CC12 Project

Songborto Biswas, Semester 5

Scottish Church College
College Roll Number: ENGA20M351
CU Roll Number: 202223-21-0054
CU Registration Number: 223-1111-0194-20
The Hunt for a Happy Ending: Exploring the
Transformation of Pygmalion into My Fair Lady
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Prof. Kaberi Chatterjee for providing me with the opportunity to do this
project and giving me an insight into the subject.
Introduction
The core text of this paper simply boggles the mind if one imagines the sheer range of
creative talent and effort expended to give it its current form. The Pygmalion myth was
devised more than two thousand years ago. The motif of Man shaped from inanimate matter
existed in early Greek oral myths such as the tale of Pandora, formulated out of clay and
given life by Zeus (recorded in Hesiod’s Theogony ). The earliest known version of the myth
was recorded in Philostephanus’ history of Cyprus, De Cypro, written in the third century
BCE. But this text is now lost and the world today knows it from Ovid’s magnum opus,
Metamorphoses. The bare bones of the story stand like this- A sculptor, Pygmalion, creates a
sculpture of perfect feminine beauty, Galatea (although this name came into use much later,
according to Rousseau’s scene lyrique, Pygmalion). He falls in love with it and the goddess
Venus gives it life so that he can be united with her. Across the ages, many incarnations of
this story have appeared in the Western Canon. But the one that interests us not only
recontextualised it, but also introduced one vital change that altered the direction of the whole
plot.
An Irishman well-known for his remarkable wit and his many controversial ideas, George
Bernard Shaw has entertained and informed the world for well-over a century with his
dramatic skill. The myth inspired Shaw to create his own play, a modern variant where the
act of giving life becomes symbolic and even more importantly, the ‘Galatea’, in question,
Eliza Doolittle is given agency and empowered to live life as she pleases. This is the most
Shavian part of the play as social commentary sparkles through his wit.

Pygmalion Adoring His Statue by Jean Raoux, 1717

Consumers of popular culture today are largely acquainted with Shaw’s play from its 1956
musical version, My Fair Lady and the latter’s 1964 film adaptation. The Broadway musical
was created by the writer-composer duo, Lerner and Loewe, who were titans in their own
field. But even by those standards, My Fair Lady was their greatest success. The film version
was similarly lauded as a socially aware comedy directed by George Cukor, known both for
his screwball comedies and literary adaptations. From a classical Roman poet through an
Irish Nobel-laureate playwright to American masters of musical theatre and cinematic
comedies, the story has progressed through hearts and minds that differed in thought,
experience and ideology. But the greatest bone of contention between all of them, or to be
more specific, between Shaw and all the rest of them has been the ending. In this paper,
Shaw’s attempt to subvert the popular romantic happy ending trope will be analysed and
compared with other versions of the story.
Entertainment and Social Commentary
In a career of more than sixty plays, Shaw had established his own brand of Shavian wit,
striking a fine balance between entertaining audiences and attempting to open their eyes
through deft social critique. Shaw’s approach is, at its core, as realistic as possible. He is
willing to sacrifice a few laughs or heart-warming moments to provide them a clear picture of
society. His leading characters (like Barbara Undershaft in Major Barbara or Ann Whitefield
in Man and Superman) are meant inspire the members of his audience to strive against
various contemporary social problems. Although this approach had not hindered his path to
success, it sometimes clashed with the path of popular entertainment.
On the stage or screen, some tenets had been laid down firmly with respect to comedy by the
early twentieth century. Among several definitions for comedy, Merriam-Webster includes
one best suited to our purposes: “a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a
happy ending”. Now, what is the easiest path for a dramatist or a screen to ensure that both
his characters and audience are left happy at the end of a play? By uniting the lovers of
course. This formula has been so successful that according to Rick Altman, the publisher of
“American Film Musical”, the film musical is now a narrative genre, where a romantic
couple has to solve a conflict and expresses its feelings through music and dance. The
entertainment this genre provides is often escapist. The need for Romantic union is so great
that while adapting stories for the stage, romances have to invented where there are none. On
the Hollywood screen too, directors often chase the success of this formula.
A Closer Look at the Endings
Let us begin with the focus on Ovid’s version of the story. Pygmalion, a master sculptor,
reaches the pinnacle of his art with one particular creation, a statue of perfect feminine
beauty. This statue is given life for the exclusive purpose of achieving romantic union with
Pygmalion somewhat like Eve was created to be the mate of Adam in the garden of Eden.
Patriarchy echoes from Ancient Greek mythology to Christendom. Every version that
followed was built on this basic premise. Then Shaw came along. Shaw’s Eliza Doolittle is
not just given life as a divine favour to her creator. In her case, Higgins, the ‘Pygmalion’
teaches and she learns, displaying remarkable aptitude for all that is taught, as Higgins and
Pickering remark. Both have a role to play in the transformation.
From the beginning it is made clear that Eliza does not wish to transform for the sake of
being a romantic partner to someone great. Her motivation is to become “a lady in a flower
shop”- social and financial ascension. But nevertheless, the romantic motivation does arise
when Higgins says, “Eliza, the streets will be strewn with the bodies of men shooting
themselves for your sake before I’ve done with you.” Gradually as Eliza does ascend, the
question of her future becomes more and more important. Eliza finds that her new social
status, which puts her at par with nobility, ensures that she can no longer go back to work as a
flower-seller in the street- her own tastes forbid it. And in spite of her education and her great
talent, the doors of the professions are closed to her as it was to contemporary educated
women. This is Shavian satire at work, targeting the Victorian practice of confining middle
and upper class educated women to a life of domestic work or idleness. But Shaw had no
intention of showing Eliza acceding to marriage to Higgins as the only path open to her.

Herbert Beerbohm Tree as Henry Higgins

Thus, in the original ending, when Eliza goes away with final words, “Then I shall not see
you again, Professor. Goodbye.” And Higgins still orders her to buy certain things for him
but to no avail. Yet Herbert Beerbohm Tree, playing Higgins in the first production, decided
to add his own touch to the play in order to give the audience some good old-fashioned
romance the way they were accustomed to seeing it one stage. He begged and pleaded with
Eliza to stay on, in a manner most uncharacteristic of Higgins, and achieving said happy
ending. This was such a great bone of contention for Shaw that he decided to alter the ending
again to prevent such antics. In the next published ending, Higgins makes it clear that Eliza is
going to marry Freddy Eynsford Hill in the final lines, and also adds a Sequel with a detailed
account of the ups and downs of Eliza and Freddy in the business world as flower-merchants
and eventually, greengrocers. Freddy chucks away the snobbery associated with his class and
engages happily in business with Eliza while she finds economic independence not merely as
an idle wife but as a businesswoman working in partnership with her husband. Eliza’s
romantic prospects with Higgins are dismissed as the stuff of ‘private imagination’ This is a
happy ending that conforms perfectly with Shaw’s ideals. In his own film version, Shaw
compresses the ending but hints at this same outcome.
In My Fair Lady, the very spirit is hampered by the American Musical Extravaganza. There it
is Higgins who has the last word, “Where the devil are my slippers, Eliza?” with the director
implying that she is certainly going to look for them. In a letter to Mrs Campbell (Eliza),
Shaw wrote, “When Eliza emancipates herself-when Galatea comes to life- she must not
relapse. She must retain her pride and triumph to the end.” It is this spirit that Broadway or
Hollywood cannot accept
 .
Conclusion
An analysis of the endings reveals a battle between forces Shavian and non-Shavian. It would
be quite relevant to note that Shaw is one of only two individuals to have won the Nobel
Prize and an Academy Award, the latter for his work in the screenplay of the 1938 version of
Pygmalion and in addition, delivered countless hits on stage. Therefore, he knew quite well
how to entertain the masses while delivering his message. We can only conclude that those
who detracted from the Shavian ending citing populist reasons, only reveal their innate
chauvinism.
Bibliography
1. Shaw, George Bernard, Pygmalion, Bloomsbury
2. Shaw, George Bernard, Plays: Pleasant and Unpleasant, Brentano’s
3. Grode, Eric, The Book of Broadway: The 150 Definitive Plays and Musicals, Voyageur
Press
4. Mordden, Ethan, When Broadway Went to Hollywood, Oxford University Press
5. McHugh, Dominic, Loverly: The Life and Times of My Fair Lady, Oxford University
Press