| Pygmalion - George Bernard Shaw So there is a lot of wit and witticism here. Ho hum. Tim Allen is witty; his books aren't classics. The plot, too, is rather ho-hum. What makes this work a classic is the interaction between subtle characters, and what makes it a great play also makes it difficult to relate to on the page. An explanation. In my opinion, the best stage plays often don't make very good reads. They leave a lot of room for an actor or actresses' interpretation, and respect that a few words said(acted) properly on a stage are more effective than lots of words. None of us talk like the characters in a novel, yet they must talk like that for us to understand them: all we have are their words. Thus I think it is with this play. Especially in the final act, which seems to be the most important (and what raises this above the level of, say, the Princess Diaries) I have a hard time following the movement of the characters and the dialogue. Not a hard time making sense of it, not anything that straightforward, but a hard time following it intuitively, understanding the progression and movement of Eliza and Henry from one page to the next. As a sometime-actor, this intrigues me. As a reader, it leaves me unsatisfied, wanting to see it done: see how it flows and makes sense. The part that reads best is Eliza's father: he's a delightful embodiment of Nietzchian ethics and speeches more than he talks. He's fun and pretty quotable. Just a note: I don't think this is exactly based upon the Greek legend of Pygmalion and Galatea. It seems more likely to me that Shaw had the idea, wrote the play, looked for a title, and found it in mythology. I hope to see it performed someday. |