Since I started reading this play I knew Higgins was going to get me mad a lot of times, that is because he treats Eliza so poorly and he talks to her the same way. That is visible now too, upper classes treating lower classes as if they owned them. I think that apart from that Higgins is a good person, he can’t control that because maybe that was the idea back then, he has good intentions with Eliza even though it looks like if he is just experimenting on her as in the play it has been said as it to be an experiment only, I also think Higgins as time passes starts to understand that Eliza is not just an experiment.

When I compare Pygmalion to A dolls House the first thing that comes to my mind is men treating woman as objects, but as you read through you can see that both woman in both books have some respect for themselves and in that I really like that. I can also see how in both books, both women wants to take control of themselves, You can see at the end of Pygmalion, Elisa becomes Independent.

During an evening walk in London, phonetics professor Henry Higgins meets a flower girl Eliza Doolittle, who is not distinguished by any manners of a middle-class girl, nor a competent articulate speech. Confident of his abilities, Henry makes a bet with his friend Colonel Pickering that in six months he will be able to turn the girl from a street vendor into a real duchess. Eliza, dreaming of a different life, agrees to take part in this experiment.

The cast of “Pygmalion” also left quite favorable impressions. Leslie Howard in the role of Professor Henry Higgins, a convinced bachelor, an accomplished cynic, and at the same time a talented professor of phonetics, in which, despite his stiffness, his “creation” managed to arouse real feelings.The performance of the British movie legend Wendy Hiller, for whom the role of Eliza Doolittle became a debut on a big scene and who managed to convey that transformation that took place not only outside but also inside herself.

Directed by Anthony Esquit and Leslie Howard, they created an intellectual comedy that is noted not only by its original humor but also affected by deep acute and social problems. On the one hand, the movie exposes the theme of social basics, more precisely, that with hard work and personal desire, you can achieve unprecedented results. The movie clearly taunts the representatives of the “royal blood” who are contemptuous of all the lower classes and perceiving them as an inanimate object, and therefore, with all their intellectual skills, they are morally and spiritually lower, as Higgins sank at the end of the film, when, despite the obvious, the successes of Eliza, still treated her as a subhuman, as a result of which he almost lost her forever.

The plot of the film almost entirely follows the content of the play. In the story, Eliza, dreams of getting a job in a real flower shop or getting a job as a maid with decent people, understands that she needs to change to realize her dream, and Professor Higgins can help her with this. Having decided to take private lessons from him, she did not imagine that she would have to move to him, where for the next six months they would drill her until they turned into real works of art, as Pygmalion had done with the statue of Galatea. The only problem is that the convinced bachelor Higgins involuntarily falls in love with his creation, but fearing to admit it and at the same time lose, stubbornly continues to scoff at even when Eliza did not deserve it. Eliza, who has become a real well-educated lady and has realized her place in this world, is ready to leave Higgins forever. The inner world of a person is not only how we talk, but how we perceive the world around us, our accumulated life experience, our impressions, emotions, and feelings. I sympathize with the girl who unwittingly became an experiment in her professional, but a little crazy, puts her subject at the forefront, if we say the right thing, then everything will work out right away in life and everything will be fine and excellent. Higgins does not see a woman in her, he does not perceive her as a person, he tried to prove something to himself and it laid consequences.

Summary In general, Pygmalion is a good adaptation of Bernard Shaw’s play, which has its own unique atmosphere of witty humor and deep philosophy. Although the movie turned out to be more romantic and cheerful than the original play, this did not aggravate the overall impression of viewing. Despite the years, this movie has not lost its relevance and remains interesting for many generations.

Talking about the similarities between “The Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen’sand “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shaw’, the main problem of both plays is the transformation of Nora and Eliza which ultimately changes each of the women. As an example, Nora assumes the responsibilities of a wife; Eliza assumes the responsibilities for learning, and caring for Higgins and his home. However, in terms of Nora’s growth as a person, she is sure about her decision, that she can no longer live with her husband,  Eliza’s growth as a person is shown in the sense of herself, making her more demanding of men respect.

Pygmalion, the play, by George Bernard Shaw was a twist on the original myth of Pygmalion. It took the classic form of the sculptor and turned it into a human. In the Myth of Pygmalion, the sculptor makes the statue and in the end they fall in love with each other and live happily ever after. In the play by Shaw, Dr. Higgins tries to transform Eliza (who the statue is in the story) into what he would see as this perfect woman and in the end, he is in love with her but they don’t live happily ever after. With the original Myth, there was the statue who was not alive and then got turned to life but in the play we looked at, Eliza was already a person and Higgins tried to make her into a new one of what he wanted her to be like. It made Eliza more like the statue as Higgins saw her more as a product than a person and that was the same case as in a “Doll’s house” with the men objectifying the women and treating them more like a possession than a person.

“I paid him five pounds for her”[Act 5 Pygmalion]

“Is that my song-lark chirruping out there?…Is that my little squirrel rummaging in there?”[P. 110 A Doll’s House]

In the play by George Bernard Shaw and Henrik Ibsen, there is a lot of sexism that then later turns into a  female empowerment ending with the women leaving the men and being independent.

“As I am now, I am no wife for you. … Listen Torvald, when a wife leaves her husband’s house, as i am now doing, I’ve heard that he is freed according to teh law from  all obligations towards her.” [P. 187 A Doll’s House]

 

“LIZA
Then I shall not see you again, Professor. Good bye. [She goes to the door].

MRSX HIGGINS
[coming to Higgins] Good-bye, dear.

HIGGINS
Good-bye, mother. [He is about to kiss her, when he recollects something]. Oh, by the way, Eliza, order a ham and a Stilton cheese, will you? And buy me a pair of reindeer gloves, number eights, and a tie to match that new suit of mine, at Eale & Binman’s. You can choose the color. [His cheerful, careless, vigorous voice shows that he is incorrigible].

LIZA
[disdainfully] Buy them yourself. [She sweeps out].” [End of act 5]

When I was reading the play of Pygmalion, I would read it as Eliza being very helpless at the beginnig and that she would look up to Dr. Higgins as some great person. Later when I watched the movie, the ideas of what the characters were like completely changed for me and made it a whole different story. I think the biggest difference for all movies and the plays is how we use our imagination to see the characters than to see them with our eyes and ears. You can have the exact same words and script and directions but when you are wathingt the play, your brain has a fixed idea of what they are like and it doesn’t allow any room for imagination.

Overall I really enjoyed reading George Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion” but I was disappointed at first because I thought it was going to be set in a Greek Mythology/story setting and so I was a bit discouraged after it was a more modern piece but still overall i enjoyed reading it and it got better and better as I went along and as Eliza grew more into a strong independent character.

Although George Bernard Shaw based his storyline on the Greek myth of Pygmalion, a sculptor who fell in love with his own creation, Shaw’s version of the story is astounding. I am not typically intrigued by a lot of books and plays, however there is something about Shaw’s take on the Greek myth that catches my eye. Something that most definitely caught my eye was Eliza herself and what she represents in a modern day society like our own. Although in the original storyline, Eliza represents the sculpture that Higgins “creates”, but I have come to believe that she represents so much more. She represents all of us, and Higgins represents our society feeling the need to change who we are born to be. As we grow up we are heavily influenced by our toxic society to change how we were born, especially women. For as long as we can remember, women have been pushed by society into a little box of societal perfection, created by misogyny. Whether it is the message that what we wear is too distracting for the boys and we have to change because they cannot control themselves, or the simple idea that we are not and will never be good enough.

In the film version of the play, I could visually see the pain Eliza felt during the unenjoyable process of changing herself into what the world, or more so Higgins, wanted her to be. Although Higgins may have loved her in some sort of way, his misogynistic behavior is a simple explanation as to why Eliza wanted her independence back that she had before meeting Higgins. Although we all may have wanted the happily ever after between the two, just as we saw in A Doll’s House, it was never meant to be. Eliza and Nora both are women looking for their independence in a society filled with misogynistic behavior, and after a long run of suffering, they both got their independence. I personally enjoyed this play because, just like in A Doll’s House, these female characters are inspiring to women to not be afraid of taking charge of their own life and being independent. Because we are all capable of being independent, we just need the confidence to be like the two beautiful ladies in these two plays written by Shaw.

I think that watching the movie helped me understand better than the book. The first thing I heard in the movie was the Cockney accent. This helped me a lot, because when I read the play I was trying to imagine what Eliza sounded like when she spoke, but when I heard this I didn’t need to. I also liked how when I watched the movie, I could actually see the setting, which helped me because it showed what the city was actually like during that time, both the rich parts and the poorer parts. I also liked how it showed what the poor people and the rich people dressed and looked like, because it helped me see why Higgins and Colonel Pickering wanted to turn Eliza from a street urchin into a duchess. Seeing everything in a visual way just helped me understand the story more.

Similarities that I found between Pygmalion and a Doll’s House are that both Higgins and Torvald seem to be similar, in that they don’t seem to think women are worthy of their time and attention, and all they are trying to do is change the main female character to have their tastes, and look like they want them to look. Another similarity I found is that at the end of both plays, both Eliza and Nora realize they are being mistreated, and leave to start a new life. I think another similarity between these two characters is that both of them are looked down upon by society. Eliza is looked down upon because she is just a poor girl who sells flowers, and Nora is looked down upon because she is a woman, and Torvald and the other men in the play think she cannot do anything on her own.

“Pygmalion” is a play written by George Bernard Shaw and published in 1913. It is story built on top of Greek myth about a king and a sculptor Pygmalion and his feelings to the statue of his own creation.

The Pygmalion play tells us about a genius phonetics professor Henry Higgins, his comrade Colonel Pickering, a common flowergirl Eliza Doolittle and the bet made by Mr. Higgins with Pickering that in six months he will be able to teach Eliza the phonetics and manners good enough to pass her off as a duchess at an ambassador’s garden party.

A first clear observation about the play, which is also one of the most important aspects of it, is the way how Higgins’ treats Eliza. One might argue that in Pygmalion, Professor Higgins treats Eliza like a property or a dog

“Eliza returns with a pair of large down-at-heel slippers. She places them on the carpet before Higgins, and sits as before without a word.

                                                  Pygmalion, 12^th line of Act IV”

While Higgins treats Eliza in a way that one that some might call “less than”, unlike Pickering, it is a part of Higgins’ character. His lack of empathy, poor caring about other people’s feelings and ease on the use of explicit language build the prototype for Higgins’ character, Eliza is not the only one who is poorly treated by him. Mr. Higgins insults random strangers on the street (Act I), “makes faces” at his housekeeper when she tells him off for bad manners behind the breakfast table (Act II) and rushes in his own mother’s room (Act V). He does not think of Eliza as “less than”, he took her on as an experiment, built “a statue” out of her and thinks of her of an equal to him:

“HIGGINS: Of course I do, you little fool. Five minutes ago you were like a millstone round my neck. Now youre a tower of strength: a consort battleship. You and I and Pickering will be three old bachelors together instead of only two men and a silly girl.

                                                                                                                                                                            Pygmalion, End of Act V”

Higgins does not want Eliza to fetch him slippers, nor he wants to fetch her slippers, he wants her to be equal to him.

A second observation about the Pygmalion is not as clear shown in the film version as in the written play. One of the main points that the play tries to show is the change that Higgins has caused to other people, Eliza, and her father. In the Act I, Eliza was presented as a common girl trying to sell flowers and speaking non-clear accent. Her father was an alcoholic dustman, looking and talking accordingly, asking for money from Mr. Higgins and Colonel Pickering. In 6 months (which are shown by the film, but not by the play, which is the reason the change is more noticeable in the written play), Eliza is accompanied by Mr. Higgins and Colonel Pickering to the palace where she passes off as a lady, making Higgins win the bet. Her father return in the Act V as well, showing that he now was a middle-class man, thanks to Mr. Higgins. Yet, both are unhappy about the changes in their life:

“DOOLITTLE: Done to me! Ruined me. Destroyed my happiness. Tied me up and delivered me into the hands of middle class morality.

                                                                                                                                                                Pygmalion, 55^th line of Act V”

The unhappiness of Eliza and her father raises questions about the “middle class morality”. These people did not ask for a change, they lived their lives without money or education happily and did not complain, but now they are unhappy, so the change, which is seen for better by the “middle class man” Higgins, is not for the better for them? Do these people actually need a change like this? Are poorer people – happier? If they are – why are they happier? Do they have more freedom? What if they do not understand the privileges that they gain? What if it does not matter to them?

The film script repeats the original play word-per-word, except for some phrases removed and a slight reorder of actions, for instance, in Act III, in the written play Mr. Higgins and Pickering talk to Mrs. Higgins about Eliza after everyone leaves the party, not before Eliza comes in:

“HIGGINS [speaking together] You know, she has the most extraordinary quickness of ear: PICKERING.I assure you, my dear Mrs. Higgins, that girl HIGGINS just like a parrot. I’ve tried her with ever PICKERING.is a genius. She can play the piano quite beautifully. HIGGINS possible sort of sound that a human being can make—PICKERING We have taken her to classical concerts and to music HIGGINS Continental dialects, African dialects, Hottentot PICKERING halls; and its all the same to her: she plays everything…

Pygmalion, End of Act III”

One (two) key differences between the play and the film is the addition of scenes where Higgins teaches Eliza throughout the 6 months that he has, the bathing scene where Eliza is forced to take a bath and the party in the palace, where Higgins passes Eliza off as a lady. These scenes play a crucial part in the perception of the change happening to Eliza and struggles that she has to live though.

<here goes an image, but I’m not sure if we are allowed to add them>

Another important difference is the end. In the written play Higgins asks Eliza to order cheese and buy him a tie in his mother’s house, Eliza denies, but Higgins knows that she still will do it. In the film version, Eliza drives off in a car to her father’s wedding, while Higgins runs out and then goes back to his house in a mood, where he meets Eliza. This is a clearer ending for the viewer, as the original play ending is harder to understand in the rapid pace of the film

Just like “A Doll’s House” the main storyline revolves around a woman and a man, Mrs. Doolittle and Mr. Higgins in the case of “Pygmalion”. However, while in A Doll’s House Nora was treated like a property by her husband, but where Nora was endorsing it at first and realized the immorality in the end, in Pygmalion Eliza feels treated poorly from the start, when she comes to Higgins’ house:

“LIZA [rising and squaring herself determinedly]: I’m going away. He’s off his chump, he is. I dont want no balmies teaching me.

                                                                                                                                                                       Pygmalion, middle of Act II”

Unlike Nora who leaves Torvald, her children and the house, Eliza gets on terms with Higgins and continues to live there with him as an equal to him. She did not change him, she changed herself and by that she achieved respect from Higgins.

In conclusion, while some might argue about Higgins’ bad treatment of Eliza, his way of treating everyone suggests making Eliza not less, but equal to him. Eliza builds up her own character and gain self-worth but does not blame anyone. The play also raises questions important to this day, questioning the happiness of people, neediness of change and their position in society. The script is mostly unchanged relatively to the original play, however it has some scenes added, such as the teaching process through which Eliza goes and the reception by the King and Queen of England. Eliza, as one of the protagonists, may resemble Nora from A Doll’s House, however she does not propagate feminist ideas and shows how she earned the self-respect without blaming the man.

I found that watching the movie helped me to better understand what was going on in the book. It was good to be able to see the setting. Also, seeing the different levels of dress for different classes of people helped to make the storyline stronger. The movie made it easy to imagine what it would have been like if I had been one of the characters. I was able to understand the English dialogue better in the movie as it was sometimes hard to understand in the book.

In both A Doll’s House and Pygmalion, women are looked down upon and not treated very nicely. In Pygmalion, Eliza gets new clothes and learns English properly for free, but generally, the women in both of these plays get looked down upon by the men. Nora gets treated like a doll, and Eliza is not treated very well when she is still selling flowers on the streets as a flower girl. Also in both plays, both women, in the end, make better lives for themselves. Eliza get English lessons to work in a flower shop instead of the side of the road, and Nora leaves Torvald to make a better life for herself. I enjoyed reading A Doll’s House better than I did Pygmalion as it was easier to read and the plot was easier to understand.

The most notorious difference I found between the film and the book was at the ending. In the book, once Liza leaves, Mr. Higgins simply leaves Mrs. Higgins’s house chuckling and he appears to be satisfied with himself. It feels more like an ending where both main characters end up satisfied. On the other side, in the play from 1938, right after Liza leaves with Freddy, Higgins goes back to his house and accidentally plays a record of Liza speaking. While listening to it, he seems to be sad as if he missed her. I think these are two completely different endings, that make you think differently of Higgins. Another interesting difference is Higgins’ attitude towards everyone. In the book, he tends to be kind and gentle to everyone except Liza, while in the play he looks as if he is too busy to talk to most people. The way he acts makes it look as if no one was worthy of his time. This is an interesting point since, in the play, we could assume that it is just the way he is. However, in the book he is mostly unpleasant only to Liza, which makes it hard to understand the reason behind his behavior. These few things made me come up with a theory. At one point close to the beginning, Mrs. Higgins mentions how Mr. Higgins was never attracted to any lady younger than 45, he states that the reason behind it is that younger women tend to be foolish. Maybe Higgins was trying to make Liza become a smart woman so he could marry her. That is just a thought.

If we compare this play to “A Dolls House”, by Henrik Ibsen, the main similarity is very evident. Someone is controlling a certain individual, and whatever they say, it goes. In the end, that individual realizes how they are being mistreated, and they leave to do whatever they please with their lives. Besides that, I can not spot any other resemblances.

In my opinion, this whole play was about the rich playing around with the lower class. Doing whatever they please since they have nothing better to do. Mr. Higgins and Colonel Pickering made an experiment on a girl and placed a bet based over her performance. At this point, the play felt slightly boring and predictable. Nevertheless, when Liza decided to leave after she realized (or she thought) she was nothing else but an experiment, I realized how good the plot was. In the end, I liked the play because it left some unanswered questions that leave room for debate.

From the beginning to the end, Higgins is constantly calling Eliza an object without using the word. I imagine this is the way he was taught. In those times I believe that upper class people had more use, and lower class did not matter as much. She did mention that she does to have feelings too and I think that made him start to realize maybe she is right.

Higgins is the type to have good intentions towards something but being the way he is, it comes off rude or mean. For example giving her that bath in the beginning. To Higgins, Mrs.Pierce helping her bathe, was literally how it sounds. To Eliza, you can tell from her screaming that she thought it was some kind of torture.

Besides small differences between the play and the video, a major one is seeing it for your own eyes. You can imagine what the characters are supposed to look like and how their accent sounds but once you watch the film, you can see the progress Eliza makes just by looking at her turn into a beautiful, mature lady.

To connect “Pygmalion” with “A Dolls House”, I see that there is a sense of doing something with good intentions. Tolvard keeps Nora from eating macaroons so her teeth can stay clean but of course she is a grown woman and should be able to make that decision for herself. In Pygmalion as I mentioned above, he also does things thinking they are for good when really they can be seen as something other than good.

Eliza Doolittle is treated poorly because of her social status. She was never taught how to properly speak or act because her father didn’t know how to either. According to Higgins this made Eliza seem to be a toy, like he could turn her into a game for himself. To Higgins, Eliza does not seem worth his time, in act II he invites her in when she comes to his door.

[brusquely, recognizing her with unconcealed disappointment, and at once, babylike, making an intolerable grievance of it] Why, this is the girl I jotted down last night. Shes no use: Ive got all the records I want of the Lisson Grove lingo; and I’m not going to waste another cylinder on it. [To the girl] Be off with you: I dont want you.  (Act II)

I can almost understand this from his perspective, he was probably taught that people that weren’t as wealthy weren’t as important, therefor he didn’t need to give her a chance. I still think it is a really bad way to view it because her situation is not her fault. However Eliza has a backbone, probably from living how she does selling flowers, and she insists that Higgins hears her out. She acts as well as she knows and expresses what she wants, in a way I would consider quite well for her situation, but at this point Higgins still thinks it is a joke.

Pickering: shall we ask this baggage to sit down or shall we throw her out of the window? (ActII)

Eliza is a frightened by this yet she still stays to talk to him which is very brave considering Higgins and Pickering probably could throw her out the window if they want to. Eliza I think wins over Mrs Higgins as well as Pickering although Higgins view stays the exact same throughout the play. Elizas relationship with Mrs Higgins is is the most surprising to me. Mrs Higgins is surprised when Higgins tells her about Eliza, but after the initial shock, Mrs Higgins treats Eliza most like a person and forms a trusting bond between the two. After Higgins and Eliza get in a fight, Eliza goes to Mrs Higgins who protects her from Higgins.

Do without, I’m afraid, Henry. The girl has a perfect right to leave if she chooses. (Act V)

Eliza is hiding upstairs while Mrs Higgins tries to calm Higgins down, before she tells him that Eliza is upstairs.

When I first started reading pygmalion, I was looking to see how it related to The Dolls House, and I was trying to make a connection between Torvald and Higgins. I do see a slight connection between them but the largest resemblance is between Eliza and Nora. In the Dolls house Nora is trying to be a part of the mens world, managing and making money but she has little knowledge in it. Throughout the play Nora is trying to learn how to save money and pay back Krogstad. While in Pygmalion, Eliza is learning how to act and speak like a lady to have more respect. Both of them are looked down upon, as if they can’t do so, Nora, because she is a women so she is not capable, and Eliza because she is just a flower girl. I feel that a big difference between the two of them is that Nora is trying to learn by herself, because she doesn’t have anyone to help her where as Eliza reaches out for the help she needs in order to be successful.

The difference between the book and the movie is almost identical to none. The lines are the same from the book, the movie portrayed a strong cockney accent that I can imagine it in the book. The characteristics of the characters are identical to the book as if the movie portrays my imagination. There are a few things that are different. The movie shows the ball scene where Eliza, Higgins, and Pickering attended to, whereas the book did not include the plot. At the end of the movie, Eliza comes back to the mansion and continues to live with Higgins and Pickering. The book does not give a line where Eliza will come back, which gives the reader to think about the endless possibilities of the end. I prefer the book due to the ending, I could think about how I would like to end.

After re-watching the movie of Pygmalion and taking insightful notes, I have come across some of the major similarities and differences between the book and the movie. As for the vocabulary, there are little to no differences in the dialogue itself, the movie mostly follows the book word to word. The cockney accent is portrayed very well in the movie and the book itself, it is as if I can hear the way Eliza speaks in the written text which ends up sounding the same in the movie. For the forms, the book narrates the settings of the play in the exact way of how the movie looks, making imagining the scenery easy while reading the book. Most importantly, the nature of each character in both book and movie is very much identical, as it is crucial that the characters have their distinct qualities to bring life to the play. Throughout the movie, there are not many differences in terms of details, however, three major differences are visible from what I perceive. The first being the journey of Eliza transforming into a lady. In the movie, we can see Eliza’s progress while being taught by Higgins, the fact that Eliza is quick to learn is clearly shown in the movie. Though in the book, no such scenes of Eliza’s learning skills are shown, which is quite unfortunate. There is also another difference I have noticed, between ACT III & IV which is the scene where Eliza, Higgins, and Pickering attend the ball, it was not shown in the book. This is understandable as the movie showing the scene is pretty much what I would have imagined, Eliza meeting all the expectations of being a lady. Meaning it would have been a waste of pages to write the scene when it could have been described in a sentence, which has been described during Higgins and Pickering’s conversation after the ball in the book. With a different ending in the movie and the book, both have the same intentions of keeping the bond between Eliza and Higgins. The only big difference is that in the movie version, there is a sense of reassurance to the audience, this is created by having Eliza running back to Higgins in the last few seconds of the movie. I prefer the book version of the ending since there could be more possibilities as to how the ending could be. Instead of having the ending painted out for the characters, there is more room for the audience to expand their imaginations and create an open ending. 

Overall the vocabulary during the play and the movie stayed intact. I was able to watch the film with the book on my hand and follow the dialogue as if it were almost the same. They did that in my opinion to maintain the essence of the story and the characters. For example Higgins used sophisticated words and mocked Eliza for who she was in the same way in both the movie and the book.  There were only a few differences between both of them. One that I found useful is that the movie shows in greater detail how Higgins tough phonetics to Eliza. We were able to see how she learns, and hear her improve in her pronunciation of words with “h”. I also think that they decided to add the character that was with the queen and could place anyone In Europe to and some mystery and tension to the dance. And lastly lets talk about form, I think that they did a really good job in the movie by creating the setting just as Shaw described it in the play. I also think that they managed to bring the characters from to book to life very well. All of the characters were just as I imagined. And lastly the biggest change, the ending. At the end of the play the open ending has you think of what might happen next and makes you speculate. But in the movie I felt as if they needed to give it closure and a happy ending for both of our protagonist so that’s why Eliza came back.