Director: Anthony Asquith, Leslie Howard
Distributor: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Top Billed Actors: Leslie Howard, Wendy Hiller, Wilfrid Lawson
Won 1 Oscar:
Best Screenplay - George Bernard Shaw, Ian Dalrymple, Cecil Arthur Lewis, and W. P. Lipscomb
Nominated for 3 more:
Outstanding Production - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Best Actor - Leslie Howard
Best Actress - Wendy Hiller
Plot: A linguist professor teaches a guttersnipe how to talk and act like a lady without realizing that he's grown accustomed to her face.
Distributor: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Top Billed Actors: Leslie Howard, Wendy Hiller, Wilfrid Lawson
Won 1 Oscar:
Best Screenplay - George Bernard Shaw, Ian Dalrymple, Cecil Arthur Lewis, and W. P. Lipscomb
Nominated for 3 more:
Outstanding Production - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Best Actor - Leslie Howard
Best Actress - Wendy Hiller
Plot: A linguist professor teaches a guttersnipe how to talk and act like a lady without realizing that he's grown accustomed to her face.
Pygmalion (1938) is an adaptation of a well-known play, which has also been adapted as a Broadway musical in 1956 and the Best Picture-winning film My Fair Lady (1964). The author of the original source material, George Bernard Shaw, adapted the play himself and even wrote the ballroom scene and created the Hungarian ex-pupil specifically for the film. Shaw won himself an Academy Award and thus became the first Nobel Prize winner to do so. There are varying reports on how much he respected and cherished the Oscar but we wouldn't see another Nobel/Academy combination until Bob Dylan after the turn of the millennium. Also on the topic of the writing, this is the first British film to use the word "bloody," which I learned is a pretty vulgar word, especially for 1938. The British prints of the film also use the word "damn," a year before it was fought for the infamous line in Gone With the Wind (1939). This also includes my film-by-film look at the Best Picture nominees for 1938 and I'm happy to see yet another non-Hollywood film honored (that makes three non-American movies out of the ten hopefuls). Of course, a Hollywood movie won the award, a Capra-corn one at that, but progress is progress. Hell, we'll see in my next post if I pick another Hollywood film in my should win take.
Back to Pygmalion, the focus is on the writing and overall scenario. A man taking in a woman to teach her to act like a person in a higher class can be a tricky premise. There's a fine line between wanting to help someone and disrespecting that same someone with presumptions and surface-level observations. What makes it work is Professor Higgins' overall sense of pompousness, conceit, and rude demeanor. It was always a game to him, a mere bet to get this woman to transform herself. Even when it happens, he thinks it's all thanks to him - that he's the sculptor and she is made out of clay. This is why I take issue with the ending of the film, as does Shaw himself, but I will get to that in a moment. The fact is, this story would have felt off if Higgins was playing a shining white knight character and Eliza was acting grateful every step of the way. In the end, he just wants to win a bet and she just wants to work at a flower shop. The proceedings are a delight to watch due to the performances of both Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller. They define these characters for the musical treatments to come, Howard with his snide remarks and Hiller able to pull double-duty both pre- and post-transformation. Hiller is believable in every phase of her transition and she makes it easy to be on her side in every row she has with Howard. Lastly, the montage sequences (said to be directed by future multiple Best Director winner David Lean) are stylistic, fun, and provide a clear sense of progress. The film is shot very well overall but these two sequences stand out.
As I alluded to, the conclusion of the film doesn't work for me nor did it for Shaw. Without spoiling it, I'll just say Higgins' character development isn't robust enough for the story to end like this. Eliza's development is adequate, but it never went in that direction. I much prefer the ending to the original play, as the bloody Nobel Prize winner intended. There isn't much else I dislike about this movie. Perhaps it could have been longer as it clocks in at a crisp 96 minutes, but the story is complete enough for that runtime. I simply wanted to see Eliza off on her own without Higgins for a few more scenes.
Overall, George Bernard Shaw's classic stage play is adapted into a succinct and satisfying film that features well-developed characters, which are portrayed profoundly, that aide a delicate scenario.
My Score: 8/10
Back to Pygmalion, the focus is on the writing and overall scenario. A man taking in a woman to teach her to act like a person in a higher class can be a tricky premise. There's a fine line between wanting to help someone and disrespecting that same someone with presumptions and surface-level observations. What makes it work is Professor Higgins' overall sense of pompousness, conceit, and rude demeanor. It was always a game to him, a mere bet to get this woman to transform herself. Even when it happens, he thinks it's all thanks to him - that he's the sculptor and she is made out of clay. This is why I take issue with the ending of the film, as does Shaw himself, but I will get to that in a moment. The fact is, this story would have felt off if Higgins was playing a shining white knight character and Eliza was acting grateful every step of the way. In the end, he just wants to win a bet and she just wants to work at a flower shop. The proceedings are a delight to watch due to the performances of both Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller. They define these characters for the musical treatments to come, Howard with his snide remarks and Hiller able to pull double-duty both pre- and post-transformation. Hiller is believable in every phase of her transition and she makes it easy to be on her side in every row she has with Howard. Lastly, the montage sequences (said to be directed by future multiple Best Director winner David Lean) are stylistic, fun, and provide a clear sense of progress. The film is shot very well overall but these two sequences stand out.
As I alluded to, the conclusion of the film doesn't work for me nor did it for Shaw. Without spoiling it, I'll just say Higgins' character development isn't robust enough for the story to end like this. Eliza's development is adequate, but it never went in that direction. I much prefer the ending to the original play, as the bloody Nobel Prize winner intended. There isn't much else I dislike about this movie. Perhaps it could have been longer as it clocks in at a crisp 96 minutes, but the story is complete enough for that runtime. I simply wanted to see Eliza off on her own without Higgins for a few more scenes.
Overall, George Bernard Shaw's classic stage play is adapted into a succinct and satisfying film that features well-developed characters, which are portrayed profoundly, that aide a delicate scenario.
My Score: 8/10