In class, we have already discussed the comedic versus the horrific in the play. I now think about a more pressing issue; is Pygmalion one of the greatest plays ever written? George Bernard Shaw certainly thought so. He dismissed playwrights such as Oscar Wilde and he named his play Pygmalion in order for it sound like a classic play. But as I read it this time, I cannot help but wonder if this play is amazing in any unique way.
For me, the characters are not developed. Right now, both Higgins and Pickering are your general stock characters. The rude character versus the polite character. The dialogue between the two, while funny, is not as sharp as Earnest. Mrs. Pearce is generally one dimension, and as we read the scene with Freddy's family, I find they too are one dimension. The only character with any depth is Eliza, and even then I'm not sure if I find her fully realized.
She is interesting, that's for sure. But I'm not sure if a rags to riches story is enough to be consider a classic piece of literature. The situation is not nearly as dramatic as any of Shakespeare's plays (through really, what is), the themes are not revolutionary (when compared to something like The Cherry Orchard) and the characters do not have the depth or complexity as a Williams play. Yet often times, Pygmalion is placed in the same category or a higher category than the aforementioned. Is there something I am missing? Can a well-made play be more than just that? As you read, think about this play - is it doing anything greater than any of the other plays? Is this a greater work of literature?
I agree with you on that, I feel like Pygmalion is not as unique as other plays we have read in class. Majority of the characters are vague, and we do not know much about them. They are not described in depth and the plot of the play is also lacking complete description. It is a basic Cinderella story.
ReplyDeleteA Streetcar Named Desire had a better description of the characters and had an interesting plot. We learned that the Kowalski's had a dysfunctional marriage, Blanche had a troubled past that reflected who she is, and Mitch had a difficult life at home and had no experience with women.
The ending of Streetcar was not predictable, in my opinion. Blanche forced into a mental facility was not what I thought would happen. I feel that we know what is going to happen at the end of Pygmalion because it is a basic rags to riches story. I do not feel this is a greater work of literature like Shaw explained it would be.
As I continue to read your critique of the play, I find myself strongly agreeing with you. What makes Pygmalion better than any play we have read this year? It surely does not compare to ANY work of William Shakespeare or William Faulkner. Some may argue it does not stand out any better than the best plays written by Anton Chekhov or Virginia Woolf.
ReplyDeleteI find the setting to be ultimately boring. Shaw is as basic as possible in choosing the same houses for the setting in each act. There is nothing unique about any particular part of these settings. Shaw does not go into depth and leaves me wondering how much better this play could have been if it were to be in a more exotic setting.
Along with the underdeveloped setting, comes underdeveloped characters. As you stated, both Higgins and Pickering are general characters. For five acts, a bet between these two men is dragged on. Rather than showing the important, how Eliza learned phonetics and the struggle she overcame to become this “Duchess”, Shaw drags on the bet between Higgins and Pickering. Even Eliza, who is, many argue, the thriving character in the play could surely be more developed. Her story of once being poor and becoming this “Duchess” does not make up for the underdevelopment of Higgins and Pickering. The ending to Pygmalion is not mind-bottling and keeps the ending the same as the rest of the play, boring.