Critical Inquiry
6.1 (1979): 17-32. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Web. 15 May 2013
Hughes, Christina. “The First Women’s Liberation March 1971.” The University of Warwick.
N.p. n.d. Web. 17 June 2013.
Köseman, Zennure. “The Reappraisal of ‘Nature Versus Nurture’ Debate in George Bernard
Shaw’s Pygmalion and Willy Russell’s Educating Rita.” The Journal of International
Social Research 4.16 (2011): 248-254. Web. 4 June 2013.
Latin Dictionary. Web. http://www.latin-dictionary.org/JM-Latin-EnglishDictionary/eburneus
Lihua, Chen. “A Feminist Perspective to Pygmalion.” Canadian Social Science 2.2 (2006):
41-44. Web. 11 June 2013.
My Fair Lady. Dir. George Cukor. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1964. Film.
Ovid. The Metamorphoses. Trans. Henry T. Riley. London: George Bell & Sons, 1893.
Project Gutenberg. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
Pygmalion. Dir. Anthony Asquith, Leslie Howard. Pascal Film Productions, 1938. Film.
Shaw, George Bernard. Pygmalion. 1916. New York: Dover Publications Inc. 1994. Print.
Solomon, Stanley J. “The Ending of Pygmalion: A Structural View.” Educational Theatre
Journal 16.1 (1964): 59-63. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Web. 15
May 2013.
The Internet Movie Database. IMDB.com Inc., Amazon.com, 1990-2013. Web.
Weintraub, Rodelle. “Bernard Shaw’s Henry Higgins: A Classic Aspergen.” English
Literature in Transition, 1880-1920 49.4 (2006): 388-397. Web. 27 May 2013.
Wilde, Oscar. An Ideal Husband. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1912. Project Gutenberg.
Web. 16 Apr. 2013.
“Women’s History Timeline.” BBC Radio 4. Web.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/timeline/1980.shtml