MovieChat Forums > Pygmalion (1939) Discussion > Shaw changed the ending from the play

Shaw changed the ending from the play

posted 15 years ago by mlumiere
29 replies | jump to latest

In the play, Shaw does not end it with the coupling of Henry Higgins and Eliza.

As Eliza leaves for her father's wedding, Higgins shouts out a few errands for her to run, assuming that she will return to him at Wimpole Street. Eliza, who has a lovelorn sweetheart in Freddy, and the wherewithal to pass as a duchess, never makes it clear whether she will or not.

The onstage drama ends, and Shaw narrates, in an epilogue, that Eliza recognizes Higgins as predestined to be a bachelor; she marries Freddy instead. With a gift from Colonel Pickering, Eliza opens a flower shop. The only person truly bothered by this state of affairs is Clara, who decides that the marriage will not help her own marriage prospects. But then she begins to read H.G. Wells and travel in the circles of his fans, and she is convinced to begin working in a furniture shop herself in the hopes that she might meet Wells (because the woman who owns the shop is also a fan of his). Freddy is not very practical, and he and Eliza must take classes in bookkeeping to make their business a success. They do reach success, and they live a fairly comfortable life.

I wonder if Shaw changed it because he thought it was a better ending, or to satisfy a cinema (at that time) public more sentimental and wanting a "romantic" ending between the two main characters? If anyone knows more about this, please post.

[–] misspaddylee 15 years ago

I can't comment to the reasons for making the change (better?, more cinematic?), however I think the ending is changed for the better. It feels more complete. The original ending leaves me feeling as if something is missing. If an epilogue is required then something is missing. The circle is closed beautifully with "Where the devil are my slippers, Eliza?" There's a sense of acceptance of each other between the characters.

"Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency."

[–] Liwataki 15 years ago

I submit that the epilogue is extraneous matter, totally irrelevant to the play. You don't see the epilogue unless you are a script reader. It's as if Shaw wanted to tweak his readers (not his playgoers) with an idea as to an ending that was not "happily ever after." I would bet that Shaw knew that there would be some who would want the Hollywood ending, and he deliberately set out to spoil the fun of imagining a completeness. Think of Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Charlie left the ending open ended on the knife edge of total happiness or total gloom. You didn't know what the girl would do, and so too at the end of PYGMALION you are not really supposed to know what Eliza will do. You just know that Henry is forever what he is. The last screen image is that of Henry's hat, as impersonal and emotionally blank as his everyday treatment of Eliza. It's up to her to react, and we as the audience can only guess what she will do. In effect, we become Eliza at that point.

[–] stevenbyczek 15 years ago

I agree that Henry and Eliza starting a relationship was a happy, not to mention romantic, ending, but by the same token, I don't really think they had much in common. Henry was a wealthy intellectual, and Eliza was an uneducated member of the working class. Even after becoming a "lady", she will never be capable of becoming Henry's equal (intelligence wise). They also seemed to get on each others nerves, a lot. I guess in that aspect, Eliza and Freddy were more compatible, class wise, personality wise, and academically speaking.

Cheers!

[–] uruseiranma 15 years ago

I always hated the way My Fair Lady and this film ended.

I liked the way the original play ended, which was a nice 'punishment' in a sense towards Higgins' ways. I liked the idea of something wonderful in front of Higgins, but he was too pig-headed to realize it.

"I...Drink...YOUR...MILKSHAKE!!" -Daniel Plainview, "There Will Be Blood"

[–] schappe1 14 years ago

...was why Eliza would come back to Henry. There's never any indication they had any affection for one another and they've just had a scene that shows why they would never be compatible. Why would she suddenly appear at his house?

[–] rgcustomer 14 years ago

I agree. I think the ending almost ruins the film, because it seems so obviously tacked on to please a "proper" audience.

There's never any chemistry between the two, Henry is very creepy, and frankly Henry may not even be interested because he's either asexual or gay (not just because he's British or educated). Regardless, a better ending would have had Eliza stay with Freddy.

On the other hand, maybe it's 1938's version of Secretary.

[–] anghmho 11 years ago

There was never any indication they had any affection for one another? I disagree. Why did Eliza retrieve her ring from the embers of the fireplace? Why was Higgins so desperate to have her return? And why, in the final scene, does Higgins take such such pains to conceal his feelings when he asks, "Eliza, where the devil are my slippers"? They may be after the fact of her return, but aren't these indications of what may have passed unsaid between them?

[–] hka-3 11 years ago

Good points, anghmho. The film ending made enough sense the way it was written. Earlier in the film I did wonder why Eliza didn't pay more attention to Freddie, since he was kind to her and non-judgmental, however it's understandable if that wasn't enough to make her fall in love with him. When she was around Freddie it seemed like her mind was on Henry.

Cheese fries...next time.

[–] Pogo_76 11 years ago

Eliza actually tells Higgins that the reason that she came to him in the first place was because she felt that they connected when they first met each other. She tells him that it was never about nice clothes or whatever.

I totally disagree that Eliza is ignorant and Higgins is intellectual superior which is why they would never be a good couple. First of all, attraction is not based on intellect. Higgins might find in Eliza what he is lacking and vice versa.
Also, the whole point of the story is that she isn't ignorant. Have people watched the same movie I have?

The fact that she is such a fast learner indicates that she is quite intelligent. She was born into a different class which is why she lacks education but she was always intelligent. She might have been mainly street-smart at the beginning but she is intelligent enough to tell Higgins that all he did is teach her proper speech. Anyone can do it just like anyone can teach someone to dance. It was her lack of self-confidence what was her main problem which is why Higgins always was superior to her. She started gaining self-confidence because Colonel Pickering treated her with respect even when she still talked with her Cockney accent.
The whole dialogue she has with Higgins shows that she is everything BUT ignorant. She realizes at the end that her lack of confidence was the reason that she let Higgins treat her like dirt. Higgins actually knows how intelligent she is and tries to intimidate her and make her think that she is nothing without him. That is also why Higgins is horrified to think that Eliza would settle for an average Joe like Freddy and at the same time he expresses his jealousy.

I think that they realize that they are actually the perfect match. Even the ending is quite clear. Eliza realizes that Higgins does have feelings for her afterall which is why she came back. Higgins knows that Eliza knows it as well. When he turns his back on her, he is just saying "Ok, but I'm not going to change". It's also a kind of tongue in cheek understanding among them which is why she greets him with "I washed my face and hands before I came, I did." as a contrast to her first words that are on the recording.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

I don't think that's really true of City Lights. You can tell by the way the girl's face lights up, that she is pretty thrilled. Likewise in Pygmalion, the fact that Eliza has come back to Higgins indicates pretty clearly that she is there to stay. and you can tell by the smug look on Higgins's face that he is pleased about it.

[–] Errington_92 9 years ago

I can see how some consider the cinematic ending contradictory to Eliza's character. Higgins repeatedly referred to and treated Eliza as an object due to his career ambitions and class snobbery. Eliza in the latter half tries to make Higgins understand the concept of humanity, seemingly to no avail. If the film version had kept the original ending, then the narrative would have been more potent.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

[–] Maysa79 15 years ago

Actually, I think the filmmakers changed the ending because they wanted it to be more romantic and Shaw was rather upset about it. The story I read somewhere (I forget where) is that when Shaw gave them the film rights he put a clause in the contract saying that all the dialog in the film had to be written by him. So when the filmmakers wanted to change the ending and he didn't approve - they worked around the contract by only using dialog from earlier in the script (having Eliza quote herself by saying "I washed my face and hands before I came" and Higgins repeating his earlier remark "where the devil are my slippers, Eliza?")

[–] Felonious-Punk 14 years ago

Wow, the crafty devils! I would have been furious if I were Shaw. The movie should have ended with Henry alone in his study, accidentally flipping the switch, close-up of the phonograph speaker as 3-month old recording of Eliza's voice plays back, then a close-up of Henry's face as he picks up the old "souvenir" of a hat, he turns his back to us, and we get the same "hat shot", The End.

This way, Henry has learned the worth of a person. The way it was filmed, however, he learns nothing and the two continue the whole argument over again, until Eliza finally works up the courage/wears down the love to leave him for good.

*This is a place to write anything I think is important or smart or cute. It ends all my comments.*

[–] hka-3 11 years ago

they worked around the contract by only using dialog from earlier in the script (having Eliza quote herself by saying "I washed my face and hands before I came" and Higgins repeating his earlier remark "where the devil are my slippers, Eliza?")

I read your post and then watched that scene again and what you said makes the scene make more sense. It's interesting that we don't even see the two of them speaking their last lines.

When I saw this film for the first time in July, Robert Osborne on TCM mentioned the contract with Shaw, but Osborne made it sound like the film stuck to Shaw's script exactly the way he intended it. Osborne didn't mention anything about the ending being modified by the filmmakers.

Cheese fries...next time.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hka-3 11 years ago

It probably is better this way. We see Eliza and Professor Higgins go through so much together throughout the film and by the end it seems they have a mutual understanding and deep affection for one another.

Cheese fries...next time.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harbor21usa 11 years ago

How exceedingly cleaver on the part of the filmmakers!

I love the cinematic ending to the story because, fast upon the heels of the heartbreak of seeing Eliza driving off with Fredddy, ostensibly leaving Higgins in the lurch forever, she returns to his parlor and the dance resumes.

The big "however" is the fact (at least in my eyes) that the dance is henceforth only a shell of its former self. Higgins and Eliza love each other, and this love is bigger than each individual, so a big chunk of each person gets nicked off in the process of oneing.

Real people have limitations that cannot be overcome. In this instance, Higgins cannot get on without the intellectual detachment pose. For her part, Eliza cannot get on without tangible manifestations of affection, even if they're such as those mediated through rancor, as with her family.

Eliza's adjustment is procedural acceptance of the pose as a pose; Higgins' adjustment is acknowledgement that the pose is a pose; he releases his inner self just enough to let Eliza know he cannot be happy without her.

This is not a romantic ending as each person makes a very difficult adjustment that dethrones the sovereignty of the self in sacrifice to love. Heartbreaking sacrifices such as this one are prerequisites to having a real love relationship in the real world. Romantic stories cajole people into believing real-world love can occur without mud-sloshing sacrifices. "Pygmalion" keeps far apart from such idealism.

[–] kaskait 12 years ago

As a child, I loved the romantic ending with Eliza going back to Higgins.

But now as an adult, I now agree with Shaw. Eliza would never be appreciated by Higgins as a human being. He would always look upon her as his creation. That kind of attitude doesn't encourage life long affection.

Eliza would do better with Freddie. He may not be the intellectual equal of Higgins but he would never look down upon Eliza or treat her as an object.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

But freddie doesn't excite her and Higgins does. She would be bored and frustrated with Freddie. With higgins she may sometimes be infuriated, but never bored.

[–] Hypatia42 12 years ago

I think the modified ending is perfect. If for no other reason than because it fulfills the title. Pygmalion fell in love with his creation and wanted it to feel his love, to return his love. In the legend, the gods grant him this wish. This is selfish on Higgin's part, but it is also a romantic structure we see often enough; women frequently fall in love with authority figures because they come to realize the 'stern' authority stems from something good.

While Higgins has considerable hubris (in both this incarnation and the musical), he molds Eliza with passion, not indifference. Yes, he is arrogant and dismissive of her suffering, to how hard she is forced to work, but he too is laboring hard to mold her. He falls in love with her as she dances at the ball and he sees how she has come to embody the abstract outlines of grace and poise he has spent years preaching. These are things he didn't give her, but simply saw them blossom under his care. I think that is why we can say his feeling for her is legitimate love. And part of Eliza's growth is later realizing what lies underneath Henry's work ethic is something loveable, admirable even. It is something of substance unlike the flippant, easy charm of Freddie.

I don't doubt that the studios edited in the revised ending, but I do think it is the appropriate ending from a literary and structural standpoint. It is the ending that shows the most growth for both characters and, in my opinion, it is the most romantic.

[–] digitaldiva 12 years ago

Agreed skindili,

In the TCM broadcast this evening, Robert Osborne said that Bernard Shaw wanted Charles Laughton to play Higgins. The producers convinced him Leslie Howard would be superior to create a more romantic tone to the film. I've seen the film numerous times and marvel at the subtle sexual chemistry between the two leads. Shaw won an Oscar for writing the adaptation of his own play and in my opinion did a marvelous job.

[–] Hypatia42 11 years ago

Agreed! Shaw had remarkably good taste when it came to phraseology, but I'm glad he didn't always get his way with the casting (or the endings...). With that said, the chemistry between the leads was pitch-perfect. A subtle growing of inner-dependence that surprises both when it turns into love. While I adore Audrey Hepburn, I always thought her Fair Lady was more in love with her hats than her Professor Higgins.

[–] susanleslie2 12 years ago

Thank you, skindili. Your remarks are very helpful.
Quite true. Makes a lot of sense, if you are going to title your story 'Pygmalion' the audience has the right to expect the parallels in your story to match the original fable.

[–] Hypatia42 11 years ago

You may want to try Wendy's "I Know Where I'm Going" next, if you enjoyed Pygmalion but fancy a love story with a different kind of fatalism. :)

[–] dmnemaine 11 years ago

The interesting thing is that Alan Jay Lerner always claimed that he came up with the Higgins and Eliza get back together ending, and that he "changed Shaw" when he wrote "My Fair Lady". This film version is concrete evidence that Shaw himself had devised that ending nearly two decades earlier than "My Fair Lady". It's also interesting that Lerner ends "My Fair Lady" with the same basic scene as Shaw and exactly the same final line for Higgins in this film. Perhaps the supposed "scholars" of American musical theater need to stop crediting Lerner with this ending, and realize that it was Shaw's idea all along, and Lerner just copied it.

[–] puppetmom 10 years ago

I found the ending so disappointing. Higgins was abusive with Eliza, and Freddy was clearly a shallow person. Why couldn't Eliza run a flower shop and wait for a kind man to come along? The last remark made by Higgins shows that he will not change.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Maddyclassicfilms 9 years ago

Personally I don't consider the ending to be romantic, yes Eliza returns to him but you don't know if they will stay together in the future or not. Higgins certainly is overjoyed that she returns to him and you can see as much in his facial expression when she comes through the door. I think he does care for her and she likes him but are they going to end up as lovers and husband and wife? I don't know, certainly not at the stage we leave them at (in my opinion).

Perhaps Shaw changed it because he thought audiences would feel sorry for Higgins if he was left alone.

Go to bed Frank or this is going to get ugly .