The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.


I know now why people have given it all 5 stars. George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion is well known play where a professor of phonetics prof. Higgins makes a bet with his friend Colonel Pickering that he can train a flower girl Eliza to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech.

The idea behind this drama is inspired by the story of Pygmalion who was a sculptor who fell in love with his own creation. The Pygmalion effect, or also known as Rosenthal effect, is a psychological phenomenon wherein high expectations lead to improved performance in a given area.



But here the difference in Pygmalion is  that Mr Higgins didn't fall in love with Eliza whom he taught upper class manners in social situations. Somehow Eliza fell for him even though he insulted her at every step but at the end she stood up for herself. Its not clear what Eliza felt for him though upon observation it felt like she was in love with him. Almost till the end I thought Mr Higgins would reciprocate her feelings, I wanted badly for him to do it. But sadly he was self obsessive obnoxious prick who thought himself of high ranks.

His continuous demeaning and insulting behaviour with Eliza just coz her manners were rough and raw coz of her upbringing annoyed the hell out of me.

Anyways what impressed me the most is how it ended. Eliza though a flower girl and that's how she chose to stay in the end but on her own terms. She always had high accord for Mr Higgins and colonel as her teachers, but yet she stood up to Higgins' insults. Bravo girl!!! I wonder how people from long lost era could show such strong female characters while today's work normally lack it.

این نمایشنامه و چند نمایشنامه‌ی دیگه جزء سیلابس کورس‌ اساطیر یونان و روم ترم جدید هستند، پس تصمیم گرفته بودم از قبل شروع ترم هر تعدادی که ازشون تونستم رو بخونم.

افسانه پیگمالیون
نام پیگمالیون از افسانه‌ای یونانی الهام گرفته شده که در مورد مجسمه‌سازی به نام پیگمالیونه. پیگمالیون عاشق مجسمه‌ی زنی میشه که خودش از عاج فیل ساخته. اون انقدر دلباخته‌ی مجسمه میشه که مثل یک زن واقعی می‌بینتش، باهاش صحبت می‌کنه و براش هدیه‌ها می‌خره. افرودیت هم همین که از عشق و عاشقی به گوشش می‌رسه نزد پیگمالیون حاضر میشه و خواسته‌ش رو برآورده می‌کنه. مجسمه تبدیل به یک انسان میشه و این‌طور این دو happily ever after خودشون رو دارند.

پیگمالیونِ شاو
شاو از این ایده وام می‌گیره اما به جای مجسمه، دختر گل‌فروشی به اسم الایزا مطرحه که هنری هیگینز، یک زبان‌شناس برجسته، سر شرط‌بندی با دوستش ادعا می‌کنه اون رو طی چند ماه به یک لیدی موقر و اشرافی تبدیل می‌کنه.
هیگینز با استفاده از روش‌های علمی و کمی بی‌رحمانه، الایزا رو آموزش میده. با گذشت زمان الایزا شروع به تغییر می‌کنه، به خودآگاهی می‌رسه و سوالات عمیقی درباره‌ی طبقات اجتماعی و ارزش‌های انسانی براش مطرح میشه. در همین حین این نسخه‌ی جدید الایزا متوجه میشه که دیگه نمی‌تونه به زندگی قبلش برگرده و گل‌فروشی کنه. اون سردرگمه و از آینده‌ش مطمئن نیست.

“I sold flowers. I didn't sell myself. Now that you've made a lady of me I'm not fit to sell anything else. I wish you'd left me where you found me”

این نشون‌دهنده‌ی تحول در شخصیت الایزاست. اینکه دیگه نمی‌خواد صرفاً یک پروژه در دستان هیگینز باشه. هیگینز از روز اول تا اکت آخر پلی اون رو به چشم همون دختر گل‌فروش می‌بینه و الایزا از این بابت خیلی عصبانی می‌مونه. پس خواهان یک هویت مستقل میشه و سعی می‌کنه به هیگینز بفهمونه این طرز تلفظ و طبقه‌ی اجتماعی‌ش نیست که اون رو تعریف می‌کنه.

“...the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she's treated. I shall always be a flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he always treats me as a flower girl, and always will; but I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady, and always will.”

دیالوگ‌های این نمایشنامه فوق‌العاده جذاب و پر از شوخی‌های تند و تیزه. رابطه‌ی پرتنش الایزا و هیگینز، نمایانگر تقابل بین ارزش‌های اجتماعی و انتظارات فردی میشه، الایزا به دنبال هویت و استقلال خود می‌گرده، در حالی که هیگینز روی اصول علمی و تغییرات سطحی تأکید داره.
در نهایت این اثر نقد اجتماعی عمیقی به تصور ما از هویت و ارزش‌های انسانیه. پیشنهاد می‌کنم آنالیز خود برنارد شاو از شخصیت‌های داستان هم بخونید.

Eh. This was ... fine. Most of the interesting stuff took place between scenes and the reader only gets to witness the aftermath. I thought for sure that Eliza was going to end up marrying the insufferable Henry Higgins, so I was happy to find out that I was wrong.

I had wanted to read Pygmalion for an age before I finally got around to it. Like many people, I knew the gist of the plot from My Fair Lady, but I was unprepared as to how witty and amusing the play proper would be. It is wickedly funny, in fact, with swathes of taut and original dialogue. Whilst the storyline is relatively simple, the denouement is clever. Shaw is often quite acerbic, rendering this a great and surprising play, and one which I would love to see performed.

Ah-ah-ah-ow-ow-oo!

Exceptional linguist Professor Henry Higgins meets gentleman Colonel Pickering and they whimsically set on crazy bet to pass off Eliza, a low class street flower girl, as a respectable royal lady of the high society. Little do they know Eliza has a few talents of her own.

This was overall enjoyable, although with some reservations. The best of the play was by far Eliza, and the wildly eccentric Alfred Doolitle, they brought light and laughter whenever they appeared; Pickering always the gentleman, and Higgins turning increasingly obnoxious with each passing Act. The whole thing rather good until the bet was finally settled; after that sadly the characters and plot felt rather mediocre, making the last Act V an extremely dull thing to endure and the final resolution between Eliza, Higgins and Pickering utterly disappointing. The epilogue explanation was also the strangest thing, turning away from the normal theater dialogue to full descriptive storytelling, with events that didn’t really add much to the characters or storyline, further aggravating my dislike of an already disappointing ending. To me this play would have greatly benefited from an open ending finishing in Act IV  including the revised extended scene with Freddy.

WARNING: There are two versions out there, the Original (1914) and a later Revised edition (1941) with additional notes from the author, more detailed introductions, and extended scenes at the end of each Act, among other things. Personally I prefer the Revised edition, particularly because of the scenes with Nepommuck at the end of Act III, and Freddy at the end of IV.

Another used book found in the dusty family bookcase. A neat find! One of the most famed and highly acclaimed plays of all time, with countless reproductions and adaptations, even as musical and film. Not my cup of tea really, but I believe its fame is well deserved; and though I did not enjoy it much, its potential is easily recognizable and could greatly appeal to certain palates, possibly more refined than mine.

It’s public domain. You can find it  HERE. [Original Version]

*** My Fair Lady (1964) is an acceptable adaptation, for a musical at least (I hate them). Reasonably faithful to the book, despite the non-scripted songs. Admirable artistic value and justly deserving of the many awards received. First time watching an Audrey Hepburn movie, must say she really shined and Show Me some terrific acting. Professor Higgins as obnoxious as in the book, so proud of Never Let A Woman In Your Life. Still; With a Little Bit of Luck, you can stomach him. Overall the movie is good I guess, but I couldn’t care less if The Rain in Spain Stays Mainly in the Plain, or if Doolittle Gets to the Church on Time; and I Could Have lived without watching them Dance all Night. Now if only they removed all that awful singing, and A Few Hours in length… Oh Wouldn't It Be Loverly?



-----------------------------------------------
n  PERSONAL NOTEn:
[1914] [82p] [Theater] [2.5] [Conditional Recommendable] [“I shall make a duchess of this draggletailed guttersnipe.”] [“Bly me!”/“By Jove!”/“Bloody hell!”]
-----------------------------------------------

¡Aaaaayyyyy…!

El excepcional lingüista Profesor Henry Higgins conoce al caballeroso Coronel Pickering y caprichosamente se traban en una loca apuesta de hacer pasar a Eliza, una chica de la calle florista y de baja clase, como una respetable dama de pura realeza de la alta sociedad. Poco saben ellos que Eliza guarda algunos talentos propios.

Esto fue dentro de todo disfrutable, aunque con algunas reservas. Lo mejor de la obra fue por lejos Eliza, y especialmente el excéntrico Alfred Doolitle, trayendo luz y risas cuando sea que aparecían; Pickering siempre el caballero, y Higgins volviéndose cada vez más insoportable con cada Acto transcurrido. Todo el asunto bastante bueno hasta que la apuesta fue finalmente saldada; después de eso lamentablemente los personajes y la trama se sintieron bastante mediocres, haciendo el último Acto V una cosa extremadamente aburrida de soportar y la resolución final entre Eliza, Higgins y Pickering tremendamente decepcionante. La explicación del epílogo también fue una cosa muy rara, pasando del normal dialogo teatral a una completa narración descriptiva, con eventos que para mí realmente no añadían mucho a los personajes o la historia, agravando todavía más mi desagrado con un ya decepcionante final. Para mí esta obra se hubiera beneficiado enormemente con un final abierto terminando en el Acto IV  incluyendo la revisada escena extendida de Freddy.

ADVERTENCIA: Hay dos versiones allá afuera, la Original (1914) y una posterior edición Revisada (1941) con notas adicionales del autor, más detalladas introducciones, y escenas extendidas al final de cada Acto, entre otras cosas. Personalmente prefiero la versión Revisada, particularmente por las escenas con Nepommuck al final del Acto III, y la de Freddy al final del IV.

Otro libro usado hallado en la polvorienta biblioteca familiar. ¡Un hallazgo interesante! Una de las obras teatrales más afamadas y altamente aclamadas de todos los tiempos, con innumerables reproducciones y adaptaciones, incluso como musical y filme. No es mi taza de té la verdad, pero creo que su fama es bien merecida; y aunque no la disfruté mucho, su potencial es fácilmente reconocible y creo que podría agradar enormemente a ciertos paladares, posiblemente más refinados que el mío.

Es dominio público, lo pueden encontrar  ACA. [Versión Original]

*** Mi Bella Dama (1964) es una aceptable adaptación, para un musical al menos (los odio). Razonablemente fiel al libro, a pesar de las canciones. Admirable valor artístico y justamente merecedor de todos los galardones recibidos. Primera vez viendo una película de Audrey Hepburn, y debo decir que realmente brilla y Demuéstrame una actuación fenomenal. El Profesor Higgins tan odioso como en el libro, tan orgulloso de Nunca Dejar Entrar una Mujer en tu Vida. Aun así, Con un Poquito de Suerte, lo podés aguantar. Dentro de todo supongo que la película es buena, pero no podría importarme menos si La Lluvia en España Queda Principalmente en Llanura, o si Doolittle Llega a Tiempo a la Iglesia; y Podría Haber vivido sin verlos Bailado Toda la Noche. Ahora si tan sólo removieran todo ese desagradable canto, y Un Par de Horas en longitud… Oh ¿No Sería Precioso?



-----------------------------------------------
n  NOTA PERSONALn:
[1914] [82p] [Teatro] [2.5] [Recomendable Condicional] [“Haré una duquesa de esa criatura sacada del arroyo.”]
-----------------------------------------------

Izuzetno zanimljiv komad. Šo se, kao i Balzak, u svojim delima bavio srednjim staležom i društvenim marginama. Kao što je kiparski kralj Pigmalion, prezrevši bestidnost kiparskih devojaka za sebe izvajao kip žene u koju se zaljubio, nakon što ga je Afrodita oživela, tako je i Henri Higins, profesor fonetike, sebi „izvajao“ mladu, fonetski savršenu, damu, koju je takvom načinio od uboge, ali itekako trezvene cvećarke, koja mu je poslužila kao filološki eksperiment, i opklada da će za šest meseci preobratiti njen seoski način govora u gospodski. Naravno, bivajući neženjom i starim momkom, nakon toga je planirao da je zameni nekom drugom sličnom gospođicom, koja bi bila njegova sledeća varijabla u eksperimentu. Međutim, u slučaju gospođice Elize Dulitl se dobrano prevario, jer je, menjajući se pod njegovim uticajem, i ona izuzetno menjala njega i njegove ustaljene navike. Humor je prosto nemoguće ignorisati u ovom slučaju, i poprilično mi je ta atmosfera koju tvori slična onoj u Gospođi ministarki i Pokondirenoj tikvi

"Eliza has no use for the foolish romantic tradition that all women love to be mastered, if not actually bullied and beaten,"¹ says G.B.Shaw in the afterword to his famous play.

¹By the way, I think this quote should be memorized and repeated on the daily basis by the contemporary authors, especially in the YA genre, who attempt to create female characters. Really. Maybe I can start a campaign encouraging authors' awareness of this quote. Hmmmm...

This was one of the first plays I've ever read, and to this day is one of my favorites. The combination of Shaw's wit and satire with creating an amazingly strong heroine was a treat to read! The play is brilliant, as witnessed by its continuing success - but it's the afterword from the author that ultimately made it into a five-star read. The afterword that takes this story and makes it wonderfully and firmly grounded in reality (even if it's a reality with somewhat outdated early 20th century reasoning).


The many faces of Eliza Doolittle.

Most people know this story, right? If not from reading the play then from seeing the classic Hollywood's production of My Fair Lady musical, right? The 1912 story of a simple London Cockney flower girl Eliza who learns how to speak like a proper British lady from a renown phoneticist (and, honestly, a rather miserable person) Henry Higgins. Both Higgins and Eliza have remarkably strong characters and no wonder that problems ensue (well, because of that and because of the fact that a well-mannered British woman in the early 20th century seemingly did not really have that many choices besides finding herself a man). According to the famous movie, sparks also fly between Eliza and Higgins. But do they, really? In the words of Shaw himself,

"Nevertheless, people in all directions have assumed, for no other reason than that she became the heroine of a romance, that she must have married the hero of it."

And that's where the Audrey Hepburn movie lost me. After all, haven't the movie makers read the famous afterword by Shaw himself (and I honestly think that it's just as interesting as the play itself!), where he painstakingly details the future lives of his characters and destroys every notion of the happily ever after for Eliza and Higgins - the ever-after that was already clearly doomed in the play itself:

"LIZA [desperate]: Oh, you are a cruel tyrant. I can't talk to you: you turn everything against me: I'm always in the wrong. But you know very well all the time that you're nothing but a bully. You know I can't go back to the gutter, as you call it, and that I have no real friends in the world but you and the Colonel. You know well I couldn't bear to live with a low common man after you two; and it's wicked and cruel of you to insult me by pretending I could. You think I must go back to Wimpole Street because I have nowhere else to go but father's. But don't you be too sure that you have me under your feet to be trampled on and talked down. I'll marry Freddy, I will, as soon as he's able to support me."n

After all, it would not be in character for Eliza, who is not really a romantic character but a strong, pragmatic, and independent young woman who would not settle for a life of bringing Higgins his slippers (oh, that awful last line of the movie!!!) and being ignored; a woman who is not beyond a well-aimed slippers throw to the face:

"This being the state of human affairs, what is Eliza fairly sure to do when she is placed between Freddy and Higgins? Will she look forward to a lifetime of fetching Higgins's slippers or to a lifetime of Freddy fetching hers? There can be no doubt about the answer. Unless Freddy is biologically repulsive to her, and Higgins biologically attractive to a degree that overwhelms all her other instincts, she will, if she marries either of them, marry Freddy.
And that is just what Eliza did."

No, Eliza Doolittle is not a woman to be ignored. She is a strong, independent and level-headed heroine who has guts and self-worth even before her 'magical' lady-like transformation. She knows what she wants, and she determinedly sets out on the path that she thinks would lead her to her dream - working in a flower shop. She may be comical and pathetic in the beginning - but she knows she's not nothing (unlike the view of her that Henry Higgins has). She stands up for herself even when she is clearly in an unfavorable situation - a woman vs. a man, a social nothing vs. a respected gentleman, a physically weaker creature vs. a physically more intimidating one:

"I won't be called a baggage when I've offered to pay like any lady."

And from the afterword:

"Even had there been no mother-rival, she would still have refused to accept an interest in herself that was secondary to philosophic interests."

And her feeling of self-worth only increases as the horizons of the society open up more for her. She refuses to play second fiddle even to a powerful and intimidating Higgins. The thing is - Higgins, contrary to his belief, did not "create" Eliza, like the famous literary Pygmalion created his Galatea; he merely gave her more power to achieve what she wants. And what she wants does not include being ignored and fetching him his bloody slippers. He is a strong man - well, she is an equally strong woman who will have what's best for her. And even if in the end - the afterword - Eliza's independence is not complete and she continues to owe a lot to the duo of Higgins and Pickering - but again, somehow on her own terms.

"But to admire a strong person and to live under that strong person's thumb are two different things."n

This was my first time reading this play in English, and reading it in the language it was intended to be read in highlighted even more the brilliance of Shaw as a playwright and the exquisite humor of it. Shaw skillfully deconstructs the notions of the British class system - and does it with easily felt pleasure and enjoyment, and continues to do so in the afterword, which I enjoyed so much. In the end, it's not about Eliza becoming a lady on Henry Higgins' terms; it's all about the shrewd future florist/greengrocer Eliza, and that's the awesomeness of it. It is an excellent read, a timeless one, thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking. Easy 5 stars!

"Galatea never does quite like Pygmalion: his relation to her is too godlike to be altogether agreeable."n

Etichettato come “non da leggere” da tempo immemore. Scartato un libro corposo per una delle gare a cui tento di partecipare, ho virato verso “Pigmalione” abbastanza sottile e che ero certa di avere tra la collezione “100 pagine, 1000 lire” della Newton, ma non ne ricordavo le pessime condizioni: sopravvissuto a un nubifragio, a finestra aperta, abbattutosi sulla scaffalatura.

https://www.goodreads.com/photo/user/...

Mai dire mai…assolutamente divertente, intelligente, critico della società dell’apparenza inglese senza essere pedante e per di più raffinato femminista.
Del mito di Pigmalione, il protagonista, ha poco o nulla, se non nell'accezione ovidiana :
” indignato dai difetti di cui
la natura aveva abbondantemente dotato la donna, aveva rinunciato a sposarsi e passava la sua vita da celibe, dormendo da solo nel suo letto”(Le metamorfosi, vv. 245- 249).

Di mestiere, Hanry Higgins, faceva il linguista o meglio il logopedista: insegnava a parlare “forbito” e privo d’accento chi volesse ben comparire in società.
In Liza, un umile fioraia, dal gergo quasi incomprensibile incontrata per le strade di Londra, trova l’occasione di esprimere al massimo la sua professionalità:- "È quasi irresistibile. È così deliziosamente popolana, così orribilmente sporca".

Non solo vuole farne una fine dicitrice ma vuole darle una ripulitina sociale, farne una duchessa nei modi:
”Va su come una casa in fiamme. Vincerò la mia scommessa. Lei ha orecchio; è stato più facile insegnarle rispetto ai miei alunni della classe media perché ha dovuto imparare una lingua completamente nuova.
La vuole ammaestrare e non si sognerà nemmeno di sposarsela, accampando una remora “morale”: Ma cosa state dicendo! Ve lo posso assicurare. Vedete, è una alunna e come tale è sacra. Ho insegnato a parlare correttamente l’inglese a ventine di milionarie americane…le più belle donne del mondo…ci sono abituato, per me è come se fosse un pezzo di legno, è…”.
Beh, qua potremmo essere dalle parti dei tempi del Pigmalione mitico, dove era empio innamorarsi delle statue delle dee.

Ma in effetti Higgins ( l’ ho detto che il protagonista si chiamasse così?) non riesce a riconoscere in Liza le qualità che lui stesso ha saputo estrarre dalla personalità della ragazza: lui è sempre il dio e lei una statua.
Ma è la statua, Liza, che si prende la rivincita quando si vede “trascurata”.
”… voi non potete togliermi quello che mi avete insegnato. Che stupida a non averci pensato prima! Voi stesso mi diceste che il mio orecchio è assai più sensibile del vostro. E io sono più fine e più educata e più paziente di voi con la gente. Ah, ah. Siete finito Henry Higgins! Vi siete rovinato con le vostre stesse mani! Ora le vostre vanterie e tutte le vostre arie non vi fanno più paura, né rispetto. Farò pubblicare su tutti i giornali che la vostra duchessa non è altro che una fioraia che voi avete mutato ed istruito. E dirò che sono disposta ad insegnare a mia volta questa vostra arte, a chiunque lo desideri: diventare duchessa in sei mesi per mille ghinee.”

È lei che non vorrà sposare il suo pigmalione- non è che lui glielo avesse chiesto in ginocchio, no. Ma un anellino qua, un complimentino là… - perché ha preso coscienza del proprio potere intellettuale: lei non è quella serva che solo a parole Higgins deplorerebbe.
Leggo che Bernard Show litigasse con tutti gli impresari che volevano edulcorare il finale in un happy and.
Se avesse visto “May Fair Lady”, poveretto.
Si chiedeva anche come potesse avere un tale successo questa sua commedia, la meno scherzosa delle sue. Concludeva che ci dovesse essere qualcosa di sbagliato che lui non riusciva a vedere.
Comunque a scanso di equivoci, nell’edizione a stampa della commedia, aggiunse le “Note d’autore” in cui spiegava il perché e il per come i due non fossero per niente una coppia assortita, proprio perché troppo uguali.

Però conclude:
“ Egli la interessa immensamente. In certi segreti maliziosi momenti, vorrebbe averlo con sé da solo, sopra un’isola deserta, lungi da tutti i legami e senza altri al mondo da considerare, pel semplice gusto di tirarlo giù dal piedistallo e vederlo innamorato, come un uomo qualunque. Nell’intimo certe fantasie le abbiamo tutti. Ma quando si tratta della realtà della vita che si vive, ben distinta da quella dei sogni e della fantasia, lei vuol bene a Freddy e vuol bene al colonnello; e non vuol bene a Higgins e a Mr Doolittle. A Galatea non piace mai completamente Pigmalione: fra loro due i rapporti sono di natura troppo simile a quelli di un dio nei confronti d’una mortale e non possono quindi essere, in complesso piacevoli.

I really don't know why Pygmalion is still called a romance. I mean, Shaw himself was very dissapointed at the fact that his socialistic drama became a success as a romance. Shaw wanted to liberate his play from the traditional conventions of a romance, that's why he reversed the romantic story by giving a different end, marking Eliza's emancipation and independence. If this was a typical love story, the two protagonists would have been married at the end. But Shaw implies that Mr. Higgings will never accept ELiza as an equal even though she becomes economical and emotional independent from him at the end of the play. He wanted to attack the idea of subordination of women by creating a play of social utility that may help people in his age rethink their values and manners towards what he thought to be the most exploited creature on earth, women.

So maybe it's time for Goodreads to change the title "a romance" because it does not reflect neither Shaw's intentions nor the play's true nature.