While reading the first half of the play I was very much reminded of the movie adaptation. However, after reading on, the play began to take its own unique form apart from my previous knowledge. In fact, I do not recall any of the scenes as having been in the movie. To me, the most intriguing part of the second half of the play was the scene in which Eliza is getting back at Higgins for his insensitivity. It is interesting to note the tactics she uses to upset him. There is something timeless and childlike about it. She takes his friend, Colonel Pickering, and contrasts him to Higgins. She describes Pickering as the one who truly educated her while Higgins simply taught her the mechanics of language. She says that Pickering is the real gentleman that makes her feel like a real lady. Higgins comeback was unexpected for me. He said that what really distinguishes a man or woman in society is whether or not they treat everyone the same, like he does. The last conversation between Higgins and Liza is truly entertaining. Bernard Shaw certainly had the personalities of his characters well thought out and must have been acquainted with similar personalities at some point in his life. The sequel, I thought, was very comical in that it delved into great detail about the future of the characters as well as some very particular reasons why Liza could never have ended up with Higgins.
You bring up an interesting point about the tactics Eliza uses to get back at Higgins for his insensitivity to her. You prompted me to think about something that I otherwise wouldn’t have considered. The childlike part you mention about Eliza got me thinking that maybe since it was so childlike for Higgins to carry out the experiment on Eliza, she may be giving Higgins a taste of his own medicine and being childlike back to him. Although Higgins says he treats everyone the same, including Eliza, it doesn’t necessarily mean that his treatment is right. He does occasionally show some sensitivity in the play, but it seems that for much of the time he is so negative and making condescending remarks. I agree with you that Shaw had the personalities of his characters well though out. I’m always amazed at how authors like Shaw can create such rich characters and make them seem so real. I also liked the sequel. In the very first sentence, Shaw talks about his readers’ “lazy dependence on the ready-mades and reach-me-downs of the ragshop in which Romance keeps its stock of ‘happy endings’ to misfit all stories” (Shaw, sequel, page 107). He just lays it out in the first sentence on his reasoning for ending the play the way he did.
ReplyDelete