The first time that I read Pygmalion, I was one of those people that Jackie mentions at the beginning of her blog. With my introduction to Shaw’s work being My Fair Lady, I was unable to accept any other conclusion than a romantic one. As I prepared to re-read Pygmalion, my feelings were much the same. When I finished, however, I was pleasantly surprised. Not only did I not hate the ending of the play but I rather enjoyed it. I thought it was the perfect ending for Pygmalion. More importantly, I didn’t see it at all as an unhappy ending. Although Jackie does perfectly illustrate why a happy ending isn’t possible if it’s a romantic ending, I wanted to take a look at the ending from a slightly different approach: from the relationships not as we wish them to be (or know they can never be) but rather exactly as they are.
In the “sequel,” Eliza and Freddy marry; the two of them open a shop together; and Eliza frequently visits Higgins and Pickering. Now tell me, what’s so bad about that? No where does it say that Freddy stayed at home all day, ate bonbons, grew corpulent to the point that he couldn’t leave the house, and forced Eliza to work until she was exhausted so that he could stay living in the manner to which he was accustomed. It of course doesn’t. Was he a little bit special when it came to living in the real world? Sure, but he loved Eliza and worked hard and, really . . . who doesn’t have their flaws?
Where once this ending didn’t seem happy because Higgins did not sweep Eliza off her feet, now the ending seems happy because Eliza has a man to adore her (Freddy), a man to treat her as a lady (Pickering), and a man to debate and argue with (Higgins). And if perhaps it would be more ideal if these different facets were found in one man, the fact that Eliza has people in her life who can fulfill all her needs leads me to just one thought . . . should all girls/guys be so lucky.
Shaw is not then limiting the life of Eliza by not allowing her and Higgins to get together but rather he is promising her the best life possible. This is, I believe, the conclusion that both Higgins and Eliza come to at the end of the play and it is a conclusion that is, in many ways, unprecedented for realist theater. Whereas Ibsen’s final door-closing in “A Doll’s House” promises much sadness and bitterness, Eliza’s storming out promises a rare chance to have her cake and eat it too, to have sweet love, respectful love, and hard love.
My script version doesn’t end with Higgins laughing about Eliza marrying Freddy but instead with Higgins comfortable in the knowledge that Eliza will run his errands. Regardless of the one used, however, I feel that the final scenes can not be delivered in malice on Higgins’ part (something Conrad doesn’t believe is ever possible) or true disgust on the part of Eliza. Rather, the actors should convey the feeling that their characters are happily playing parts, Higgins’ being that of the insufferable and Eliza that of the overburdened. Thus, perhaps, Higgins could hand Eliza her coat as he mocks her; Eliza could stick out her tongue and then smile as she swoops off the stage. There should be that sense that if the scene were to last just a few more minutes, Higgins would say “same time tomorrow?” followed by Eliza’s reply that she’d be by after her and Freddy’s wedding to check up on him and Pickering. If well-done, I believe that the actors can make even the most romantically-inclined audience member feel that the kiss-free ending of Pygmalion is not only a realistic one but happy as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, Katie, excellent points all around. This is what I meant in my comment on the previous post that there could be a way of seeing the ending as happy despite the fact that it doesn't end in Higgins and Eliza coupling up. You mention A Doll House, which is the classic example of the realistic ending, but one that forebodes a grim future. Examined in that respect, this doesn't seem so bad.
I also appreciate that you note very specifically how you might change the script slightly to interpret it differently: you recognize the extremely important element of achieving a certain comment on the script through artistic choices.
I have another question, though. Is Eliza's transformation unquestionably "happy"? I know that Shaw believed in a sort of universal understanding of language, but doesn't she lose something important by entering into their world at the end? This is why I think Alfred Doolittle is so important ... he offers another perspective. I wonder if Higgins would even accept her as a friend if she didn't dress and speak the way he wanted her to. What if the situation was reversed? What if he somehow lost all his money and had to hang out among a class he considered "beneath" him? Would we still consider it a positive ending if he started being satisfied with wearing less fancy clothes and learning to communicate in a cockney dialect? Would that ever even happen in a play?
Post a Comment