Why write a play if you write stage directions like that and add the conclusion where the actors could potentially pantomime it but where both instances would fit best in a novel?
What do you think of Mrs. Pierce? When I watched My Fair Lady as a young person, I wanted to know why Mrs. Pierce wasn't as kind to Eliza as I would have expected. My mom explained that it was because Eliza was trying to raise her station and that's not ok in Victorian England. Do you see Mrs. Pierce that way?
Why do you think the play doesn't include the Eliza's grand performance?
Does Pygmalion have some theme similarities with Taming of the Shrew? The ending is different, but the banter is similar. The way Mr. Doolittle is treated echos the beginning scene in Taming (the drunk given the royal treatment and so he acts the part).
Does Higgins remind you of Sheldon from the TV show Big Bang Theory? Sheldon was my first association when I learned a little bit about doctor's social skills. Does he remind you of any other fictional characters?
I didn't know the ending was different than MFL going in so Liza and Higgins not ending up together made me curious about the title. If Higgins isn't Pygmalion, then why is that the title? I started to wonder whether Shaw himself is Pygmalion and subconsciously decided Higgins wasn't good enough for his creation of the class-transcendent lady? Or is it the opposite and despite Shaw's politics and the intended message, in the end Higgins was still too high for Liza even afterward?
Man and Superman is the only other of his plays I've read and I think I liked this one better even with the ending. It's just so alive.
The play feels almost like a fairytale to me but Shaw shifts (rather abruptly to me) in the postscript to a very un-fairytale-like, realistic ending. Is he playing with or commenting on the form? I can understand why the film changed the ending because it gives the audience the satisfaction of the fairytale ending that they expect.
Do you prefer this as a play or a musical? I’ve seen a live production of Pygmalion and it was sort of like a boring version of My Fair Lady. (Sorry, Shaw) (Except… during the ballroom scene, the actors broke the fourth wall by handing out glasses of ‘champagne’ to the audience in the front row. It was completely quiet while they did it and we were like, ‘What are they doing? This is a bit weird.’)
Maybe since I saw My Fair Lady first and it’s a family favorite, the songs and the energy ruined me for straight up dialogue.
Does anyone get an echo of Frankenstein in Pygmalion? The creator/creature and the attempt to create something that turns out to be different from the initial idea? In this case, the growth of Eliza where she uses her "created abilities" against Higgins in the last act?
Did you observe any internal character growth in the play? Eliza undergoes a dramatic external transformation from the experiment, but seems to be essentially unchanged inwardly. Same for her father. While Higgins seems completely unaltered in any way. Thoughts? Do you think lack of growth poses a lack of depth? Or is that what makes the play interesting?
1) A more light-hearted question-who would you dreamcast in a current production of this play?
2) What are we to make of Higgins’ love for Milton?
3) In the play, we don’t see any married couples, or really any sort of couples, presented on stage. The marriages that are discussed in the play/postscript don’t appear to be especially happy. The closest and strongest relationship between members of the opposite sex appears to be friendship. Why do you think this is? What is Shaw trying to say (if anything) about marriage vs friendship?
What is Shaw saying about class, about language, and the connections between these two? And what does knowledge have to do with class and language? I loved your Pygmalion podcast insights: Act 2 in which Eliza is unable to represent her perspective and thus is discounted as having an invalid perspective is so different from Act 5 in which Eliza is able to give words to her complex feelings and thoughts. Does Eliza language alone free Eliza? Or is there an aspect of knowledge as well, gleaned from Pickering, Mrs. Pearce, and Mrs. Higgins? And perhaps even love?
On the theme of love, I was struck by Higgins dialogue with Eliza in Act 5 as mainly lacking love. Higgins is maddeningly able to clear his name of misconduct by asking Eliza whether or not he actively wronged Eliza. Eliza of course replies that he didn’t do an active wrong. But one thing he lacked—love. The question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” keeps coming to mind. Pickering excelled in “owing man no thing,” but he failed in the exception (which is everything): love. And that made me so happy that Eliza chooses not to try to marry Higgins! How awful to be in a tit-for-tat relationship that isn’t covered by selfless love for the other!
Heidi: The Colonel, the Professor, or Freddy—who’s your pick?
Was HG Wells roasted in the postscript, and if so, why?😂 It felt so random to bring him up as someone Clara would admire, I've gotta be missing something here.
This may be a time period thing, but if she speaks like a lady and has the basic manners of a lady, isn’t that like putting pearls on a pig?
She doesn’t have any of the knowledge of a lady. Unless the ladies of the day weren’t taught the basics of education?
How could she carry on a convincing conversation at a long dinner without the corresponding knowledge and experience of a lady? Dinners were long,languid affairs back then.
Of course I’m using Alcott and Wharton’s books for comparison.
It is quite a delightful play/movie, but this has me bogged down. Of course, Higgins was a tad deficient in the manners dept himself.
What do you make of the long "post-script" at the end of Act V? Would this be read by someone at a performance? Or included in the program notes? Does this passage change our perception of Higgins? It seems odd to end a play like that! I read a free version on Hoopla, so I don't actually know if it's even included in most editions...
I am curious this time around reading, why Shaw chose the ending he did? Eliza marries Freddy but doesn’t even seem to respect him or have the same affection she has for the Colonel or the Professor. She marries someone essentially useless. Is Shaw pointing to the idea that she made a mistake or that it all worked out even though she chose what she did?
Why write a play if you write stage directions like that and add the conclusion where the actors could potentially pantomime it but where both instances would fit best in a novel?
What do you think of Mrs. Pierce? When I watched My Fair Lady as a young person, I wanted to know why Mrs. Pierce wasn't as kind to Eliza as I would have expected. My mom explained that it was because Eliza was trying to raise her station and that's not ok in Victorian England. Do you see Mrs. Pierce that way?
Why do you think the play doesn't include the Eliza's grand performance?
Does Pygmalion have some theme similarities with Taming of the Shrew? The ending is different, but the banter is similar. The way Mr. Doolittle is treated echos the beginning scene in Taming (the drunk given the royal treatment and so he acts the part).
I found the differences of men and women displayed in Pygmalion fascinating.
I understand that the play focuses on social class, but do you guys think that it’s more about gender differences? Why or why not?
Does Higgins remind you of Sheldon from the TV show Big Bang Theory? Sheldon was my first association when I learned a little bit about doctor's social skills. Does he remind you of any other fictional characters?
I didn't know the ending was different than MFL going in so Liza and Higgins not ending up together made me curious about the title. If Higgins isn't Pygmalion, then why is that the title? I started to wonder whether Shaw himself is Pygmalion and subconsciously decided Higgins wasn't good enough for his creation of the class-transcendent lady? Or is it the opposite and despite Shaw's politics and the intended message, in the end Higgins was still too high for Liza even afterward?
Man and Superman is the only other of his plays I've read and I think I liked this one better even with the ending. It's just so alive.
The play feels almost like a fairytale to me but Shaw shifts (rather abruptly to me) in the postscript to a very un-fairytale-like, realistic ending. Is he playing with or commenting on the form? I can understand why the film changed the ending because it gives the audience the satisfaction of the fairytale ending that they expect.
Do you prefer this as a play or a musical? I’ve seen a live production of Pygmalion and it was sort of like a boring version of My Fair Lady. (Sorry, Shaw) (Except… during the ballroom scene, the actors broke the fourth wall by handing out glasses of ‘champagne’ to the audience in the front row. It was completely quiet while they did it and we were like, ‘What are they doing? This is a bit weird.’)
Maybe since I saw My Fair Lady first and it’s a family favorite, the songs and the energy ruined me for straight up dialogue.
Does anyone get an echo of Frankenstein in Pygmalion? The creator/creature and the attempt to create something that turns out to be different from the initial idea? In this case, the growth of Eliza where she uses her "created abilities" against Higgins in the last act?
Did you observe any internal character growth in the play? Eliza undergoes a dramatic external transformation from the experiment, but seems to be essentially unchanged inwardly. Same for her father. While Higgins seems completely unaltered in any way. Thoughts? Do you think lack of growth poses a lack of depth? Or is that what makes the play interesting?
1) A more light-hearted question-who would you dreamcast in a current production of this play?
2) What are we to make of Higgins’ love for Milton?
3) In the play, we don’t see any married couples, or really any sort of couples, presented on stage. The marriages that are discussed in the play/postscript don’t appear to be especially happy. The closest and strongest relationship between members of the opposite sex appears to be friendship. Why do you think this is? What is Shaw trying to say (if anything) about marriage vs friendship?
What is Shaw saying about class, about language, and the connections between these two? And what does knowledge have to do with class and language? I loved your Pygmalion podcast insights: Act 2 in which Eliza is unable to represent her perspective and thus is discounted as having an invalid perspective is so different from Act 5 in which Eliza is able to give words to her complex feelings and thoughts. Does Eliza language alone free Eliza? Or is there an aspect of knowledge as well, gleaned from Pickering, Mrs. Pearce, and Mrs. Higgins? And perhaps even love?
On the theme of love, I was struck by Higgins dialogue with Eliza in Act 5 as mainly lacking love. Higgins is maddeningly able to clear his name of misconduct by asking Eliza whether or not he actively wronged Eliza. Eliza of course replies that he didn’t do an active wrong. But one thing he lacked—love. The question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” keeps coming to mind. Pickering excelled in “owing man no thing,” but he failed in the exception (which is everything): love. And that made me so happy that Eliza chooses not to try to marry Higgins! How awful to be in a tit-for-tat relationship that isn’t covered by selfless love for the other!
Heidi: The Colonel, the Professor, or Freddy—who’s your pick?
Was HG Wells roasted in the postscript, and if so, why?😂 It felt so random to bring him up as someone Clara would admire, I've gotta be missing something here.
P. S. Have y’all considered doing an Ibsen play? Sans stage directions? Just wondering.
This may be a time period thing, but if she speaks like a lady and has the basic manners of a lady, isn’t that like putting pearls on a pig?
She doesn’t have any of the knowledge of a lady. Unless the ladies of the day weren’t taught the basics of education?
How could she carry on a convincing conversation at a long dinner without the corresponding knowledge and experience of a lady? Dinners were long,languid affairs back then.
Of course I’m using Alcott and Wharton’s books for comparison.
It is quite a delightful play/movie, but this has me bogged down. Of course, Higgins was a tad deficient in the manners dept himself.
Help!
What do you make of the long "post-script" at the end of Act V? Would this be read by someone at a performance? Or included in the program notes? Does this passage change our perception of Higgins? It seems odd to end a play like that! I read a free version on Hoopla, so I don't actually know if it's even included in most editions...
Are you finding this work didactic? If so, how? What do you make of Shaw's defense of what he regards the didactic this work?
I am curious this time around reading, why Shaw chose the ending he did? Eliza marries Freddy but doesn’t even seem to respect him or have the same affection she has for the Colonel or the Professor. She marries someone essentially useless. Is Shaw pointing to the idea that she made a mistake or that it all worked out even though she chose what she did?