Marianne becomes Shavian

After Marianne and I watched My Fair Lady together, during which time she fell asleep, I discussed the history of the movie with her and promised I would publish this essay that I had written about the play. I love Shaw.

David Christopher (0634180)
ENGL 437A
Prof. S.M. Rabillard
4 April 2007
Elements of Form Challenging Romantic Conventions in Pygmalion

In his play, Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw calls into question traditional views of propriety and aristocratic hypocrisy. The viewer/reader is invited to take part in an intellectually elitist perspective of the world that allows for sympathy, and perhaps even reverence, for the otherwise pompous, arrogant and abusive Higgins. Although Higgins carries these characteristics unremittingly to the play’s close, he remains appealing in ways that are paternal, academic, intellectual, and most importantly, romantic. The romantic sense given to the reader/viewer seems counter-intuitive in light of the overbearing nature of Higgins. Shaw challenges traditional notions of propriety and romance by manipulating elements of form such as act structure and allusion, setting, and rhetorical dialogue to subvert the audience’s romantic expectations, leave the plot tantalizingly unresolved, and allow for a character such as Higgins to remain an appealing romantic prospect for Eliza.
Shaw sets up the expectation of a romantic resolution for Eliza in two ways. The most obvious element of form that Shaw uses is the five-act structure. The lack of resolution is striking. In that length of drama, one would expect issues to have had enough space to be resolved by the author. In this way, Shaw not only highlights the five-act structure but invites the viewer to draw comparisons against other plays with five acts that are more traditionally resolute. Immediately reminiscent is the romantic comedy genre established by Shakespeare. It is not uncharacteristic of Shaw to challenge Shakespeare or invite comparisons to his work as is demonstrated by his farcical yet intellectual puppet play, Shakes versus Shav. Typically, the Shakespearean dramatic comedy completes a full five acts in which one or more marriages of young romantic lovers is facilitated and expected or actually performed after the removal of an elderly blocking agent which challenges the romance. Shakespeare’s romantic works focus heavily on the delight in courting rituals with a ‘happily-ever-after’ feeling to the imminent marriages in the denouement. A modern example of this established convention occurs in Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest in which two comic young couples are destined to achieve their nuptials once the misgivings of the elderly Lady Bracknell are removed. Shaw is obvious in his use of five Acts and even more obvious in that his romantic plot is unresolved. As such, he is boldly contradicting Shakespearean romantic notions within Shakespeare’s own recognizable five act structure.
The second element of form that Shaw uses to establish romantic expectations is in allusion to Shakespearean works. While the title of the play distracts the viewer/reader into thematic comparisons with the classical myth of the same name, similarities to Shakespearean works in the content of the drama are overlooked. The tenor of the relationship between Eliza and Higgins is highly reminiscent of Kate and Petruchio in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. Like Shakespeare, Shaw uses a form of stichomythia in which Higgins and Eliza banter. For example, in Act II they chase each other with words in opposing lines:
“Higgins: [. . .] Well!!! [. . .] What do you expect me to say to you?
The Flower Girl: Well, if you was a gentleman, you might ask me to sit down, I think. Don’t I tell you I’m bringing you business?
Higgins: Pickering: shall we ask this baggage to sit down, or shall we throw her out of the window?
The flower girl: [. . .] Ah-ah-oh-ow-ow-ow-oo! [. . .] I won’t be called baggage (Shaw 300). Their bold interaction from beginning to end creates a romantic tension similar to that found in The Taming of the Shrew. In Act II, Higgins instructs her to live with him and immediately has her stripped down and washed. The sexual symbolism is clear as intimated by Doolittle when he brings his daughter’s luggage and says “She said she didn’t want no clothes. What was I to think from that, Governor? I ask you as a parent what was I to think?” (Shaw 312). Higgins’ abusive training of Eliza is also similar to Petruchio’s ‘taming’ of Kate. Shaw is again drawing on popular conventions of romantic tension to establish the possibility of a romantic resolution between Higgins and Eliza. Within this antagonistic framework, Shaw challenges romantic notions of courtship.
Shaw uses another element of form to establish an egalitarian perspective of the battle of the sexes between Higgins and Eliza: setting. As Acts change, he oscillates the setting between Higgins’ laboratory (in his home) and his mother’s drawing room (at her flat). Symbolically, these two settings represent patriarchal and matriarchal power. In his home, Higgins is boorish and overbearing in his treatment of Eliza. His mother, however, is not intimidated by him and maintains very matriarchal control of her space. In Act V, for example, she says to her son, “If you promise to behave yourself, Henry, I’ll ask her to come down. If not, go home; for you have taken up quite enough of my time” (Shaw 340). In this matriarchal space, Eliza is empowered and able to counter Higgins in his demeanour. At one point in Act V, Eliza declares “[s]o you are a motor bus: all bounce and no consideration for anyone. But I can do without you: dont think I cant” (Shaw 346). A weakness in Higgins’ masculine power is intimated which mitigates his boorish behaviour and is only one of several characteristics that make him romantically appealing.
Higgins is intelligent, educated, passionate about his profession, honest and paternal. These are all traditional romantically appealing qualities. He is ingenuous and egalitarian in his depiction of relationships. In Act II he says, “I find that the moment I let a woman make friends with me, she becomes jealous, exacting, suspicious, and a damned nuisance. I find that the moment I let myself make friends with a woman, I become selfish and tyrannical” (Shaw 307). To the end, he is also genuinely void of hypocrisy. In Act V, he states his perspective to Eliza:
“Higgins: And I treat a duchess as if she were a flower-girl.
Liza: I see [. . .] The same to everybody.
Higgins: Just so.
Liza: Like father.
Higgins: [Grinning, a little taken down.] Without accepting the comparison at all points, Eliza, it’s quite true that your father is not a snob [. . .] The great secret, Eliza, is not having bad manners or good manners or any other particular sort of manners, but having the same manner for all” ( Shaw 345-6). Higgins is also intellectually appealing in much of his rationale. Furthermore, showing a delightful knack for rhetoric, Higgins is established as honest in the name of Eliza’s virtue. When Pickering intimates “that no advantage is to be taken of her” sexually, Higgins dryly responds with “What! That thing! Sacred, I assure you” (Shaw 308). Higgins’ position against romantic considerations both establishes his integrity and establishes a conventional expectation for this opinion to be altered.
Furthermore, by removing a sexual motivation, Higgins takes on a paternal role in Eliza’s education. The romantic intimation of a potential partner being paternalistic is conventionally Freudian1. Her real father has already suggested an abusive pattern in his paternity towards her when he says “I never brought her up at all, except to give her a lick of a strap now and again” (Shaw 316). In Act II, however, the egalitarian perspective is again reinforced as it is notable that Eliza solicits the tutelage of Higgins. Although Higgins appears abusive in his treatment of Eliza, it is all in the name of improving her in the only way he sees possible.
Eliza’s education, in conjunction with the established romantic tension creates a dual climax in the plot. The social climax is achieved with her success at the “garden party” discussed at the beginning of Act IV. Shaw marginalizes this climax by having it occur offstage and between Acts. He immediately begins to subvert expectations in the denouement following this climax. According to conventions in fairy-tales such as Cinderella, Eliza’s social success would be synonymous with the romantic assurance of her lover. However, the romantic plot is unresolved. In Act V, Shaw heightens the expectation that the vehement bachelor has realized love when Higgins states to Eliza, “You never asked yourself, I suppose, whether I could do without you” (Shaw 346). At the point of the romantic climax, when it feels as though Eliza must choose between Freddy and Higgins, the dramatic text ends. The unresolved ending not only contrasts with conventional Shakespearean endings but also contradicts the resolution of the romantic tension established between Eliza and Higgins as well as the resolution of the clear marital candidacy established in Freddy. The emotionally calming effect and expectation of the traditional comic happy-ending is abruptly subverted and Higgins is left as a tantalizing unresolved potential romantic prospect.
Shaw uses the unresolved romantic plot to advance his notion of romantic egalitarianism. Higgins won’t choose for Eliza. In his unremitting honesty and inability to be hypocritical, he states “If you come back I shall treat you just as I always treated you. I cant change my nature; and I don’t intend to change my manners” (Shaw 345). He leaves the choice of her romantic future entirely up to her. In a jealous tirade he asks, “You find me cold, unfeeling, selfish, dont you? Very well: be off with you to the sort of people you like. Marry some sentimental hog or other with lots of money, and a thick pair of lips to kiss you with and a thick pair of boots to kick you with. If you cant appreciate what youve got, youd better get what you can appreciate” (Shaw 349). Eliza is left empowered to pursue whatever course she desires, protected by the matriarchal setting in which the dramatic text ends, at Higgins’ mother’s flat. Shaw does not eliminate any possibility from Eliza’s future but leaves the audience wondering if she would be better off with an honest man who is above the hypocrisy of aristocratic society or with an aristocratic romantic fool such as Freddy.
Shaw invites the audience to consider a realistic perspective on true companionate marriage, and a strong desire for more banter between Eliza and Higgins.
Using broad characteristics of form, Shaw draws comparisons with conventional Shakespearean forms and subverts audience expectations. By doing so, Shaw challenges traditional and conventional notions of propriety and romance in favour of a doctrine of ingenuous honesty, intellectual companionability, and the reality of unresolved romantic considerations. After all, in reality, most romantic tribulations are not neatly tied up in five ‘well-made’ acts of life.


Notes

1See Freud’s work entitled The Interpretation of Dreams. Chapter 5. Material and Sources of Dreams [The Oedipus Complex]


Works Cited

Shaw, George Bernard. "Pygmalion." George Bernard Shaw’s Plays, Sandie Byrne, ed.
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York, 2002. pp. 286 - 360.