We really saw some wonderful presentations on "My Fair Lady" today. I would like to focus particularly on the remake which involved Eliza becoming a New York stripper. What I loved about the concept is that it creatively put the terms of the play in a setting that many Americans understand (or think they understand). However, I am really wrestling with the idea of Eliza Doolittle as a stripper or even a sex worker. I think this concept is riddled with pitfalls and may only serve to make Liza's character little more than a prostitute archetype. That being said I wonder if in the original version of "Pygmalion" and later "My Fair Lady" there is a concept of Eliza selling herself and selling out in order to elevate her status.
In Act II of "Pygmalion" and Act I Scene 3 of "My Fair Lady" Eliza tolerates an onslaught of insults and name calling from Higgins. For example Higgins says in both plays,"Pickering, shall we ask this baggage to sit down, or shall we throw her out the window." Thankfully Eliza retorts "I won't be called baggage when I offer to pay like any lady!" Eliza definitely stands up to Higgins when his insults become unbearable, but she decides to subject herself to his abrasive nature. She endures much of the unprovoked antics of Higgins because in the end she has an agenda of using his knowledge to help herself. However in her effort to improve herself is Eliza compromising too much of herself and thus becoming a prostitue archetype?
Honestly I would say at most Eliza Doolittle is a mini prostitute archetype. The screenwriters of "Pretty Woman" decided to distort the "Eliza Doolittle " figure into a mega prostitute archetype. She literally is a street walker. Besides occupational differences the main distinction between "Pygmalion" and "Pretty Woman is within the context of the relationships between the male and female characters. In "Pretty Woman" ,especially at the end, Julia Robert's character agrees to be rescued by Richard Gere's character. There is a feeling that the this character's only option was to be a street walker or the wife (or girlfriend) of her john. The dynamics of the male female relationships reduces the film to a "patriarchal mode of fantasizing woman'...." (Bernheimer, 220). "Pygmalion" and "My Fair Lady" don't have the dynamic of Higgins rescuing a whore but rather of Higgins demanding that his creation stay in her place. What makes Shaw's work more interesting is that there is the hint that Eliza having gotten what she needed from Higgins is now capable to go out on her own and create her own life.
There are different examples in the "Pygmalion" where it appears that Eliza puts up with too much from Higgins. However, what keeps Eliza from being pigeon holed to a prostitute archetype is that in the end she does have a sense of who she is and how to make it work for her. She even proposes to Higgins that she may use his trade secrets to gain employment with his rival. Basically there are several moments in Pygmalion where Eliza appears to have levels of self actualization. If we remake Eliza into a stripper or any other over sexualized character it minimizes the nuances of her development in the play.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wanted to respond to the idea that Higgins wanted Eliza to “stay in her place,” and also the question of whether or not Eliza was “selling out in order to elevate her status.”
At the end of “My Fair Lady,” all that you know is that Eliza came back to Higgins’ house. You don’t necessarily know what her intentions there are. She might not have wanted a romantic relationship or to become his submissive puppet. She even admitted that she wanted more respect. It has been mentioned in class that Higgins might even be gay. Who knows…? It depends on your interpretation. I do believe that she thought things through before she came back.
Taking a darker perspective of Eliza, she might have just wanted security. This is a reasonable desire for someone that has had a life as crappy as hers. Evidence of this comes from the song “Wouldn’t It Be Loverly,” where we learned that all she wanted was to be warm, fed, and have someone take care of her. When she was first taking lessons from Higgins, she said that her future goal was to continue in the flower business. As the lessons reached their end, she added to the plans by deciding to marry Freddy. Since I don’t remember evidence of Eliza showing Freddy any love as he did to her, this leads me to believe that she didn’t really love him. She might have panicked and wanted to be with Freddy because he could help take care of her. When Higgins commented on the weaknesses of Freddy, this might have changed her plans. After Eliza got cooled off from the fight that she had with Higgins, she realized that she needed Higgins’ support still, and came back to mend their relationship. This is just one interpretation. Yet if this was the case—that she just wanted security—one might argue that she was selling herself out. It’s just a little bit more kosher than prostitution.
I love the idea of archetype in these scripts. It's been rolling over and over in my head--"I know I've read this story a million times in different formats, why can't I think of others?" I have decided to define the story under two archetypal stories (more or less universal stories): A person of higher status attempting to elevate a person of lower status; and a man changing a woman to fit the "ideal" state of being. Before there was "My Fair Lady", there was "Pygmalion" by Shaw, before this there was the Pygmalion story in Ovid's Metamorphoses, in which Pygmalion sculpts a statue and falls in love with it. And now we have a fun, teeny bop movie, "She's All That". And apparently, as I have discovered, there are more movies that fit into this theory: "Funny Face", "Educating Rita", "Strictly Ballroom", and more. This is familiar story that will most likely be done again. As Rachal M. Bruzzone says, it is "the relationship between artist and the art," and this is what we find so fascinating and that is why the story can and will be done again and again. Can the artist ever see his art as a person? Does the art want to be seen as a person or is she happy on the pedestal created? Can the relationship be anything more than artistry? I think it cannot, as Higgins states in "Pygmalion": "I'm not going to have my masterpiece thrown away on Freddy" (Act V, line 240). I do think this is an archetypal story and I think the characters are archetypes as well, easy to love or hate, depending upon interpretation. That might sound like a cop-out, but maybe I'll change my mind when I see the next version of it.
http://www.pygmalion.ws/stories/ovid2.ht
http://www.camws.org/meeting/2009/program/abstracts/05E4.Bruzzone.pdf
Excellent discussion, here!
Triza's point about Eliza and prostitution is compelling, as is Christine's comment about the need for comfort and security. We've been talking about Brecht in another class, and his idea that "first comes bread, then morality," meaning that one's needs have to be met before one can truly consider the "moral" implications of certain actions, seems applicable here.
It's also interesting, given Christine's points about Eliza's lack of romantic inclinations, to consider another approach to a feminist reading of this play. What other options does she have, outside of marriage? Taking the "romance" out of it allows us to look at her material circumstances and question how certain societal arrangements would have to change for her to be able to support herself. What other women do we see or hear about? Mrs. Higgins, who has money of her own. Mrs. Eynsford-Hill, who is less well off but also seems to come from money. Mrs. Pearce, who is a servant. We hear about Alfred Doolittle's companions, none of whom married him: marriage is "middle class morality" and necessary for women who want a middle class lifestyle, I guess.
But isn't it true that Freddie won't be able to completely support her, and she plans to teach phonetics to help with money? Is her marriage to him actually just for social propriety's sake?
Also, Beth: I wonder what would happen in a play where the artist was a woman and the "creation" was a man. Could that ever happen?
This is not the first time I've heard this argument. Whenever there is a feminist critique of a script we must inevitably face the fact that strong female characters always get pigeon-holed. They either have to be the mother, sister or the lover. Why is this? I recently saw a comparison of Pygmalion to The Taming of the Shrew. Both are stories of women who have been ‘trained’ to be ‘better’. Neither stories are very flattering to women, except that in Pygmalion we can wonder whether Eliza chooses to live without Higgins in her life. This idea of the ending makes her look like a strong female character who chooses to get on without the need of an inconsiderate/brutish man.
What does it take for a woman to be considered a strong female ‘role model’? Would it cast aspersions to re-write Eliza a prostitute? Does a woman always have to be type cast in a low status position in order for us to accept it? I do not know. I just know that the sex industry is the last place I would wish anyone to end up. The point that Shaw was making with Pygmalion is that language and education make the man (or woman in this case). It is a statistical fact that women employed in the sex industry (generally) do not have higher than a high school diploma. So to place Eliza in the role of ‘sex industry’ worker makes sense in that she would not have accumulated a large amount of knowledge that gives her the edge in an increasingly competitive job market. It would only proceed to underline the point that Shaw is making. In my midterm paper I pointed out that Eliza was only able to stand up to Higgins once he had taught her proper speech and etiquette. Only then could she articulate herself properly and strongly. Also let me point out an another equal truth, Higgins does not see Eliza as an equal when she is a flower girl. Men who go to strip clubs and pay for prositute do not see women as equals they see them as merchandise. The point would be for Eliza to rise from this status so that someone like Freddy could see her and remember her.
Post a Comment