Pygmalion and My Fair Lady Essay Example

rigid class system during the 19th century. The play emphasizes the importance of language in maintaining this rigidity, as the author once said: "syllables govern the world." Pygmalion remains his most famous work and has been adapted multiple times, including as a musical in 1954 and a movie called My Fair Lady in 1964 directed by George Cukor that was highly romanticized. My Fair Lady starred Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison and won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. While My Fair Lady mostly follows Bernard Shaw's original Pygmalion plot, it has significant differences at the end due to catering to Hollywood's demands and audience preferences.

This essay aims to explore the various methods of portraying class conflict in both the 1912 play and the 1964's My Fair Lady, in order to highlight the similarities and differences in how class and conflict are depicted, and analyze the effectiveness of their social critiques. In order to represent class conflict, which refers to the visible or hidden tension between individuals from opposing social classes within the British system (consisting of upper, middle, and lower or working class), it is necessary to first depict these distinct classes.

One way to represent the differences between social classes is through physical appearances, a method that is both easy and obvious. The use of props and costumes in both plays and movies allows for the portrayal of upper and lower class individuals. Those belonging to the lower class are often depicted wearing poor-quality, cheap clothing, and they usually appear dirty. This distinction in appearance is evident from the opening scene of the play, where Bernard Shaw describes Eliza in

a negative manner, stating that she is not attractive and her clothing and hair are unkempt. He compares her level of cleanliness unfavorably to that of the upper-class ladies. The contrast between members of each social class becomes even more apparent when they share the same scene, as they differ not only in clothing but also in physical hygiene. This scene from the movie shows Eliza trying to clean herself up and alter her appearance to appear more like a lady.

Despite her best efforts, the woman in question remains perceived as lower class and inadequate compared to Henry Higgins, Colonel Pickering, and even Mrs. Pearce, who also comes from a working-class background. In society, physical appearance plays a vital role in differentiating social classes and can be modified to ascend or descend the social ladder. In the fifth act, a maid confuses Alfred Doolittle for a gentleman, emphasizing the significance of his changed appearance: "He is impeccably dressed in a fashionable new frock-coat, accompanied by a white waistcoat and gray trousers."

The text highlights Eliza's transformation through her clothing. Initially, she is depicted wearing a dirty and gloomy flower girl outfit, but later dons a rich and bright ball gown. However, the crucial factor in class distinction is speech. Both the play and the movie emphasize the significance of language and its ability to shape one's fate.

Eliza starts off the story speaking in a poor manner, which shows her humble background. Her way of speaking is starkly different from Henry's, who is an expert in language and makes a living by teaching people proper speech. Henry understands the power of language very well, and in the

first act, he acknowledges that Eliza's improper English will keep her in poverty forever. Eliza frequently uses the word "Darn," talks loudly, and lacks spontaneity.

However, both Henry and Mrs. Pearce, as representatives of different social classes, possess accents that could be categorized as posh. They exhibit proper word pronunciation, with Mrs. Pearce emphasizing the importance of avoiding swear words as they are deemed unfit for gentlemen. Eliza's main objective in order to convincingly portray a duchess is to diligently focus on improving her accent and pronunciation.

The movie depicts the intensification of Eliza's speech transformation, as she experiences difficulty in her improvement and appears to be tormented by Higgins' methods. On the other hand, the play portrays Eliza's progress as remarkably swift, showcasing her exceptional aptitude for learning. However, both Colonel Pickering and Henry, the two male characters involved, fail to recognize her talents, thus highlighting the upper class's disregard for the lower class, despite their equal entitlement to acknowledgment and respect.

However, simply having the right language skills is not enough to fit in with the upper class, as demonstrated in both Mrs. Higgins’ social event in the play and the Ascot Racing scene in the movie. These scenes serve to highlight that even though Eliza's speech is almost perfect, she lacks the necessary cultural knowledge to fully participate and appreciate what could be considered as a "sophisticated conversation" by Shaw. This conversation, as Shaw emphasizes, is often tedious, uninteresting, and shallow, revolving mainly around trivial topics such as the weather.

Both the play and the movie highlight physical appearance and language as the main factors that differentiate social classes. The extent of these differences

effectively illustrates the flaws and inflexibility of society. While depicting class differences is a valuable method of showcasing possible conflicts, it falls short in capturing the true intensity of these disputes.

Both the play and the movie feature limited physical and violent action. However, they both showcase numerous individual conflicts that provide insight into the flaws of British society, often in subtle ways. Eliza's character is constantly at odds with the world around her, reflecting her independence and determination to better herself in a society that discourages social mobility. From the very start, both the movie and the play effectively portray her unique position within society.

Eliza's first encounter with the upper class is depicted as violent, as Bernard Shaw describes: "(...) but comes into collision with a flower girl, who is hurrying in for shelter, knocking her basket out of her hands." The initial portrayal of Eliza in both Pygmalion and My Fair Lady utilizes a high angle shot, emphasizing her small and delicate appearance in contrast to the grand columns surrounding her. These early scenes are crucial in establishing the underlying conflict between Eliza and the rest of society. They introduce key characters such as Eliza and Henry Higgins, highlighting their differences in physical appearance, language, and culture which stem from their respective social classes. The stark contrast between the two worlds is evident with the portrayal of Eliza as a poor woman amidst the chaotic and noisy market, while Henry appears affluent and refined as he exits the theater.

The violence of the confrontation between Eliza and Freddy is mirrored in the harsh language that Henry directs towards Eliza: "A woman who utters such depressing

and disgusting sounds has no right to be anywhere – no right to live." This altercation sets the tone for their tumultuous relationship throughout the rest of the story, which serves as a commentary on the broader societal conflicts. Despite their differences, Eliza and Henry must find a way to coexist and often engage in extreme cruelty towards each other. In the movie adaptation, Eliza sings 'Just you wait' with aggressive lyrics, while in the play, Henry does not hesitate to insult her and even comes close to strangling her at one point.

The bathing scene in both the movie and play showcases Eliza's resistance towards the household workers, symbolizing her fight against society's pressure to transform her. Moreover, it highlights the internal conflict within Eliza herself, as her change not only alters her appearance and language but also pushes her to align with the upper class culture despite not fully belonging there.

Eliza's unease about her future stems from her perceived lack of belonging to any social class. She finds herself neither refined enough for the lower working class nor affluent enough for the upper class. This internal conflict manifests in her appearance, as her facial expressions clash with her expensive attire. Despite wearing an opera cloak when she opens the door, Eliza's pale complexion starkly contrasts with her dark eyes and hair, resulting in a nearly tragic expression.

Eliza returns to the market in a pivotal scene and discovers that her former friends do not recognize her, prompting her to realize she no longer belongs in their social circle. She blames Henry for her feelings of loss and uncertainty about what lies ahead, resulting in a

heated argument between them. Eliza questions her value and seeks guidance from Henry on her abilities, as well as where she should go and what actions she should take.

"What will happen to me?" The father of the protagonist goes through a similar transformation when he receives a significant inheritance from a wealthy American. Throughout the story, it is evident that despite being impoverished, he found contentment in his freedom from moral responsibilities. However, his newfound wealth and status now require him to fulfill certain moral obligations, including marrying his mistress.

The transformation of two individuals, who become completely disoriented after undergoing a profound change, highlights the intricate and powerful nature of social divisions and conflicts. Merely altering one's appearance and language in an attempt to ascend the social ladder is not sufficient, as one's background will always shape their identity and separate them from others. Both the play and the film depict conflicts rooted in personal portrayals and manifestations of tension (be it physical, verbal, or moral), which must be comprehended by the audience in order for the narrative to attain its complete meaning and significance.

Both the movie and the play use visual and written visualizations to portray social differences and conflicts. However, their social messages differ. The play has a clear socialist message, while the movie's message is more ambiguous. Bernard Shaw drew inspiration from the myth of Pygmalion, where a sculptor falls in love with his creation and turns it into a real woman, for his play. Eliza, in this context, can be seen as "raw material" that undergoes a transformation through Higgins' teachings. For instance, Higgins even suggests wrapping her up in

brown paper like raw produce.

The play relies on Eliza's ambiguous relationship with Henry and the other characters, whose tensions symbolize the hierarchical nature of British society in the 19th century. Bernard Shaw's intention to criticize the flaws and inflexibility of the class system is evident in the epilogue he wrote after the initial performances of the play. He became aware that the open ending (whether Eliza would return to Henry or not) was being idealized by the audience, altering the original purpose of the play. In his epilogue, he provides details about Eliza's decision and future lifestyle.

Eliza marries Freddy, and with Colonel Pickering’s assistance, opens a flower store. This conclusion strongly indicates that Eliza’s social status has improved, whereas Freddy experiences a decline. The couple achieves self-sufficiency, yet continues to leverage Eliza’s ties with Henry and Pickering to gain certain advantages. This conclusion does not constitute a traditional "happy ending", provoking contemplation on the inflexibility of society and its profound influence on individuals' lives.

Additionally, the play emphasizes Henry's view of his profession more than the movie does. He sees it as a type of 'social work,' bridging the gap between different social classes and connecting souls. His character is also significantly more cynical and critical of the current social hierarchy. He doesn't hesitate to suggest that one must have better English skills to be a maid or shop assistant than an aristocrat does. He even boasts that he could pass off a girl as a duchess at an ambassador's garden party.

In addition to potentially getting her a position as a lady's maid or shop assistant, which necessitates proficient English skills, the play is

a comedy that aims to reveal and challenge the disparities between various social classes. The movie, on the other hand, does not clearly express its intentions of denouncing the prevailing social hierarchy, primarily due to a variety of reasons. Unlike the play, which was written in England in 1912, the movie was directed in the United States in 1964.

George Cukor did not share Bernard Shaw’s political beliefs and did not intend to make a socially critical film. Instead, he aimed to meet the demands of Hollywood and its audience. The traditional Hollywood movie typically follows a two-line plot, involving "X" and a romantic storyline. In My Fair Lady, the transformation of Eliza serves as the "X" plot, with a significant emphasis on her relationship with Henry compared to the play. The ending of the movie deviates greatly from Shaw’s epilogue, as it remains open-ended, hinting at a potential romance between the two main characters.

The movie uses costumes and props to represent the differences between social classes instead of relying on camera angles and shots. The scenes featuring Eliza and Henry are predominantly filmed at eye-level, which downplays the criticism of the social hierarchy and the relativity of morals between classes. The emphasis on differences seems to serve the sole purpose of providing comedic entertainment.

The movie being a musical adds a cheerful element to the overall tone. The focus on singing and dancing overshadows the intricate human relationships. The absence of critique and personal viewpoint may be attributed to the film being a Hollywood production compelled by market demands for financial success. This necessity for financial stability is evident in the casting selection, where Audrey

Hepburn, a more renowned actor, was chosen over Julie Andrews, who may have been better suited for the role.

Moreover, it is crucial to remember that during the 1960s, artistic expression faced significant censorship under the influence of McCarthyism and the "House Un-American Activities Committee." This committee held control over the political messaging conveyed in Hollywood films and any form of criticism towards the United States or society from a left-leaning perspective was swiftly condemned as communist, potentially resulting in imprisonment during the Cold War era. Consequently, the movie—due to various factors—is not overtly a commentary on social classes and their underlying conflicts.

George Cukor adapted the original play to cater to a wide American audience, focusing on romance and light entertainment. Both Pygmalion and My Fair Lady depict class differences and their impact on individuals. However, since the play was written by a socialist activist, its representation holds deeper social criticism, prompting the audience to reflect on this issue.

Although the movie visually depicts class differences, it is essentially a typical Hollywood production from the 1960s that prioritizes entertainment over social critique. This distinction between the movie and play further emphasizes this point.

Nevertheless, true social criticism goes beyond merely highlighting visual class differences, as evidenced by the disparities between the movie and play.