Books2Movies Club discussion

George Bernard Shaw is known for many plays, but his most renowned is Pygmalion. Many psychological analyses may be done on Pygmalion. The title is taken from the Greek mythology, of a sculptor who fell in love with a statue he had carved (check this Wikipedia article). The play might be so popular because of always intriguing - yet controversial if not in every single case forbidden – theme, that is, relationship between a student and a teacher, although some points should be added also for Shaw’s linguistic puns and puzzles, challenging even nowadays to translate respectably to the other languages and cultures.

....

Beside the most famous adaptation, My Fair Lady (1964), with Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison in the main roles, there are a couple of others that might be worth seeing. For an example, the first more respectable version was made with Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller, Pygmalion (1938), while the last popular one was teen version, She's All That (1999) with Freddie Prinze Jr. and Rachael Leigh Cook in the main roles. There were some other interesting duets: Peter O'Toole and Margot Kidder (1983), Twiggy and Robert Powell (1981) and Lynn Redgrave and James Villiers (1973). Let’s not forget the newest addition to the group, Hallmark made version, The Makeover (TV 2013), reversing the roles and starring Julia Stiles, Frances Fisher, Camryn Manheim and David Walton.

Feel free to praise or rebuke - say whatever you think of the play and its on-screen adaptations. You may discuss even stage versions if you have seen some! Quotes and such would be welcome too :)

I found this a really quick read. Over the years I have watched the Hepburn and Hiller versions and loved them. It was really different to not have the visual of the transformation of Eliza which to me made the story more uplifting?

Jeanne - I agree! I loved the idea and the themes, but I feel that they were explored and portrayed so much better in the acted out plays/movies, than in actual writing. Normally books are more descriptive and more detail oriented than movies, but I guess since this was not a book but a play - I felt like it really lacked something.

I've seen the play Pygmalion, ages ago - loved it, and My Fair lady play - loved it. Also one movie adaptation (the 1938-I think the earliest one!) was really good! I did not like the BBC one from 1973 at all! It was long, boring and poorly made... I have yet to see My Fair Lady with Audrey Hepburn!

What I liked the best was the transformation of Eliza into a proper speaking/well dressed lady! This you cannot tell by reading the play - it really needs to be seen on stage/TV. :)

Agreed! Now what I am trying to work through in my head is the teacher and the student. I loved the based in reality attitude of Eliza. She knew from the beginning that she was just a lab rat and I was unhappy that Henry was so unwilling to see that. He was so focused on making himself look good and racking up another success. Grrr.

The edition I had had an afterword which followed out Eliza's life. The movies and musicals never touched on that. You just assumed all would be well with the whole walk into the sunset thing. The truth was that she really struggled with her marriage and her flower business. Interesting. The play really showed the reality of the condition.

Yes! I completely forgot about that - until I read the play, I had no idea that there was that afterword part which dicussed her life ... I always imagined some sort of happy-ever-after for her, but in the afterword of the play it just seems like a regular drab life she went on to lead...

I always wonder if Shaw was correct in adding his afterword to the play. He didnot like the fact that everyone married off Eliza to Higgens . But it seems that the characters develope a life of their own and it is a nateral ending as in the hollywood movie. the real question is to my mind is it better to be loved (as in Frieddy ) or Love (as in Higgens) I own the two old preductions of the film and also My Fair Lady and I enjoy all of them

I like your thought about everyone immediately matching off Eliza and Higgens. But, I do like the fact that he didn't turn it into a fairy tale ending and developed Eliza's character enough to allow her to have a vision of herself. I think she allowed herself to be loved by Freddy because she was scared of going back to the life she had before, even though in today's society she was a "woman of independent means running her own business".

I'm big on all types of literature so when I found out that My Fair Lady was based on this play I had to hunt it down and read it. I do wish to see a stage adaptation at some possible point now. It's very witty, compact and also a brilliant satire.

Yes that would be wonderful to see. I can see Patrick Stewart as Higgins and Tim Burton's wife whose name I can't remember.

Jonathan, the old plays on vidio are like going to a play ; almost you can dress up and invite a few friends dressed up and sit in armchairs. They plays are great. I enjoy them both,

I know I'm coming back to this a bit too late, but I just finished "My Fair Lady" (which I loved). I just realized that I "loved" all the versions of the story that left the ending in some sort of ambiguity, and did not quite like so much the ones that truly followed the play in Eliza and Higgins not staying together (romantically or otherwise)! In the play, at the end Eliza tells him that she will marry Freddy and she goes off! In the 1973 BBC television version - she does the same! However, in both Hollywood versions and the Broadway musical, she ends up coming back to him and he says "Eliza, where the devil are my slippers?!"... This "Hollywood trait" seems a little disturbing! Why are they forcing an alternate ending, that goes against Shaw's ending?! Even while the movie was shot, Shaw argued with the director, not to change his ending - but the director felt he had to leave the Eliza/Higgins relationship as a definite possibility for it to be a success with the audience! What does this say about us?!?!? Does it say that we are just lovers of a happy ending? Or is it more sinister? Does it mean that our society is rooting for a "couple" to stay together, for no particular reason, but just to have an imaginary romantic, happy ending, even though the male was abusive and tyrannical to the poor girl the whole time ?? Why would "Hollywood" push for Eliza and Higgins to "stay" together, when Higgins was clearly the "bad guy" here? Why would Eliza be pushed to remain by his side, fetching his slippers, when Freddy, as the nice guy, is clearly the right choice?

yes I would imagine during the time the US versions came out, that is what everyone wanted. I now think that is why I had such an incomplete feeling after I read the play in that I was expecting that happy ending. That is amazing that even though the author said please don't change the ending we did it anyway. I know, poetic license, but really?

Exactly - i was so disappointed after reding the play and only managed to give it 2* and kept thinking "what happened? i thought i loved this play!!" - well I just figured out why! Because the few US versions that i've seen recently were all hinting at Eliza and Higgins getting together at the end (or at least her staying with him)... The play shows her definitely leaving! Why would her leaving Higgins make me like it less when it's clearly the right thing for her to do?? I really don't know! :) I guess we all like to romanticize and think that people can change for the better...

Jeanne wrote: "...That is amazing that even though the author said please don't change the ending we did it anyway. I know, poetic license, but really? ..."

I guess even though the author didn't want to change his ending, the producers/directors knew what would sell better and that's all that they cared about... It's always about the bottom line :)

However we are the audeence not thh hollywood money grabbers what do you think Eliza should do. Is it better to be loved ( like in Freddy) or to love( like in Higgens) On the one hand it is goood to be sought but Freddy is a fool Higgens is facinating and rich Eliza has a hard decision to make at my point in life (63) I would go for Higgens But a young woman might prefer Freddy

I didn't realize there were so many other versions of this: I've only seen My Fair Lady and I think one other one. My Fair Lady is wonderful, of course, though it's been so long since I've seen it that I barely remember it. I found the afterward interesting: normally the author won't describe the ending so much in a more book fashion when it is supposed to be a play. But I suppose he felt the need to since everyone paired off Eliza and Higgins so much. I think it's much more fitting that they don't end up together: though they certainly seem to have an understanding. Do you think Freddy realizes that he doesn't quite stimulate her intellectually the way Higgins does? And would he mind if he did realize? Or is that the whole point?

This beautiful movie is a good example that there is often a strongly erotic subtext to some teaching-learning situations.

Shelley, http://dustbowlstory.wordpress.com

I absolutely loved the play when I read it, and I liked the way Shaw ended it. On screen I liked much more Pygmalion from 1938 than My Fair Lady. My Fair Lady has awesome soundtrack and looks, not to mention Audrey Hepburn, but Pygmalion was in my opinion way better. It seemed much more faithful to the original play (what shouldn't have surprised me, Shaw himself co-wrote the screenplay!), and it didn't look that... well, creepy, to see Eliza together with Higgins in the end. Leslie Howard was so good in that role and the age difference wasn't so apparent.
I saw She's Only That and The Makeover too, those two modern adaptations. The first was too cheesy, but the cast was charming, so it was bearable. The second, while still entertaining to watch, didn't manage to rise into something really worth recommending.

I'd forgotten we'd read this! Such a fun story :)