Myself, I think that the MFL ending is more satisfying, but the Pygmalion ending seems to make more sense, as the play is about feminism and independance. MFL and Pygmalion seem to be the same story (there are actually relatively few differences when you consider that they are separate works in their own right), but they focus on different themes. Pygmalion's ending suits Pygmalion more, because it's a play about feminism and independance, but with the added romance (a la 'Could Have Danced All Night', 'Rain in Spain' and 'Grown Accustomed') in My Fair Lady, leaving Higgins would destroy the point of this version of the film/play (a classic 'love conquers over all' romance).

But whilst leaving Higgins seems the most appropriate ending in Pygmalion so as not to betray the feminist object of it, it seems really dampening to think that after enjoying a character so interesting and deliciously hilarious as Higgins (especially the Rex Harrison Higgins), the star of the show just shuts the door on him and goes off with some society whelp who appears to have been placed in the play for the sole purpose of tempting Eliza. If you listen to Higgins' rant about Eliza's future mid-'I've Grown Accustomed', there are plenty of reasons how both versions of the comedy could end up rather unhappily if Eliza were to choose Freddie. What do you think?

Anyway, what do you think of the very modern version...Pretty Woman?

Julia Roberts did some pretty good acting, but it left out all the charm of MFL.

After all, she's supposed to be a flower-girl not a prostitute.

But well, that's the way Hollywood goes.

-Truest Tears-

The thing is, Pygmalion and My Fair Lady make entirely opposite statements. Pygmalion is a political, feminist statement of independence with a jarring ending that audiences have abhorred ever since it was written; MFL is a Cinderella lovey hero story and considered one of the most romantic films/plays of all time. Freddie was put in Pygmalion to give Eliza a future, as was Eliza's father's inherited wealth. It was because of these things that the entire 'female independence' thing could work - these were the only means by which Eliza could get away with leaving Higgins: Eliza would leave Higgins; marry Freddie; be supported by her father; run a flower shop as she'd set out to do, and still manage to live comfortably.

So in MFL, Freddie isn't really crucial to the plot. Okay, so he poses a potential threat to Eliza and Higgins' future relationship, but why should Eliza have bumped into him in Covent Garden? What did Shaw have in mind when he wrote the Ascot scene? Why does he croon 'On The Street Where You Live' and make a big meal of it (or, in Pygmalion, kiss Eliza rather a lot)? He has too much of a part to be of such little significance in MFL, but he has too little of a part to be of such great significance.

My Fair Lady has a few holes, but I prefer it. I can appreciate an intellectual, crunchy political statement, but I am a lover of love stories. There is something very beautiful about working together for a common goal, and at the end of the day, the sentimental ending sits better with me.

And on the subject of alternative/modern versions...

What about 'Educating Rita'? I am completely in love with this play, it's truly genius. I won't spoil it, but let's just say that it swings towards the MFL ending more than Pygmalion, though it is a fairly open ending. Definitely go see it =)

(And Pickering- cus he's awesome- ;)

My school recently held this as it's middle-school production- it. was. BRILLIANT! The guy who plays Higgins is in my Classics class- he was born to play the part- absolutely amazing.

Chels

I see it that Shaw's purpose is to flout Ovid's original conception of the woman Galatea as a worshipping monument to her creator with a woman who refuses to be bound to the man who claims to have 'created' her.

Of course, to take the opposite view, Shaw defeats this with the ironical ending of Eliza marrying Freddie: she merely goes from being subject from one man from being subject to another, because that's the upper class woman's lot in life, according to Shaw, voiced through Dolittle, commenting on his misery as a rich man and his desire to return to undeserving poverty: "I was free". As a working class woman, Eliza has grown used to asserting her rights ("I wont stay here if I dont like and I wont let nobody wallop me!"). Little does she know, in this instance, the sad truth that women who cannot sell flowers have to "sell [them]selves" into marriage and give up their rights to be dominated by men, rather than being dominated by poverty.

To take that slant on it, I suppose it wouldn't hurt Shaw's premise too much if Eliza DID marry Higgins. She might waltz off into the sunset in the end, but it's still into the hands of a man, isn't it?

Having done my A-Level English Lit. coursework on Pygmalion and studied it intensively, there's my ten cents.

One of the great twists of MFL is that in the scene following the return from the Ball, Eliza is weeping, genuinely, truly frightened for her future-- "Where am I to go, what am I to do, what's to become of me?" Higgins nonchalantly tosses out options-marry some chap or other, go work in a florist's shop..none of which reassure Eliza.

The following morning, it's Henry who's saying "Where will you go, in Heaven's name?" (apparently he's already forgotten the conversation of the night before) and Eliza suggests the very viable option of becoming a teacher of phonetics...which Henry has to admit is a possibility for her (if he doesn't wring her neck first).

Bottom line: Eliza HAS options. Higgins fears she can do without him. Which makes her return to him a CHOICE and not a NECESSITY...and that makes all the difference (see my other post regarding Higgins' dislike of weak, needy people. Surely that's one of the reasons he can't stand Freddie.)

Oh, and to stay On Topic--MFL. Higgins/Eliza 'shipper all the way here!

Well, as far as i'm concerned, no matter how Shaw tried to back up his ending it still seems nonsenseical to me. I mean if I were in that situation I have no doubt that I would choose Higgins, I mean eliza is most definately a strong person who does not truly love Freddie, and as Shaw called this play a romance; this leads me to think that perhaps the romance is suggested between herself and Higgins.

I'm not sure if i am seeing things that do not exist here, but surely it is human instinct that we go for those we love.... ie Higgins and Eliza, I also imagine that this would happen and the couple would have a slightly unhappy marriage at times but would always somehow reslove issues etc...and love each other in a way that only Eliza and Henry could.

If I have still failed to make any convictions then put it this way...Pygmalion is fiction, so why not give it the traditional happy ending?

So yes, my vote is for My fair lady, even though I was slightly displeased that it didn't have a definate ending in some ways, (not that it matters as i have written my own on here.)

I've just read 'Educating Rita', actually. And it is now another of my favourite books in the world. It connects with Pygmalion on so many ways - but chiefly, in the sense that the creation rises above her creator. We see, in both cases, a chirpy-but-subordinate uneducated, unrefined working class woman being taught by a self-assured, educated, sophisticated male to rise above her station and enter the educated middle class. The end result is the same: both Frank and Higgins become dependent on the woman who was once dependent on them, and find themselves lost when she outgrows them. There are implications that Higgins loves Eliza in Pygmalion: the ending of Higgins' manical laughter; the line "I cannot turn your soul on"; the fact that Higgins says that Eliza's soul is "the quaintest of the lot"; the fact that Higgins so fiercely opposes Eliza's proposition of marrying Freddie. In 'Educating Rita', these implications are more obvious: Frank buys Rita a dress, asks her to dinner for the sole purpose of seeing her there; makes various sexual references; keeps harping on about romantic affairs; despises all talk of "Tyger", who Rita is seen to take a liking to, and asks Rita to go to Australia with him.

In both cases, we have the upper class male finding that he has an affinity for the working class ways, to an extent: the scene at Mrs Higgins' 'At Home'/Ascot, for instance, demonstrates that Higgins is no better mannered than Eliza. Frank begs on his knees for Rita to retain some of her non-academic individuality in her essays, and is shown to swear, drink, and enjoy non-literary works. Both authors set out with a didactic purpose for trying to close the gaps between the working and middle classes, with education used as a vehicle to do so. Shaw did this because he was a socialist and a feminist, whereas Russel's work contains autobiographical elements of his own struggle to embrace the literary world on the other side of the class boundary.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)