Pygmalion was a Greek sculptor who fell in love with Galatea. The twist is that Galatea was one of his sculptures. Starting with a flawless piece of ivory Pygmalion sculpted a woman, and fell in love with her. He prayed to Aphrodite for a woman as perfect as his sculpture; upon seeing the sculpture Aphrodite found that it was in her image, and so brought Galatea to life.

George Bernard Shaw's version of the tale, told in the play Pygmalion, doesn't start with a piece of marble. Rather it starts with a woman and, while she is bathed and provided with new clothing, this isn't a story about sculpting her body; rather this is a play about sculpting the human presence.

An extremely important characteristic of this play is that it was written in London, 1912. What makes this so important is that 1912 London was a hodgepodge of dialects where social status was closely linked to where you sounded like you came from. Interestingly, though, Shaw sets the play in "Present" rather than specifying 1912, which is when most productions are set.

With the move from Greece to London the story also calls for different characters. In this case Pygmalion is Henry Higgins, a phoneticist. Galatea is in turn Eliza Doolittle, a Cockney flower girl. And it's around these two characters that the tale is spun.

Originally introduced to Eliza and Henry in Covent Garden and Eliza is trying to sell a gentleman a bunch of violets. It turns out Higgins is caught writing down what she says and a discussion ensues. The man Eliza was selling flowers to is Colonel Pickering, another phoneticist who has focused on Sanskrit rather than English. The end result of this conversation is a boast by Higgins: he claims he can pass Eliza off as a duchess at an ambassador's garden party in three months.

It's the next day that Eliza, slightly cleaned up, appears at Higgin's door and requests English lessons. Not interested in taking Eliza's money Pickering calls Higgins on the previous night's boast: betting he can't. This is where the play really diverges from My Fair Lady (Lerner & Loewe's musical adaptation of Pygmalion) or even the movie version of the play: Next to no details of the linguistic training are provided in the play. To be blunt: no rain falls mainly on the plain in Spain according the play.

What we do see is an extended meeting between Eliza and Mrs. Higgins. Henry takes his project to meet his mother and demonstrate her linguistic skills. What this scene shows is that Eliza has developed the dialect, but still lacks the social graces. It also shows the lack of social graces that Higgins has. Actually the play contains several scenes where the crass nature of Higgins is called to the reader's attention. Many of these scenes are cut, or pared down, in both the film version of the play and in My Fair Lady. Honestly I think this is an extremely important part of the story, it helps give more meaning and context to everything else that takes place.

After the blowout with Mrs. Higgins Henry sets about socializing Eliza. Again, you don't see this. Honestly it's not really necessary. Yes, these bits of training are fun in both the movie and in My Fair Lady, but they aren't necessary and aren't missed.

Finally is the ambassador's ball. Eliza is presented, the bet is resolved, and then some of the most important parts of the play take place. Up to this point the relationship between Eliza and Higgins has been developed, and has had the context of the teacher/student relationship. Now, that relationship has ended and the humanitarian nature of the relationship must be figured out. The play extends many of the discussions and ends differently from either the movie or My Fair Lady. It also brings in the moral and social differences that are expressed in the behavior of Higgins and the middle class versus the lower class as Eliza, and her father, were accustomed. Honestly, I vastly prefer this play's ending to those presented in the movie or My Fair Lady and it's part of the reason (coupled with the explicit discussion of Henry's behavior) that I prefer this story to the story presented in the other versions.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Shaw is a master of his craft. It's important to remember that a play is more than just dialog. Direction and description also fill the pages and it can be quite interesting to read a play even if you've seen it. A large part of the reason for this is to see what direction the playwright has included, and with a playwright such as Shaw this information can be quite telling. For example: After declaring Eliza a liar he hears the church clock and Shaw's stage direction states that Higgins acts "hearing in it [the church bell] the voice of God, rebuking him for his Pharisaic want of charity to the pour girl."

In fact it's the situational descriptions and direction in his works that make Pygmalion read much like a novel. Shaw inserts motivation in the stage directions that leave nothing to the imagination. Again, let me demonstrate: After finding Eliza and Freddy (a man of roughly Eliza's age that's absolutely smitten with her) kissing in the street "The constable shakes his head, reflecting on his own courtship and on the vanity of human hopes. He moves off in the opposite direction with slow professional steps." I challenge any actor to actually convey just that. Shaw provides the motivation in full technicolor detail.

Besides even that this play is worth reading just for Shaw's cunning dialog and descriptive style. For example:
Freddy: I hope I havent taken you out of your way. Where were you going?
Liza: To the river.
Freddy: What for?
Liza: To make a hole in it.

This play is funny, provides significant social commentary, and is artistically crafted by one of the English language's greatest playwrights. If you've seen My Fair Lady you still haven't seen Pygmalion. Even if you've seen the 1938 movie of Pygmalion you don't know the original play in its original form. I highly encourage you to grab this script and read it, it's magnificently crafted and offers aspects that simply can't be found in other versions (unless of course you've seen this script performed).

I should probably note that Shaw didn't believe in the use of the apostrophe unless it distinguished between two words that you couldn't other wise (such as he'll versus hell). Some editors choose to put the apostrophes back into the original text, this version of the script does not. As a grammar stickler it took a bit for me to get used to, but it merely added to the charm of the play after I settled into the style.

This review is part of the Tales Retold W/O
Pygmalion the play, the original play script
Pygmalion the movie, the movie adapted from the play
My Fair Lady the script, the musical script adapted from Pygmalion
My Fair Lady the movie, the movie adaptation of the musical

Recommended: Yes