It is impossible for me to fully like this film. The reason for why is summed up completely in the final line, “Where the devil are my slippers?”. As Higgins says it, he is reclining in his comfortable chair, taking Eliza completely for granted. Eliza, who has put up with Higgins’ dreadful behaviour and has Freddy, who loves her, waiting for her…what does she do? She gives up her newfound womanhood and returns to put her hand underneath the professor’s foot. Eliza is not at all stupid, nor in love with Higgins, and I cannot believe that she would do this.

It has been pointed out that the movie is satire and that we are meant to think the whole thing is ridiculous. It is far too close to the truth for me. Satire is difficult, because it is necessary to show the subject as it sees itself. This runs a very real risk of praising and celebrating the ideas, rather than damning them.

Someone (apologies, because I cannot remember who) criticised “The Piano”, with the line “It doesn’t matter if you treat women badly, they’ll fall in love with you anyway.” This film agrees. It isn’t greatly surprising that a 1937 film has such attitudes (I have never lasted the 170-odd minutes of “My Fair Lady”, but if it ends differently, feel free to tell me), but it does mean the movie dates terribly. Modern productions of “The Taming of the Shrew” (I’m not including that Heath Ledger movie, I mean actual productions) struggle hard to make the ending not sexist, and don’t always succeed. It would be very interesting to see a modern production of George Bernard Shaw’s play to see how they deal with it. (Although it doesn’t count, how does “She’s All That” end? I’m willing to lay money that it isn’t half as sexist)

If I were able to look at the film without its attitudes, however, I’d have seen a mostly fine movie. Leslie Howard is excellent as Higgins. He has some terrific lines (mostly insults), and is great in conveying a character completely in love only with himself. Wendy Hiller is just as good as Eliza, both as the innocent, uncouth flower girl, and as a dazzlingly beautiful `Hungarian princess.’ It is mostly well directed, but there is a lot that happens offscreen, and when Eliza’s father turns up as a rich man, it rings false. One thing I have to ask is why, during the montages, were there tilted shots? A look of complete exhaustion on Hiller’s face would have conveyed her ordeal a lot better than seeing her at a forty-five degree angle.

But the film is not as funny as its reputation has us believe, because I couldn’t believe its ideas. The character of Professor Higgins is an appropriate metaphor. At first, his insults, his behaviour, his impatience, etc…they’re funny. But after half an hour or so, I was watching in amazement as to what Eliza was put through, and couldn’t really bring myself to laugh if I’d tried.

The story reminds me greatly of the Stolen Generation – Higgins (in part) believed he was doing the girl a favour, taking her out of her normal environment. But his primary motive was to win the bet, and make himself feel good. He did not care at all for the girl, and thus doesn't really help her. The difference is that, at the end, we’re meant to think Higgins loves the girl.

We can’t, and he doesn’t.

Recommended:
No